I must apologize in advance for being a buzzkill with a serious post. Rake me over the coals in the comments, oh ye of refined douche tastes. For I will not contribute my fair share of mockery in this posting.
Ace of Spades doesn't think that "fascist" is a useful word when it comes to Obama.
I have long disliked the "FASCIST" claims, not just when they came every single day from the left, but now, too, as they come from the right.
There are several problems with the word.
1. It's not true. Obama is not a fascist. He has done things on occasion that one can credibly argue tended in a fascist direction -- first thing that comes to mind? those Missouri prosecutors threatening to vaguely "Go after" anyone accusing Obama of false charges, like (giggle) that he would raise taxes on the middle class -- but an actual fascist? No.
2. It tends to suggest violence is the only means of political expression. If it were true that any president were a fascist, then... well, democratic society is dead, isn't it? We live in a tyranny. The normal respect we give to civil, civic means of political jockeying is dead and buried. Not only are we freed from the usual moral and legal restraints against political violence, but... well, we might say we're morally obligated to commit political violence, no?
Ace, dude, you aren't using the same definition of
fascist that the people who call Obama a
fascist are using. Fascism was a variant of socialism that arose out of the Italian
fasci, or factions. These were unions. Both socialism and fascism become totalitarian. Both can be nationalist or internationalist. The
important difference between them,
the economic difference between fascism and socialism is that in socialism, the state owns all the property, while in fascism, property belongs in theory to individuals but because the state controls everything about property the "owner" doesn't have any of the traditional property rights, like the right to improve, sell or give his property to someone else, or change the way it is being used without government approval. Some people call the economic system
fascist or state corporatism. Mussolini's fascism was compatible with, and grew out of
anarcho-syndicalism: the domination of society by trade unions. Then the state, meaning the government, took over all the businesses and managed them for its benefit. Fascists also spent a lot of time and energy attacking
laissez-faire economics and international corporations.
Notice anybody recently issuing trillions of dollars in giveaways to unions and taking over private companies? Think GM and Chrysler and the banks. Think insurance industry. Think health insurance, hospitals, clinics, and doctors' offices for the healthcare highjack. Think EFCA/Card Check. Notice anybody calling
laissez faire economics a failed system and blaming international corporations for not paying their fair share of taxes? Notice anybody planning to nationalize lots of businesses and succeeding with several industries already? All the signs point to fascism on the horizon. That is why people are writing "Fascism" on signs.
I don't blame them a frakking bit.
"Fascist" in this context isn't a simple little insult, like "douchebag" or "teabagger." It isn't the Stalinist distraction from Stalin's own totalitarian oppression. It is a technically correct word to describe the form into which the state is being molded. And if you know your history, it is scary as all hell! Because after the fascism arrives, that's when you get to the coercive totalitarian state and the death camps and all that obvious evil. That's the
fascism and naziism you are thinking of.
Posts
