THE UNITED STATES SURRENDERS

[Darth Fader]

Yep, just like I predicted, states will lead the way, Obama won't.

 

[ttystikk]

Yep, just like I predicted, states will lead the way, Obama won't.

I don't care who leads, just as long as someone gets off their ass to dance!

 

[squiggly]

We might be moving towards an authoritarian state, but authoritarianism =/= fascism. The reverse, however, is true. All fascism possesses an authoritarian component, but it's not something which runs both directions.

Out of the 10 or so firm (read: absolute) criteria which define fascists states (there are 3-4 others which are hotly debated, but the basic tenets are well agreed upon)--we satisfy maybe one or two, and only very slightly by comparison to states for which the fascist system of government was named (read: 1920s-40s Italy).

The problem with saying our nation is fascist is that it's a hyperbolic statement.

While hyperbole gets people's attention, what it does even better is erode the true meaning of the idea/thing being used as hyperbole.

I'll give you an example:
Comparing Obama to Hitler or Stalin actually get's Hitler and Stalin off the hook in a lot of ways.

If we're saying that Obama is so bad he's like Hitler or Stalin doesn't that really make both of those men out to be way better than they actually are?

Thus, if this is fascism we're living under then it must not have been all that bad to live in 1920s-40s Italy.

What we know, in fact, is that quite the opposite of that is true. It was terrible to live in Italy during that time for a large swath of the population--and for many more reasons than the problems you have with our government.

If you put fascism on a spectrum from Capitalism ---------->----------Fascism, THEN maybe you can make the case that we've moved a step in the direction of fascism (by becoming more authoritarian).
However, the truth is these two things don't really belong on a spectrum together--and even if they did we'd still be overwhelmingly biased towards the capitalistic end of the spectrum.
That's not a guess. It's not an opinion. It's reality.

Calling something that which it clearly is not, especially when the thing you're calling it is a bad thing, can have the unintended effect of making that bad thing seem better than it is--even if it your intention to make the relatively good thing look worse than it is (which is obviously the case here).

If I eat spaghetti and say it tastes like shit, does it really taste like shit? Would I prefer to eat feces or the spaghetti in reality?

It's a hyperbolic statement meant to show my distaste for the spaghetti. The problem is that when you're talking politics people often take hyperbole literally. In this case many people will think the spaghetti actually tastes like poo (rather than it simply tasting bad).


There are two issues here:

1. People become more disillusioned than they ought to be.

2. People, believing nonsense and using improper definitions, lose credibility in the eyes of the many thereby losing what small ability they may have had to actually make a difference.


If you want to change something, you call it what it is--not what it might be in some overly trumped up hyperbolic version of the world. The truth is often more damning than fiction, because it's much easier to demonstrate. That's something worth remembering and living by, especially when it comes to politics of all things.

 

[Burned Haze]

Freedom should be right of choice? Fascist funks :(

 

[ttystikk]

Fascism is when corporate power and government power collude in the taking of the people's rights. That's the definition- and the brown shirts of the twenties were just as fascist as their sons, even if they weren't gassing anyone yet. B'nai Brith (apologies to spelling) has as a key foundation stone to its existence the vigilance against the attitudes of force long before it comes to bloodshed. The ideologies remain similar, and the attitudes. To say the Nazis weren't fascist before Krystallnacht just because they weren't killing people in the streets is incorrect. The water is the same, be it a trickle or a flood...

So how are we different? We tax our own citizens into poverty to pay for the largest, most destructive military machine in human history... and then of COURSE, we need to test it- and keep everyone else in line by holding them to standards we don't live up to ourselves- soooo... we go into 'limited engagements', which inevitably spiral into long, drawn out, profitable events for all the defense contractors and their shareholders. Paranoid? Nah. Go look it up yourself! Check out who has the biggest law firm in the country doing their lobbying? Lockheed Martin. Even bigger than Monsanto, and oh yeah- it's illegal for you to build anything that might be a competitive product. They really like to keep all their toys to themselves!

In America, we don't have illegal corruption- we just bribe a senator to legalize it!

So, you were setting something about how our system isn't fascist, Squiggly? Perhaps you would say our society does not have a hated enemy within to keep the population busy/divided/distracted? I know you, and I know you would never say that. you have mentioned you grew up right in the crosshairs of what passes for 'racial equality' in our system of government, policing and 'justice'.

We already have a privileged class in this country, and it's getting richer as the rest of the country is getting progressively poorer. This is the class with access to the ears and levers of power, so they're happy. How is this different from fascism, specifically? Economic classism is one of the oldest, well worn excuses in the book of apologists to dictatorship.

 

[squiggly]

Well for one we're almost totally devoid of the type of rabid nationalism which is associated with fascist society, and even while that does exist in some sectors we are missing the violent opposition to other ideologies (ie if you don't love the state you get your face kicked in).

You saying what you're saying here is evidence enough of that.

We are also missing the absolute dedication to capitalistic gains (capitalism and fascism are hopelessly linked) which has often been the virus which brings fascism to its full fruition. What I mean by this is that we still have in place a myriad of social safety nets and these are still largely supported by the masses (social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, etc). Social programs like these are not components of fascism and in fact have often been the first things to be dismantled in fascist states.

You have offered an EXTREMELY oversimplified definition of fascism here. What you've described could just as easily be described as oligarchy or plutocracy, and these are in fact probably better approximations to the societal structure we're working under in this country.

We lack a "supreme leader" something which is 99% of the time a feature of fascism, and the person around which overnationalistic feelings rally.

Furthermore our class system is far too varied yet to be simply boiled down to bourgeoisie/proletariat. Things are certainly stacking in the favor of the rich, but even among the rich there is a lack of centralization of power.

In fact most of the power is centralized within corporations as you point out. The proper way to describe such a system is a corporatocracy, not facism. Facism doesn't require collusion with corporations but is rather much more about a centralization of power into an executive branch or (most often) a dictatorship.

Just because we have elected a bunch of asshats who can't get together and do anything doesn't mean our power is centralized in this country. Quite far from it. "Parlimentary" interests, if you will, still hold sway in this country. In fact the congress is still very much the single most powerful entity in this country and it is made up of many hundreds of elected persons.

Beyond all, fascism has most often been a movement of the people which has sought to centralize power--often in response to extreme economic downturn. So it was with Mussolini and Hitler. The people, not corporations, overwhelmingly gave these men their power.

Today we see a different structure, where power flows from corporations downward--this was made even more pronounced by citizens united.

The structure of fascism is different, where the power flows from a centralized group of government officials (and usually from a single dictator) and they then place high priority on corporate interests. Corporations are, thus, very important and powerful--but only because the supreme leaders wish it to be so.

That paradigm is reversed in our country right now.

Like I said you can make the argument that perhaps we're setting the stage for fascism here, and that might not be way off the mark--but the reality is that we're nothing close to a true fascist state at this precise moment.

The executive branch, while it's done it's best job of grabbing power in the last 20ish years, still has quite a way to go before it can do away with congress. Marginalizing congress' power would have to be step 1 to establishing a fascist society, and even while they have neutered themselves with their own stupidity--were they able to make some decisions those decisions would be binding.

You're missing so many of the building blocks of fascism here to even begin to make a worthy case that it's what we're looking at.

What were looking at certainly is not good, but it's also not fascism.

The point I'm making is that it's better to simply call it out for what it is--which you've basically done by making your smaller points here. There's no need to overextend and call it fascism. That discredits your viewpoint because you've introduced a flawed, and essentially false, equivalency.

It's better to just say, as you have,

We tax our own citizens into poverty to pay for the largest, most destructive military machine in human history... and then of COURSE, we need to test it- and keep everyone else in line by holding them to standards we don't live up to ourselves- soooo... we go into 'limited engagements', which inevitably spiral into long, drawn out, profitable events for all the defense contractors and their shareholders. Paranoid? Nah. Go look it up yourself! Check out who has the biggest law firm in the country doing their lobbying? Lockheed Martin. Even bigger than Monsanto, and oh yeah- it's illegal for you to build anything that might be a competitive product. They really like to keep all their toys to themselves!

In America, we don't have illegal corruption- we just bribe a senator to legalize it!

We already have a privileged class in this country, and it's getting richer as the rest of the country is getting progressively poorer. This is the class with access to the ears and levers of power, so they're happy.

That's bad enough without having to errantly call it fascism, is it not?

It sounds pretty shitty to me, I don't see the need to make a further connection beyond what is the blatant truth you've stated here.


My fear is that by calling what we have now fascism (as many do) we run the risk of failing to put a stop to it before it ACTUALLY becomes fascism, and then by that time we'll have been drowned out as the "boy who cried wolf".

Wait until blatant fascism rears its head if its going to, that way when it does the attention that word gets will be deserved and it will make an impact--because there will be no mistaking that it is the right word.

As for now, there are better words to describe what is happening.

I'm not saying we need to gas people to be fascists, but we should be closer to the real thing.

If anything we've set a bunch of fascist conditions via the congress such that things like what you pointed out with Lockheed are possible. This isn't a case of some dictator coming in and paving the way for Lockheed. In precisely the opposite way that fascists would have done it, we used congress to make that happen.

If anything we've become too corporatized in that sense (ie corporatocracy).

 

[ttystikk]

Hee hee hee, shit squiggs- you want me to write a fuckin' novel, don't ya? LOL

I'm not biting, lol. I'm just surprised to see that you've actually said a great deal in support of my views, even while saying you oppose them. I mean no disrespect, I just see that you and I have a different enough viewpoint that we need to go back to basics and define terms- and in so doing at least come to a better understanding of one another's views. Writ large, this one breakthrough amongst those on all sides of political debate in this country could do much to break the logjam that characterizes our current political scene. And pigs could fly, too- Pan Am should run a special.

You call it like you see it, I will do the same, and let us both come out of this smarter for the practice!

 

[Darth Fader]

^ @ttystikk. LOL - I can't see posts from people on ignore (theres only one lol), but I'm gonna guess there's some pom-pons waving going on for Obama about how he deserves some "credit".

Honest Obe and the feds have finally bee forced into a corner and dragged along by the PEOPLE in states that have voter initiative. I don't give ANY credit to Obama or the prohibitionist powers that be. I give credit to the activists and people sticking their necks out. Choom Choom!

I also give credit to CA lawmakers & Schwarzenegger for reducing penalties here 'because once you get over an oz, penalties for MMJ under psuedo-decrim in CA beat the hell out of penalties under legalization in CO/CA.

 

[Bo0m]

I read they also said medical marijuna was still illagle.

 

[ttystikk]

There will be an initiative on the ballot in Colorado this fall to tax the sale of legal marijuana up to 36%. Personally, I'm not a fan of excessive taxation- but in this case, I'd like to see it pass so the taxpayers can participate in this windfall as long as it lasts.

Let's just hold their feet to the fire to make certain the money goes to schools as was promised, as opposed to 'law enforcement'. They already got their bonus- they don't have to arrest stoners anymore!

 

[Seamaiden]

Pff. Like how California's lottery monies are now pretty much entirely diverted into the general fund, instead of funding schools and hospitals like how it was sold to us way back when...? Yeah. Like that.

 

[squiggly]

For the sake of argument California =/= Colorado.

California has far more budget woes than Colorado has ever seen.

Illinois is in pretty deep debt and the lottery funds still go to schools. It's not possible to judge what will happen in one place by what has happened in another. Hell it's not even possible to judge what will happen in one time and one place by what has happened at a different time in the same place.

 

[squiggly]

Hee hee hee, shit squiggs- you want me to write a fuckin' novel, don't ya? LOL

The idea is that all of these societal structures (socialism, capitalism, fascism, corportocracies, oligarchies, etc) have more in common than they have which is unique about them. For that reason it's easy to confuse them with one another.

This can be said for capitalism and fascism in especially strong terms. They are virtually inextricable from one another. There is CERTAINLY always some capitalism in fascism, and there are almost always the seeds of fascism in capitalism.

That doesn't mean the two are the same.

This makes about as much sense as saying every liberal person in this country is a Socialist. From the American point of view that might make a lot of sense--but if you go to a socialist country you'll realize how far off base that really is.

The same thing is true here.

You're living in a fascist state so far as you are concerned, but if you could go back to 1930's Italy you'd realize how dumb that sounds.

I do agree with a lot of what you had to say, that's why I feel the need to correct you--because I find it to be a great shame that you've sullied all of the good things you had to say by inserting a bunch of hyperbolic hogwash between the lines. Its not worthwhile or necessary, and in fact probably damages your viewpoint.

I know you're a thoughtful person, but everyone you communicate with isn't--and nuance is important when you're talking to such people.

 

[caregiverken]

For the sake of argument. It's not possible to judge what will happen in one place by what has happened in another. Hell it's not even possible to judge what will happen in one time and one place by what has happened at a different time in the same place.

:confused: huh?

It is a Good indicator though..lol ..
Doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Is what?o_O

 

[caregiverken]

For the sake of argument

Hell it's not even possible to judge what will happen in one time and one place by what has happened at a different time in the same place.

So if you stick your hand in the fire, next time it might not burn?
I guess ya never know
Good luck with that ;)

 

[Kebz]

People of the world have been robbed of their natural freedoms and enslaved through consumerism and debt. Its why in all parts of the world there are wealthy corporate and class based elitists dictating policy to Governments who then lie and declare their actions to be in the interests of the people. Governments exist in a perpetual cycle of debt to the international bankers and Wealthy individuals. Manipulated by wealthy corporations with vast spending power. Really whatever the name or description allotted to the political ideology, the complex shell game, distraction and manipulation remains the same on a global basis.

Cannabis is a plant and we as adult human beings, with our own minds, need 'permission' from another adult human being exactly the same as us to grow and use it? Why?

Yeaaaa..... thats not really freedom, is it?

When something becomes absurd, infantile and obsolete it really needs binning.

 

[squiggly]

So if you stick your hand in the fire, next time it might not burn?
I guess ya never know
Good luck with that ;)

For lack of a better way to say it, yes.

Just to bring this back to my expertise and maybe lend some insight into why scientist get so frustrated with the over-questioning of their work by laymen I can offer an example of this.

So in the scientific realm regular people often question where the "proof" is. As I've explained on this board before science never really "proves" anything. In fact, the reason why scientists are NOT allowed to use the word "proof" (EVER) is the arrow of time.

The arrow of time is just a special way of saying that each new moment is different from the last one. Each instant is different from the one preceding it, and the one which preceded that moment.

This isn't just a guess, by the way, there are some fairly robust physical models which demonstrate this (IE that we will probably never be able to travel backwards in time and that time always moves forward). So it's supported by physics, logic, and plain old common sense.

The thing is, while we can control all of the variables in an experiment we can NEVER truly repeat them in the sense that we are unable to replicate the moment in time in which they were performed.

No matter if each variable is exactly the same every single time--the arrow of time always guarantees that we are doing the experiment just a bit differently (ie in a different instant).

So even while we can perform an experiment thousands of times in exactly the same way and get the same result, we are never--as scientists--allowed to say we have "proven" what will happen.

So even though the hand is burned in the fire every single time out of 1 million times--we are not allowed to tell you as scientists that the hand will be burned on try number one-million-and-one.

Are we fairly certain it will happen? Yes.

Can we provide a confidence interval (statistical measure) which demonstrates how certain we are? Sure.

Can we develop a theory (read: a SCIENTIFIC theory, a different meaning than the version of a theory which can be said as a "hunch" or a "guess") which can organize everything we know about fire and burning and how hands are susceptible to burns? Yes, we can do that too.

We can tell you that the data supports the hypothesis that on the one-million-and-first try the fire is going to burn the hand--but we must stop short of changing that from a prediction into an absolute statement of fact.

You can take this paradigm and apply it to any of the scientific conundrums we currently face. The need for energy efficiency, the dangers of population growth, how worried we should be about climate change and whether or not humans have had an impact on that.

When it comes to those things the world wants scientists to tell them exactly what is going to happen, and scientists CAN'T do that. All they can do is tell them what is likely to happen based on millions and million of data points and the analysis of them.

When we talk about this particular thing. All I've done is made a perfectly defensible argument which says that California is not Colorado. They are two different places.

I added a third point of contention by saying that, here in Illinois, the lottery money still goes to schools--so yes it is possible for that to happen. This makes it seem less inevitable that Colorado will go the way of California does it not?

I don't need to go through the whole "arrow of time" argument to make that point--but I figured you opened the door for it by using a very old conjecture which actually really applies to the way scientists feel about a lot of these things.

When we talk about climate science and everyone chooses to deny or ignore it, it's very much akin to watching the world stick it's hand into the fire and expecting not to get burned. It's infuriating to have all of the tools necessary to demonstrate what is very likely a good plan for humanity--but in good conscience to have to stop short of saying that we know for sure what is going to happen.

This is part of the reason why gravity is still confined to theory. While we take it for granted that the earth possesses gravity and that what goes up must come down--we can't say for sure that it will be this way in the moment following this one. Nor do we understand gravity well enough (we haven't even identified the force-carrier particle, or if there is one) to upgrade it from a theory to a law.

So to answer your question, no--I am not going to put my hand in the fire. But nor will I jump off the bridge just because all of the cool kids are doing it. I am a free thinker and my brain tells me that if we must stop short of making absolute predictions in the physical sense, then CERTAINLY we must stop short of that in the sociological sense when the variables in that science are MUCH more confounding and when there are innumerably more of them to try and account for.

 

[squiggly]

Cannabis is a plant and we as adult human beings, with our own minds, need 'permission' from another adult human being exactly the same as us to grow and use it? Why?

Yeaaaa..... thats not really freedom, is it?

When something becomes absurd, infantile and obsolete it really needs binning.

This really mirrors my initial point here.

This isn't about money or who can make it where. It's about freedom.

Most people can agree to buy into a system of laws (most)--but problems arise when that system of laws arbitrarily proposes it's dominion over personal actions which have no effect on others.

I'm fine with needing to "ask permission" to kill another human to use the language from above--but deciding which plant to consume? That's gone a stretch too far.

It is the right thing for ALL drugs, NOT just cannabis, to be legalized. It's difficult to make the case for cannabis without simultaneously making the case for everything else. I actually think that's part of what has hamstrung this movement for so long.

We've made it about this one singular plant by leaving everything else off the docket. When in fact the true injustice here is that government shouldn't get to tell you what to put in your body PERIOD. It's not about how good/bad for you cannabis is--it's about your NATURAL right to make those types of decisions for yourself.

Government might disagree with that right, but I think people have proven pretty convincingly when it comes to ANY substance that they will make the choice on their own.

 

[squiggly]

:confused: huh?

It is a Good indicator though..lol ..
Doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Is what?o_O

Just to expound slightly, it depends on what were talking about how good of an indicator it is.

Are we talking about an advanced societal construct with thousands if not millions of moving parts and variables like politics/policy implementation?

In that case, it's likely that not very much at all is a good predictor. It probably wouldn't be a good predictor from California:California--let alone from California:Colorado.

If we're talking about burning your hand--yes we probably can make good predictions about that. These variables are much fewer and more predictable in general (a singular fire burning a singular hand is an easier model to predict about than millions of people working in tandem to form policy).

This is known, in the business, as a false equivalency--and it is an exceptionally bad one.

Fires and hands are not the same as people and governments, not by a long shot.


Doing the same thing and expecting ANY result is called bad science from my perspective. Expectations do nothing but color your analysis, usually improperly. Strange as it might seem Buddha would probably agree with me on this one.

 

[caregiverken]

good answer Squiggly ;)
But I think we know from history, that all governments fail
I have no doupt, ours will too.(already has)