Are the bailouts socialism or fascism ?

[kentuck]

Since the people would own the banks if it were socialism, do we own the banks? We are paying for their survival but they may pay us back. Do we own them until we are paid back? Or is this simply considered a loan from the people?

Since everything is for the benefit of corporations and big business in a fascist government, would this be a more applicable description? Is there any doubt that the banks have been favored over the employees that work at GM? Was there not a double standard for Chrysler and GM?

I would suggest that all the talk about our country going "socialist" is incorrect. Our country is going in a more fascist direction with these bailouts. We, the people, don't own anything. There is no socialism involved. It is fascism.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. How about neither?

Bailing out the banks may or may not be effective and it may or may not be good economic policy. But to suggest it's either socialism or fascism is hysterical and ridiculous.

[kentuck]

2. Tell us more.

What would you call it? Just a simple "bailout"?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. "Bailout" is not an accurate term.

And the real issue is what will be an effective way of stabilizing the financial system so individuals and businesses can get the credit they need and so we can avoid future asset "bubbles." There is precedent for government involvement in the financial system -- Roosevelt closed the banks during the Depression while emergency legislation was passed that placed them under the supervision of the Treasury department. About 20 years ago when the savings & loans started to fail they were placed under federal receivership via the Resolution Trust Corp. Nobody was hollering "fascism" then, and in fact these methods were effective.

The question with the so-called bank bailout is whether it will fix the problem. We need a banking system that not only makes needed credit available but that provides transparency in asset valuation. There needs to be control over debt-based securities and derivatives so investors know the actual value of their investments. Actually, this is capitalism. Regulated capitalism, not the free-market bullcrap that Greenspan and Milton Friedman and the Reaganites have been selling us for the last 30 years.

Whether regulated capitalism is the way to go is another discussion. But to throw around terms like "fascism" is just silly. It's exactly what the teabagger crowd is doing, and it sure as hell doesn't belong on DU.

[RoyGBiv]

21. Excellent post ...

Thank you.

[Democracyinkind]

3. I don't see bailouts as constituting fascism.

Unless you go with the famous Mussolini quote, but I highly doubt he meant this kind of merger between big business and the state.

If you look at italy and germany back then, the connection of industrialists and the government weren't handled the way we handle them now. Yes, there is the cryptofascist element of back door deals, of "not for the public" policy-making-benefiting-corporations, but even if this qualifies as fascism in your view I don't think anyone has ever implied that a corporatist state is necessarily a fascist one.

I think we should not start making use of these terms, it's just our political opponents wild labeling because they have no rational way of criticizing Obama's policy. Look at DU, alto of Obama-critics here, none of them was talking about fascism. The RW is just clueless, that's why we're debating this.

Let's talk fascism in a year or two if and only if this current administration refuses to roll back the fascistic bush laws. Until then I will disagree with Obama, but I will refuse to call him a fascist. And I will refuse to take anyone making that claim serious, as long as he cannot make a strong case for it.

[kentuck]

6. I'm talking about the bailouts...

I'm not talking about Obama? Or do you give him 100% of the credit or blame for the bailouts??

[Democracyinkind]

11. If it's just the bailouts: No fascism here. Fascism is more than a bailout.

In fact, I don't recall Hitler bailing out anyone. Or Mussolini for that matter.

And since Hitlers economic policy up to 35 and maybe a bit later is so similar to what FDR did, I think it is a big stretch to call them fascistic.

As Orwell noticed, the boot kicking your head is pretty much what constitutes fascism.
You get the the gist of that statement.

Fascism is totalitarian; so it cannot be made out thru examining just one specific action in an overall economic policy.

And you've got a point there, I was writing as if Obama was the creator of the bailouts. Agreed, he has walked into this one. I don't even want to think about the RW reaction if he hadn't done anything in that direction.

[anaxarchos]

12. Mussolini didn't mean "corporations" at all, in the sense that we understand the term.

The Wiki article on this is pretty accurate as to historical usage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

"The word "corporatism" is derived from the Latin word for body, corpus. This meaning was not connected with the specific notion of a business corporation, but rather a general reference to anything collected as a body. Its usage reflects medieval European concepts of a whole society in which the various components – e.g., guilds, universities, monasteries, the various estates, etc. – each play a part in the life of the society, just as the various parts of the body serve specific roles in the life of a body."

In truth, it was a racket for substituting "institutional input" in place of elections. Neither elections or "input" actually existed.

[Democracyinkind]

14. I agree. Don't know what I said that made you think otherwise.

Your analysis is a bit deep for DU though.

I would argue that to trace the idea of corporatism in a deep sense, and its german counterpart - the Volkskörper - like you are alluding to, you would have to study the interlocking relationships of the italian elite or the german parvenues/nazi backers anyways.
You know, to trace the metaphysical concept of corporatism you still have to apply it to the reality of those times - seems to me it was more about profitmaking than being part of a body - at least at the northern italian industrialists end of the deal, or at the IG Farben end.

And I totally agree with your analysis - the last sentence - the idea of the Volkskörper is heavily inspired by Rousseau's "volonté general" - a substitute for the "will of the majority", disguised as "one will of the national" body.

With a deep fellow like you, I could probably argue about that the Americans have become fascist after the second world war, if you use parts of that definition.

Still, I think this is going deeper than the OP intended.

I'll be on the watch for your comments. You seem rather smart and informed to me.

[Oregone]

20. And that famous quote may be famously fake.

Anyway, the bailouts, in their current form presented by Geithner, is classic corporatism.

[Democracyinkind]

24. Agreed. Corporatism or "deep politics"

but does this qualify it as fascist to you? Just curious.

[Oregone]

27. Not at all

It wouldn't be the first or last term that comes to my mind when hearing about the bailouts.

Fascism is entirely different and separate. Fascism is more like the antithesis of liberalism, or more namely the direction it was headed in at the time (socialism). Fascism is about ceding the importance of individuality, for a notion that the state is the most important aspect in all of human life & experience. Sacrifice shouldn't be made by the state for individuals, but rather, individuals should sacrifice for the state as a whole (not corporations) and the main goal of life should be to edify the state. The ultimate manner in doing so is to accept death and glorify the state in a time of war. Fascism care as much about corporations as it does about individuals: nothing. Any entity is only as important in fascism as its ability to help, strengthen and promote the state. At least, this is what I gather from reading actually sourced writings of ol' Benito.

[Democracyinkind]

31. I get the gist of your argument. I think our differences arise from your italian, my german

perspective.
I don't believe there is a definite coherent description. Especially in the German case where the totalitarian approach never was formalized. I agree with your socio political definition for the most part, the cult of death and the idea of the superior body of the state.
I don't know too much about the Italian origins, just about the roots of Futurism and Benito's early socialistic phase. Historians have made the claim that the main difference between Italy/Germany was caused by the Italian's Futurism-influence as opposed to the more traditionally-conservative völkisch-mystic influence in Nazism. Maybe the difference in our perspective on corporations arises from this difference - the Italian "überbau" was machinist, whereas the German was bureaucratic. Some have attributed this to the Nazis decision not to wage Revolution but to infest the state and overtake it, whereas Mussolini's might/gov. came out directly out of a revolution.

Nevertheless I believe both states were highly plutocratic in reality and that is why any explanation that seeks definite, coherent authority on fascism is destined to fail. There's also this great dichotomy between fascist principle and fascist reality, in that way, real fascism was always very machiavellian. If I'd only go by the ideology, the view on corporations you have gathered from Mussolini could be applied to Germany - it is surely there in the revolutionary rhetoric of the Nazis, the overcoming of the corporation, one will, the way of the state. But reality in Nazi Germany turned out to be very, very different,so much that the "soviet history " approach to the Nazis - that of corporatist thugs suckled in by the industrialists wasn't easily dismissed and still holds partial ground in the debate.

[annabanana]

4. Clearly, they are BOTH

Don't you watch FOX?

[rucky]

5. Transfer of public money into private hands.

I'm afraid we can call it capitalism.

[kentuck]

7. Is that a new definition?

Or has it always been that way? I'm sorry that so many folks appear defensive about the question.

[rucky]

8. no, I think you're right about fascism.

I'm just commenting on how "capitalism" has been redefined.

[SOS]

16. A form known as state monopoly capitalism...

"The thesis is that big business, having achieved a monopoly position in most markets of importance, fuses with the government.
A financial oligarchy results, whereby government officials aim to provide the social and legal framework within which giant corporations can operate most effectively."

The final stage of capitalism.
Next comes the failure of corporations that are "too big to save", followed by sovereign default.

We'll find out (soon) whether the stamocap theory has validity.

[anaxarchos]

9. A century ago, it would have been called state capitalism

- the integration of the state (or government) with private capital. Of course, there is always a degree of that but it hit a new level at the turn of the last century.

It would not have been called "socialism" because of the "property question" or the ownership issue as you put it. The government bailout does not imply public ownership, either through government ownership or directly. A few warrants or some preferred stock certificates don't make any difference.

Fascism is largely a political movement. It is true that the fascism of the 1930s often raised state capitalism to new levels (i.e. 'public' ownership and 'participation', to the benefit of private capital), but fascism was largely eclectic in terms of economic policy. On the other hand, "liberal democracy" has proven to be absolutely "compatible" with state capitalism. This last is said without prejudice. The social criticism of it is obviously true ("erosion of democracy", "rotating door between government jobs and corporations", and so on).

Today, the meaning of terms like "socialism" is thoroughly muddled. I don't think it is true that the current bailouts indicate fascism. I think they mean "Business as (un)usual".

[bridgit]

10. Those bailouts are the seedy underbelly of American corporatism

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Niether. They're frightened politicians trying to appear to be "doing something".

Unfortunately, what they're "doing" is at our expense.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. The right has been desperately trying to conflate the two, so as to

obscure what fascism really is.

When they have thoroughly muddled the definition of fascism we will be most at risk of it.

[corruptmewithpower]

18. Economic Fascism

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
Benito Mussolini

“Fascism is capitalism in decay”
Vladimir Lenin

"Three-quarters of the Italian economic system, has been subsidized by government."
Mussolini

[Oregone]

19. That first one may be a false quote

http://www.de-fact-o.com/fact_read.php?id=14

In fact, in many ways, it is absolutely contradictory to fascism. After reading a bit of Mussolinis work, I really reject the notion that fascism, as they used the term, should be paired with corporatism. I think this is a false meme, and a dangerous one people spread, being that it undermines people's understanding of what fascism really is.

[corruptmewithpower]

22. Got it online.

I've seen the same quote carried on many sites, but it's authenticity, who knows?

[kentuck]

23. I think the quote fairly accurately describes our present condition...

Obama didn't cause it and probably can't do a damn thing about it. It is what it is.

[Democracyinkind]

25. Cool. so we can agree. I'm with Orwell -

the boot is a necessary feature.

I think anyone who really wants to study fascism will eventually give up simplistic definitions. I once took a course at the university called " what is fascism ? " and they gave us several examples of explanation strategies to distinguish. The notion that someone would someday find the one sentence to grasp it all was pretty much ridiculed.

A second argument that I find crucial is that of the totalitarian aim. Not much of that in the current bailouts I believe, maybe in some rather abstract way.
Since I feel secure in saying that I generally don't know too much but am pretty well informed about the Nazis and all that - I would even dismiss the question.

there is a difference between "is this fascist?" and "is this fascism?"
And I don't even see how the bailouts, put in context, constitute a fascist act or a symbol of fascistic rule.

[Fozzledick]

26. No

Do I enjoy giving snarky binary answers to oversimplified binary questions as much as I enjoy posing self-referential rhetorical questions?:evilgrin:

[ddeclue]

28. Depends on who you're bailing out...

:rofl:

[Telly Savalas]

29. Why do we need to pigeonhole everything into an "ism"?

[JackRiddler]

30. They are corporate-state piracy.

An engineered robbery on a scale large enough,
by authorities high enough,
and with the daylight bright enough
to prompt
a desire to ignore it,
awesome cognitive dissonance
feelings of sheer helplessness.

Yeah, that's really the government there robbing everyone that obviously - what are you going to do about it, worms? Thought so. Now pay your fucking taxes.

[Kip Humphrey]

32. Its the wacky world of the circular political spectrum whose center is

M-O-N-E-Y.