Saturday, July 19, 2014

Socialism or Fascism: Which Way America?

I keep reading articles or hearing people, mostly on the Right, speak about the Obama Regime or Democrats in general leading us down the road to socialism's perdition. When George W Bush was in office, the Democrats and those on the Left kept comparing "Dubya" with Hitler and the Nazis. First off, there's no way those in power on the Left or Right would allow this country to become "socialist"; they simply are not going to give up their wealth or power and neither will Wallstreet or the banks. As for National Socialism, this means basically a "one man/one party" rule and there's too many primadonnas in Washington for that to ever happen. In addition, National Socialism meant a partnership of sorts between the government and Big Business with the latter assuming a junior role, and we all know Wallstreet would never go for that today, and by the way, the "socialism" part of National Socialism didn't mean what most people today assumes it meant. For them, it meant a community of likeminded people or "Volk". So then, let's talk about just what road we are going down.

Socialism means that the people essentially own everything, including the corporations. Power and the control of wealth is in their hands. I don't see that happening do you? I don't see the Wallstreet or K Street lobbyists becoming weaker. Certainly that's not what the "Citizens United" or "McCutcheons" decisions by the Supreme Court did. Under communism, which is often---though incorrectly--- used interchangeably with socialism, there are again no privately own properties, especially corporations. The State owns everything. Do you see corporations surrendering their power and wealth to Washington? So, what is it that America is morphing into? The answer is fascism. Fascism is, as its founder Benito Mussolini said, more accurately described as "corporatism". Specifically, Mussolini said this “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”. Novelist Upton Sinclair called fascism "capitalism plus murder" while Vladimir Lenin referred to fascism as "capitalism in decay".

Politically, it borrows some of its goals and techniques from the Left and some from the nationalistic right, including militarism. But it's objective is corporate control, plain and simple. The role of government is to serve as the junior partner and "middleman" between the "elites" and everyday people. It's objectives are to serve the rich. The corporation is everything. The individual is nothing. Under fascism, there is little to no middle class. There's the insanely rich and then there's everybody else. Sound familiar? Can you see the one percenters giving up their money; their penthouses; their private planes and yachts? Under socialism, they'd have to; the same under communism.

Consider this too, Unions exist under fascism, but are weak and fairly ineffective. Their prime purpose to keep the masses in their place---on the job and off the strike line---while generally backing the decisions of the corporate bosses. They serve the interests of the corporation, even if it means cutting benefits, pensions, and hours. Under communism, the State is the union and you automatically belong to it. But again, no strikes and no complaining. Under socialism, there is no rich or poor; everyone is equal, so there's really not much need for unions, but if there were, everyone would be a member at birth.

So, what would it be like to live in a socialist country? Actually, not all that bad. Yes, taxes would be near 100%, but then social services would cover nearly everything, and they would be offered in sort of a smorgasbord or al-a-carte format. The emphasis of government would be on a very active participatory democracy; there would be little if any "mandating" of anything and a strong emphasis on the individual. Companies would be run more in a co-op fashion, with the focus on needs and social uses rather than artificial want and profit. Financial institutions would be similar to credit unions, whereby members have a say in the company's policies; that is if there's even a need for money. There would be a strong emphasis on the long term approach to maintaining infrastructure too. Personally, I would have no problem with a socialist government, but unfortunately, the world has never actually had a socialist government. Greed and power always seems to get in the way. Scandinavia has gotten close; consistently ranking as the happiest and healthiest and best educated places to work and live with some of the longest life expectancies in the world, and the most environmentally friendly as well. What's not to like? Let me tell you.

Sadly, the EC's mandatory "open door" policy to immigration has cause these once idyllic nations to come to their collective breaking points as immigrants fail (intentionally it would appear) to adopt to the same work ethic as the native populations which believe in sharing the work (and taxes) while sharing the obvious benefits too. Instead, the immigrants, mostly from poorer and less educated nations in Africa, believe in simply enjoying the perks of Scandinavian life without contributing back to society. This stress has nearly broken the back of their socialistic democrat forms of government, but that's another story for another time. The question as to whether America is becoming "socialist" under Obama and Democrats, the answer is a profound "no" (and a hearty chuckle).

So in reality, we are morphing into a corporate fascist State. Corporations, using the government, previously pushed us to the Right and now is pushing us toward the Left, but the ultimate goal is to diminish the power of the individual while increasing our dependence on the State, which in turn, is controlled by Wallstreet and the corporate elite. In short, we're to become economic serfs with the government serving as the manager and corporations as the owners of us all. Of course, the "big prize" is the creation of a single interlocking global corporation. That means creating and using global organizations to serve as the intermediaries on global projects and national one's on more regional projects.

National governments, like Washington, become much more pervasive in role of overseer while local and state governments become weaker. This role also enables the corporations to use taxpayer money to acquire resources for their uses rather than their money, while at the same time, shielding their intentions behind the illusion of a sovereign government. They also can have the national government take other actions on their behalf, like wars, trade agreements, or treaties, to enhance their wealth and power on the taxpayer's dollar rather than theirs. In further defining corporatism, its founder, Benito Mussolini said, “Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.” . What he's talking about is the concept we're now experiencing, that of perpetual war---like the "war on terrorism"---to maintain control over the population and the exploitation of resources by corporations, be those natural resources, national resources, or the individual. Sound familiar? Now, what are you going to do about?

No comments: