Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why won't Liberal Talkers (Radio & TV) call 'em 'Fascists'? (Original Post) OneAngryDemocrat Jun 2012 OP
Cowardice. Scootaloo Jun 2012 #1
"And we sure can't resort to name-calling..." calimary Jun 2012 #2
It is not name calling, it is using the right word to describe the situation 1-Old-Man Jun 2012 #3
You get it... OneAngryDemocrat Jun 2012 #6
When you call into the radio show, use the term PADemD Jun 2012 #4
That's a Good Place to Start... OneAngryDemocrat Jun 2012 #7
I think there are a lot of issues... HereSince1628 Jun 2012 #5
Because there are no "Jackboots" in the news. cr8tvlde Jun 2012 #8
Because their bosses are fascists. n/t rucky Jun 2012 #9
Good analysis is more important than labels anyway struggle4progress Jun 2012 #10
 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
1. Cowardice.
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 05:57 PM
Jun 2012

Same reason last year's leftists became yesterday's liberals and then became today's progressives; perhaps tomorrow they'll just be calling themselves "nice people"

Basically it amounts to trying to appease the fascists. "Gosh, if we call them what they are, they might get upset! And if we call ourselves by a word they don't like, they'll be mean!"

calimary

(81,265 posts)
2. "And we sure can't resort to name-calling..."
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 06:00 PM
Jun 2012

BULLSHIT!!!!!!

FUCK 'EM if they can't take a joke.

If that's what they ARE, then that's what they deserve to be called.

If they don't like it, TOUGH SHIT. They sure call us all kinds of names whenever they feel like it.

Taste of their own medicine. See how they like it. That's the only way to beat a bully. Bully them BACK!!!!!!!

1-Old-Man

(2,667 posts)
3. It is not name calling, it is using the right word to describe the situation
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 06:07 PM
Jun 2012

Fascism is the melding of Government and Industrial (Corporate) interest for the governance of a country. When corporations and their heads control the actions of Government then what you have is Fascism - and that perfectly describes our current situation. So to call those who engage in the unholy alliance Fascists is not name calling, it is simply using the right word.

You'd call an Economist a Kensian if he believe Keynes economic theories to be correct. If a person believes Jesus to be god you'd call them a Christian, if a member of Government works both with and for Corporate interest to the exclusion of concern for those he or she is supposed to represent, someone like Paul Ryan for instance, then you call them a Fascist. Its really that simple.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
5. I think there are a lot of issues...
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 06:14 PM
Jun 2012

and one of them is the general acceptance on lefty of Godwin's rule : the first person to call another a Nazi loses.

Back when the Cheney administration was acting like militaristic authoritarians I looked a definitions of Nazi's and I didn't and still don't think fascism fits us very well. Mostly because there doesn't seem to be any desire to 'bundle' everything together for the good of all.

Rather, what we seem to have is the very rich, epitomized by the Koch's, having turned governance at all levels into a marionette show. Things seem a lot more like feudalism, and 99% of the population is targeted for new serfdom. In that respect I think Tom Hartman is correct. We've got neo-feudalism--the rich are out to reroute all revenue streams to themselves.

cr8tvlde

(1,185 posts)
8. Because there are no "Jackboots" in the news.
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 08:44 PM
Jun 2012

The more descriptive terms may be ...

Corporatocracy, in social theories that focus on conflicts and opposing interests within society, denotes a system of government that serves the interest of, and may be run by, corporations and involves ties between government and business. Where corporations, conglomerates, and/or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country, including carrying out economic planning notwithstanding the 'free market' label.[1]

... and Citizens United has us on the slippery slope to Kleptocracy, defined by the pallets of cash for wars on terror/drug interdiction/liberals et al used in other countries and Black Ops to maintain global control by using state/taxpayer funds.

Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, from Greek: ??έ???? (thieve) and ??ά??? (rule), is a term applied to a government subject to control fraud that takes advantage of governmental corruption to extend the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class (collectively, kleptocrats), via the embezzlement of state funds at the expense of the wider population, sometimes without even the pretense of honest service. The term means "rule by thieves".

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why won't Liberal Talkers...