?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Sat, Jun. 26th, 2004, 04:29 am
I am fairly pleased

Michael Moore did the honorable job of going far further than I expected.

I have been trying to tell folks much of this, without luck, since 9/11, and M.M. brings the point home: Fascism (the privatization of government power for financial gain), and the commodity of Human Life.

I recall, but was unable to find evidence in my journal of an incidence during my photography class shortly after 9/11, in which I proposed the idea that it could have been plotted, or at least allowed by Bush and his cronies for financial, political and or other gains.

I was accosted for having no respect for those who died in the attack on the towers...

Whatever. If anything I wanted to ensure their deaths, if allowed for dishonest gain, would not be repeated by exercising my skepticism in order to make duly certain of the threat poised at our throats. And now, with the release of this piece of important (even if not cinematically amazing) film, I have a mild hope that the continuing disservice to the people of our country will not go unnoticed.

It really is time to make sure of our rights and our voice, people.

Sat, Jun. 26th, 2004 05:01 am (UTC)
besserby

just a side-comment... since when did fascism equate to privatization of government power for financial gain?

fas·cism
n.
often Fascism
1. a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.


2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Sat, Jun. 26th, 2004 05:20 am (UTC)
holyloki

erm, last time i looked up the 'definition' it was specifically that, but your source is different than mine, and i don't recall where i looked it up before.

if you look at the nazi's, that was the primary goal of that regime. killing people was a by-product. (heh) Primary (off the top of my head) example: Volkswagen.

Also, if you look at the way 1984's Oceania is set up, you'll notice the same thing. It's not about the oppression, it's about the economic/class controls.

While the characteristics of fascism may be those things you cite, the inside story is primarily economic. It's all about getting rich from the blood of the lower class, baby.

This may be useful.

Sat, Jun. 26th, 2004 12:50 pm (UTC)
besserby

what you say about the nazis is definitely true. they first wanted to deport jews east, then realized the east was full of jews. then they wanted to deport them all to madagascar, but failed to capture the suez canal in order to ship them there.

however, the concept of fascism is a single, dictatorial ruling party that can, supposedly, get things done because it doesn't have to deal in petty partisan politics. germans were swayed by hitler because he offered to sweep away the morass of politics in germany which was crippling the actual administration of any public service.

both hitler and franklin roosevelt pursued similar economic "fascism." hitler created work by building autobahns, dams, and other public work projects across germany in an attempt to stimulate the economy and lower the unemployment level. this was economic socialism combined with political fascism.

fascism can be and has been used for the personal financial gain of a select few but such a goal is neither requisite nor omnipresent. fascism is not about money, it's about the way politics is run. to equate fascism with the enrichment of the ruler is inexact and overlooks the true nature of fascism.

fascists aren't always in it for the money; some of them truly believe that democracy is inherently unstable and that their proposed form of government is better. the scary thing about fascists is that they are not all motivated by money, some of them are motivated by (misguided) love of their country.

Sat, Jun. 26th, 2004 05:22 am (UTC)
holyloki

On second thought, I probably used dictionary.com to look it up (when I had an argument about fascism previously). I doubted my memory first, but that's what they want you to think..perhaps the internet is a dangerous way to improve freedom of speech, since it puts all our knowledge in one easily resettled place. Heh.

Sat, Jun. 26th, 2004 05:29 am (UTC)
holyloki

Wikipedia has some interesting things to say:

Fascism, and from within that article, comes a link to:

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/corporatism">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Wikipedia has some interesting things to say:

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism">Fascism</a>, and from within that article, comes a link to:

<a href="<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism">Corporatism</a>

Apparently it's the Vatican's fault. Heh.

Sat, Jun. 26th, 2004 05:45 am (UTC)
pope

Why do we always get the blame? Looks like my colleague's thoughts have been perverted if you ask me.