Hacker News Reader

Comment by srl | Hacker News Reader

> Generally countries do not strip its citizens of so many civil liberties unless there is a clear goal ahead.

Not sure about that. I think the natural tendency is for any institution to try to grab more power, no matter what the situation is - since 9/11, congress has found doing so unusually easy, and has responded by taking advantage of the opportunity.

That's not to say the abuses aren't only a few years away, but I don't think these power-grabs have been done with those abuses as a perceived goal. They're just power-grabs.

View on HN

Power-grabs are the abuse. There need not be any imoral motive behind the desire for this power, nor any plan to use them "for evil". We have already seen (UMG) that, given such power, there will be "accidental" abuse that has a major, negative effect on small players and citizens.

Even if you believe that these were genuine "accidents", do you believe that it is acceptable to allow these interests to have such power? Do you think it is just about "unimportant" things like copying music?

The US is still the worlds largest superpower, but compared to 20 years ago it has vastly less power. Its power has declined and continues to do so. Any student of history will tell you that this is exactly when states transform from free nations to fascist states.

> Any student of history will tell you that this is exactly when states transform from free nations to fascist states.

No, absolutely not, that's not how it happens. Go back and read your history books. Also, Godwin is not on your side.

I don't think I mentioned the Nazi's, but since you bring it up.

"From the prosperity of the empire during the Wilhelmine era (1890-1914), Germany plunged into World War I, a war it was to lose and one that spawned many of the economic crises that would destroy the successor Weimar Republic."

"During the Hitler era (1933-45), the economy developed a hothouse prosperity, supported with high government subsidies to those sectors that tended to give Germany military power and economic autarky"

Economic crises inducing a transition from democracy to plutocracy/fascism, and massive military spending, ending in wars on multiple fronts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Germany

I suppose I should also qualify my statement as "dominant states". Since the most common way for small states to be converted to fascism is by the dominant state (i.e. USA) installing fascist/authoritarian governments for them. So I concede that, in general, you may be right.

> Economic crises inducing a transition from democracy to plutocracy/fascism, and massive military spending, ending in wars on multiple fronts.

There is one major thing missing from your description; it's so glaring and obvious that I'm amazed that you don't notice it. Nazis rose to power through a populist platform which promoted ethnic/racial hatred and reappropriation of resources from those perceived as morally "corrupt" (the Jewish people) or "too powerful" (the British empire). The Nazi leaders did not come to power first and then all of a sudden decided to exterminate the Jews out of the blue; the they went along with what was a populist sentiment at the time (while adding fuel to the fire by the means of propaganda and mass media which was relatively new at the time), and exploited that precisely that popular, hateful sentiment to guarantee their rise to power. I recommend watching a documentary called "The Goebbels Experiment" for a look from the inside on how it happened.

N.B. By going with what you're suggesting, any possible "empire" is fascist, which is blatantly wrong. Plutocracy is bad for various reasons, but plutocracy =/= fascism and genocide. I find it hilarious when people blame plutocracy for causing fascism because it is precisely the supposed "plutocracy" of the time (which was actually a codeword for rich Jews) which drove (indirectly of course) ignorant/resentful Germans in the 1930s to support Hitler and his clique.

So what you're saying is that after a decimation of their economy, Germans were angry at the economic elite in their country. They then listened to the entertainment industry's pressures to remove their freedom of speech, and other civil rights.

Sounds about right.

No, a really important feature of fascism is this hate component which keeps being omitted.

SOPA sucks, but it isn't driven by an ideology of the nation's renewal through purges of some undesirable class, return to cultural and religious fundamentals of the nation, pressing need to defeat communism and prove the nation's glory with war and occupations...

Whether or not the US is moving toward fascism in some way, SOPA is incidental to that - SOPA is nothing more than a big present to certain industries

> a really important feature of fascism is this hate component which keeps being omitted.

Yeah -- it's like an elephant in the room and no one among those who are the first to bring up comparisons between the U.S. and fascist states talks about it. I wonder why.

> SOPA is nothing more than a big present to certain industries

That is the best way to think about it -- it's akin to government pork in a way.

Great Britain was once the world's greatest superpower and yet managed to transition without becoming fascist. I think that history actually shows a diversity of scenarios.

If your going to define fascist as something that apply's to more than just Italy then, Great Britain got a lot closer to fascist than you might suspect. For example, agricultural subsidies use public funds to prop up private enterprises which is fascist. They also went into public surveillance, and indefinite detention without trial etc.

PS: It's a slippery term, but originally it had nothing to do with Germany.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com