|
Dengue_Fever posted:I would agree with you, that oligarchy and plutocracy are fine terms to describe the nature of moneyed interests control over government, but I do think that fascism captures the effectiveness and pervasiveness of corporate messaging in particular. A plutocracy implies leadership by few, but it does not necessarily imply domination of the people by a non-stop propaganda machine and near total control over resources and thereby livelihood, I do believe. One of the distinctions in fascism is processing the people toward nationalism with the goal of continued empire. I would argue that most governments, if not all, possess a working plutocracy. The difference between these countries and the modern US is the extent to which national pride, and what follows as willingness to defer to national power and unity above all else, allow the flourishing of totalitarianism through silent acquiescence. I think the issue is simply about refining definitions, I think "Free Market Authoritarianism" is probably a better descriptor simply because Fascism in itself is such a unique form of ideology that is more than simply racist, militaristic and totalitarian state. If anything I think there is a clear divide between Putin's authoritarianism, which is obviously militaristic and socially reactionary versus what is happening in the US. If anything certain types of social progress does happen the US (most of the country has gay marriage now, 4 states and DC have legalized cannabis) but this progress only happens in a very limited framework, basically anything that doesn't cost those with wealth any money. Economically, the country continues to regress even though very specific social causes advance. Most middle-class liberals are silently fairly content with this, and if anything it is still happening in a liberal framework but with a growing undemocratic/authoritarian edge to it. A lot of people sat out of the 2014 election, turnout was 36.5%, not a sign of a healthy sense of democracy. (Btw, 2010 which was far from a robust turnout was 40%. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Nov 9, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
nopantsjack posted:ITT a poster thinks corporations want free markets. It is a descriptor of their ideology not the actual result. Also no, a "free market" is never going to exist under any liberal system. Authoritarianism is the natural result of any free market ideology. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Nov 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I believe the usual withering term our forefathers used was "Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor." Well he was a Democrat, pretty racist, a war time authoritarian and a interventionist, he also demanded a break from the past of international relations and at least established the beginning of how it is suppose to work in the modern era. That said, the most damning of all...the federal reserve was created under his administration and therefore deflationists absolutely loathe him.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Right but people are saying Wilson's propaganda did this. What was his propaganda which broke America? Or is it just the Fed thing? I think he specifically is referencing to his war time policies (the Espionage and Sedition acts), but I suspect the Fed itself has had been the implicit argument for a lot of his other critics. Libertarians and conspiracy junkies will always hate him the most because of the Fed, and the other stuff he did is sort of icing on the cake.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:Socialist Alternative was not the only factor in Seattle's minimum wage increase, but Kshama Sawant's campaign, which focused on $15 as its central issue, mobilized tens of thousands of people, and was able to defeat a 16-year incumbent Democrat on that issue, was very significant in pushing the Democrats in Seattle to support it. Yeah, I think there is a rush to too easily dismiss Sawant when having a seat on the city council meant she look keep the issue in the limelight after the election. It very likely could have died, been delayed or been cut back farther than it did. Seattle is "liberal" at times but if anything has in more recent times far socially liberal more than it is has been economically left-leaning. There are plenty of libertarian/pro-business types out there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Yeah there's a bunch of leftists but there's a still a solidly "economically libertarian" group as well because of all the techies. Yeah, and I also think Seattle just has more of a institutional pro-business lean, you have a lot of large companies in and around it that can push for a lot of influence and Seattle at this point it quite a wealthy town. Also, Washington State has a whole can be pretty right-leaning at times especially on economic issues even is Seattle is quite socially liberal. I actually thought it was quite a coup to get a law as strong as it was. It would be great if Portland could eventually get something similar, and even with the Democrats firmly holding every branch of government they probably aren't going to lift the state wide minimum wage.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:The rightward lean is pretty obvious, just look at the state's tax system. The most regressive in the country to an almost shocking degree even before you get into the fact that it's supposed to be a "blue state". Yeah, and it is likely to stay that way. I like Washington state and Seattle, but I like the way Oregon does things better even if it takes a bit longer to get our poo poo together. I hopefully we keep on following Washington State's more positive examples not its lesser ones. The way liquor privatization worked was ridiculous and ended up more expensive than Oregon's state system unless you went to a Costco, the company which pushed privatization in the first place. At least privatization Oregon has cooled a bit for now, but we'll see.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 22:58
|
|