Why Would Anyone Call the Bailouts Socialism When Socialism Means?
Socialism, or a "socialized country, means that it's citizens contribute to a common pool in order to ensure that it's citizens have proper health care, education, a safety net as well as other basic human needs.
The bailouts are designed to take the taxpayer's money and give it to the very banking interests ts that caused the mess. This is called Fascism.
Why would anyone call these bailouts socialistic instead of fascist?
Kittie, please put down the pipe and step away from the crack.
- GiordanoLv 41 decade agoFavorite Answer
Well, under Mussolini's (the man who birthed fascism) definition, Fascism is the collusion of power between Corporations and the state over the people. A lot of people don't understand that corporations are a vital ingredient to Fascism, but Mussolini knew it well. In our quickly unfolding economic collapse and soon to be depression, it would seem that the Government has decided its loyalty is with the Corporate monsters who created this mess in the first place, and not the American people. So, the answer is yes, we are witnessing the roots of Fascism right here in our own country.
The bailouts solve nothing. The source of the problem is not the housing or credit markets as the Media would like you to believe. The source of the problem is the inflation and fractional banking practices of the Federal Reserve and the corporate banksters who run it. You can't fight a weak dollar and massive inflation by printing even MORE currency out of thin air. In fact, it just makes things worse. But has anyone considered that perhaps the goal IS to make things worse?
"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton, quote from “Tragedy and Hope”, 1966
- 1 decade ago
The rub is that conservatives say Universal Health care is socialism, meaning government funded such as you describe...this is how they garner support against health care for everyone......
This is a commonly used tactic by republicans, draw a box and label it, call it a name. The same way they use the term liberal like a four letter word.
Fascism is dictator led, George Bush has some dictator like tendencies in how he has made attempts to circumvent the government branches checks and balances, but we still have the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The bailout being the government now "owns" these companies so to speak, a bailout in the private sector is called an acquisition. The concept of government ownership of a banking institution is socialism. Some see socialism as a precursor to communism or as anti -capitalism, there has to be a happy medium as capitalism is imperfect and also needs to have ground rules to keep good practices. Companies with always try ways to make a profit sometimes at the expense of its employees, safety/health, environment, etc. Capitalism drove many corporations to send jobs to other countries to take advantage of cheaper labor or land.
The point they are making is that these banks need a handout so now socialism is OK but not someone who needs healthcare because they cannot afford it. Kind of hypocritical, but it gets spun differently.
- Martin LLv 51 decade ago
Socialism means that the means of production are controlled by "the people," usually (and ultimately) as represented by the government. Fascism is a form of socialism. (Recall from your history classes that "Nazi" means is short for "Nationalist Socialism.")
So calling bailouts socialism is not necessarily false. But you need to get a grasp on what is actually being socialized here. In this case, the government is helping to privatize profits and socialize risk. This is nothing new. After all, that was the idea behind the FDIC and FEMA, to name a couple.
To say the bailouts are designed to help the "banking interests" simplifies the problem far too much. The bailouts are considered necessary by both parties because government regulation forced banking interests to lower their lending standards. (See, e.g., the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.)
These high-risk loans were essentially guaranteed by the government through the purchase and bundling of loans by Fannie and Freddie. This meant that lenders could make these loans with impunity, by passing the risk of default on to Fannie and Freddie while enjoying the profit.
This is a classic case of the tragedy of the commons. Anything that is held publicly is overused by the collective. In the original example, it was pasture land that was held publicly and therefore overgrazed, to the detriment of everyone. In this case, it's risk that is held publicly and therefore overused...again to the detriment of everyone (at least to all taxpayers).
So, it is the notion of Socialism that is at the root of this, if not your idea of the proper application of socialism. You may call it fascism, but that too is an application of socialism.Source(s): Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, among others.
- Smart KatLv 71 decade ago
The bail outs are designed to keep the economy from completely collapsing, which would be very bad for the common person.
It is designed to ensure that citizens don't lose thier retirment accounts and to help lessen the number of job losses that will occur.
So while the bail out might not be pure socialism, it certainly could be called 'socialistic.'
And fascism means so much more than what you are saying. It requires a dictator and a total militarized society.
Fascism would also have required Micheal Moore be imprisoned and all books critisizing the government to be burned.
We are far FAR from fascism.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- George BLv 61 decade ago
The banking interests, and mortgage companies DID NOT cause the problem. They were the victims of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) which was a program of the Carter Administration, and was expanded by the Clinton Administration. The CRA is proof that the liberals have absolutely no understanding of basic economics and finance for the results of what it would cause was predicted in the year 2000.
Every household in the US is now on the hook for $455,000 in unfunded liabilities, largely because of the bailouts and liberally sponsored entitlement programs. There, friends, is the real result of liberal government giveaway programs and we are going to be paying for it every time we go to a checkout stand in the form of higher, and higher, and higher prices. It will look like higher prices, but the truth is that every one of our dollars will have less and less value so it will take more of them just to meet out basic needs.
Note the following articles and comments in noted financial publications and note particularly the date on the first article:
The CRA was the child of the Carter and Clinton Administrations and warnings about the it and the way it was being abused started years ago
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Socialism is the country running corporations for the good of the people. That is exactly what Bush is doing.
- Anonymous1 decade ago