Is the current tendency of the Democratic party veering toward fascism?

[The Douche]

Sorry if this has been adressed here but I've been gone for a very long time thinking about things.

Is there any opinion here that the democratic party or the "center left" in the US may in fact be representing the modern incarnation of fascism, or at least corpratist economics? The "nationalizations" have all insulated the corpoations and only the losses have been nationalized (i.e. passed on to taxpayers) whereas profits have been kept private.

Obviously the above is not the only element to fascism but I think it is key, at least it is in the way that I view fascism.

*If this discussion has been had can I get a link?

[Il Medico]

I don't think so comrade. The right wing Bush administration, was the closest we have come to fascism as of late. They my be implementing State Capitalism policies in a move away from the previously favored Free Market Capitalism. This shows that the Obama administration and Democrats are firmly capitalist, but not Fascist.

[The Douche]

I don't think so comrade. The right wing Bush administration, was the closest we have come to fascism as of late. They my be implementing State Capitalism policies in a move away from the previously favored Free Market Capitalism. This shows that the Obama administration and Democrats are firmly capitalist, but not Fascist.

I think this represents a common, and in my opinion, flawed, analysis of fascism being "right wing". While it is a right wing ideology it always begins by appearing left wing. While we will never know what the Bush administration would have done in this situation, we can see the transfer of corporate losses onto the public under the guise of "socialism" (or nationalization) whereas the profits are protected by the state. Also the tactic being employed by the state of arbitering between the unions and the bosses is quite fascist in nature.

[gorillafuck]

I think this represents a common, and in my opinion, flawed, analysis of fascism being "right wing". While it is a right wing ideology it always begins by appearing left wing. While we will never know what the Bush administration would have done in this situation, we can see the transfer of corporate losses onto the public under the guise of "socialism" (or nationalization) whereas the profits are protected by the state. Also the tactic being employed by the state of arbitering between the unions and the bosses is quite fascist in nature.
When have the democrats ever used the guise of socialism?

[The Douche]

When have the democrats ever used the guise of socialism?

Their current economic policies appear socialist at face value. They also use language like "spread the wealth around". This is clearly pandering to underlying (and unnamed) socialist tendencies in the working class.

[Vincent P.]

Bush was an imperialist authoritarian dickhead (neo-con), but not a facist. Historically, Itialian Facism and Nazism were blaming both liberalist capitalism and communism for smallpox and bad weather, instead advocating state-corporatism and protectionism (as opposed to Bush's free trade), but Bush failed to blame capitalism.

Sorry about that, it's just that I'm tired of people calling "facist" everything from feces to religion. Yes, Bush was crappie, but do not stain facist ideology with neo-con policies, it's bad enough already.


NOTE: this is a response to Captain Jack, not cmoney, with which I agree. Lemon socialism is indeed a facist move (state-corporatism and blaming capitalist excesses were one of the few missing link between Bush and facism).

[Il Medico]

Vincent P. I was not saying that Bush was fascist, but he was defiantly closer than the new administration. If anything it is going a more Soviet Union State Capitalism approach.

[Vincent P.]

Oh, my bad sorry. But was he? ;)

[peaccenicked]

There is too much semantics here. Strictly speaking according to Trotsky. Fascism is mass counter revolution.
Yet fascism outside Marxisms is an extreme form of state oppression. Is it viable to use that expression? Surely, that depends on who you are communicating to, and what they mean by the word.
In a sense there has been a counter revolution going on the United States .
From Wiki.

The Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to the formation of a central banking system - the fact that England tried to place the colonies under the monetary control of the Bank of England is seen by many as the 'last straw' of English oppression and that it led directly to the American Revolutionary War.
In 1791, Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, made a deal to support the transfer of the capital from Philadelphia to the banks of the Potomac in exchange for southern support for his Bank project. As a result, the First Bank of the United States (1791-1811) was chartered by Congress in that same year. The First Bank of the United States was modeled after the Bank of England and differed in many ways from today's central banks. For example, it was partly owned by foreigners, who would share from its profits. It was also not solely responsible for the country's money supply; its share was only 20%, while private banks accounted for the rest. The Bank was bitterly opposed by several founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who saw it as an engine for speculation, financial manipulation, and corruption.

This is why libertarians like Ron Paul supporters call themselves revolutionary, when they want to abolish the fed.
They think the government should print money in a free market economy, while
Socialists believe that we should abolish the fed to print social tokens as the first stage of abolishing money in a socially planned economy.
If we take the meaning of fascism in its popular sense, rather than its strict Marxist sense there are worries that the financial oligarchy are gaining a tighter grip on society
and in general becoming more heavy handed.
The army has played a bigger role in controlling crowds.
Senators were threatened with martial law, if the did not pass the bailout bill.
Here is Noami Klein on the matter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment)

Her last point about he founding fathers is interesting. There is a constitutional patriotism v imperialistic imperialist divide in the USA. The left also has some history of defending the constitution eg
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/secu-j18.shtml

The democratic gains of the constitution are worth defending,and reasserting, socialists should march separately but strike together.

Oh! the Demcrats have changed very little.

[fabilius]

Peacenicked, you mean Naomi Wolf, not Naomi Klein.

[pastradamus]

Sorry if this has been adressed here but I've been gone for a very long time thinking about things.

Is there any opinion here that the democratic party or the "center left" in the US may in fact be representing the modern incarnation of fascism, or at least corpratist economics? The "nationalizations" have all insulated the corpoations and only the losses have been nationalized (i.e. passed on to taxpayers) whereas profits have been kept private.

Obviously the above is not the only element to fascism but I think it is key, at least it is in the way that I view fascism.

*If this discussion has been had can I get a link?

Absolutely. I feel you've hit on something here. I believe the state bailouts in varying Countries - Particularly the US has something of a Fascist Element about it. That is to say State-sponsoring of Corporations.
Historically speaking it is of course something which we see very obviously in Fascist Italy as well as Fascist Spain to an extent. Mussolini Sponsored Corporations often at times without taking a piece of its share-value.
If a share value of a corporation is taken it is something of a left-wing characheristic but if none is taken its a fascist-like sponsoring of private enterprise. Thats the difference here.

[The Douche]

Absolutely. I feel you've hit on something here. I believe the state bailouts in varying Countries - Particularly the US has something of a Fascist Element about it. That is to say State-sponsoring of Corporations.
Historically speaking it is of course something which we see very obviously in Fascist Italy as well as Fascist Spain to an extent. Mussolini Sponsored Corporations often at times without taking a piece of its share-value.
If a share value of a corporation is taken it is something of a left-wing characheristic but if none is taken its a fascist-like sponsoring of private enterprise. Thats the difference here.

Thanks.

This is what I'm talling about, state capitalism, at least, the way I understand it represents the nationalization of profits made by a private corporation. These profits then fill the pockets of the politicians, and then are invested into the welfare state (i.e. housing, job/infastructure creation, national health care, national defense etc). However that is not what's happening right now, the state is in fact bailing out certain industries/corporations, but it is not actually nationalizing them, not is it nationalizing thier profits, it is only nationalizing their losses. This is state protection of private industry (ala corpratist economics) the only thing the working class is getting out of this is higher taxes, not public services.

If the administration nationalized GM, put a party member in as the CEO, and ran it through the UAW, and counted the profits as state income, then yes, I would see state capitalism. But the state is just protecting the profit of the company by becoming a share holder.

And now we are seeing the involvement of the state in settling disputes between the boss and the union, the result of which is, of course, not pro-worker, but pro-capitalist. Which bears a striking resemblence to Mussolinni's concept of "national syndicalism".

I'm speaking of the economics of fascism in my posts, not the politics of it. So perhaps corporatism would've been better word choice. But their are still other elements which are proto-fascist, such as the civil service corps the president wants to start.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Socialists believe that we should abolish the fed to print social tokens as the first stage of abolishing money in a socially planned economy.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the replacement of currency as we know it today with social tokens the last stage of abolishing money (M-C-M)? Or are you referring to means of exchange that aren't necessarily labour credits (labour vouchers/tokens, electronic labour credits, etc.), energy accounting, etc.?

[ComradeR]

No what's happening is not a move towards fascism. It seems to be moving away from the Chicago school of thought back towards a more Keynesian style of economy.

[peaccenicked]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the replacement of currency as we know it today with social tokens the last stage of abolishing money (M-C-M)? Or are you referring to means of exchange that aren't necessarily labour credits (labour vouchers/tokens, electronic labour credits, etc.), energy accounting, etc.?

Your question is good! M-C-M gets replaced by M-M . Dead labour accumulates. Living
Labour contracts. That is the essence of the long wave. The commodity to money ratio is doomed to be inflationary. The whole system of capitalism and the free market is a ponzi scheme, based on exploiting investors as well as workers, forever passing on debt to new investors, and attempting to freeze or lower workers wages.
The end of capitalism implies a preponderance of money over goods. Money becomes virtually useless as shortages, lead to rationing
Mandel gives us this.
"http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article289

Marx visualised the business cycle as intimately intertwined with a credit cycle, which can acquire a relative autonomy in relation to what occurs in production properly speaking. An (over) expansion of credit can enable the capitalist system to sell temporarily more goods that the sum of real incomes created in current production plus past savings could buy. Likewise, credit (over) expansion can enable them to invest temporarily more capital than really accumulated surplus-value (plus depreciation allowances and recovered value of raw materials) would have enabled them to invest (the first part of the formula refers to net investments; the second to gross investment).

But all this is only true temporarily. In the longer run, debts must be paid; and they are not automatically paid through the results of expanded output and income made possible by credit expansion. Hence the risk of a Krach, of a credit or banking crisis, adding fuel to the mass of explosives which cause the crisis of overproduction.

This overproduction is that of money.
Hence Socialism has to begin putting money out of commission. The transition is not that easy, the law of value has been everywhere in the economy. For it to be socialized
the relation between employer/employee has to become merged and banks subjugated to that relationship. Use values, ie useful things, no longer are commodities, they are produced for use over exchange. The lack of exchange implies an abundance of goods
but this will never be the case, in the first instance.
As soon as private property is abolished the social "wage" is established. It is directly related to a social plan. Money will only exist insofar that socialism is not the dominant mode of production. Money will disappear at the periphery as well. Exchange value
will be replaced by tokens. These tokens will represent a form of rationing where the menu our lists of needs are satisfied, in reality, till scarcity in raw goods and materials become on par with air and water, perhaps over-produced, with enough for human comfort in housing and food, and transport.
Our productive capacity will be built on already existing consumer range, with an eye to
fairness in competition for rarer goods needs and services and innovations
This problematic aspect of the market has to be turned into a coherent strategy that provides for individual needs as well as those of society. In leaving the misery of capitalism, it will be the best of our problems.
Social tokens will not be money as such as they will be directly related to scarcity rather than profit.

So Jacob, I think social tokens will swapped for money fairly quickly. The conditions of super abundance perhaps a social consensus on where production can be diversified,
will stamp out money for once and for all.