lowing wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
What is economic fascism? Define it, in your own words.
coulda swore I just did that.......oh well...........economic fascism as I meant it, is partial of the whole word fascism definition..
the part I was referring to is govt. control over private industry......It has happened and it fits in the definition of fascsim.
No you didn't. No it hasn't. No it doesn't.
In any case, just to avoid any confusion and keep it nice and simple for you, fascism = right, Obama = left (by US standards)
The terms fascist and socialist are pretty much mutually exclusive.
You've called him both. That doesn't make sense. It's like complaining he's too short and then complaining he's too tall. If you compared him to Stalin at least that would show show degree of consistency...
lowing wrote:
Try reading the definition of fascism, and not what someone wrote as the characteristics of Hitlers Germany.
Those are the 14 characteristics of fascism as widely used by academics. They are not the charateristics of Hitler's Germany, they are the common elements between all fascist regimes. As you would know if you'd bothered checking his link:
Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism.
The OED definition of fascism is:
Fascism
/fashiz’m/
• noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
Which does not describe the current administration in the US at all. Authoritarian? Right-wing? It just doesn't fit.
Though, your views on Islam could easily be described as being intolerant and extremely right-wing and therefore fascist. But there isn't much of a case for anything based on simple definitions of fascism, because, as even Wikipedia tells us:
Fascism is an authoritarian, nationalist and corporatist ideology, but there is no single established definition of fascism.
What we have to go off when defining fascism, are papers by academics. The exact sort of paper Kmarion posted extracts from.
eleven bravo wrote:
its like debating somebody with an 8th grade education
I fail to see how it differs at all.
fas·cism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled[fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–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.
now lets see, a govt. having complete power, ( all democrat control which he has used to ram rod his programs.)
He doesn't have complete power, as can be seen by the reforms he had to make to his healthcare bill which left it pretty much unrecognisable. Loads of examples of this.
lowing wrote:
forcibly suppressing oppostion and criticism ( a proponent of the fairness doctrine ) check.
Check? Check what? There is no way in which this applies to the Obama administration. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the amount of media criticism Obama has received from the right. The fact that secret police aren't smashing your door down right now.
These are clear indicators, to all but the most moronic, that he is not forcibly supressing opposition and criticism.
lowing wrote:
regimenting all industry and commerce ( now auto and health care industries are govt controlled for starters, he also decided to take control over how much a private citizen can make).
Are they controlled by the government? Or is that bullshit? Are the government silent stateholders or are they actively enforcing organisational change?
In any case, fascist economics focus far more on promotion of companies that perform well and hinderance of companies that perform poorly. A sort of accelerated survival of the fittest. Take the US auto industry - which was doing very badly. Those are not the sort of companies a fascist administration would support, a socialist government might though (because of the impact on the workers of their potential failure).
lowing wrote:
emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism ( Hmmmm Henry Gates Jr. the nutty proffessor " the ( white) police acted stupidly" and the ft hood shooter " lets not jump to any conclusions"
Pathetic. Racism as pushed by fascist regimes is always, without exception, of minorities. Otherwise it would not have the desired effect.
Even if his administration was promoting racism by minorities against whites, this still would not be any sort of fascist indicator.
lowing wrote:
again here is my argument.....how can you deny this, (I mean with facts and not insults.)
as of yet, no one hs addressed these points of argument
How can I deny it?
As usual, by demonstrating that each and every one of the points you have made are complete gibberish.
As is typical for you, I notice you have missed the main point of my previous post, which is that definitions of fascism are vague and that for any sort of clear picture for analysis of it you need to look at academic papers and not dictionary definitions.
I await your one or two line response which ignores most of the points that have been made.