You Can't Label This Mess

After an interesting, but brief exchange with someone I don't even know on facebook I came to realize that this economic mess in the United States is so convoluted and so wrong that all the quintessentially "evil" labels that have been used to identify it are all right, but also all wrong.

The conservatives, libertarians, and the spectrum of capitalists call this unprecedented expansion of government socialism and communism. Glenn Beck just recently said that's all wrong and it's the shiny, happy veneer of fascism with a chewy communist center. (Not really, but that's how I interpreted it. *tongue in cheek*)

However as I re-read a lot of the concepts of both socialism and fascism I realized that what's happening in America at this point in time is really neither. Without being overly technical - fascism seeks to influence the market by forcing a seemingly free market to act in the "public interest" by coercing firms through threat of penalties under law or some other equally compelling yoke. There are elements of this at work in the system now, as Timmy Geithner petitions Congress for the power to intervene into the operations of any firm whose failure would gravely cripple the existing financial system. The coercion part is evident as we see the government seeking to impose salary limits on bailed-out corporations or mandating restructuring as conditions of receiving public money.

However, fasicm is generally considered to be an ultra-nationalistic, totalitarian system. Where a dictator or other totalitatrian-like entity decides what the "public interest" is that the market will act toward. Ultra-nationalistic imagry is commonplace - often to the point of bigotry and scapegoat-ism. Glenn Beck makes the argument that the totalitarian isn't a single person such as dicator, but instead the leviathan that is the United State Federal Government. While this could be partially true because of the single party control of both houses of the legislative branch as well as the executive branch - it doesn't match the classic definition of dictator-driven policy, and it has the possibility to be changed through elections. Also, the policy of the US administration seems to be pushing towards a more global market / government which would more readily fit the classic socialism rather than fascism.

Socialism, and ultimately communism, dispenses with the charade of a seemingly free market and is completely reliant on a central nation-state entity to control production. Fortunately our government has not been so bold as of yet. However, the state does own 80% of one of the largest insurers in the world. Through it's aquisistion of Freddie and Fannie it owns the debts of a frightenly large percentage of US mortgages. Economically the government doesn't seem to be embracing the pure socialist philosophy the Russians fell prey to insofar as production is concerned. Socially, however, the state is seeking to redistribute wealth from the producers to the proletariat through an unfair and oppressive tax system and numerous welfare programs - which was one of the cornerstones of the communist manifesto.

In fact, I've decided I'm not going to continue to give examples, I'm going to list what Marx said was necessary for a state to transition to a completely communist society and you, the reader, will fill in examples from within the borders of the US:

10 Conditions For Transition To Communism (All Links -- Wikipedia)

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.^[6]

How many of those either exist in some form now, or are being formulated in legislation? I think the discussion of that will be a post for another time, but I know for me it's far to many -- terrifyingly so.

What does all this mean? The common thread among both these systems is government control either through outright ownership of production or by coercion using the deadly-force option that only the government may bring to bear. The government is expanding, and the fact that it shares as many characteristics as it does with either of these systems should terrify you. As this government expands it is bloating, and become more costly. As it becomes more costly the government will seek to wring more revenue from you and me. As this cycle continues it will become more and more oppressive until there is only government and government-reliant subjects left.

The fact that either of these systems can be mentioned in the same breath as America is appalling. The really depressing thing is , as I mentioned to this person I didn't know on Facebook, that as our federal government progresses down it's current path it is neither fascist nor socialist/communist, has none of the perceived benefits of either, and all of the hindrances of both. Should I be impressed or appalled that our current federal government can fail so terribly at government philosophy that it can't even be a fascist state or a communist one?