American Corporate Facism Thread with Chris Hedges

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > American Corporate Facism Thread with Chris Hedges

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

While I would agree that organizing in your community is generally more important, I don't think this "electoral politics are hopelessly corrupt, don't vote" thing is actually going to accomplish a whole lot on a national level, because it isn't like they're going to suddenly go "Oh man, this 3% of people have stopped voting entirely. We should do something about that." The powers that be will instead just write off that group's interests, and some elements here (such as credit unions) do actually occasionally need to touch base with greater society, if only so they aren't (say) outlawed as illegal banks.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 06:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 12:55

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Dengue_Fever posted:

I stand by Nader's term 'American style fascism' or my term 'corporate fascism' as a good descriptor for the unifying ideology of the country. The corporations put their logos everywhere, they dominate messaging and propaganda through media and advertising. If you hope to have the privilege to rent yourself out for a living, you better do exactly what they want you to do, you worm, and you better not make any provocative posts on the Internet, either. Through control over money, resources, and messaging, they exert a highly authoritarian hold on American society. And if nationalism (the other part of fascism) serves their needs (as it often does) then so be it.

What's wrong with oligarchy or plutocracy? Do those just lack emotional pop here, is it that fascism is bad so a bad thing must be fascism? I mean, those are pretty much objectively the case, to the point where if I was asked about the American political system I would say "a plutocracy with representative-democratic elements."

e: to be clear, I mean 'what is wrong with using those terms to describe what we have,' which seems to have significant differences from historical fascism - if the Klan were night-riding to suppress opponents of the Republican Party I would be a lot more sympathetic to the use of the term 'fascism.'

Nessus fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Nov 9, 2014

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 06:32

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I imagine that means perverted Christianity, as in JEEEEZUS versus the guy in the actual Bible who can easily be read as a radical socialist.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 06:54

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Dengue_Fever posted:

I hate you guys, most of you are more concerned with presentation and style than actual meaty ideas. Or with criticizing anything in a condescending manner. gently caress you guys. This is the last post I'm going to make in DnD.

Much like Jesus, your original text block had many good ideas - none of them novel

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 07:34

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

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 guess I don't perceive this processing towards nationalism, or I guess more accurately it seems as if the project is entirely complete already. If anything it seems like the sense of nationhood is declining because the government is obviously non-functional and non-representative. There is certainly a weird vein of troop worship and it is rather encouraged, but I would say for the average American this is not the same kind of thing as it was for, apparently, the average German or even the average Soviet.

I think one other distinction that indicates we are more of a plutocracy than a fascist state is the recent success of several "culture issue" cases. Given the general conservative ideology of fascist states as I understand them, it would seem peculiar that there is widespread decriminalization of marijuana use as well as the seemingly-inevitable legalization of gay marriage nationwide. However, these are not matters that meaningfully challenge economic power, the way that they would challenge (say) religious or cultural power. You could probably make a cogent argument that the wealthy do not really care about these matters, so social progress and organization is not really hindered, except in so far as it could be used to advance other interests; beating the gay marriage drum in 2004 to turn out voters to keep the Iraq money train rolling, but in 2014, not really giving a poo poo.

Arri posted:

Members of the prevailing ideology believe that their votes mean something and they're really angry that their 'team' lost, so it's unlikely you're going to get anything but democratic handwringing here.

Also your thread has already, as of page 1, been coopted/redirected from discussing the topic to arguing about semantics with a bunch of people who are uninterested in engaging the topic but instead drowning it in a pile of poo poo specifically with the intention that you just shut up and go away because you didn't agree to their personal understanding of a specific word's definition. There's also the underlying thought of "the system is fine the way it is now, only minor tweaks are needed."

What, Comrade, would proper "discussion of the topic" constitute? Would it be permitted to question premises or would only asking, "Gee, how can we get started in completing this project?" be permissible forms of discussion?

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 09:27

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Miltank posted:

free markets for the global underclass

I believe the usual withering term our forefathers used was "Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor."

What was so unique or awful about what Wilson, apparently, did? I would really rather not wade through a bunch of Glenn Beck poo poo, and what little I know does not stand out compared to the Red Scare of the turn of the century, etc.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 18:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 12:55

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Ardennes posted:

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.

Right but people are saying Wilson's propaganda did this. What was his propaganda which broke America? Or is it just the Fed thing?

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 22:47

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > American Corporate Facism Thread with Chris Hedges