Is it invoking Godwin if the analogy is correct?
Earlier this evening, I posted a quote on my Facebook page, obviously in reference to events in Wisconsin and elsewhere around the US:
"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers' salaries and take away their right to strike." - Adolph Hitler, May 2, 1933
I was, of course, immediately accused of violating Godwin's Law (specifically, it's corollary that the first person to make a comparison to Hitler has lost the argument). However, I disagree, mainly because I believe that the quote was appropriate, and the analogy is valid.
Here's my reasoning (Warning! This is a look inside my head! It's scary in there!):
First of all, the quote comes from a speech given by Hitler on May 2, 1933, when he was first instituting the policies collectively known as Gleichschaltung, which was the systematic purging of any non-party or government organization that could somehow influence the population. Any organization that could not be eliminated was brought under direct government control (for example, churches were now subject to a "Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs") Specifically, on that date, he banned trade unions, and forced them to merge with the government* controlled "German Labor Front", where they were systematically dismantled. This was due to the fact that the Nazi government had extremely close ties to industry... to the point where the state was a major, if not the majority, stakeholder in almost all of the major industries in Germany. This was not a bug, but actually an integral platform of the Nazi party, and of Fascism in general.
Think of it this way: there are two ends of one economic ideological spectrum, which I'll call economic authoritarianism**. The extreme on the left is Communism. The extreme on the right is Fascism. Neither one allows for a "free market" (which is why they're authoritarian). One wants the state to directly control the markets to benefit "the people" (Communism). The other wants the state to directly control the markets to benefit the state (Fascism). Contrast this with a total "free market" system ("libertarian", as opposed to "authoritarian"), where the state wields no control over it's economic system (the extreme version of this would be Randian Objectivism, or even worse, anarchy).
However, the problem with authoritarianism, both economic and political, is that markets (like people) cannot be controlled... if you try to control markets, they stifle and die. If you'd like an example, see the USSR, circa 1990-91. Authoritarian systems work in the short term, but in the long term, they break down, and need to be replaced (either by another authoritarian, or preferably by a more liberal system... like a democratic one, for example). This happens because authoritarian systems need an authority... usually a single person, like a king or a dictator, but sometimes a small group, like a party or a ruling class. The problem with authority is that it requires TRUST, and eventually the authority will do something to violate that trust, provided they don't die or otherwise cease to exist first. This will happen REGARDLESS of the motives or competence of the authority... we're all human, and everyone makes mistakes. Once trust is broken, the authoritarian system breaks down. But I digress...
So we have, in Fascism, an economic system with incredibly close ties to big business, to the point where it's an acting partner. Sound familiar? It's where our own system has been heading since the start of the century. OK, longer, actually, but it vastly accelerated in the last 10 years. However, instead of a system where the state is partnered with business to benefit the state, it's instead designed to benefit the major stakeholders in said business... often including the politicians who make policy and enact legislation affecting those businesses. It's a weird marriage of Fascism and Libertarianism... but it's a libertarianism, not for the benefit of all, but for a select few. It's Randianism in its most purely ideal expression.
Now, if one wants to unfetter business, one of the ways to do that is to take away power from unions. After all, it was union activity, from the late 1800's through last century, that was responsible for regulations that protected workers (and, by extension, consumers). That protection of the rights and welfare of employees and their families was the right thing to do, but it (rightly) came at the expense of profit. If you want to maximize profit? Take away the ability of unions to negotiate for workers. Just as the Nazi party did by instituting the Gleichschaltung.
As I said... it's a valid analogy.
Please note... I am NOT blaming one party or the other for this. While it's true that the GOP has been more than aggressive in putting this economic policy into place, the Democrats have, mostly, been more than willing accomplices. I don't think that this is due to any duplicity on their part... instead, I think it's because neither the GOP nor the Dems really KNOW any better. They don't get the complexity of what people like the Koch Brothers (and many others) are trying to put into place here... after all, they're politicians, not economists or historians! And it's not like they are a bunch of people who are purposely trying to destroy the "American Way" through some insidious plan. These people aren't supervillains... they're either just shortsighted and greedy (the aforementioned Koch Brothers, for example), or they genuinely think that this sort of thing is GOOD. This is because many of them firmly believe that if a person does well, it's because they deserve to do well, whether because they worked harder, or they were blessed by God, or whatever. They believe in an ORDERLY universe... which is why they tend to gravitate to a more authoritarian system. It's just that the "authority" here isn't political... it's economic. And it's not one person, it's an oligarchy. It's just been dressed up in libertarian clothing to make it palpable to a people who profess a love of freedom. The problem is that freedom isn't orderly... democracy and true libertarianism are chaotic, and is anathema to many (if not most) people. As a species, we want... no, we CRAVE... order. So we find stories of kings, and knights, and noble heroes who take command and do the right thing to be inspiring, while the day to day mechanics of governing we find most unsatisfying.
Now I am NOT saying that the state should not be involved with the markets at all. Quite the contrary... if you accept that one of the purposes of the state is to protect it's citizens and work for the benefit of society, then it is required to REGULATE them, in order to do so. Markets will not, despite what so many people seem to think, regulate themselves. They can't, since they have no true controlling force... they are, as I've stated, a chaotic system. And the elements that make up the markets (namely, individual businesses) have only one motive... to make a profit. All other goals (including the betterment of society and the protection of civil liberties) are secondary to the goal of profit, since if a business, or a market, is not profitable, it ceases to exist. Since regulation can hinder profit, regulation is something that markets will try to avoid, not embrace.
This has turned into a very long, and rather rambling, post, so I'll stop here for now. However, I want to reiterate my point that my analogy, I think, was correct... what happened in Wisconsin, and is going on in other places, is part of the same strategy used by the Fascists in the 1930's... break the unions in order to increase the power of big business, in partnership with the state. And I'm very afraid for where that may take us. The only solution isn't to go to one extreme, or the other, but to find the balance between them all. The problem is that the extremes are comfortable, and simple. Balance and moderation are uncomfortable and complex.
And, given the choice, most people will choose simplicity over complexity, even when it's not the better choice.
(Please note... I welcome comments, but keep them polite and friendly. I enjoy political or ideological discussion, but I despise unfriendly argument. I will happily apply The Banhammer Of Loving Correction to anyone I consider to be getting out of line. My house, my rules. You have been warned. Thanks.)
**********************************************************************************
* Technically, it was controlled by the Nazi party, but by this point, the party and the government were one and the same.
** Maybe there's a better name for it, given by some academic somewhere, but I have no idea what it is...