Conservatism = Fascism

I sympathize with conservatives who are fighting for lower taxes on small business. Everyone, liberal and conservative alike realizes that small business is the foundation of the economy and much greater source for jobs than the corporate sector. I agree with conservatives that our government has grown to be an uncontrollable, wasteful mess that is often far less efficient than corporations at providing services.

That being said, I don't see how so many conservatives fail to see that Juggernaut of political power that corporations have risen to through lobbies, special interest groups and campaign contributions, much of which is due to deregulation. This can be seen with big oil and the arms industry's influence on our foreign policy including the initiation of the two current wars in the middle east. This can also be seen in the insurance industry and big pharma's influence in the health care debates.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.salon.com...

This can also be observed in the creation of the Federal Reserve and it's incredibly powerful influence on the state and the economy since 1913 (despite it's failure to serve it's original purpose of avoiding depressions and recessions)

So what is the most common answer to runaway state power? Deregulate the economy which necessarily leads to more corporate influence over the state and undermines the democratic process. I personally am in favor to socializing health care and higher education, although I am conservative on some issues such as auditing and abolishing the Federal Reserve and I am in no way a proponent of National Socialism. I understand the benefits and necessity of some free enterprise principles in a powerful economy but if it comes down to a choice between being ruled by private power of which the biggest investors hold all the votes, or being ruled by a (somewhat) democratic republic, I will gladly choose the latter.

It is all too obvious that true capitalism has never existed in this country and to call yourself a capitalist is to say you are a true proponent of a free and unregulated market. So my question is to you, the true conservatives, the anarcho-capitalists and libertarians,

1) Doesn't deregulation lead to an increase in corporate power and influence, thus further undermining the democratic process?

2) What is the conservative solution to "the disastrous rise of misplaced power" as said by Eisenhower in his farewell address warning to the American people?



Here are some excellent quotes that support my fears of corporate influence over the state.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -FDR

The Growing Concentration of Economic Power. Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935: "Ownership of corporate assets: Of all corporations reporting from every part of the Nation, one-tenth of 1 percent of them owned 52 percent of the assets of all of them." -FDR

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. -Eisenhower

"The richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined." -Michael Moore

www.politifact.com...

Proven to be "mostly true" by politifact

[edit on 29-10-2009 by The Transhumanist]

Careful there, buddy. They react to facts like vampires react to holy water.

reply to post by The Transhumanist


Great thread. I think your title is incorrect and a little poorly informed but you still make a great point at the heart of your thread.

I don't really have a perfect answer, though. But it is very obvious corporations are more than willing to share the government's ability to abuse the people. Corporations have become way too big for their britches and really aren't any less abusive than the government is.

On the other hand, the government is no peach either and they scare me as well.

I don't know what to tell you or how to fix it but I can admit it is a problem. Perfect case in point is the current attempt by corporations to limit the net. Now, I am all for telling the government to stick it and leave businesses alone. However, in this case, I am thankful for the government telling the corporations they're not going to win this one.

What NEEDS to be done is a balance. How to go about doing that I do not know but a balance is desperately needed. Whether the government is the big bad wolf or corporations are, the result and harm is too similar to say one is better than the other. All that seems to have happened is that we allowed the corporations to become what we hated so much about the government.

It's a shame, too, because I do believe it would work if we could find a balance. But it seems whoever has the power becomes corrupted on that power. Give the government too much, and it destroys private industry. Give private industry too much power, and it becomes the same beast but in a slightly different way.

Balance is clearly the short term answer, although I have several friends who are anarcho-syndacalists who essentially believe that the workers should decide social and industrial policy through labor unions.

Although this is an interesting alternative to the increasingly difficult balancing act between corporate and state power, It fails to take into account that the average worker does not have the technical knowledge or experience to make difficult social and industrial policy decisions.

I think there is a role for direct democracy, specifically on ethical issues like euthanasia or legalizing marijuana and certain other subjective decisions, but it is extremely naive to believe a starbucks employee or a police officer is capable of using the scientific method to determine objective decisions like the most effective means of getting alternative energy on the grid or the most effective way to produce and distribute goods and services.

That is why I am a proponent of a mix of technocratic decision making on objective decisions, representative decision making on subjective foreign and social policy decisions, and direct democratic control of ethical issues.

Fascism is the synthesis of government with corporations. The Democrat, President Wilson, considered a leader of the "Progressive" movement (AKA Liberal), enacted the Federal Reserve Act. The greatest leap toward this synthesis of government and corporation has been achieved during the term of the present Democrat President, President Obama, also considered a leader of the "Progressive" movement (AKA Liberal).

The government control of the finance industry and GM was a result of a poorly managed, deregulated market and those firms would have failed in a capitalist system. The state has control over those industries which is socialism versus corporate control of the state which is fascism.

So what's the difference between a liberal fascist and a conservative fascist?
Nothing but color.

Please select what camp you would like to join…(a), (b),(c,),(d),(e),(f) or (g).

We rigidly require every one of your actions fit a precast mold for categorization purposes!

It is vitally essential you see yourself as part of some group and prescribed train of thought and philosophy.

It is absolutely essential you belong to a collective.

It is absolutely wrong to formulate opinions that would lead to your own personal responsibility and total self awareness.

It is absolutely vital that you look for peer groups and validation and verbal clues and suggestions from a previously established group with a categorized philosophy and behave in that appropriate fashion per that collective!

You must not stop shopping at Wal-Mart on your own; you must wait for an authorized group to prohibit this damaging act.

You must not trade in your car for a bicycle on your own; you must wait for an authorized group to order your compliance in this regard.

You must not seek to eat healthy foods or live a healthy lifestyle on your own; you must wait for an authorized group to order your compliance in this regard.

You must label and identify yourself with a collective. If you do not label and identify yourself with a collective a collective and a label shall be assigned to you for identification purpose.

You must not march to the beat of your own drum, take responsibility for your own actions, and seek a higher wisdom and better path on your own.

Your collective and assigned herd will illuminate your way and protect you from the inherent pitfalls of thinking and acting independently in a responsible way.

You must comply, you must have a herd, and you must wear your identification and membership to that herd on your sleeve. Under no circumstances will you be permitted to deviate from your herd. Failure to stay within your herd may expose you to predators many times more powerful than you. It is not safe to wander from your herd, it is not safe not to be in herd.

Choose your herd, it matters not one wit which one. You will be assimilated and all will be well your herd will comfort you.

Thank you,

Management

A good post deserves a good competent answer, so here’s one:

I noticed you are familiar with the term anarcho-capitalism, which is the correct term for true free market ideals put forth by libertarians (Austrian economic theory). In a truly free market, corporations are self limiting. They only get to be “big” if they are the most efficient producer of a particular good/service that the public wants.

The entire reason we have massive oligarchies running everything today is due to the federal government establishing rules and taxes that prevent competition in a given market.

For example, general electric makes billions each year off of government contracts, gets tax exemptions, and then uses the excess income earned from those contracts and tax breaks to deal with the additional administrative costs of excessive government regulation.

Excessive government regulation is a market barrier, it drives up startup and operational costs and makes potential competitors uncompetitive against corporations who are on the government dole or have already established a large market base.

Corporations use the government for two things: prevent competition through regulation and to acquire profits without competition through government contracts.

Without government involvement, such massive corporations would not exist, prices would be lower, and quality of goods would be higher. To give you an idea of just how much government spends, this year government is estimated to spend 40% of our GDP from spending.

Government also prevents bloated inefficient corporations from failing, such as we see with government motors and the banking industry. These behemoths are sucking the resources of tax payer and increasing our debt burden, which further causes market distortion.

To summarize, government regulation is the cause of monopoly and fascism, not the cure.

If government didn’t have the power to regulate industry, industry wouldn’t bother spending hundreds of millions on lobbyists and political campaigns every year.

Government DOES have the power to prosecute fraud, which it rarely does. That's what the left should be focusing on, not more regulations that accomplish nothing.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


I appreciate such a well informed answer. However, I don't think it is fair to peg government involvement as the source for corporate behemoths power. The trust busting legislation for example, is arguably quite necessary to avoid every American from being employed by, and buying all their goods from Monopoly Inc. My position is that it is possible to lower small business taxes and lower barriers to entry and encourage competition, while limiting the power of mega corporations to throw their weight around on social policy issues.

We could for example, create legislation to keep corporations from exploiting foreign workers by encouraging or maybe even forcing them to keep jobs on domestic soil, while at the same time providing small business with tax breaks to encourage reinvestment in their own business.

I don't think economics has to be so black and white. Can't we have the good side of conservatism such as increased competition while avoiding the fascism if we balance it out with liberal regulation on big business that keeps them from reaching the infamous level of "too big to fail"?

[edit on 29-10-2009 by The Transhumanist]

I don't think it is fair to peg government involvement as the source for corporate behemoths power.

Fair or not, those are the facts.

Trust busting legislation is a joke btw. Its never been used to effectively dismantle a corporate titan. That, and its unconstitutional.

My position is that it is possible to lower small business taxes and lower barriers to entry and encourage competition, while limiting the power of mega corporations to throw their weight around on social policy issues.

Sounds good to me.

Of course, what you're talking about is limiting the federal governments power, not corporate power. Corporations don't make laws and have no power over social policy issues. If the government had no power over social policy issues, corporations would have no power over social policy issues through lobbyists.

We could for example, create legislation to keep corporations from exploiting foreign workers by encouraging or maybe even forcing them to keep jobs on domestic soil, while at the same time providing small business with tax breaks to encourage reinvestment in their own business.

Corporations only move employment overseas due to taxes and regulations. To quote the house ways and means committee:

U.S. international tax rules have been cited as a factor in the loss of U.S. headquarters jobs, one that may create an incentive for foreign multinationals to acquire the U.S. operations of American companies. These transactions are likely to result in the relocation of U.S. headquarters to foreign countries. A 2002 Treasury report on corporate inversions notes the growth in foreign acquisitions of U.S. businesses in recent years: $90.9 billion in 1997, $234 billion in 1998, $266.5 billion in 1999, and $340 billion in 2000. The relocation of headquarters abroad poses a serious long-term risk to the U.S. economy, to the extent that management functions move out of the United States and foreign overseers make future U.S. versus foreign investment and employment decisions. Decisions made by companies regarding the location of their headquarters affect the creation and retention of jobs in management, marketing, R&D, information technology, and other high-wage, high-skill areas. It is therefore critical that we not adopt policies that encourage companies to locate their headquarters overseas.

Our tax structure, minimum wage laws, and regulations are the biggest reasons why corporations choose to relocate.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1

Of course, what you're talking about is limiting the federal governments power, not corporate power.

True. As I said before, I see the practicality in fiscal conservatism although the market cannot provide the best solutions to everything. The military, the FDA, the CDC are just a few examples. As Ashley said, I think it is more of a balancing act than an either or decision.

If the government had no power over social policy issues, corporations would have no power over social policy issues through lobbyists.

What is the alternative to the government having power of social policy issues? Delegate that power directly to the people? I covered some of the intrinsic problems above and I stand by the fact that representatives are not only more efficient on some issues, but also much more informed.

Our tax structure, minimum wage laws, and regulations are the biggest reasons why corporations choose to relocate.

No arguments here. But isn't minimum wage a good thing? If there was a universal minimum wage there would be much less of an incentive to relocate and if we reformed the tax code so transnational firms would still be taxes, less incentive still. The government could even provide subsidies as a further incentive if draconian regulations limiting corporate ability to relocate do too much to stifle growth.

I think all of the liberals and conservatives can agree that one of the intrinsic flaws in the current system is allowing corporations to become too big to fail. The capitalist solution would be to let Darwinism take it's course, forcing firms to be much more responsible. Granted, that would help, but why not put legislation in place that limits their ability to reach that point to begin with? In the Darwin model, most irresponsible corporations would fail, but one or two would necessarily evolve and we would still have the same old song and dance with mega corporations that we have today.

Conservatism does not equal fascism. In fact, many "liberals" endorse a fascist sort of government. Fascism is just one way a government may choose to impose its will. It doesn't matter which government or political orientation it is; if it uses force and empowers the military and corporations over the people, it's fascist. But Soviet Communism was also fascist, in that regard. Instead of corporations, it empowered communes and (of course) the government.

Many conservatives just want to try to preserve the status quo, or return to a time when things were more to their liking. Yes, many conservatives believe that helping business is good for the country, and may endorse laws that unfairly empower corporations. That doesn't make them "fascists". They may simply be misguided. They may even be right, though I don't agree with that. Being pro-business doesn't make you a fascist, any more than being pro-people makes you a Communist.

reply to post by chiron613


Since there seems to be no truly concise definition of Fascism, it is unfair of me to peg all conservatives as Fascist. I generally see Fascism as corporations gaining more influence on the state than the people.

The point I am really trying to make in this thread is that free market principles would only increase the chances of oligopolies and monopolies coming to power if not checked by the government, because I don't see the competition itself as being powerful enough to check the size of firms. Look at the East India company for example.

Obviously there is some virtue in fiscal conservative on some policies, however blind conservatism and a true FREE market seems just as misguided as blind liberalism and national socialism.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
The government control of the finance industry and GM was a result of a poorly managed, deregulated market and those firms would have failed in a capitalist system. The state has control over those industries which is socialism versus corporate control of the state which is fascism.

No, GM failed because the price of the cars that they made were higher than foreign products and were of a lesser quality. The higher prices of the cars were due to higher overhead costs, mainly union workers getting paid more for what they do, regardless of what they do.

Most of the governments control of the finance industry is what caused the bank's failings in the first place. When the government required banks to lend money to people so they could get a mortgage for houses that they couldnt afford, that ended up killing them. Countrywide, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all bit the bullet (which were government backed lenders) along with the private lenders and investors. This in turn collapsed Morgan Stanley and Citi bank, Leahman Bros, etc.

Then the government had the bright idea to step in and have Morgan Stanley bought out by somebody because they were "to big to fail". Nobody wanted to do so if you remember correctly. The only way BOA was going to do it if the gov backed the buyout with its own money. This, as we know now, was a death trap for BOA. Its ability to choose how it wants to regulate itself has been completely neutered since it took the money. Mind you tho, the gov asked them to step in and take the money to buy the company.

Then with the failure of the houseing industry came the failure of all industries because nobody can afford to buy that nice tv or car if they are getting kicked outa their houses. The car companies were just faster at putting out their hats for collections then the rest of the other industry leaders. If you recall, the car companies were not the only ones asking for money when talk of bailouts were going around, they just happened to be the first big ones to try and take advantage after the banks of course.

But, Im sure you know all this of course. Im just trying to reiterate the fact that whenever government gets involved with "regulating" anything in our lives it screws up in a big way. If lobbyists are not asking for money for their certain industry, they are asking for money for their special interest group. Either way, they are still asking for money and for the government to get involved in some way or another so really, regulating the companies even more isnt going to help anything. Everytime gov regulations come out, whether they be in an increase in the wage min's or even how to build a house, the price of everything goes up. Everything.

To give an example of this, I work in the roofing industry in FL. 2 years ago the state gov increased the requirements on how to put a roof on (alot of crap to help out insurance companies from covering people imo). They made people get more stuff than they needed. This rung up the price of the roofing job and the price of permiting due to the extra visits by the inspectors. Now, instead of buyin a $20,000 roof, people had to buy a $25-30k roof, depending on what it needed. That extra $5k-10k could have been spent and spread around the community in other ways. Instead, it had to go to me to pay more for materials and overhead. All of this cause the state thought it prudent to "increase the protection" on homes, but the truth of the matter is when a hurricane hits hard enough, there isnt anything you can do about it. In the end, the gov didnt do anything that was necessary to protect the homes, they just caused more of a headache to not only the companies and the customers, but even the gov workers who now had to come up with a sudden way (that often failed) to manage and implement how it would be done.

The gov is like a poorly trained attack dog...it goes after something that it views as a disturbance to the "pack" and doesnt let go. Whenever it gets involved in doing anything it never turns out well. I posed this question before in another thread and would like to pose it again, if I may. When has any government program/regulation/whatever turned out well for the collective and if so, how?

Anyone, that has started a business in the US knows for a fact, that regulations are not their to help out business. Regulations deter competition. Who wrote the regulations for the tobacco on the latest round their? Who wrote the regulations that made it into the Cap and Trade bill? Who is writing the regulations on the new Health Care takeover?

Anyone that calls a true conservative a fascist is being hypocritical and ignorant. Name one member of our Federal Government that is a true conservative, besides Ron Paul of course.

Both parties are being fascist. They are the same. Name one regulation or law the other side has overturned. You cannot, because it has not happened. Keep lying to yourself and to everyone else. At least a few here can see through the idiocy and not fall for the bull, you are peddling here.

We are in the final stages of our destruction, at the behest of both parties. If you think more regulations will do anything but destroy small business and give more power to the Mega Corps, you slept right through the TARP and TARF debacle. ALL HAIL TO ONE WORLD GOVERNANCE, THROUGH THE DESTRUCTION OF SOVEREIGNTY, OF THE US. Welcome to Cap and Trade. They should have called it-HR New World Order!

Say again what you were talking about.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace.We seek not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; may your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" --Samuel Adams

reply to post by dizzie56


First, I would like to thank you for clearing that up for me and for the summary of the financial disaster.

When has any government program/regulation/whatever turned out well for the collective and if so, how?

The old cry of "the government never does anything right" isn't entirely accurate. The military, the FDA, the CDC, the USPS, the police, the fire departments, the highway system and the FAA all come to mind. As does France's healthcare system. (rated number 1 in the world by the WHO) This doesn't mean the U.S. government could necessarily do healthcare right, but I think we could get pretty close if we attempted to emulate their system. Denmark seems to be doing just fine with their socialized higher education. In fact, they were previously rated the happiest country in the world. Also you could argue that some welfare programs, at least food stamps, do what they are meant to do. Sure it's not perfect, but nobody in America is unwillingly starving to death and that's a pretty good thing.

Surely in a free market, their would be more money going towards charities, and feel free to call my cynical, but do you really think charities alone could provide for the 36 million people living below the poverty line in America?

My point is not that all regulations are necessary or even good for the collective. But clearly, no firm should EVER be allowed to reach a state that is considered to big to fail, whether that consideration comes from the government, the firm itself, or economists. We can't trust a true free market to regulating oligopolies and monopolies alone. They will always exist in a capitalist system. A firm can't compete with Walmart's prices period. Regulations or not, they will devour smaller businesses and in itself provides a barrier to entry.

Pure conservatism isn't the answer in neither is pure liberalism. We need a balance of practical regulation and free market principles.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by The Transhumanist]

Capitalism and Fascist Liberalism are not too far from each other. However, free enterprise was what the founding Fathers had in mind. Our nation was not born a capitalist society nor a democracy. It was made an enterprise system and a republic. We are so far gone today from what was truly good about America to what it is now, greed for money and power.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by Fromabove]

reply to post by endisnighe

We are in the final stages of our destruction, at the behest of both parties. If you think more regulations will do anything but destroy small business and give more power to the Mega Corps, you slept right through the TARP and TARF debacle. ALL HAIL TO ONE WORLD GOVERNANCE, THROUGH THE DESTRUCTION OF SOVEREIGNTY, OF THE US. Welcome to Cap and Trade. They should have called it-HR New World Order!

It seems the ignorance is yours sir. If you bothered to read the entire thread I stated we need less taxes and regulation on small business and more regulation on megacorps. Better yet, set limits so that no one can reach megacorp status to begin with. Megacorps after all, are too big to fail firms we are discussing in this thread.

As for the NWO, clearly we need A new world order. More in line with the one advocated by Adam Weishaupt and the Bavarian Illuminati free from the tyrannies of the institutions of governments and religion and less like the NAFTA bull that Bilderberg and their ilk are shoving down our throats.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by The Transhumanist]

reply to post by The Transhumanist


I should have gone into it more, sorry. Complete deregulation of course is anarchy. But you cannot regulate businesses unequally. That is where our whole problem has evolved. Anti-Monopoly regulations are fine. AT&T was broken up once, notice how they have pretty much clawed back to being a monopoly again, they just kept buying up their competition.

Auto industry for example, their are so many regulations on building a vehicle, it is ridiculous. It would cost an upstart company, in America, 2 billion dollars to get the approval of putting a single vehicle on the road. What ever happened to capitilism?

The small company that innovates and can keep their labor down, would decimate the big three. But guess what, regulations keep the small guys out.

I have read through so many of the agriculture bills, and have seen the new regs in the works, that small farmers, dairy, beef, etc will be gone in 5 years. Guess where your food will be coming from? Not the US.

Now the Cap and Trade. Not just carbon emissions. The complete takeover of the construction trade. Mega construction companies will be the only ones that can afford the bribes to stay in business.

All old houses will have to be upgraded to California Codes to be sold. That one their, will make your house pretty much worthless. If you cannot sell it without putting $125,000 into it, you might as well burn it to the ground, because you are never going to be able to sell it. Besides owing $200,000 on a house worth $125,000.

Let's see, the dollar so far this year, has lost 30% of its value compared to other fiat money. Where is the solution to that?

10.5 Trillion, this is the government's stated debt. The actual debt is at 100 Trillion+, at 300 million people that is $333,333 per person in the US. I am sorry, we are broke. I worked the numbers out earlier. At a 30 year fixed at 5% you would have to work 24/7, 365 at $20/hr(without taking the taxes out of course and no food or anything else) for about 18 years.

Yeah, which Constitutional Amendment does not allow indentured servitude or slavery? Because every man, woman, and child born in perpuituity, are to be slaves. So I should just smile and take it like the slave that I am.

That is why all the DOOM and GLOOM.

The US is toast. The eggs are already eaten and the bread just does not know its next.