To: John Lenin
The definition of fascism given here is *WAY OFF BASE* from the defintions I've read elsewhere - where fascism was described basically as an "unholy alliance between government and big business", in which individuals own the business, but government skims off all the profits.
6 posted on
01/30/2003 7:23:31 PM PST by
The Duke
To: The Duke
Does the name really matter? You can call it 'Potato Chips' but it doesn't make it any less worse.
To: The Duke
The definition of fascism given here is *WAY OFF BASE* from the defintions I've read elsewhere You mean in the mainstream media?
13 posted on
01/30/2003 7:41:27 PM PST by
Terriergal
("What's more ridiculous than someone who's pro-choice and anti-hunting?")
To: The Duke
>>an "unholy alliance between government and big business<<
Flawed, in my opinion, as yet another economic definition of fascism, which wasn't based on economics.
I definte fascism as follows - and in the following definition, I've included Islamofascism aka Islamism:
1. Extremely nationalistic - in the case of Hitler, the nation was the Third Reich, in the case of bin Laden, the nation is the Nation of Islam, the Ummah, which doesn't exist now but did within living memory as the Ottoman Empire.
2. Anti-democratic - these people want to destroy democracy.
3. Subjugation of the individual to the group, to the point of totalitarianism.
4. Use of violence, including mob violence, to achieve political goals, rather than votes or persuasion.
5. Emphasis on action rather than thought.
6. Exaltation of a strong leader.
To: The Duke
where fascism was described basically as an "unholy alliance between government and big business", in which individuals own the business, but government skims off all the profits. Duke,what you described is "classical fascism". The modern version we (or our children) will end up suffering under will flip-flop classical fascism. The new fascism will have the corporations at the top,and the politicians will be their employees and PR agents. Look to China for a prime example of how this will work,and look at WHO from the US is in business with the fascists who run China. For instance,remember back in the old days when Wal-Mart advertised "American made"? Notice how it is damn near impossible to find anything for sale at Wal-Mart now that wasn't made in China? Did you know that Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart before her husband was elected president,and she only resigned because she had to when they moved into the White House? Now think back to when the Chinese goods started swamping Wal-Mart and other American stores. Wal-Mart was one of the first to "go Chinese" in a big way,almost like they had a sweetheart deal with the fascists who own all the corporations in China,huh? Also please note that Diane FineSwine's hubby is in business with these same fascists,and is most likely the ones who tipped them off about the BATF raid on their leased warehouses in San Diego that held all the fully-automatic AK-47's they had smuggled into the country.
Also take note that Jorge Ali Bubba Bush has a uncle who lives in China,and is bestest buddies and business partners with these same fascists.
I think it is already safe to say that corporations are already in a position where they dictate government policy,and that it will only get more brazen in the future. Our politicians are no longer bought and sold,they are now minority stockholders.
To: The Duke
where fascism was described basically as an "unholy alliance between government and big business", in which individuals own the business, but government skims off all the profits. Correct, with the addition that they reserve the power to control the business as well. In most fascist senerios, that is done by regulations. The US is a mixture of things in one degree or another, and fascism is one of them.
To: The Duke
I agree, that the definition of fascism is off base.
I did quite a bit of research on it while trying to find out the difference between socialism and communism.
As near as I could tell, fascism is socialism with w/o some of the income re-distribution and more liberal private ownership of business, as long as the business does exactly what the government wants.
129 posted on
02/02/2003 6:57:22 AM PST by
FrogMom
To: The Duke; *puff_list
Either way, it fits the current War on Smokers.
131 posted on
02/02/2003 11:24:02 AM PST by
Max McGarrity
(Anti-smokers--still the bullies in the playground they always were.)
To: The Duke
"unholy alliance between government and big business", in which individuals own the business, but government skims off all the profits.Which brings to mind Big Tobacco and Government.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson