Fascism

Fascism is the merger of big corporation with government. Are we headed there, are we already there? How do you all feel about this?

[Hippie3]

ah,
someone who understands that fascism is a form of economics
and doesn't mean totalitarian.
modern industrial states are pretty much all a form of fascism,
public monopolies on utility companies, railroads
are forms of fascism.
the usa is a fascist state, the EU are many fascist states.
a

fasces

[sp?][bundle of rods on axe, roman symbol of justice]
even hangs on the wall of the us senate.
so what ?
it's pretty much agreed that certains businesses are just too critical to leave them in private hands without close supervision and regulation,
such as arms manufactures.
just part of modern life.

I agree with ya hip, we are already there and I really don't see how it could of been avoided either, but i'm a little worried about the conflict of interest these entities generate by merging. Create wars to generate income for manufacturers....hmmmm....bad bad thing.
President Lincoln as well as many other great men warned the U.S. that this could happen and that it should not happen. "I have the south in front of me and the bankers at my back. For this country's well being I fear the bankers". Oh well so much for words of wisdom. I'm sure we will all survive. Just something to think about.

[Hippie3]

Create wars to generate income for manufacturers....hmmmm....bad bad thing.

some wars are money-makers
some are not.
you could look at the extra revenue/spending in wars
as a 'fringe benefit'
not really a cause, in most cases.
you really don't make money overall as a nation by
waging wars unless it's a fast successful blitzkreig
since money spent on stuff that blows up
is a net loss to the economy.
and it may take decades before any real profit accrues,
assuming you win.

quote:
"some wars are money-makers
some are not."

True, but the fact of the matter for those of us with our sense of morality still intact is that it's wrong to send our sons to their deaths for corporate profits. War should be to protect one's country, not expand it. That is the problem with facism. And yes, we're already there. How many of you plan to sign up to send your social security checks to Enron/Worldcom/Wall Street?

War was just an example I used to show how there could be this conflict of interest I was talking about. There are other examples also. Natural resources can be jeopardized by this kind of merger also. Big companies that use resources to produce their goods could influence laws meant to protect the environment. When the government is run by big money, big money has the ability to protect it's way of life possibly at the cost of the environment. For example: Coal burning plants were being sued because they did not meet some criteria outlined by the Clinton administration. These same co. gave Bush a lot of money and now those law suits have been lifted. The companies are now back to the same ole envgironmentally damaging activities.
George Washington, John adams, andrew jackson " have all warned America against allowing large corporations to dominate our political systems and our lives" (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.)

[Bromius]

Is a state really that different from a corporation to begin with? They are both systems that pool resources to limit personal liability and to accomplish tasks which cannot be undertaken by individuals.

I think what makes the difference is whether or not the executive, the board and the stockholders (or substitute president, congress and voters) choose to use their combined power in responsible way.

Getting elected is expensive, and money isn't free. Corporations have the most dollars, so they can buy the most shares in the government. A wise politician realizes that in order for the people to do well, corporations need to do well since most people get their paycheck from one. That is not the problem.

The primary purpose is to generate a profit for the stockholders. The view of that purpose can become myopic at times, especially when you have executives making 100 times what their lowest paid worker does (and also happens to own a lot of stock in the company). Buying up the government to get an advantage may benefit a single company, but the entire system is damaged in the process. The urge to boost earnings for the quarter can get out of hand when fueled by personal greed. Selfish, short term thinking is the real danger of having too much corporate interference in government. This does not have to be the case, but I feel that right now things are trending that way.

[Hippie3]

War should be to protect one's country, not expand it

since when ?
who made that 'rule' ?
is that a moral statement ?
because wars of expansion
are the rule, the norm,
only one side can be fighting in defense,
the other side always therefore is expanding.
sometimes as the general said
the best defense
is a good offense.
so there is more than one way
to 'defend' a nation,
pre-emptive war is one such strategy.
it, too, claims to be 'defensive'
even when it's offensive.
lol
now there's your double-speak

[Hippie3]

well stated.
and really
both the state and the corporation
ultimately are social constructs,
owned by the people who invest, stockholders,
they largely benefit the society they serve
albeit with potential for abuse, corruption
as with any other public institution.
but corporations are here to stay,
might as well make the best of that.

Originally Posted by Bromius

Is a state really that different from a corporation to begin with? They are both systems that pool resources to limit personal liability and to accomplish tasks which cannot be undertaken by individuals.

I think what makes the difference is whether or not the executive, the board and the stockholders (or substitute president, congress and voters) choose to use their combined power in responsible way.

Getting elected is expensive, and money isn't free. Corporations have the most dollars, so they can buy the most shares in the government. A wise politician realizes that in order for the people to do well, corporations need to do well since most people get their paycheck from one. That is not the problem.

The primary purpose is to generate a profit for the stockholders. The view of that purpose can become myopic at times, especially when you have executives making 100 times what their lowest paid worker does (and also happens to own a lot of stock in the company). Buying up the government to get an advantage may benefit a single company, but the entire system is damaged in the process. The urge to boost earnings for the quarter can get out of hand when fueled by personal greed. Selfish, short term thinking is the real danger of having too much corporate interference in government. This does not have to be the case, but I feel that right now things are trending that way.