"I could not agree with the writer more. People are deluding themselves if they believe governments are all about "the people" likely more about themselves and how they are seen. "

Exactly RaeBee - Look at our own K. Rudd. In the context of the article, his actions and intentions (ETS) raise many questions rather than give us any answers.

Justin,

State Capitalism not Fascism.

Intervention by the State is State Capitalism which in some aspects was beneficial and that being one who generally believes in small Government. For example , in 1875, England lifted its prohibition against working class organisations and permitted collective bargaining, resulting late Victorian England being a much happier place for the working class than Dickens’ England*. This trend of Government “knows best” interference aimed/aims through bureaucratic mechanisms to reconcile the conflicting demands of the labour, capital and since the Great Depression the consumer, via the State, which acts as master and arbiter.

Alternatively, Fascism maintains that “freedom is the monopoly of the State (Wasserman), wherein there is no equity of power and liberal democracy is deemed weak. Only the strong should leader and with an iron fist are required. In this regard Mussolini declared:
“Fascism is a religious concept ion in which man is seen immanent relation to a higher law, an objective Will, that transcends the particular and raises him to conscious membership in a spiritual society.” Similarly, nationalism was seen in WWI and WWII Germany and Japan. State capital remained evident through the directives of Japan’s Ministry of Technology and Industry since after WWII until the present day.

In sum, State intervention on the environmental issues is not Fascism. It is small “s” State Capitalist societies pressing large “S”, State Capitalist societies to follow their agenda.
*In part, the formation of the first labour unions was allowed to short-circuit overt radicalism.

Philip,

Your description and the recent US bailout comes closer to Fascism, but it should be remembered it is not the acts of the Corporates rather intervention by Government against free market economics which are national socialist. Of course, there maybe Corporate puppet masters in the guise of lobbyists, but that is not the point.

Cheryl,

The term Fascist is a characteric of State by definition and is diffiucult to assign to any lobby group.

Maralinga is hardly an advertisement for government management of the environment, is it? Would you do that to your own property?

Atman,

You might consider this story. There are many others, but this one avoids shrieks about racism.

With the right growing conditions, potatoes can feed up to four times as many people to the hectare as grain. When the potato arrived from the New World, it proved very difficult to develop varieties suitable for Northern Europe because of day length issues. Eventually, the Irish ended up with 2 varieties that they could use, especially the Lumper potato. The population of Ireland grew from approximately 1.2 million in 1600 to 8.5 million in the 1840s, even though Ireland's British conquerors had commandeered much of the best land to grow export crops. (England was outgrowing its ability to feed itself.) The population growth in Ireland was especially rapid because traditional inheritance customs and colonial laws required land to be divided among all of the sons. By the 1840s, a significant fraction of the population was living on land holdings too small to feed a family on anything but potatoes.

The Andean farmers who domesticated the potato had more than 250 varieties. The Irish reliance on only two genetically identical varieties was extremely dangerous, as subsistence farmers are well aware, because the plants will all be equally vulnerable to any disease or environmental shock, and an entire crop can easily be lost. This is exactly what happened in the 1840s, when the late blight arrived from Mexico. 1-1.5 million people starved and another 1.5-2 million were forced to emigrate. They didn't have enough land to switch back to grain. See David Montgomery's book "Dirt: the Erosion of Civilizations" and the Wikipedia article on the Irish Potato Famine, with links to scholarly books and papers.

cont'd

cont'd

No doubt, as the population built up, there were Cheryls to claim that any concern about human numbers was "barking mad" and immoral to boot, that the Lord would provide. I would suggest that it is the population boosters who were the real misanthropes and that to ignore environmental limits in the name of individual human rights is both stupid and immoral. There was a recent letter to the editor of New Scientist on climate change, in which the writer said that he wouldn't be concerned about it, unless it was going to affect him "materially and directly, within the limited window of my remaining years". This is the attitude JJ is championing, and not just about climate change.

It has also never been clear to me that tyranny by a central government is worse than tyranny by individual property owners. In a socialist or fascist system, a man tells me what to do, and I have to obey him because he speaks for the State and is backed up by another man with a gun. In a libertarian system, a man tells me what to do, and I have to obey him because he owns the resources that my family and I need to live. He is also backed up by a man with a gun, who is charged to protect the owner's property rights. What is the difference? At least if the socialist state is a democracy, I have some possibility of changing things with my vote.

N'est-ce pas Poirot - I quite agree.

While it is tempting to use words like Fascism to make a point, it detracts from reasoned debate. We are all guilty of using language to empahsise a point at times but we should endeavour to keep it within the realm of reality.

Accountability of governments and ensuring there are adequate checks and balances; or improvements in participation of citizens in democracy are one thing - however ascribing Fascism to environmental protection is pushing the envelope a bit.