Hope and Change Obama Style

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Orwell: What is Fascism?

I think it's a bit much to say that fascism is indefinable, but I agree with Orwell that it's used to much as a swear word and not enough as a description of a political/economic mindset.

There is italian fascist manifesto, after-all....and things like universal suffrage, universal public education, minimum wages, etc., etc... were all planks in the fascist platform.

Anyhoo, I think fascism is a distinct variant of socialism, but instead of a centrally planned society based upon the state ownership of property, it's a centrally planned economy based upon state ownership of producers. So, fascists say, "we're not socialists because we don't agitate for ownership of your property."

Which is true, but no matter what I do with my property, I've got to send about one-third of the benefit to the state anyway. In this way, fascism is vastly superior to socialism because I still retain some vested interest in maintaining the means of production. Tho fascism is cruel and illiberal it is less idiotic than socialism.

the planks that you refer to were objectives sought by many varied political movements well over a century before fascism was conceived. would you classify benjamin franklin as an advocate of fascism? not in the least.

the economic objectives of fascism were but one component of its ideals. looking at the definition by mussolini, who gave fascism its name, shows the political movement incorporated a military ideal as well as a fervent nationalistic nature.

1932 mussolini piece

your simplistic definition of "state ownership of producers" does not correctly define the fascist model, which is more pervasive than what you state. fascism is the state control of the economy, centrally planned and controlled. in affect it is state control of production and consumption, all with a targeted goal of increasing the power of the state, and the expansion of that state apparatus through conquest. At its heart is a domination of other societies/people and subjugation of those to the fascist machine.

any political theory that has at its core expansionism through conquest is certainly a regression of our world's ability to value individual rights. while property rights are a fundamental right that should be protected, it is certainly not a superior right to liberty, which fascism is in direct opposition.
that is not the case with the classic theory of socialism, consequently fascism is a much more abhorrent philosophy.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

your simplistic definition of "state ownership of producers" does not correctly define the fascist model, which is more pervasive than what you state.

So do you think a state which owns producers isn't a terribly pervasive thing? I would never argue that fascism isn't a horribly pervasive thing, even more pervasive than that desired by the average US Liberal.

I get that fascism is state worship and that there is more to the story than the economic planks, I'm just making the distinction between the economics of regular ole socialism and the economics of the fascist variant. Both are state controlled, centrally planned economies even though one claimed ownership of property while the other didn't. The differences are aesthetic than economic.

hmmm....Of most interest to me is Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" thesis...hmmmm....here 'tis, something I wrote 4 years ago, well before Obama came along to tell us that only more government can save us from this present economic mess:

Originally Posted by alexawhileago

The thesis therein (Hayek's Road to Serfdom) is essentially that the national socialism of Germany in the 30's and 40's was a predictable outcome of democratic socialism and not some aberrant turn from democracy.

The process, according to Hayek, essentially goes...

a) centralization of power in national government creates dependency on government (and demand for government services);

b) "representative" democracy becomes an inneffective debating society incapable of fulfilling demand;

c) people elect a strong man who, unlike their legislative representatives, can get things done;

d) elected strongman consolidates power (ie, just disbands, or completely disregards legislative bodies) and decides he doesn't want to get unelected.

Hence, what happened in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's wasn't due to a dirth of democracy, but was instead a not-too-surprising consequence of democracy.

I think we're more or less on the same path here with our democratic 3rd-way-ism.

Bush and co may be bad, but they're not nearly as bad as it can (and probably will) get -- imagine what we might see from DC if we were faced with a series of attacks (even relatively small ones), month after month....combine that with hyper-inflation (another probable consequence of democratic 3rd way-ism) and economic meltdown....I don't think it'd be long before the cries for a real strongman would be so loud that we'd see first hand...

"this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause"

OK, I know that line is from Star Wars, and perhaps its a bit cheesey to quote Princess Pomade (or whatever her name was), but it's a great friggin' line. Liberty dies not because some external bogeyman marches in and make us all cite the Koran (nor because the Grandparents can't retire to Florida), but because we give it away for security (social and physical).

We've gone a longtime without being completely subsumed, but we had a pretty good basis (very strong classical liberal tradition) to start with....it's taking us a lot longer than it took the decidedly il-liberal (and I mean classically il-liberal) Germans....but we're on the path, so to speak.

What the hell, it's been a good ride.

anyhooo...my point is not that Obama won't give up office in 4 years when he's booted out, but rather that fascism is sort of a bastard child of so-called 'third-wayisms' of the modern welfare state. Unwelcomed, different, but intrinsically related nonetheless.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

So do you think a state which owns producers isn't a terribly pervasive thing? I would never argue that fascism isn't a horribly pervasive thing, even more pervasive than that desired by the average US Liberal.

government that controls production is not conducive for an efficient economy. it encourages the growth an underground economy in response.

I get that fascism is state worship and that there is more to the story than the economic planks, I'm just making the distinction between the economics of regular ole socialism and the economics of the fascist variant. Both are state controlled, centrally planned economies even though one claimed ownership of property while the other didn't. The differences are aesthetic than economic.

hmmm....Of most interest to me is Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" thesis...hmmmm....here 'tis, something I wrote 4 years ago, well before Obama came along to tell us that only more government can save us from this present economic mess:

hayek spoke of collectivism, not of benign democratic socialism. the course of history over the last five decades has shown him to be accurate about collectivism and your inclusion of democratic socialism to be false. take a look at the western european democracies, as well as the asian tigers, and your assertion proves hollow.

as for the rise of fascism in germany and italy, this was a consequence of nationalism and racism, not to mention the intertwining of an economic crisis that prompted the populance to seek solutions they would otherwise have not embraced. the rise of fascism was not a "predictable outcome of democratic socialism" imo.

anyhooo...my point is not that Obama won't give up office in 4 years when he's booted out, but rather that fascism is sort of a bastard child of so-called 'third-wayisms' of the modern welfare state. Unwelcomed, different, but intrinsically related nonetheless.

one can say that all modern political philosophies are "related" as they involve tenets from other ideals in a cafeteria approach, why should fascism be any different?

[wmbwinn]

I find it disturbing that I have to teach history for people to understand my posts. But, here it goes:

From Wikipedia:

The National Socialist German Workers' Party, (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly known in English as the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945. It was known as the German Workers' Party (DAP) before the name was changed in 1920.

The party's last leader, Adolf Hitler, was appointed Chancellor of Germany by president Paul von Hindenburg in 1933. Hitler rapidly established a totalitarian regime[1][2][3][4] known as the Third Reich.

Nazi ideology stressed the failure of democracy, failure of laissez-faire capitalism, "racial purity of the German people" and persecuted those it perceived either as race enemies or Lebensunwertes Leben, that is "life unworthy of living". This included Jews, Slavs, and Roma along with German homosexuals, the mentally disabled, communists, and others. To carry out these beliefs, the party and the German state which it controlled organized the systematic murder of approximately six million Jews (in what has become known as the Holocaust), and about five million other people, mainly Russians, Poles and Roma. Many thousands of political enemies of the Nazi regime, along with homosexuals, people with disabilities, and members of religious minorities were also killed. Hitler's desire to build an empire in Europe through expansionist policies was a major influence that led to the outbreak of World War II in Europe.

I very specifically said that I had no intention in my post of ascribing or assigning genocidal thoughts or plans to our current National Socialists who prefer to be called far left Democrats (or far right in the left wing if that makes any sense in the Wikipedia entry).

Now, let us examine where the politics of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are:
1)constantly talking about the failure of capitalism and how we cannot allow this to happen again
2)attacking not a race or ethnic group but targeting the heads of capitalism (if I can call CEOs and COOs and other similarly titled persons who make millions).
3)buying AIG (government now owns around 70-80% of AIG)
4)buying into other aspects of the system such as the other banks and the auto industry and bailing out state governments; applying their own controls to the banks and auto industry and states in exchange for the money/government ownership/bailout
5)nationalizing healthcare

and I could go on. The point is that we have entered into European style Democratic Socialism.

Again, from Wikipedia:

Democratic socialism is a description used by various socialist movements, tendencies, and organizations, to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation. The term is sometimes used synonymously with 'social democracy', but many self-identified[citation needed] democratic socialists oppose social democracy, seeing it as capitalist.

Democratic socialism is difficult to define, and groups of scholars have radically different definitions for the term. Some definitions of democratic socialism simply refer to all forms of socialism that follow an electoral, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism, rather than a revolutionary one.[1]

Frequently, this definition is invoked to distinguish democratic socialism from Communism, as in Donald Busky's Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey[2], Jim Tomlinson's Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years, 1945-1951, Norman Thomas Democratic Socialism: a new appraisal or Roy Hattersley's Choose Freedom: The Future of Democratic Socialism.

However, for those who use the term in this way, the scope of the term socialism itself can be very vague, and include forms of socialism compatible with capitalism. For example, Robert M. Page, a Reader in Democratic Socialism and Social Policy at the University of Birmingham, writes about "transformative democratic socialism" to refer to the politics of the Clement Attlee government (a strong welfare state, fiscal redistribution, some nationalisation) and "revisionist democratic socialism", as developed by Anthony Crosland and Harold Wilson:

"The most influential revisionist Labour thinker, Anthony Crosland..., contended that a more 'benevolent' form of capitalism had emerged since the [Second World War]... According to Crosland, it was now possible to achieve greater equality in society without the need for 'fundamental' economic transformation. For Crosland, a more meaningful form of equality could be achieved if the growth dividend derived from effective management of the economy was invested in 'pro-poor' public services rather than through fiscal redistribution."[3]

Indeed, some proponents of market socialism see the latter as a form of democratic socialism.[4]

A variant of this set of definitions is Joseph Schumpeter’s argument, set out in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1941), that liberal democracies were evolving from "liberal capitalism" into democratic socialism, with the growth of workers' self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions.[5]

In contrast, other definitions of democratic socialism sharply distinguish it from social democracy.[6] Peter Hain, for example, classes democratic socialism, along with libertarian socialism, as a form of anti-authoritarian "socialism from below" (using the term popularised by Hal Draper), in contrast to Stalinism and social democracy, variants of authoritarian state socialism. For Hain, this democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than the revolutionary/reformist divide.[7] In this definition, it is the active participation of the population as a whole, and workers in particular, in the management of economy that characterises democratic socialism, while nationalisation and economic planning (whether controlled by an elected government or not) are characteristic of state socialism. A similar, but more complex, argument is made by Nicos Poulantzas.[8]

Other definitions fall somewhere between the first and second set, seeing democratic socialism as a specific political tradition closely related to and overlapping with social democracy. For example, Bogdan Denitch, in Democratic Socialism, defines it as proposing a radical reorganization of the socio-economic order through public ownership, workers' control of the labour process and redistributive tax policies.[9] Robert G. Picard similarly describes a democratic socialist tradition of thought including Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, Evan Durbin and Michael Harrington.[10]

The term democratic socialism can be used in a third way, to refer to a version of the Soviet model that was reformed in a democratic way. For example, Mikhail Gorbachev described perestroika as building a "new, humane and democratic socialism".[11] Consequently, some former Communist parties have rebranded themselves as democratic socialist, as with the Party of Democratic Socialism in Germany.

Hal Draper uses the term "revolutionary-democratic socialism" as a type of socialism from below in his The Two Souls of Socialism. He writes: 'the leading spokesman in the Second International of a revolutionary-democratic Socialism-from-Below [was] Rosa Luxemburg, who so emphatically put her faith and hope in the spontaneous struggle of a free working class that the myth-makers invented for her a "theory of spontaneity"'.[12] Similarly, on Eugene Debs, he writes: '"Debsian socialism" evoked a tremendous response from the heart of the people, but Debs had no successor as a tribune of revolutionary-democratic socialism'.[13]

Justification of democratic socialism can be found in the works of social philosophers like Charles Taylor and Axel Honneth, among others. Honneth has put forward the view that political and economic ideologies have a social basis, that is, they originate from intersubjective communication between members of a society.[14] Honneth criticises the liberal state because it assumes that principles of individual liberty and private property are ahistorical and abstract, when, in fact, they evolved from a specific social discourse on human activity. Contra liberal individualism, Honneth has emphasised the intersubjective dependency between human beings; that is, our well-being depends on recognising others and being recognised by them in turn. Democratic socialism, with its emphasis on social collectivism, could be seen as a way of safeguarding this dependency.

As to fascism, what else do you want to call Pelosi's rule in the House of Reps passed at the start of the session that prevents the Republicans from offering any amendments and prevents any debate. What do you call it when Pelosi forces the omnibus stimulus package down our throats by forcing a vote on the bill before the House members in EITHER party could even read it?

It is tyranny. It is all about bigger government control. And, it must be stopped.

I am sorry to those I offended with the title of Nazi Pelosi. It is a reference to her politics (minus genocide).

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I am sorry to those I offended with the title of Nazi Pelosi. It is a reference to her politics (minus genocide).

if you actually, honestly believe that you can use the word "nazi" with no connection to the racism, the war imperialism, the holocaust and the millions of people murdered , you're more lost than I could have ever imagined.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

if you actually, honestly believe that you can use the word "nazi" with no connection to the racism, the war imperialism, the holocaust and the millions of people murdered , you're more lost than I could have ever imagined.

As I said, the new target is the affluent and those at the top of industry/corporation. It no longer matters what your race or ethnicity is. But, political movements based on the broad principles of socialism always have an enemy to attack.

The details are semantics to a degree.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

As I said, the new target is the affluent and those at the top of industry/corporation. It no longer matters what your race or ethnicity is. But, political movements based on the broad principles of socialism always have an enemy to attack.

The details are semantics to a degree.

what was that remark about "teaching history"?

there is nothing "new" about targeting those who are seen as profiting in times of economic distress.

and there is no exclusivity of socialism having "an enemy to attack", the same is true about those on the right, who certainly give no love and kisses to their opponents.
---------------------------------------------------------
Washington Has Always Demonized Wall Street

By ZACHARY KARABELL
Wall Street Journal March 19, 2009

'Wall Street, as we knew it, is dead. The system that allowed the U.S. economy to be a dynamic innovator has been fundamentally broken and the implications of these structural changes have yet to be fully felt."

It's now commonly accepted that the economic meltdown has forever changed the nature of the financial industry. But the words above weren't written in the past weeks. They were penned by financial analyst Richard Wayman in 2003, after investigations by then New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer led to a structural shift in the relationship between research and investment banking following the stock-market collapse of 2001-02.

Among the many remarkable aspects of our present crisis is the speed with which we have collectively forgotten past crises, even ones that happened recently. The current meltdown is substantial, dramatic, and systemically dangerous -- but it is hardly the first to merit that description. And each crisis, without fail, results in unequivocal pronouncements that such excesses will never again be allowed.

When President Barack Obama lambastes Wall Street bonuses as "shameful," he is keeping up with the American tradition of vilifying Wall Street. Almost since the founding of the country, the U.S. has oscillated between admiration and condemnation of money men. When the first Bank of the United States was established in Philadelphia in 1791, it was amid fears that it would allow merchants and speculators to subvert the new republic for their own gain. Decades later, Andrew Jackson's presidency was bolstered by his staunch opposition to the Second Bank of the United States. He positioned himself as the defender of the common man against supporters of the bank who used their money to obtain influence.

From the 19th century to the present day, denunciation of financiers has gone hand in hand with each recession, speculative bust and depression. Each time the economy falls, the chattering classes announce that the old ways have brought the country to the brink of ruin and that the riches of society will no longer remain in the hands of the greedy few.

Little recalled now is "The Long Depression" of the 1870s that began with the Panic of 1873. The Panic was triggered by the collapse of the Jay Cooke and Company Bank, which came on the heels of Jay Gould's infamous attempt to corner the national gold market in 1869 and the speculative boom in railroad building. During the 1870s, as much as 50% of the U.S. labor force was out of work at one time or another, making it by far the worst economic collapse in the country's history. In the agrarian heartland of the country, early stirrings of populism led to attacks on eastern barons for robbing Americans of their birthright.

From then on, busts followed almost like clockwork every 20 years, with the panics of 1873 and 1877 followed by the panic of 1893 and then the "Bankers' Panic" of 1907, when J.P. Morgan orchestrated the recapitalization of the financial system from his mansion in Manhattan. It was the TARP, the "bad bank," and the stimulus of its day, and it earned Morgan the gratitude of a nation and the applause of President Theodore Roosevelt.

Having lionized Morgan, a few years later the country turned on him and his ilk with a vengeance. In 1913, a populist congressman from Louisiana, Arsène Pujo, launched an investigation of the so-called "Money Trust" that he claimed was exerting undue and deleterious influence on the body politic. Exhibit No. 1 was none other than one-time savior Morgan, who was interrogated by the committee as if he had committed a heinous crime. One member of the committee said Morgan represented "a moneyed oligarchy more despotic and dangerous to industrial freedom than anything civilization has ever known." Strict regulations followed -- as they always have on the heels of such crises.

Yet 20 years later, the market imploded with the crash of 1929. The ranks of the unemployed swelled to at least 25%, and the country was plunged into the Great Depression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously indicted the "money changers" in his 1933 inaugural address, but he was even more caustic in private, vowing to end forever "speculation with other people's money." The raft of modern regulatory institutions, from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, was one result. Wall Street was tamed and quiet for a while.

Later on, the "Go-Go" years of Wall Street in the late 1960s quickly gave way to the bust of the so-called "Nifty-Fifty," the 50 largest blue-chip companies. Then came inflation, severe unemployment, and the stock market collapse of 1973-74. Between 1964 and 1982, the major stock indices went nowhere fast -- the Dow began that period at about 800 and ended at the same. Wall Street in those years was more of a cottage industry, one that few suspected would again return to its prominent and controversial position at the apex of American society.

The booming 1980s -- mergers and acquisitions and arbitrage -- were capped by the highly publicized trials of Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, who were pursued by the Eliot Spitzer of his day, Rudy Giuliani. Combined with the market crash of 1987, the subsequent Savings and Loan debacle (which had little to do with Wall Street per se, but was wrapped up with the same crowd in public imagining), and the recession of 1991-92, Wall Street was once again pronounced immoral and in need of tight reins. Yet within a few years, the Nasdaq was soaring, animal spirits were in control, and the Internet bubble was in full bloom.

Wall Street's obituary has been written many times. Yet what is striking today is that cycles that used to take a few decades now take a few years. And our cultural amnesia has gotten worse. The rapid sequence of the dot-com bubble of the 1990s, the recession of 2001, and the 2002 collapse of Enron combined with major fines levied against investment banks, all became a distant echo in a surprisingly short amount of time. At the rate we've been going, we're due for a new boom with obscene profits for the financial industry -- albeit with different names and different companies -- before Mr. Obama runs for re-election.

The fact that we have been in similar places in the past doesn't make the specific problems we face any less pressing. New regulations may prevent an exact recurrence of yesterday's crises, but our relentless capacity for reinvention means that we will produce innovations that will in turn create new problems.

Recognizing that our present is not quite so breathlessly unprecedented doesn't make the challenges less critical, but it could lead to a more level approach. That can begin with steady leadership from President Obama. Wall Street has been humbled and will change, but capital will continue to flow. That much, at least, is certain.