Skip to content

Fascism In The USA: An Example

08 June 2011 @ 14:20

First, let’s define the term…

Here’s a definition I put together for my old site:

It is when a government allows private property to exist, but controls and manages the use and disposal of property in all its forms. Citizens retain all of the burdens and responsibilities associated with property ownership, but are not allowed to control and shape its use.

As an economic system, fascism is SOCIALISM with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful COMPETITION, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary MARXISM, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. ENTREPRENEURSHIP was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

[Taken from: Sheldon Richman, The Concise Encyclopedia Of Economics, Liberty Fund]

On the political spectrum, therefore, it is located between modern liberalism and socialism.

Now for the example…

From The Detroit News, David Shepardson and Christina Rogers reporting, we learn [tip of the fedora to Mike at Cold Fury]:

Detroit — General Motors Co. CEO Dan Akerson wants the federal gas tax boosted as much as $1 a gallon to nudge consumers toward more fuel-efficient cars, and he’s confident the government will soon shed its remaining 26 percent stake in the once-bankrupt automaker.

“I actually think the government will be out this year — within the next 12 months, hopefully within the next six months,” Akerson said in a two-hour interview with The Detroit News last week.

He is grateful for the government’s rescue of GM — “I have nothing but good things to say about them” — but Akerson said the time for that relationship to end is coming because it’s wearing on GM.

“It’s kind of like your in-laws: It was a nice long weekend. We didn’t say a week,” Akerson said with a laugh.

And while he is eager to say goodbye to the government as a part owner of GM, Akerson would like to see it step up to the challenge of setting a higher gas tax, as part of a comprehensive energy policy.

A government-imposed tax hike, Akerson believes, will prompt more people to buy small cars and do more good for the environment than forcing automakers to comply with higher gas-mileage standards.

Big Businessmen wanting a partnership with government in forcing people to buy the kind of cars both of them want us to buy. In this case, of course, the government chose Akerson to run it’s GM division. Sounds like Fascism to me.

Dan Akerson is a moral traitor to The United States Of America.

To the Dan Akerson’s of this world: a hard rain’s gonna fall if you all don’t get out of the way.

  1. Otis P. Driftwood permalink
    08 June 2011 @ 15:55 15:55

    Looks to me like the auto industry version of obamacare, but going through the back door, so to speak. Raise gas prices and we will build smaller, more efficient cars. If they can do that, they should do it now. Next, Mr Akerson will propose that ONLY Government Motors gets THAT contract.

  2. 08 June 2011 @ 18:57 18:57

    I think we also have to look at the fact that the big businesses get a crony role in fascism. Ever notice that when there is more regulation of business and industry, that the small players get wiped out by the big ones? The big ones can afford the increased costs. The little guys flounder and go out of business.

  3. 08 June 2011 @ 19:34 19:34

    As with many other instances, the etymology took a strange turn when Anglicized here in the U.S. ‘Fasces’ was changed to ‘feces’ through popular culture.

  4. Adobe Walls permalink
    08 June 2011 @ 22:44 22:44

    Matt you are correct. One of the reasons O’Sputnik is so hostile to small business they are harder to control and make deals with. Command economies are much easier to manage with less individual cronies.

  5. bobbelvedere permalink*
    09 June 2011 @ 19:08 19:08

    Otis: A few more years of the Bolshes in control and methinks GM will be the only car company left [pun intended] standing.

    Matt: Exactly. That’s why, I think, a lot of folks prefer the term ‘Corporatism’. I like ‘Fascism’ because of it’s connect to Mussolini and Hitler.

    Steve: Both are just offal.

    Adobe: Spot-on, Wally.


  1. Fascism In The USA: An Example (via The Camp Of The Saints) « That Mr. G Guy's Blog

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: