Interesting...

fas·cism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

So you advocate that government should control all industry, and commerce, etc, yet you call ME the fascist??

socialism is a set of populist philosophies about economic systems that tends to create political oppression through obsessive attempts to create equality.

fascism is a set of elitist philosophies about social and cultural cohesion that tends to create political oppression through obsessive attempts at establishing group superiority.

they are often difficult to distinguish from each other, since the rhetoric of the modern world blandly equates individual superiority (through competition) with equality (through freedom of competition). to my mind, frankly, the only real difference between them is that they use different words when they get around to name-calling (which they always do); and even that's disappearing, since 'fascist' and 'socialist' have become cliché insults lacking any real sense or meaning.

that being said: merry christmas!

Sounds to me very much like the government we've had for the last 7 years:
✔ Extreme right-wing. - Makes Reagan look like a liberal!
✔ Militarist. - Why invade one country when you can invade two?
✔ Nationalisitic. - Ok, this one's just for propaganda purposes, while he sells our sovereignty to multianational coporations.
✔ Xenophobic - Let's build walls (fences) like the Soviets did!
✔ Jingoistic. - "Mission Accomplished"
✔ antonym democratic. - I wonder if Republican rallies still require loyalty oaths (Like the Nazis used to require) now that Bush isn't running.



Now, if you cold please point out where I have EVER suggested "that government should control all industry, and commerce, etc." I have suggested that the government's job is to keep those things from running amuck — a far cry from controlling them. I suggest that we need to recognize that corporations are not benevolent institutions, nor are they American, nor of any other nationality. They exist for their own good and no one else's, which is why we have thousands of SuperFund sites across America, and doubtless many thousands more undiscovered polluted wastelands throughout the third world, much of Europe and certainly China.

OK, if this thread continues to get personal, not only will it be closed but some people will be invited to take holiday vacations.

thank you!

Wow, I didn't understand when I made the original post that I was opening a can of worms.
Best wishes to all -- enjoy the holiday.

I'd like to know who you feel got personal, and at what post number. :confused: Since your comment comes immediately after a post of mine, I naturally reread it. I see the definition of fascist supplied by OS X's dictionary along with a short description of how it fits with recent history, and an explanation of my view of Government's job with respect to Business.

Prior to post #21, I had thought that we were speaking in general terms about what makes a Socialist or a Fascist, but perhaps I was wrong. It's hard to know, because for the last decade in this country people who are even slightly right of center have tended to describe anyone even a little left of their position as being on the left wing. That's made it more or less a conditioned response to ignore references to Socialism as merely chaff.

I didn't realize that "socialist" has become an insult, and didn't intend it as such. It was just a statement of fact. While I may be against socialism, that doesn't mean that I think the "socialist" label is an insult.

See above.

In every thread where government control of an industry was discussed, you have been for government control. So which industry should government NOT control? You're even for government control of music and media distribution, and how iPhones are priced and sold.

You're confusing my assertion that government needs to fulfill its role of providing law and order in business as well as the rest of society with the idea that government should manage those businesses. I believe that everyone should be held accountable for their actions, and that includes businesses. In fact, I think that businesses should be held to higher standards than individuals, and that those at the top of the corporate ladder should bear that extra burden. I think it's ridiculous to expect a child to clean up after themselves and not hold a corporation to that same minimum standard.

The problem with this assertion (for me anyway) is that "be held accountable" is pretty vague. What do you mean by that? There are laws on the books for providing law, order, and accountability. Are you asserting that they're ineffective, or just that they aren't enforced? Perhaps we'd understand your position better if you gave us an example of what you'd like to see happen in some specific instance.

I mentioned cleaning up after yourself because I think it's a great example of the government's failure to do its job. There are no naturally occurring Super Fund Sites in the United States. Virtually every one was caused by the activities of business. I would make every business responsible for the full cleanup of every site that they created or added to. If they didn't clean it up in short order, then I would have the government do it, and charge them what the government spent on the clean up, and I would make that charge 100% non tax deductible. Since the Captain is responsible for his ship, I'd also like to see a fine for CEOs and board members and their estates for those who held those positions when the toxic waste site was created or added to. Since the government is well known for purchasing $900 hammers, I think you would very quickly see businesses acting more responsibly.

Note that none of this applies to how the business runs itself as a Socialist would like to do. I don't care how they run their business or what they charge for their products. I do care about the mess they leave behind. It is all about businesses living up to their responsibilities.

Here's one take on what Boards should be responsible for in corporate governance:

1. its human resource principles – respect and dignity for all
2. its dedication to accurate and transparent accounting and financial standards
3. its concern for the environment, for good business ethics and conduct, for social advancement
4. its over-riding passion to serve customers
5. its insistence on fair treatment of suppliers – and competitors
6. its uncompromising standard to comply with government laws and regulations in all countries in which it operates
7. its desire to work with others to lead society to a better economic standard and quality of life

I certainly agree that the average corporation doesn't come close.

I think it's government's job to see that they do, and our government, especially recently, has failed in its job.

If the United States is anything like Canada in this regard, the real difficulty is that the Feds, the States, and Municipalities play pass the responsibility for minding the store to each other like musical chairs played to the flight of the bumblebee. States relax their laws to attract a potentially large employer to a depressed region or, just as bad, turn a blind eye to these things lest the mill or whatever it is pull up stakes and go where the laws are easier. There is a complete lack of uniformity.

That's a problem too, but the big problem this decade has been that the fox is guarding the henhouse. The EPA is basically a rubber stamp for anything any big business would like to do, and we've all seen what happened to the anti-trust case against Microsoft right after the 2000 elections.

"that the fox is guarding the henhouse" is one way to look at it. Another, equally viable, is that politicians try very hard to avoid putting anyone out of work. When the going gets tough for a lot of companies, they pull up stakes and move to a state that cares less, or they close down and move to Mexico, or they export the work and infringements to somewhere with lower standards or easily bribed watchdogs. At the end of the day, the world doesn't benefit. It's just not as easy as enforcing the law.

lol - you obviously haven't watched much television, at least not what passes for television for the far right. socialist isn't as bad as fascist, granted (it's about on a par with the way republican politicians in the US use liberal), but I can't think of any time I've heard someone say "wow, you're such a socialist" and mean something positive by it. I will add - as a general rule - that when it comes to identification terms, the only 'fact' you have is what the person calls himself or herself. if cwt does not think of himself as a socialist, he's not a socialist; he may have some ideas that are similar to socialist thought, but then so did both Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt.

some of the people from the deep south still have this problem - they want to use the N word for african americans. they're not trying to be mean; that's just the word they use for blacks, and it's a fact that those people are black, you know... but that's just pure prejudice passing itself off as logic.

if you want to argue this further, that would be fine, but please read my quote (below), because that's where I'm going to go with this. ;)

Socialist has very different connotations in different countries too. Here in Canada there is a Socialist party called the New Democratic Party. To call someone a socialist is not an insult at all.

I agree.

Do you or do you not think that Apple should be forced to sell the iPhone in a certain way or without certain restrictions on its use? Do you or do you not advocated telling music vendors how to sell their products?

I fully agree. In a free market, the victims of such waste dumping would be able to sue the company, but in our system of mercantilism we are forced to depend on government to protect us, and we have lost our ability to look after ourselves. When government then, predictably, is sold to the highest bidder, the power is turned against us. The only solid solution is to remove this power from government and return it to the people.

I watch very little other than educational programs. Zero news, none of the top shows in the mainstream, and only a few entertainment programs. I certainly would never watch far-right or far-left programs, and there are no libertarian or centrist programs that I know of. Cwt espouses all of the socialist ideals I know of, so I used the label, in my opinion, correctly and without malice.

America is different from many countries in that the same companies that would move much of their manufacturing still very much want access to our markets. That would make it much easier to enforce the law, if we had the political will to do it.
Here in America, there's a mad rush to prove you're not liberal at all, let alone left wing. Generally, if a "Ditto Head*" or somebody that listens to :eek: Sean Hannity :eek: sees you as being less conservative than they are, they'll usually react like you're a communist. Nuance escapes them, and that makes the masses go farther right than they really believe, condoning the Christian version of religious fatwas like prayer in school, or condemning 'liberal' spending while running up record deficits and wasting time on issues like Freedom Fries or gay marriage when the country has real problems to worry about.

The funny thing is that conservative has so little real meaning, as does liberal. I know lots of people who call themselves conservative but don't fit any definition of it that I'm aware of, and most people I know that get branded as liberal are more conservative in many ways than those who claim to be conservative.


*A Rush Limbaugh fan. :eek: