Did he really say this?
"...the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."
From:
UNDER THE AXE OF FASCISM
And yet, here we are; again, again.
How do we negotiate this problem?:
"Democracy has lost its spirit and decayed into a mechanism which insists only on numerical superiority without considering the essence of human beings. It says the majority is all good. I do not agree, because it is the majority which is the precise cause of contemporary decadence." -- Nakano Seigo
Fascism, it seems, is strictly dangerous. Unless, like in the present case of massive bailouts, it is not. Does this make me, or anyone else, a hypocrite? The willingly ignorant? The loyal opposition? Or someone with no real choice in the process, and a (willing?!?) victim?
I'd tend to strictly limit the thing to which I apply Nakano Seigo's words; and twist them out of all recognition. I'd focus on the "...numerical superiority..." and "...majority...", and apply it strictly to the "...too big to fail..." problem presented by the collapse of the financial institutions. Elsewhere, people are asking "Why do schools hold bake sales, and the Pentagon does not?" or more locally "Why are billions being tossed at banks but not at schools, or healthcare, or investment in an R&D infrastructure?" (Unless you can tell me how else to describe the capture of a democratic process by monied interests.)
Those with the gold make the rules, that's why. It seems to me that is the biggest impediment to negotiating the problem of individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, right now. How many lifetimes could be supported, spent entirely at leisure, by the money spent, thus far, on these bailouts? I have no idea; and lack the tools to successfully measure such a thing; but no one is asking that type of question, it seems to me. I suspect it would be a huge number of lifetimes.
The personal danger? A willingness to turn a blind eye to the possible underside of the Hope theme, of how we can transform ^D^D NO CARRIER.
How close is it to believing that a New Man or New Woman can be created by serving the state in its moment of crisis? Take a look at the number of crises, and their global distribution.
Clearly, it seem to me, we need as U.S. citizens to emphasize our global nature: we are citizens of the planet, first. Second, we are citizens of the fifty states. The latter can be a useful notion. But how do we negotiate with every other such entity, also occupying the planet? The last time such entities globally grappled with renewal, also facing global financial ruin ISTM, some very insalubrious events occurred.
Those people, our not-distant ancestors, did not have things like Global warming to complicate the mix; and while they were wrong about the possibility of "eternal expansion" across the face of the planet (perhaps arguably, at least their imagination did not lack, but was merely incorrect), it seems to me that our species will not have recourse to that placebo; not this time. We're stuck facing each other across a known geography.
How close to the insalubrious aspects of fascism is the question "Anyone up for a New Economy?"
From:
UNDER THE AXE OF FASCISM
GAETANO SALVEMINI
Former Professor of History at the University of Florence
Visiting Professor, Harvard University
Visiting Professor, Yale University
The Viking Press New York
1936
And yet, here we are; again, again.
How do we negotiate this problem?:
"Democracy has lost its spirit and decayed into a mechanism which insists only on numerical superiority without considering the essence of human beings. It says the majority is all good. I do not agree, because it is the majority which is the precise cause of contemporary decadence." -- Nakano Seigo
Fascism, it seems, is strictly dangerous. Unless, like in the present case of massive bailouts, it is not. Does this make me, or anyone else, a hypocrite? The willingly ignorant? The loyal opposition? Or someone with no real choice in the process, and a (willing?!?) victim?
I'd tend to strictly limit the thing to which I apply Nakano Seigo's words; and twist them out of all recognition. I'd focus on the "...numerical superiority..." and "...majority...", and apply it strictly to the "...too big to fail..." problem presented by the collapse of the financial institutions. Elsewhere, people are asking "Why do schools hold bake sales, and the Pentagon does not?" or more locally "Why are billions being tossed at banks but not at schools, or healthcare, or investment in an R&D infrastructure?" (Unless you can tell me how else to describe the capture of a democratic process by monied interests.)
Those with the gold make the rules, that's why. It seems to me that is the biggest impediment to negotiating the problem of individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, right now. How many lifetimes could be supported, spent entirely at leisure, by the money spent, thus far, on these bailouts? I have no idea; and lack the tools to successfully measure such a thing; but no one is asking that type of question, it seems to me. I suspect it would be a huge number of lifetimes.
The personal danger? A willingness to turn a blind eye to the possible underside of the Hope theme, of how we can transform ^D^D NO CARRIER.
How close is it to believing that a New Man or New Woman can be created by serving the state in its moment of crisis? Take a look at the number of crises, and their global distribution.
Clearly, it seem to me, we need as U.S. citizens to emphasize our global nature: we are citizens of the planet, first. Second, we are citizens of the fifty states. The latter can be a useful notion. But how do we negotiate with every other such entity, also occupying the planet? The last time such entities globally grappled with renewal, also facing global financial ruin ISTM, some very insalubrious events occurred.
Those people, our not-distant ancestors, did not have things like Global warming to complicate the mix; and while they were wrong about the possibility of "eternal expansion" across the face of the planet (perhaps arguably, at least their imagination did not lack, but was merely incorrect), it seems to me that our species will not have recourse to that placebo; not this time. We're stuck facing each other across a known geography.
How close to the insalubrious aspects of fascism is the question "Anyone up for a New Economy?"
