General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy won't Liberal Talkers (Radio & TV) call 'em 'Fascists'?
Some do, but most don't.
Why not?
And what can we do to change it?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)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)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)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.
OneAngryDemocrat
(2,060 posts)Why is it so hard for everyone else?
PADemD
(4,482 posts)several times, if needed.
OneAngryDemocrat
(2,060 posts)Any other ideas?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)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)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/