Monday, May 30, 2016

As Trump Pushes America Closer To Fascism...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth



Having read with great interest Professor Leonard Piekoff's 1982 book The Ominous Parallels it has been clear, at least to me, the United States of America has in fact been trending towards a more state controlled fascistic economic and political system for many years. While one can make the observation and assertion, with some validity, that the liberal left bears some responsibility for this trend, given todays political reality it is virtually impossible to not recognize the political right is pushing America towards fascism at an almost breakneck speed.

Republican (presumptive) presidential nominee Donald J. Trump (Drumpf) is the natural result of the rightwing's long march towards acceptance of fascism in America. Certainly the signs are many, for anyone truly interested and paying attention to both history and the current political environment that has lead to the rise of Trump.

Take the time to read the following linked article, Our Memorial Day collision course with fascism: Donald Trump and the new American militarism. While anyone may question a few specifics, the conclusions drawn by the author are spot on. An excellent read at the end of a solemn Memorial Day weekend.

Via: Memeorandum

9 comments:

  1. IMO, Piekoff observes through the lens of objectivism, as a consequence
    I can agree with some points, not others. (being stuck with my own lens) In particular, the youth movement. Given at the time of his book, there was one, a derivative of the 60s, VN and the incipient environmental movement. Today, the youth in general are deep in student debt and out of work: they feel the 'Bern'. The educated ones,
    like others of intellectual bent, see Trump for what he is and despise him. His Mussolini affectation is clear and his support base so attached that constant bragging, personal and crude criticism of institutions and individuals and ignorance of both domestic and foreign
    policy just solidify, in the totalitarian manner, his hold on that base. I would disagree also with Piekoff that economic conditions were
    not a factor in the rise of post WWI fascism movements. IMO, our current economic situation has grown increasingly frustrating to many
    citizens. In my 'lens' the cause involves the unfortunate phenomena
    of a mature capitalism which no longer creates wealth but extracts it,
    leading to its critical redistribution. It this juncture, the concern
    is whether Trump could gain control of all three branches, in which event Piekoff is correct regarding its possibility in a developed
    democracy. Whether narcissism plays out in militaristic world conquest
    is questionable. Most people find the narcissist personality offending
    and immature. Isn't the situation odd?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed it is odd.

      Whether Piekoff is correct in all his assertions is certainly questionable today. Much of objectivism I continue to find valid from a philosophical understanding. I also believe if objectivism is to survive a rethinking of it's pure capitalist model will be necessary.

      As Piekoff points out Fascism is primarily an economic system. It differs from full communism in that it allows for private ownership of property and the means of production rests in the private sector. Although it is highly controlled and regulated by the state.

      As a Rand protégée and advocate of unregulated markets (free market is not the same as an unregulated market) I'm sure he was some influenced by his bias. That aside I remain convinced his 1982 book was more right than not.

      I have "matured" in my thinking and now am convinced that for markets to be free and foster completion that keeps prices low and quality high requires a certain degree of regulation. Excess however at some point must lead to a reverse effect. Yes or No?

      Delete
    2. To tell the truth, RN, most philosophies are beyond my ken. However, I am reading a book recommended by a philosopher acquaintance that reinforces my perspective:
      corporations (in my early lifetime) once had mission statements
      stating provision of value for the community, the customers, the workers and the shareholders. By the time I retired, only the shareholders remained, productivity gains had been tremendous over that period: workers, customers and community
      were negative commodities, ROI by the week was the driving economic parameter but even sated shareholders insisted on better returns. The book (and myself) suspect that such a system cannot sustain, and fixes be investigated. Trump continues to wet himself, today denouncing the judge in his
      Trump U. fraud case and attacking the free press in his usual
      rude & crude manner. His minions cheer...and we cringe.

      Delete
    3. RN: ...if objectivism is to survive a rethinking of it's pure capitalist model will be necessary.

      If Rand were in her grave, she might be spinning in it. Although I doubt she'd care what RN thinks. BTW, isn't anarcho-capitalism the most extreme laissez faire type of capitalism there is? Hard to believe RN was ever a believer in it, given this statement.

      Delete
    4. Perhaps she would. You are likely to lose more sleep over is than I.

      A) This sits was never a believer in anarcho-capitalism. Nor was Rand, who BTW clearly was NOT a libertarian. She, like me, was OPPOSED to anarchy in any form. a

      So, if you 're thinking you can bait me and spin your web you are greatly mistaken. Enough said.

      Delete
    5. I was not attempting to bait you. It was someone else who was convinced you used to be an anarcho capitalist. I didn't believe it from the get-go. Rand surely inspired Libertarianism. I'm guessing the reason she wasn't a Libertarian is because (even under Libertarianism) there would be some government (even if it was greatly reduced)... while what she desired was a return to feudalism (with wealthy "barons" ruling over small kingdoms). Obviously the only way to get society to organize (in the United States) the way Rand wanted would be a revolution (as voting surely couldn't change things so radically). Rand laid out the blueprint in Atlas Shrugged (rich people revolt, millions of parasites die, survivors beg rich people to rule them).

      Delete
  2. I do not share your extreme (and incorrect) view of Rand. I'll simply leave it at that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you've got to admit that however you characterize what Rand wanted (re government or however she thought anarchy should not be, given that you said she was opposed to it) it will NEVER happen in the US. EVER.

      Delete
  3. When the government is controlled by a select group of people (the 1%, 0.1%, or whoever) yet they are not accountable to the government, I contend that you have a form of anarchy...something we seem to be approaching.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.