The Dangers of American Fascism

[ZiprHead]

By Vice-President Henry Wallace - 1944

On returning from my trip to the West in February, I received a request from The New York Times to write a piece answering the following questions:

1. What is a fascist?

2. How many fascists have we? 3. How dangerous are they?

A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends. The supreme god of a fascist, to which his ends are directed, may be money or power; may be a race or a class; may be a military, clique or an economic group; or may be a culture, religion, or a political party.

Read more here. Well worth it.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I'll throw this into this this discussion:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/taibbi-bernie-sanders-banks-732633/

The first major move on this front was the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. This law torpedoed restrictions on opening bank branches across state lines. These rules dated back to the McFadden Act of 1927, passed specifically with the idea of preventing financial concentration.
Signed into law by Bill Clinton, Riegle-Neal helped usher in the era of giant national banks. By 2016, Americans had 57 percent fewer FDIC-insured banks than they had in 1994. Sanders cast the only “no” vote against Riegle-Neal on the House Financial Services Committee.

The next major move was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, better known as the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. A post-1929 safety measure passed in FDR’s day, Glass-Steagall prevented the mergers of insurance companies, investment banks and commercial banks.

The ostensible justification for the repeal of this historically successful reform was that such restraint was no longer necessary. Moreover, the creation of “supermarket” financial institutions was needed to keep America competitive with giant “universal” banks in Europe and Asia.

In reality, Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed to retroactively legalize the Citigroup merger, which had brought Travelers Insurance, Salomon Smith Barney and Citibank under one roof. That deal had been struck before Glass-Steagall was even repealed in 1998.

In one of the all-time revolving door atrocities, then-Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, who helped push through the deal, later took a job with Citigroup and earned over $100 million as a “senior adviser” over the course of about a decade.

This early effort at banking concentration had Sanders even back then thinking about possible bailouts. In an examination of then-Fed chief Alan Greenspan in 2000, Sanders asked why any regulator would approve placing so many assets under one roof.

“Are you concerned about such mergers as Travelers Insurance and Citicorp when they form a company with assets of almost $700 billion?” Sanders asked. “What happens if they fail? Who in God’s name is going to bail them out? Are you concerned about that?”

Greenspan characteristically demurred. “We do not believe that in the event that it turns out that a substantial institution fails that they should be bailed out,” he said.

About the same time, future Treasury Secretary and then-CEO of Goldman Sachs Hank Paulson began lobbying for the relaxation of the so-called net capital rule, which ostensibly barred investment banks from borrowing more than 12 dollars for every one they actually had.

Within four years, the top five investment banks were meeting with the SEC to press for this change, and soon achieved it. Although the actual impact of the net capital rule change has been hotly debated, what’s not in question is the fact that by 2008, debt-to-equity ratios on Wall Street hovered around 33 to 1.

this is a snippet from the article but, yeah, hate on Bernie all you like if you are so inclined, just don't say he's wrong.

 

[Tigers!]

By Vice-President Henry Wallace - 1944

On returning from my trip to the West in February, I received a request from The New York Times to write a piece answering the following questions:

1. What is a fascist?

2. How many fascists have we? 3. How dangerous are they?

A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends. The supreme god of a fascist, to which his ends are directed, may be money or power; may be a race or a class; may be a military, clique or an economic group; or may be a culture, religion, or a political party.

Read more here. Well worth it.

Seems to apply to both right and left wing organisations or people.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'll throw this into this this discussion:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/taibbi-bernie-sanders-banks-732633/

The first major move on this front was the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. This law torpedoed restrictions on opening bank branches across state lines. These rules dated back to the McFadden Act of 1927, passed specifically with the idea of preventing financial concentration.

this is a snippet from the article but, yeah, hate on Bernie all you like if you are so inclined, just don't say he's wrong.

In 1929 the U.S. had 30,000 banks. 10,000 went bankrupt during the Depression. In 1929 Canada had 10 banks. 0 went bankrupt during the Depression. Restrictions on opening bank branches across state lines are nothing but an Incompetent Banker Full Employment Act. Banks need to be big to survive runs from panicking depositors and to diversify to reduce their exposure to problems in local economies. Insisting that banks be small and local is exactly as idiotically self-destructive as insisting that insurance companies be small and local. Bernie was wrong.

 

[untermensche]

Fascism in the modern sense is the combination of big business and government.

It is a government of and for big business.

It is a government that looks after insurance corporations more than the people.

It is a government that lies to it's people to get them to go along with an unproved massive attack of anther nation.

It is a government at war non-stop to feed the military industrial complex.

Eisenhower warned of fascism.

And it is upon us.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'll throw this into this this discussion:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/taibbi-bernie-sanders-banks-732633/

The first major move on this front was the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. This law torpedoed restrictions on opening bank branches across state lines. These rules dated back to the McFadden Act of 1927, passed specifically with the idea of preventing financial concentration.

this is a snippet from the article but, yeah, hate on Bernie all you like if you are so inclined, just don't say he's wrong.

In 1929 the U.S. had 30,000 banks. 10,000 went bankrupt during the Depression. In 1929 Canada had 10 banks. 0 went bankrupt during the Depression. Restrictions on opening bank branches across state lines are nothing but an Incompetent Banker Full Employment Act. Banks need to be big to survive runs from panicking depositors and to diversify to reduce their exposure to problems in local economies. Insisting that banks be small and local is exactly as idiotically self-destructive as insisting that insurance companies be small and local. Bernie was wrong.

Totally agree. Banks also expand in order to offer additional services and to meet their customers needs. For example, a large manufacturing company needs a larger bank in many locations that also has international banking. I do think that allowing banks to offer investment banking options is too risky for an entity with FDIC deposits to safeguard.

 

[untermensche]

In 1929 the U.S. had 30,000 banks. 10,000 went bankrupt during the Depression. In 1929 Canada had 10 banks. 0 went bankrupt during the Depression. Restrictions on opening bank branches across state lines are nothing but an Incompetent Banker Full Employment Act. Banks need to be big to survive runs from panicking depositors and to diversify to reduce their exposure to problems in local economies. Insisting that banks be small and local is exactly as idiotically self-destructive as insisting that insurance companies be small and local. Bernie was wrong.

Totally agree. Banks also expand in order to offer additional services and to meet their customers needs. For example, a large manufacturing company needs a larger bank in many locations that also has international banking. I do think that allowing banks to offer investment banking options is too risky for an entity with FDIC deposits to safeguard.

Commercial and investment separated in 1933. No banking collapses.

Glass-Steagall repealed in 1999. Huge banks start collapsing 7 years later.

Sure.

We are total suckers. Piss on us some more.

Tell us there is no connection.

 

[Bomb#20]

In 1929 the U.S. had 30,000 banks. 10,000 went bankrupt during the Depression. In 1929 Canada had 10 banks. 0 went bankrupt during the Depression. Restrictions on opening bank branches across state lines are nothing but an Incompetent Banker Full Employment Act. Banks need to be big to survive runs from panicking depositors and to diversify to reduce their exposure to problems in local economies. Insisting that banks be small and local is exactly as idiotically self-destructive as insisting that insurance companies be small and local. Bernie was wrong.

Totally agree. Banks also expand in order to offer additional services and to meet their customers needs. For example, a large manufacturing company needs a larger bank in many locations that also has international banking. I do think that allowing banks to offer investment banking options is too risky for an entity with FDIC deposits to safeguard.

Commercial and investment separated in 1933. No banking collapses.

Glass-Steagall repealed in 1999. Huge banks start collapsing 7 years later.

Sure. ... Tell us there is no connection.

Um, where exactly do you see me or Harry supporting repeal of Glass-Steagall? Glass-Steagall was smart. The McFadden Act was stupid. If you can't overcome your knee-jerk support of every possible restriction on business and judge them case-by-case, at least stop taking for granted that everyone else is just as knee-jerk as you are.

 

[untermensche]

I have problems with any dictatorial power structures but it is not reflexive. It is based on contemplation and a sense of morality.

Allowing commercial banks to comingle with investment banks was shown to be a disastrous idea.

 

[steve_bank]

We are not fascist not even close. Read the entire link. People hurl fascist as a pejorative without understanding what it meant historically.

While Trump plays to segment with populism and nationalism we are harley regimented with enforced conformity and allegiance associated with historical fascism.

Trump is authoritarian. He demands personal allegiance from those around him to an extreme, but that is not fascism. He believes he always knows best and attacks those who disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,[5] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[6] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries.[6] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[6][7][8][9][10][11]

https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/the-fuehrer-principle/

Hitler is Germany and Germany is Hitler. Whatever he does is necessary. Whatever he does is successful. Clearly the Führer has divine blessing.”

The Führer Principle required everyone in Nazi Germany to accept that Hitler had all the solutions to Germany’s problems

 

[untermensche]

We are not fascist not even close.

When the people have no voice in government, no say in government, it is fascism.

When a government is at war without end it is fascism.

Live in your fantasy world if you must but the US is an example of fascism with a few remaining elections that are meaningless.

 

[Trausti]

We are not fascist not even close.

When the people have no voice in government, no say in government, it is fascism.

When a government is at war without end it is fascism.

Live in your fantasy world if you must but the US is an example of fascism with a few remaining elections that are meaningless.

When the talk show hosts can constantly mock the President without fear of government retribution it is fascism. When the President promotes the right of citizens be keep and bear arms it is fascism. When state governments can sue the President and the federal government in court to stop a government policy it is fascism. When the government cuts thousands of regulations it is fascism. Oh, wait. No it's not.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

We are not fascist not even close.

When the people have no voice in government, no say in government, it is fascism.

When a government is at war without end it is fascism.

Live in your fantasy world if you must but the US is an example of fascism with a few remaining elections that are meaningless.

We the talk show hosts can constantly mock the President without fear of government retribution it is fascism. When the President promotes the right of citizens be keep and bear arms it is fascism. When state governments can sue the President and the federal government in court to stop a government policy it is fascism. When the government cuts thousands of regulations it is fascism. Oh, wait. No it's not.

That pretends that he hasn't glorified hurting the press, that the regulations he cut were hurting citizens rather than protecting them, and that the benefit didn't go entirely to the biggest corporations, when he talks about arming citizens but simultaneously dehumanizes a subset of citizens, we are on the path to fascism. Call it proto fascism if it makes you feel better but it's right out of he demagogue playbook, mein kampf

 

[Trausti]

We the talk show hosts can constantly mock the President without fear of government retribution it is fascism. When the President promotes the right of citizens be keep and bear arms it is fascism. When state governments can sue the President and the federal government in court to stop a government policy it is fascism. When the government cuts thousands of regulations it is fascism. Oh, wait. No it's not.

That pretends that he hasn't glorified hurting the press, that the regulations he cut were hurting citizens rather than protecting them, and that the benefit didn't go entirely to the biggest corporations, when he talks about arming citizens but simultaneously dehumanizes a subset of citizens, we are on the path to fascism. Call it proto fascism if it makes you feel better but it's right out of he demagogue playbook, mein kampf

Are you concerned that by writing that you'll get a knock on you door in the middle of the night; taken away, never to be seen again? Not at all, right? And while cutting regulations may, in your view, hurt people, it is bizarre how you'd equate that to fascism. Less government is the direct opposite of fascism. Maybe by supporting more government you're really the proto-facist?

 

[steve_bank]

I would not not call it fascism proper. Up through the 60s there were forms of censorship. I remember the Smothers Brothers Show. Heavily censored as they got into the war and politics. That can not and does not happen today. CNN would be out of business back then.

Times have changed. Today it is social media that becomes the oppressor. I/m no fan of Rosanne, but she got hounded off the air. A new form of enforced social conformity. The suppression of free speech and conservatives voices on liberal campuses.

The Free Speech Movement was about fighting governed censorship and suppression of criticism. In thee day Hoover used the FBI like his personal force going after people he personally deemed threats.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

We the talk show hosts can constantly mock the President without fear of government retribution it is fascism. When the President promotes the right of citizens be keep and bear arms it is fascism. When state governments can sue the President and the federal government in court to stop a government policy it is fascism. When the government cuts thousands of regulations it is fascism. Oh, wait. No it's not.

That pretends that he hasn't glorified hurting the press, that the regulations he cut were hurting citizens rather than protecting them, and that the benefit didn't go entirely to the biggest corporations, when he talks about arming citizens but simultaneously dehumanizes a subset of citizens, we are on the path to fascism. Call it proto fascism if it makes you feel better but it's right out of he demagogue playbook, mein kampf

Are you concerned that by writing that you'll get a knock on you door in the middle of the night; taken away, never to be seen again? Not at all, right? And while cutting regulations may, in your view, hurt people, it is bizarre how you'd equate that to fascism. Less government is the direct opposite of fascism. Maybe by supporting more government you're really the proto-facist?

I would say you missed my point but you must know that. No one is coming to my door yet. It took a while in Germany too.

 

[Trausti]

Are you concerned that by writing that you'll get a knock on you door in the middle of the night; taken away, never to be seen again? Not at all, right? And while cutting regulations may, in your view, hurt people, it is bizarre how you'd equate that to fascism. Less government is the direct opposite of fascism. Maybe by supporting more government you're really the proto-facist?

I would say you missed my point but you must know that. No one is coming to my door yet. It took a while in Germany too.

There are no parallels with 1920's - 30's Germany. None. Anyone who attempts to make that analogy should sue their history teacher for malpractice.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Are you concerned that by writing that you'll get a knock on you door in the middle of the night; taken away, never to be seen again? Not at all, right? And while cutting regulations may, in your view, hurt people, it is bizarre how you'd equate that to fascism. Less government is the direct opposite of fascism. Maybe by supporting more government you're really the proto-facist?

I would say you missed my point but you must know that. No one is coming to my door yet. It took a while in Germany too.

There are no parallels with 1920's - 30's Germany. None. Anyone who attempts to make that analogy should sue their history teacher for malpractice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books/hitler-ascent-volker-ullrich.html?_r=1
See if any of that rings any bells

 

[Trausti]

There are no parallels with 1920's - 30's Germany. None. Anyone who attempts to make that analogy should sue their history teacher for malpractice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books/hitler-ascent-volker-ullrich.html?_r=1
See if any of that rings any bells

Have you sued your history teacher, yet? While you at it, you should sue your civics teacher, too. You seem not to understand how government works in the United States. Hint: it's very different from Weimar Germany.

 

[lpetrich]

There are no parallels with 1920's - 30's Germany. None. Anyone who attempts to make that analogy should sue their history teacher for malpractice.

Lots of parallels with Nazism.

Scapegoating and demonization of ethnic and religious minorities, for instance.

Denunciation of the "lying press" (Lügenpresse) and "fake news".

Denunciation of opponents as Marxists and "an angry mob" and "the party of crime".

Being a movement of "Real Germans" and "Real Americans".

Endorsing violence against opponents. The SA "Brown Shirts", Mr. Gianforte's bodyslam of a reporter, pledging to pay the legal bills of anyone who beats up opponents, ...

Promising return to past glories.

Cult of The Leader.