The definition of fascism does mention "stringent socioeconomic controls," which certainly brings it into the economic sphere, and certainly sets it apart from a free market system.

Some people theorize that the U.S. has a greater chance of falling into a fascist system (total economic control of the private sector, although the state does not officially "own" the means of production) than into a purely communist system.

It is more likely that we will end up, unless we are vigilant, in a system where the state may not own everything, but will control everything, which when you get right down to it, is pretty much the same thing.

Unions then helped form a larger middle class, giving workers a stake in the system. The middle class also provided a greater market for as well as generate a wider market for the goods and services capitalism provides so well.



The longterm erosion of the middle-class in America bodes ill for the long-term stability of the society. For one thing, the markets for goods and services shrinks. You can't trust unrestrained capital any more than unrestrained labor, unrestrained government, unrestrained armed forces, or whatever.



Remember, unrestrained capital, unlike unrestrained government or unrestrained armed forces, does not possess a gun. This makes a big difference. I'm not sure what "unrestrained labor" would entail, unless the government was brought in on it somehow.

I would be the first to agree that unions were a significant factor in improving worker conditions in this country. There is nothing in a free market system that should prevent the voluntary organization of workers (or anyone else) to try and convince someone to do something or to change working conditions. Heck, even a worker-owned company is just fine, as long as it's voluntary and doesn't involve the government.

I am also concerned about the erosion of, not the middle class per se, but the blue-collar middle class specifically. I posted on this a while back. Not too many years back, it was possible for a person with a limited education (even illiterate!) to get a simple job turning a bolt on an assembly line and still make a good enough living to buy a house, a car, and raise a family in a middle-class environment. Now a lot of these jobs are going to countries filled with enthusiastic workers who will turn a bolt for one hell of a lot less money, and who consider it a huge step up from following an ox around a field from sunrise to sunset. Add to this the immense flood of immigrants who are also willing to work in our own country for less. While the blue-collar worker is far from extinct, being blue-collar ain't as easy as it used to be.

The quick and easy answer is barriers, trade and physical, to protect our workers and local industries. I don't think this will work in the long run, and I don't support such barriers, but I don't have any brilliant alternatives either. Things will improve as the third world moves ahead and wages and expectations rise there, but this is a slow process.