Fascism is about the illusion of private ownership, with strict, dictorial oversight by a central government. If that entails government partnerships with corporations, so be it. Fascism is fascism any way you want to slice it.
Could it be the same in reverse, a strong central government controlled by corporations, removing individual freedoms by the carload such as the Bush is doing? That is a fascistic plutochracy, an oligarcic plutocracy with fascistic tendicies, or basically, a conservative fascist state.
It's not COULD it be that; that IS what fascism is--strong, central government controlled by corporations, the central government basically merging with corporate interests. This administration is not a perfect example of it.
Regarding the notion a few posts back about liberals and universities? That's not news, that universities are places where one will find a lot of folks with liberal views. There are a lot of reasons for that, one of which is that those who dedicate their lives to scholarly work don't expect to earn huge amounts of money. Most university professors do not make much compared to those working in the private sector. In other words, they teach and research because that's how they want to spend their lives. Our system of education is based upon the ancient Greek system; hence the words "university" (coming from UNIVERSAL) and "liberal arts" (meaning education that is not strictly focused on trades, etc, and includes general education, such as natural sciences, humanities, and so on). It's also not news that those who embrace fascism, whether they recognize it as such or not, are opposed to liberal arts in general and make disparaging remarks about intellectualism, universities, arts, and so on. That's one of the symptoms of fascism.
It's pointless trying to explain this to those who call using ad hominem attacks "arguments" (as the person who called me names). You can't construct an argument around name calling. You construct an argument around making a statement, backing it up with credible sources or some other source of evidence, and then drawing conclusions. Resorting to "fuck off liberal" doesn't cut it. And that brings up the fallacy of arguing with the illogical--it's not possible. Why bother? You can't win when someone's response will just be "fuck off you stupid liberal." Where's the substance?
Regarding fascism, Mussolini, Hitler, and the post back there about US support for these regimes. Yes, that did happen. It did not last, however, did it? (But there are so many reasons for the US's involvement in WW2.) And it's also true that the United States had an "outbreak" of fascism after WW2. We've got another outbreak now. It does not change what the historical facts are about fascism, however. It just means that this time, it's us. Look at the rampant nationalism. Look at the disdain for universities. Look at the attacks on gays. Look at the merging of corporate and government interests. Look at the promotion of a national religion. That's where the symptoms are. (And yes, it's true that Wilson was quite a racist. So what?)
Back to that marriage issue, and that certain someone's insistence that failing marriages are the fault of all the selfish liberals who have no regard for the needs of children and so on. Interestingly enough, the rates of divorce are higher in the so-called red states (generally speaking), where you'll find so many more conservatives per capita. Those states have higher rates of divorce, so it kind of blows out the bottom of your allegations that liberals are responsible for high divorce rates.
Bible Belt Leads U.S. In Divorces | National Center for Policy Analysis
