Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not how any language works. The definition of the word has to be in accordance with the facts. The act is people can say one thing and do another, I am sure Stalin would give you a most delightful definition of Stalinism, but he actually defined it more through actions than words.On top of that the definition DJ keeps quoting is extremely limited, and doesn't encompass all aspects, but rather focusses on one that is a major talking point for his ideology.
Cool.
But Mussolini literally wrote the "book" on it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Cool.But Mussolini literally wrote the "book" on it.
And he practiced it. I understand your point, but I think it is more sensible to follow my logic. The definitions of these words come to be known associated with the actions performed. In that way the word fascism has an extreme emotional strength associated with it, if you now justify the usage of the word based on a somewhat unrelated definition, you can easily call something fascism with all the negative impact, and justify it with a different meaning, which is exactly what DJ is doing.
DJ: This legislation is fascist [note: mentally added]In a very narrow, almost soundbite-esque, definition that Mussolini once gave[/note]
Audience: Oh my God, this definition is associated with Hitler and the 60 million deaths he caused. Gasp.
You get my point, I believe. That is of course on top of all the other points, for example it being wrongly applied to begin with, disregarding the validity of the definition.
Originally posted by Bardock42
DJ: This legislation is fascist [note: mentally added]In a very narrow, almost soundbite-esque, definition that Mussolini once gave[/note]
Audience: Oh my God, this definition is associated with Hitler and the 60 million deaths he caused. Gasp.You get my point, I believe. That is of course on top of all the other points, for example it being wrongly applied to begin with, disregarding the validity of the definition.
Yes, I understood your point. I was just playing devil's advocate.
To be honest, I still don't quite grasp Fascism. I don't feel comfortable with my understanding of it as well as ...say...capitalism, or socialism. I've probably studied Fascism more, on an academic level, than any other political philosophy, yet, I understand it the least. inimalist assured me that this is normal and recommended something to read, but I forgot what he said to read.
But, yes, what Rockastoll said jives well with my understanding of fascism, so I'm inclined to agree with his statement on the matter, even if Darthjello was joking.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm worried about this:Obama has said he will mount an opposition to this. If he finds a way to pass campaign restrictions in lieu of a court ruling against them, he has forever undermined the power of the Supreme Court. Not that I'm particularly fond of the ruling, but if he is able to, defacto, ignore the ruling, Roe v Wade, evolution, and lots of other issues just become whims of the current administration.
Originally posted by dadudemon
To be honest, I still don't quite grasp Fascism. I don't feel comfortable with my understanding of it as well as ...say...capitalism, or socialism. I've probably studied Fascism more, on an academic level, than any other political philosophy, yet, I understand it the least. inimalist assured me that this is normal and recommended something to read, but I forgot what he said to read.
I've been told that fascism doesn't have any useful definition.
That whole Mussolini debate could have been easily avoided if DJ had actually checked what Mussoilini meant.
He was talking about corporatism the political philosophy (in which many branches of public and social life are joined together in one single body- the corpus, hence the name, though it may also be taken to refer to the meaning of 'corporate' to mean any group of people working together), and NOT corporatism as in... to do with financial corporations.
Utterly different things. So it does not even matter how the definition might have changed since then. The subject of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with either fascism or anything Mussolini ever said.
Meanwhile, why such worry about Obama? He's not going to pass a royal perogative saying that the Supreme Court must be ignored. The Supreme Court is there to define the law. As President, it is very much Obama's business to try and change laws he does not like. That's kinda what government is. He has to go through due process to do it etc.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
....With the government having control over the corporations, not the corporation having control over the government. Corporatism =/= fascism.
Wrong. In a democracy government is SUPPOSED to be answerable to the voters. Corporations are only answerable to a few select individuals....and not always the shareholders.
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Wrong. In a democracy government is SUPPOSED to be answerable to the voters. Corporations are only answerable to a few select individuals....and not always the shareholders.
I'd say that in many ways companies have to answer more to the decisions of the masses than government does.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I very much agree. The fact of the matter is that not democracy is what has us living so nicely in the western world (like most people would have us blindly believe) but rather the separation of power and and the constitutional basis.
I agree, generally. Though then we get into the issue of constitutions, which have fallen out of favor with me.
I see them as having the same problems biblical literalism, among other things.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Supreme Court doesn't get fiat power, though. I believe Obama can legitimately force the decision to be overturned if he gets enough Congressional support.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Not really. There are things that are greater than any ruling. A constitutional amendment being one such way that is already a known tactic enshrined in the constitution.
forgive me, I'm not entirely versed on American law. This was just the issue I saw as I was reading the article. The "Liberals" are going to be so gung ho, they may inadvertantly undermine the power of the courts, allowing a more determined "conservative" the ability to do so in a much more problematic way. Politicians wont give up power they take. If Obama wouldn't need to do such, good, though the risk is still there.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Meanwhile, why such worry about Obama? He's not going to pass a royal perogative saying that the Supreme Court must be ignored. The Supreme Court is there to define the law. As President, it is very much Obama's business to try and change laws he does not like. That's kinda what government is. He has to go through due process to do it etc.
its not that he will outright destroy the power of the courts. Like I just mentioned, I don't know all the levers of power in America, but to outright work against the ruling of the Supreme Court does undermine its power. There are many interested "conservatives" who would be happy to do away with such judicial oversight, so it bothers me that they may be able to use the precidence or any mechanism installed by this issue to push that forward.
Sure, he can do what he wants and decide his own perogatives, that certainly doesn't mean there wont be unforseen consequences to his actions.
Originally posted by dadudemon
inimalist assured me that this is normal and recommended something to read, but I forgot what he said to read.
wow, no Idea what you are talking about
I'd tend to agree with Sym on the issue more than anything, that there is no really universal definition of facsim, but ya, I'm not an expert on these things 😮
Originally posted by inimalist
forgive me, I'm not entirely versed on American law. This was just the issue I saw as I was reading the article. The "Liberals" are going to be so gung ho, they may inadvertantly undermine the power of the courts, allowing a more determined "conservative" the ability to do so in a much more problematic way. Politicians wont give up power they take. If Obama wouldn't need to do such, good, though the risk is still there.
He's not taking any power he doesn't already have, in fact it's part of his job. Not having the system of balances to provide Obama (or even Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Taft, Lincoln) with the power to oppose the courts would be a bad thing.
Anything that the SC does is subject to the President and Congress, anything that the President does is subject to the SC and Congress anything that Congress does is subject to the President and SC.
Originally posted by inimalist
I agree, generally. Though then we get into the issue of constitutions, which have fallen out of favor with me.I see them as having the same problems biblical literalism, among other things.
Well, really my point was more about blind faith in democracy being somewhat misplaced.
I don't actually know whether I disagree with this legislation in the first place.
Originally posted by inimalist
its not that he will outright destroy the power of the courts. Like I just mentioned, I don't know all the levers of power in America, but to outright work against the ruling of the Supreme Court does undermine its power. There are many interested "conservatives" who would be happy to do away with such judicial oversight, so it bothers me that they may be able to use the precidence or any mechanism installed by this issue to push that forward.
No, this is completely wrong. I have no idea how you have reached that conclusion; it really makes no sense at all.
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of how laws are applied. But Government is the final arbiter of what the laws are in te first place. The Courts say, the law means this. Obviously, a Government can then try to CHANGE those laws so they mean something else, so long as they can get it passed in the legislature.
That's not even vaguely undermining anything, and it is not doing away with any form of oversight- it is how Governments work, doing what they are meant to do. Governments rule by passing laws, which it is then up to the Courts to interpret. That is the only process being talked about here. Obama says that if the current law means something that he finds to be wrong, then he will fight for the law to ne changed so it is no longer wrong. Just another day in Government.
I think it is worth remembering that the Supreme Court does not try to RULE. It does not say how things should be. It does not make judgments on what is right and wrong. ALll it does is tell you what the current law IS, for good or bad. They have said that current laws allow this practice. That is not necessarily a moral endorsment of it. If laws are introduced to curb it, then the Court's opinion would then be that the practice is not allowed.
When Prohibition was in the Constituiton, the Supreme Court would have backed it. When it was taken off, they would not back it. That's all it comes down to- an interpretational tool. How you can construe that passing laws that might alter these interpretations is in some way wrong or abusive is beyind me. To suggest that just because the Supreme Court rules something that it is therefore wrong to ever try to create or amend laws that would change the situation is... extremely odd.
So as I say, I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from. I suspect you have read this one all wrong.
Originally posted by UshgarakWhich is exactly why he defined the corporation as a large entity in which the financial elite control the means of production and spent most of the late 20's and early 30's courting American businessmen like Walt Disney and showing propaganda films in US movie theaters where he spoke in English about the wonders of what he called "third way" capitalism and fascism. What the **** else do you call it when you have a system where the financial elite, both foreign and domestic have better, faster, and more direct representation than the people. Even if you call it inverted totalitarianism (in which finance trumps government), it's still a form of fascism. I wish FDR had his way both with constitutional amendments so we had his second bill of rights and to allow 15 justices on the supreme court. Then none of this bullshit would've happened and we'd be in a far better place as a country.
That whole Mussolini debate could have been easily avoided if DJ had actually checked what Mussoilini meant.He was talking about corporatism the political philosophy (in which many branches of public and social life are joined together in one single body- the corpus, hence the name, though it may also be taken to refer to the meaning of 'corporate' to mean any group of people working together), and NOT corporatism as in... to do with financial corporations.
Utterly different things. So it does not even matter how the definition might have changed since then. The subject of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with either fascism or anything Mussolini ever said.
Meanwhile, why such worry about Obama? He's not going to pass a royal perogative saying that the Supreme Court must be ignored. The Supreme Court is there to define the law. As President, it is very much Obama's business to try and change laws he does not like. That's kinda what government is. He has to go through due process to do it etc.
Again DJ, you are confusing the meaning of what Mussolini meant by 'Corporatism'. Any tume he spoke of that, he was noit talking about financial corporations, CEOs or any such thing. Your claim that Mussolini defined fascism as corporatism in the sense you are using the word is incorrect. It's worth noting that there is not even any evidence that he ever said that line about merging with corporate interets, but as I say, the meaning of that line is NOTHING to do wuth finance.
Again, it has no bearing on the thread topic. Financial corporations contributing to campaigns- whether that be a good or bad thing- is irreelvant to Mussolini's words. Go check your facts properly (for heaven's sake, look upo what corporatism actually IS) and cease being off-topic.
I'd like to point out that the ideas of Corporatism are different nowadays than in the days of Mussolini. I believe Corporatism evolved pretty fast in the 80s by dropping old concepts and expanding into different venues. However, these are my views and don't represent the reality...so take my comments with a pinch of salt.
The silly thing is is how utterly wrong DJ has this. Under a Corproate state, all corporate members are meant to have the same amount of power; the various corporate bodies that form the state in this model work together and direct each other to a common goal.
But what he is fearing here is dominance by one group. That could not be less corporate.
In fact, no corporate version of fascism has ever been practised; in Italy and Germany the military and industrialists were disproportionately powerful.
Originally posted by WickedDynamite
I'd like to point out that the ideas of Corporatism are different nowadays than in the days of Mussolini. I believe Corporatism evolved pretty fast in the 80s by dropping old concepts and expanding into different venues. However, these are my views and don't represent the reality...so take my comments with a pinch of salt.