MovieChat Forums > Politics > Fascism, as defined and warned about by ...

Fascism, as defined and warned about by one of America's most loved President, FDR ...


The Hidden History of Monopolies: How Big Business Destroyed the American Dream
https://smile.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Monopolies-Business-Destroyed/dp/B08FBDC5G4/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=hartmann+monopoly&qid=1623549647&sr=8-1


On April 20, 1938, the Associated Church Press—a group of reporters for religious magazines and newspapers—met with President Franklin D. Roosevelt in Washington, DC. One of their first questions was, “I would like to ask you, how great is the danger of fascism in this country?

We hear about fascism-baiting in the United States.” FDR’s answer was blunt, and it reveals a lot to us today of how Americans thought of “fascist” enterprises back in that day. “I think there is danger,” he replied to the question, “because every time you have the breaking down or failure of some process we have been accustomed to for a long time, the tendency is for that process, because of the breakdown, to get into the hands of a very small group.”

He then spoke directly to the issue of centralized—and distant—ownership or control of business by powerful interests, in this case the banks in New York.

FDR contracted adult polio at age 39 and was partially paralyzed from it, so he spent a lot of time in Warm Springs, Georgia, where people stricken by polio could float and lightly exercise in the warm, mineral-rich water. On several of his visits, he’d heard from the people who lived in Georgia that they weren’t happy with the way the “local” utility was refusing to extend electric power out to rural areas like the ones around Warm Springs.

“One of our southern states that I spend a lot of time in,” he said, giving an example to illustrate his point, “has a very large power company, the Georgia Power Company. There are a lot of people in Georgia that want to own and run Georgia power, but it is owned by Commonwealth and Southern in New York City. . . . Georgia has plenty of money with which to extend electric light lines to the rural communities, and the officers of Georgia Power Company themselves want it Georgia-owned or Georgia-run. But they have to go to New York for the money.

If it were not for that, we would not have any utility problem, and all of them would be owned in the districts which they serve, and they would get rid of this financial control.”1 But it wasn’t just that rural Georgia was being screwed by profit taking in New York and was powerless in the face of it. The controlling of electricity in Georgia by this for-profit privately owned monopoly meant that rural Americans in that state would still have to light their homes with kerosene and couldn’t even turn on a radio.

It also meant that workers were often stripped of appropriate compensation for their work. “You take the new lumber companies that want to start on this wonderful process of making print paper out of yellow pine,” FDR continued. “One reason for the low wages of the workers in the pulp mills of Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina is that practically all profits go north; they do not stay south. If the profits stayed south, the whole scale of living would go up.”

And then he brought it all back to the word fascism, which the dictionaries of the day defined as the merger of state and corporate power, a process that was well underway in Italy— where Mussolini had dissolved the elected parliament and replaced it with the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations, where the Italian equivalent of each congressional district was represented by its largest industry instead of an elected member—and Hitler and Tojo had both moved to bring powerful business leaders and industrial tycoons into government.

Hartmann, Thom. The Hidden History of Monopolies (pp. 33-34). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Here, fascism is defined by the very President of the United States that fought it and beat it. Don't let Republican trolls tell you any different. And here I have to recommend any of Thom Hartmann's books on various subjects ... Oligarchy, Monopoly, Health Care, Gun Rights, and others. Thom writes understandably, clearly, to the point, and vividly ... in the true interests of the American people.

reply

Fascism:

A far-right, one-party authoritarian state lead by a populist dictator with ultranationalism, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy. Production is privately owned, but controlled by the state for national interests.

reply

Fascism has NOTHING to do with left or right.

reply

Fascism, neo-Fascism and authoritarianism are right-wing, not to be confused with an autocracy which can be both.

There are different personality characteristics of left and right. Left embraces diversity and exchange of open ideas and plenty of freedom which make the right emotionally uneasy and feel like there's chaos. Right prefers a homogeneous environment and people along with plenty of rules for order to feel safe.

Fascism emphasizes homogenized things like nationalism, tribalism and racial superiority and following strict rules aka: order which is why the right are drawn to it.

The left are emotionally comfortable in a diversified environment with few rules which is the reason they're open to multiculturalism, LGBTQ, lifestyle choices and open exchange of ideas.

reply

Nice try lefty. You're whole movement has been fascist since Trump got in office.

reply

Furthermore, the left prefers intellectual discord in the sharing of ideas while the right responds to emotion and also have greater fear.

You'll notice right-wing media like Fox focus on fear-driven stories like the threat of migrants, BLM or socialism. These are also trigger words meant to increase emotions especially fear. This causes the right to seek safety with an authoritarian leader who has no interest in democratic norms.

You'll notice that you and your friends are not able to present an intellectual argument to support your positions. Instead, you resort to name-calling meant to invoke a response based on strong emotion like anger. That works better with other right-wingers.

The reason you can't present a true argument is because most right-wing people are conditioned to follow instead of question. An example of this is evangelicals who are taught to never question church teachings. A recent example is the GOP demanding complete loyalty to Trump or they are vilified like Cheney.

A scary result is the many Q-Anoners who populate the right. Not one iota of critical-thinking skills.

Governments have studied the fascism threat since Hitler's defeat.

Certain societal conditions need to exist, also. Unfortunately, the U.S. is in serious danger within the next two election cycles if experts and historians can be believed. The Jan 6th insurrection could've been a preview.

reply

Yikes. Keep deluding yourself. Everything you say is ass backwards. Hitler was literally left wing. You're a moron and lefty, which are synonymous. The two go hand in hand.

reply

Your response is proving my point.

How Democracies Die
Steven Levitsky (Author), Daniel Ziblatt (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/How-Democracies-Die-Steven-Levitsky/dp/1524762938

Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism
Anne Applebaum
https://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Democracy-Seductive-Lure-Authoritarianism/dp/1984899503/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

21 Lessons for the 21st Century
by Yuval Noah Harari, Derek Perkins, et al.
https://www.amazon.com/Lessons-21st-Century-Yuval-Harari/dp/0525512179

reply

The only place where you have a point, is in your head, otherwise known as FANTASY LAND!

reply

Hitler was SO right wing. First he locked up the trade unions, then the socialists, then the jews. Remember Martin Neumoller's words. He was a nationalist- right wing. He was a racist and blamed and scapegoated minorities - right wing. He believe in rule by captains of industry - right wing. He started wars of aggression - right wing (like George W. Bush 2001 Afghanistan, 2002 Iraq, 2006 Yemen.), Eisenhower (1959 Vietnam).

reply

You know nothing about Hitler. He knew exactly what the problems were, who caused them, and fixed them, and made Germany a super power both militarily and economically despite all B.S. restrains from the Versailles Treaty and a Great Depression (FDR did the same thing). You can demonize everything he did with your bullshit labels, faulty definitions, and made up history, but real people keep it real and know what really happened.

reply

Full of shit, as usual.

reply

Fascism is the further end of the right wing. Learn your poli sci.

reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#%22Fascist%22_as_insult

Learn something from a non pozzed liberal college.

reply

Shut up you racist twat.

reply

The Hidden History of Monopolies: How Big Business Destroyed the American Dream
https://smile.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Monopolies-Business-Destroyed/dp/B08FBDC5G4/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=hartmann+monopoly&qid=1623549647&sr=8-1


Nine days later, President Roosevelt brought up the issue again in his April 29, 1938, “Message to Congress on the Concentration of Economic Power.”

Unhappy events abroad have re-taught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

Speaking of the captains of industry who, in the election two years earlier he had said, “hate me, and I welcome their hatred,” FDR laid out the state of things that three previous Republican administrations (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover) and their deregulatory fervor had brought about: Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.

Hartmann, Thom. The Hidden History of Monopolies (p. 34). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Kindle Edition.

reply

"... ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

Oligarchy. We have that now!

oligarchy: a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.
monopoly: a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity.

reply

Thanks for this. Hopefully it should clear some people's heads around here.

reply

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I had heard of Thom Hartmann and never really spent much time listening to him and had no idea he was a writer. Then I hooked up with his podcasts and started listening and he is not only someone I agree with almost totally, but he is something whose talent and energy I have developed great respect for.

He has written several of these books, and they are not concise, to the point, full of solid relevant facts. It is a complete delight to see someone who he makes an efficient linear airtight case for his beliefs, and can back them all up. Additionally though, he doesn't waste the readers time or money.

Nothing against say ... Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader, both are very good writers, and have a lot to teach people even if you do not agree with them ... even on hardly anything. Here is an excerpt of the foreword to this book wirten by Ralph Nader saying that Thom Hartmann did a better job writing about this issue than he himself did! ...

FOREWORD By Ralph Nader This is the most important, dynamic book—small as it is—on the cancers of monopoly by giant corporations written in our generation. I have read many books on monopolistic practices and have written on this subject. None had the potential to reach the moral imagination and indignation of the American people, where they live, work, and raise their families, like Hartmann’s engrossing volume.
...
Maybe you think the subject of monopoly is too legalistic or arcane. Start reading and see how many times you say “ouch”
...
We need to rewrite the existing monopoly rules and enable quality competition and alert civic voice to shape a just and productive political economy. An ancient Roman adage is pertinent: “What touches all must be approved by all.”

Ralph Nader Washington, DC


Hartmann, Thom. The Hidden History of Monopolies (p. xiii). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Kindle Edition

reply

Nice write up. I agree with several aspects of this regarding monopolies, although I question use of the descriptor "fascism".

Although... you realize that you're supporting a modern Conservative argument, right? The very core of even legacy Conservative ideology is that when centralized control over free enterprise is allowed, be it by government or Big Business, it creates the exact problem you just described. Decentralization is key to a free society, from freedom of opportunity to freedom of speech, and everything in between. The problem is that in the past Republicans didn’t really live by that ideal, supporting Big Business as if such entities operated like smaller businesses in an open, competitive manner, when I think everyone really knew (and those on the Right historically didn’t want to talk about) that once they grow too big, free enterprise and competition are curtailed by centralized power centers whose self-interest will invariably overshadow that of consumers and workers, who usually end up getting the shaft, along with smaller businesses.

But I find it interesting that you probably just posted the most Conservative post of your life, and you may not even realize it (or perhaps you do). Makes me wonder if both sides of the aisle might finally be able to find some common ground, at least on this one subject. In fact, this area seems to right now have the most potential and interest for a bipartisan effort in Congress.

Republicans and Democrats Agree: Big Business Is Too Powerful - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/business/economy/big-business-politics-economy.html

Republicans are in a messy divorce with big business. Democrats could benefit | Andrew Gawthorpe | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/14/republicans-big-business-democrats-us-politics

In a strange way, Democrats could thank Trump, of all people, for this massive shift:

Which Is the Party of Business After Trump: Democrats or Republicans? - Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-14/which-is-the-party-of-business-after-trump-democrats-or-republicans

From The American Heritage Dictionary:

fas·cism ( f²sh“¹z”…m) n. 1. Often Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control. [Italian fascismo from fascio group from Late Latin fascium neuter of Latin fascis bundle] fas·cis “tic ( f…-sh¹s“t¹k) adj.

To rebuke the assertion that fascism is specifically a product of the far Right, if we really want to assign that label (although again, I question it’s use in this context, even though there is some crossover), it’s about as applicable right now to Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple and Amazon, etc. as anything else, all of whom have actively suppressed free speech at the whim of Democrats in recent years (the collusion of "state and corporate power" you highlighted in your excellent post), a couple of which have degenerated into environments of very low standards for workers, forcing them to endure unreasonable conditions (especially Amazon).

Are Democrats Friends with Big Business Now? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/business/dealbook/mcconnell-mlb-democrats-republicans.html

continued...

reply

There are regulations against monopolies for a reason, and both parties (more Republican than Democrat until recently) over the past decade and a half have not only turned a blind eye, but have allowed, and even helped in some cases, these Big Tech behemoths to grow into the monsters they are today, where they now control the flow of most information, and can get away with pretty much anything they want to. While right now that’s bad news for the Right, for the most part (I find it humorous that it was past big-business Republicans that largely let them get to where they are, but who are now reaping negative fruits from that labor), at some point in the future the poles may very well flip the other way. So, everyone should want to do something about this.

So indeed, it has been largely Republicans of the past who supported such monopolies, some of them seem to now grasp the outcome of those greedy misdeeds since Trump has utterly disrupted that long-standing “partnership”. In other words, past kowtowing to special interests while lining their pockets to let corporations grow out of control is backfiring on them in today’s modern world. Which is why both parties should have a vested interested in squashing these monopolies, Big Tech, Big Media, or otherwise, passing laws to prevent the type of government-to-corporate collusion that’s been going on, from allowing these mega-mergers to take place, and to try to achieve a truly free market (as opposed to the artificially manipulated one it’s become, and that to some extent through ups and downs it’s always somewhat been). It's definitely time to break them up into tiny little pieces, and perhaps even then stomp on them until they're a fine, sticky jelly for good measure. No one should be that powerful, neither government nor corporation.

One thing I don’t agree with is that these entities are related to fascism, even though these overgrown power-hungry corporate entities gobbling up smaller businesses right and left might accurately be dubbed “oligarchies” do share a few things in common:

What Is Fascism? | Live Science
https://www.livescience.com/57622-fascism.html

While you may not be surprised that I might agree with you on this if you’ve paid attention to my posts (if you’re not letting preconceptions get in the way), I suspect you’d be surprise to discover that many modern (key word “modern”) Conservatives would agree with you as well. The old Republican guard is fading away, and something new is emerging. And it’s about goddamn time.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

> Although... you realize that you're supporting a modern Conservative argument, right?

I disagree with that on many levels. I do see where you are trying to come from. My point is that the Republican party is not Conservative any more, since Reagan. They've used Conservative rhetoric but they are not Conservative.

The money that funds the Republican party is much different than that which pays for the Democrats, and in fact money people in the Democratic party have basically threatened to pull out support of the Democrats if they get too "Democratty".

Also, it really doesn't matter what Republicans think personally, or what they say, because they do not follow-up or vote on what they say. Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, John McCain ... all accepted and good Conservatives, all thrown under the bus and derided, because what the Republican party is right now is a revolutionary fifth-column force that is taking over the country. Just following orders. None of the political discussion or arguments matter any more.

The Kochs, are radical Libertarians, that continue a thread from the John Birch Society, and maybe you think that is Conservative?

Socialism and Fascism have different meanings, so I am not going to bother with that. When a President of the United States talks about Fascism in his speeches and Fireside Chats, I'm going to go with that - he gets to set the agenda and definition because he defeated them. If you want to talk to me about it under my post, then you have to do it on my terms or make a persuasive argument why that definition doesn't work. The meanings of Fascism, as with Socialism has been deliberately twisted to destroy any ability to actually have a political talk about the two, and that has been done deliberately and "Orwellian-ly" by the Right.

> There are regulations against monopolies for a reason

There are no regulations against monopolies.

As to what party is the party of business, both parties are. The business of America has always been business. The business of the Republican party has been about Fascism, putting business in charge. Sure both parties do it, but there would be no divide at all if both parties did it the same. Democrats have the capability of working for the people. To that extent they have been broken. Republicans are doing just what they do.

I'd really suggest you read
Thom Hartmann's - The Hidden History of Monopolies, it is completely fascinating.
Thomas Frank's - The Wrecking Crew
Nancy McLean's - Democracy in Chains

reply

Nicely said, and some solid points here. Don't completely agree with every piece at this point (e.g. there are, to the contrary, antitrust laws that are designed to prevent monopolies), but there's some good food for thought here that anyone reading this should consider with an open mind (and not outright dismiss out of bias). Appreciate the reply.

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/corporate-monopolies/government.html
https://thismatter.com/economics/monopoly-regulation.htm
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

Check the last time any anti-trust actions were ever used, and knowledgeable people's expectations of them being used any time soon. There is a lot of talk, but Republicans have stacked the courts and twisted the laws such that they are all but useless. The Hartmann books is really excellent in its brevity and clarity on this.

reply

Exactly my point. Republicans have always been Big Business friendly, sometimes contrary to antitrust laws.

I'll have to check that book out.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

> But I find it interesting that you probably just posted the most Conservative post of your life,

You know nothing about me. Most of your comment is bluster and assumed superior knowledge, but you fail to show it, or bring relevant information to the table. It's all a big effort to deny you essentially shill for the Right-wing while trying to use words that make you see open-minded and reasonable - telling me I don't realize what I am posting.

Such disingenuous rhetoric makes you a real asshole, and it proves that you have nothing to say, so you make these weak personal remarks. A waste of time.

There is no such thing as Modern Conservatism by the way, that is why the Republicans never have any public plan or vision. It's always just like Trump flippity-floppity from one minute to the next with grand sounding slogans and promisees, like TrumpCare will be better than ObamaCare, it will be better, cheaper, will cover all people. Or his promise that Social Security and Medicare will not be touched, and within weeks he was working to cut both programs.

Modern Conservative is radical Libertarianism declaring war against our government and our people, basically trying to realize the claim of Jay Gould ... “I can hire one-half the farmers of the United States to shoot the other half to death.”

Most of the Modern Conservatives here are of that ilk ... they are poor slobs wasting their time on the Internet posting drivel having sold out their fellow citizens - and not even for real money, for some imagined reward that will never come, and they have a serious mental illness.

Like your ridiculous assertions that it was the Republicans of the past that supported monopolies when they have done nothing about that epi-pen monopoly, the price of insulin, the coal industry - you are totally ridiculous.

reply

Well, I replied too soon apparently, before seeing this one. Your first reply had so much promise, and then this one completely derailed (with a couple of fair points peppered in, but lost in the deluge of outrage), to the extent that the last paragraph is internally contradictory (e.g. if Republicans supported monopolies, of course they'd do nothing about them). What happened here? And no, I know nothing about you other than your many posts on this board, and I don't need to since those posts paint a clear picture. Please explain to me, and perhaps to yourself, why this second reply went so far off the rails.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

I think you miss the connotations of your comments, the projected attitude and meanings inherent in the rhetoric your use ... maybe in hopes of sounding clever. I let you have it harshly in my comment, because you too show signs of promise, but as well mental confusion and inability to stay on track because you are so busy being conceited.

I think the comment speaks for itself, and I stand by it. My hypothesis about your reactions is that you just do not think about how other people will view your comment, or the meanings you load into them. Try not doing that if you even can as an experiment.

Here is an example:
> Please explain to me, and perhaps to yourself,

You are completely blind to these stupid quips you DON'T NEED to load into your comments are. What is the point of that but to conceitedly tweak people by letting them know you are already are not going to accept any answer from them because you already judge they don't even know what they are talking about.

Brother, you are not that smart, so why put on airs? Why not just have a normal conversation without those egoistical flourishes.

When I fire back you get all upset ... but apparently were so emotionally put off that you didn't read what I said. I thought all my criticisms were perfectly clear. In other words, your perception of offense is valid where everyone else's is not. If you have a question or disagreement, be kind enough to clearly ask it or state it ... without the BS.

> > But I find it interesting that you probably just posted the most Conservative post of your life,

Maybe consider why you think it is necessary to go off track in a personal way, to make a personal comment you have no data to decide, and no reason - assuming an honest conversation - to make.

reply

I see, so this is about you being triggered by assigning connotation that isn't there (there's far too much of that these days, instead of people taking words at face value). That's easy to do with the written word, I suppose. I wasn't upset, just curious and a bit disappointed. Those "quips", as you call them, are intentional in the hopes it will incite some self-reflection (so is my signature), and are not issued with offense in mind. I don't mean to be condescending. But I try here and there in the hopes it slides through the mesh of conditioned emotional triggers, which is a juvenile response to purge, trying to spark something deeper, perhaps spawning previously unconsidered intellectual thought.

But I take your point, and appreciate the honest response.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

People who set out to "trigger" other people are not people who are seriously interested in civilized discussion.
If there is no conversational point to a sentence, it is distracting, and that is enough to show lack of intent to think, ergo something else is going on.

> Those "quips", as you call them, are intentional in the hopes it will incite some self-reflection (so is my signature), and are not issued with offense in mind. I don't mean to be condescending

The point is that you are not being condescending except in pretense, just unable to follow a discussion without being overcome by noise in your head that takes you off track that you cannot help and want to disguise it as something you mean to do. That is a kind of ADD. What is going on with you is that you do not realize you are the one that needs to remind yourself about that stuff you post, ( you are subconsciously putting it out there to understand yourself while being terrified to do it - ala NOISE ) but you externalize it to other people, but I you are also smart enough to see that it is a game that doesn't really pay off for you and in fact leads to you being unmasked logically and triggering change in yourself at some point when you decide to grow up.

reply

Except, as I (maybe inadequately) tried to explain, I don't "set out to trigger" at all (that's just sometimes an unfortunate byproduct of the prominent emotional nature of humanity, a barrier I hope to penetrate with these exercises). My intent is to spark deeper thought that may not have been previously considered, if hopefully applicable to a given reader (not necessarily with whom I’m exchanging discourse, but anyone who might happen to read the discussion), with perhaps a bit of self-actualization along with it. Such probes do make some people uncomfortable, or rub them the wrong way, but it often produces a response that acts as a psychological snapshot, similar to an inkblot test, that can help shed some light on where someone is coming from.

Is it a fool's errand? Probably.

You're really only correct about one item in your assessment, though: in how frequently it "pays off". But at this stage I still deem it worth the effort for that 1% or 2% of the time that I can get through to someone. Not to mention, sometimes seeds are planted that germinated and metastasize later on once conjoined with experiences, ideas and information encountered in the future, so oftentimes I may never see or know anything about the results, or what mindset shift may have been affected. Doesn’t mean I always read people correctly, something that’s difficult at best to do through anonymous written word. My mission is to engrain into as many worldviews as possible a lifestyle based on skepticism over belief. Although yes, I do always hope to learn something myself along the way. We should never lock in on anything, and always strive to expand further.

I'll make one last statement by reiterating that I agree with your thoughts on monopolies, how they disrupt the real-world dynamic of fairness, whether within the framework of the competitive intent of capitalism or any other form of system, and that when there's cross-collusion between government and business it destabilizes the fairness of the system even further. Right now, "Big Tech" is at the top of the list of offenders. I'll add that Big Government, or any oversized entity really, can be just as monopolizing and damaging to democracy. It’s not even about business. It’s about power and social control. The reason this happens comes down to human nature. Power inevitably leads to corruption, and those who seek power for greedy purposes are inherently already corrupt. Which is exactly why better limitations need to be implemented, to help curtail these bloated, power-hungry oligarchies.

I'll leave you alone now (I promise!), and won't pester you further about this topic.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

Another analysis of your posts, since you want to make personal comments ... and you asked me to explain my reactions ...
Look at this signature you have:

Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

First, it is useless, except to say you have an inflated sense of your self-importance. Like you did a calculation that this is so important it is worth taking up the time, space and bandwidth to always remind people. Do you get that this is supremely conceited. A signature on an email is stupid enough, and most people with rudimentary intelligence haven't bothered with it for 20 years now ... but here you are.

As a reminder or advice to other people it is condescending, you are putting on airs that you always follow these suggestions, like you are the master, teacher, guru ... like you fail to understand that you comments make that case, not your stupid, annoying claims that no one reads anyway.

To put his out there, and basically think you are forcing people in some way to accept your image of yourself, denotes a truly weak ego - not a teacher, not a master, not a guru. A below average guy trying to pretend on the internet, but his annoying comments undercut himself at every turn.

Friendly advice ... you'd be better off dropping it and trying to just be a genuine human being, because when you don't you put yourself right alongside others who shall remain nameless down at the bottom of the thread.

reply

"both parties (more Republican than Democrat until recently) over the past decade and a half have not only turned a blind eye, but have allowed, and even helped in some cases, these Big Tech behemoths to grow into the monsters they are today"
...

"The past decade and a half"?

When was the last big Sherman Antitrust Act action? Ma Bell? 1974? Nixon?

Here is an article WRITTEN "a decade and a half ago"

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2006/04/05/1895/att-and-whatever-happened-to-antitrust/

As one of the great antitrust lawyers Louis Brandeis would argue, “We can have a democratic society or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both.”


reply

AT&T isn't (or at least wasn't at the time) "Big Tech", although it could possibly be considered a precursor to it. I'm referring to companies that have grown out of control with the advent of widespread social media that can control the flow of information, so yes the past decade and a half. Prior to that, specifically in the tech industry, there was much fiercer competition (that I was directly involved with). But yeah, AT&T is a great example of past antitrust violations being blatantly allowed.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

fascism, which the dictionaries of the day defined as the merger of state and corporate power,


And who has teamed up with the democratic party? Big Tech, Hollywood, Sports, Music Industry, Every corporation with a pride or blm flag up

Congrats dummy you played yourself LOL

reply

It amazes me that this escapes these loons.

reply

Brux Koresh has never been smart, he just regurgitates leftist talking points without a single thought

reply

FDR? The guy that allied US with Stalin? And let the commies infiltrate just about everything? Why are we concerned about his opinion on anything?

reply

> FDR? The guy that allied US with Stalin?

Hahaha, with six words you reveal you know nothing about history, that you are wiling to post drivel, and that you are not worth ever taking seriously. That's quite efficient of you.

reply

A man that was comfortable with communism is not a strong authority for anything political.

reply

At least Corbell is arguing that communism - left wing, is the opposite on the political spectrum than fascism - right wing. However, only Liberals stand up to communists (ie. "Free Tibet!" & Trump asking China for help during the election.) Conservatives kowtow to them and turn a blind eye to them.
Remember Truman's words.


Socialism (& "Communism") is a scareword they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called Public Power. Socialism is what they called Social Security. Socialism is what they called Farm Price Supports. Socialism is what they called Bank Deposit Insurance. Socialism is what they called the Growth of Free and Independent Labor Organizations. "Socialism" is their name for almost anything that helps all the people. - Harry S. Truman October 10th, 1952.

McCarthy era is over. Get over it.

reply

Only liberals stand up to communists? You must be too young to remember the Cold War.

And Social Security is nothing to brag about. The warnings that people like you used to dismiss about what it would do to the budget? They came true.

Trump did not ask China for help during the election.

reply

We aren't, The Squad are just trolling.

reply

"If Fascism ever comes to America, it will be in the name of 'Liberalism'."

-Ronald Reagan

He was 100% correct.

reply

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt warned that fascism would come to America in the form of monopolists and vested capital.

FDR was 1000% righter.

reply