Attention Forum Socialists

[Pliny]

I think I stopped buying this line about limited government when I noticed how many faux libertarians want smaller, less effective government so that corporations have more control over our lives.

There are a lot of Libertarians who are just teed off with some aspect of government, such as the marijuana laws and debate for legalization, but they themselves would create a bureaucracy similar to a liquor control board to legalize it. Marc Emery is one of those advocates. He called himself a Libertarian once and then voted NDP.

He is just a special interest and I think if he had his way withthe legalization of marijuana he wouldn't care how big government was. He would probably complain though if they told him he couldn't smoke it in public places.

[nicky10013]

There is singularity from the perspective of the citizen. The one thing Hitler and Stalin had in common was their lust for power. Clearly incompatible to each other. They may have run things differently but they did run things. Their sense of economics was different, property rights, etc., were, true enough, vastly different. Hitler was, on an evolutionary basis, bringing about his socialist totalitarianism while the revolution brought about Stalin's socialist totalitarianism.

This was alright until you called Hitler a socialist.

A central authority is a central authority. Total government is total government and it is about engineering society. A centrally planned society is a centrally planned society. The differences in ideology matter little.

Here is what I mean by socialism - it is the progressive, evolutionary attainment of the totalitarian state. It is not an ideal in itself it is an evolutionary means to achieving the ideal of the total socialist state.

I know what you mean but the definition is just plain wrong. Socialism is an ideology. Just like Fascism is an ideology. They're completely different. The only thing that remains constant is the tools they use to implement their forms of authoritariansm. As I mentioned, there's a massive difference between ideologies and the tools they use to implement them. You're very clearly getting the two confused and it's not helping your argument.

He was a socialist who admired Hitler's socialist reforms. As most socialists would until they found out that it was a bit exclusive.

I'd like to see proof of that.

[quot]Yes, they are socialist tools for progressively achieving the totalitarian state.

No, because you've got no idea what socialism means.

Communism achieves the totalitarian state through revolution. Communism is not an evolutionary process. The reason Castro is a communist and not a right wing dictator is because he achieved the total state through revolution and his economic policies were Marxist. Socialism is a progression towards the total state, and there is no distinction between what type of total state.

Theoretically communism is the end point of socialism. Whether it's totalitarian or not depends on the state. After the death of Stalin, you simply cannot define the USSR as totalitarian. Authoritarian? Absolutely, but not totalitarian. In that, I suppose we should define totalitarianism. It's a society controlled through fear, ideology, oppression, dictatorship usually with a "cult of personality" around the dictator. Socialism is the complete government ownership of the economy combined with marxist ideology and an authoritarian system of governance; always a one party state structured around the national communist/socialis/labour party. Communism, the idyllic area that will never exist, is merely the end point of socialism. During the days of the Soviet Union, propaganda slogans such as "working together to build communism" was more than merely a slogan. It was what they believed. They believed they were in the evolutionary state of socialism which would then lead to communism as Marx himself laid out. I recommend you read him.

Totalitarianism is the goal of socialism. You have said yourself, it is a progression, on that I can agree. Then again, you say. "Socialism itself was totalitarian." Totalitarianism is the ideal - the total socialist state. How is it that socialism progresses towards communism? Yet socialism itself is totalitarian.

No, the goal of socialism is to implement socialism. Whether it's totalitarain or not depends on the people attempting to implement it. Socialism itself, just by the definition, cannot be totalitarian. There are many ideologies that can fit the term totalitarian.

Not just Jewish managers, anyone that wasn't in lockstep with the movement either got out early on their own or were replaced.

No, non-nazi party members flourished. They just didn't get in the way.

It is about power and it's corrupting influence. Of course, Stalin had to get rid of Trotsky. Just like Hitler had to get rid of the communists and other socialists. That kind of power is not shared and it is necessary to get rid of any competition, real or imagined. When power is that centralized there is always a struggle to gain it and to keep it.

Yes, but what you seem to lack the understanding of is that power doesn't equal ideology. They're very different.

Socialism progressively centralizes power. You don't know until the final push for power what kind of total socialist state you will be living under. Communism installs a totalitarian government. Marxist-Leninists don't agree with other communists or Stalinists or Maoists so even under communism you can only have a vague idea of how it will be run but you do know you will be sub-servant to the state. Has China now become more like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy?

Again, socialism is an ideology, not the grab for power itself. As for China, a little bit but for the most part no. They're turning more to private business and open markets, yet the sphere of economics is still farily highly controlled by the government. Fascism also requires a cult of ideology and a cult of personality; a certain fanatacism shown off by members of society combined with a generally free market.

Edited May 3, 2010 by nicky10013

[Pliny]

Socialism means government or public ownership of business.

It means government socially engineering society. There are differences in economics in different types of socialism. Fascisim is form of Corporatism, not crony capitalism. Capitalism is already gone at the corporate level when fascism is in power. Because you have some small business around means that the progressive socialism has not yet reached the ideal of the total state.

What you're describing with the Nazis etc. isn't socialism, it's fascism, where the rulers of the one party state, the military, the church leaders, and the corporate CEO's all work together to maintain their tight control over a nation.

....and socially engineer society. That's socialism.

The economic policy of Nazi Germany wasn't socialist, it was merely crony capitalism. The Nazis used slave labour for public works projects, such as the building of the Autobahn, and banned unions and strikes. That's not socialism any more than the DDR was democratic!

I'm certain there was free trade and healthy competition among the crony capitalists. "Crony capitalism" is an oxymoron. Once it becomes crony or cartelized or corporatized it is no longer capitalism.

The Nazi's planned the State and engineered society. That is socialism. I suppose you only view socialism from an economic perspective and if there is someone with a private business there is no socialism. Do not forget that the economy is manipulated by the State even in Canada. For our own good of course. Even in the States the government takes credit when the economy is good and blames the private sector for bad economies requiring - guess what - further regulation and intervention. There is absolutely no responsibility taken on the part of government for any aspect of a bad economy but they certainly don't mind taking credit for it when it is sailing.

[nicky10013]

Different types of socialism existed and then there were the communists. Only one type of socialism can ever prevail in one country. Germany already had to have progressed to a level of socialism that concentrated enough power to allow Hitler to do what he was able to do. That means there was some control over the economy and people were receiving social entitlements from the government. We know more now in hindsight about how the introduction of socialist concepts in government winds up centralizing power and that it ends in totalitarian tyranny. This why there is any aversion to socialism at all. I don't think the latest generation realizes it's creeping, progressive nature and we once again will be faced with tyranny. We need to decentralize power and that can only be done economically by recognizing the ownership of private property and the state recognizing the sanctity of person and property of honest citizens.

Yikes.

[nicky10013]

ame='WIP' date='03 May 2010 - 03:01 AM' timestamp='1272879202' post='536716']

Socialism means government or public ownership of business.

I'm certain there was free trade and healthy competition among the crony capitalists. "Crony capitalism" is an oxymoron. Once it becomes crony or cartelized or corporatized it is no longer capitalism.

The Nazi's planned the State and engineered society. That is socialism. I suppose you only view socialism from an economic perspective and if there is someone with a private business there is no socialism. Do not forget that the economy is manipulated by the State even in Canada. For our own good of course. Even in the States the government takes credit when the economy is good and blames the private sector for bad economies requiring - guess what - further regulation and intervention. There is absolutely no responsibility taken on the part of government for any aspect of a bad economy but they certainly don't mind taking credit for it when it is sailing.

See, that's where you're wrong, socialism IS only an economic ideology. What you're doing is taking everything bad in terms of governance and labelling it with the term socialist.

[Pliny]

This was alright until you called Hitler a socialist.

The National Socialist party was the national socialist party.

Was he just being coy calling his party socialist?

I know what you mean but the definition is just plain wrong. Socialism is an ideology. Just like Fascism is an ideology. They're completely different. The only thing that remains constant is the tools they use to implement their forms of authoritariansm. As I mentioned, there's a massive difference between ideologies and the tools they use to implement them. You're very clearly getting the two confused and it's not helping your argument.

Engineering society from a central authority is socialism. In it's total form the State owns the means of production and controls the distribution of production.

Socialism in it's ideal is the totalitarian state. As you say. There is a progression towards that state and it is a progression or gradual implementation of socialist concepts leading to the ideal. So the part of socialism that is forgotten is how the total state is achieved. Communism achieves the total socialist state through revolution. That's easy to understand. How else does the socialist ideal of a totalitarian state become a reality? Through a progressive introduction of socialist concepts.

I'd like to see proof of that.

From Wikipedia:

"M.A. thesis on eugenics

Douglas graduated from Brandon College in 1930, and completed his Master's degree (M.A.) in Sociology from McMaster University in 1933. His thesis entitled The Problems of the Subnormal Family endorsed eugenics.[11] [12] The thesis proposed a system that would have required couples seeking to marry to be certified as mentally and morally fit. Those deemed to be "subnormal" because of low intelligence, moral laxity or venereal disease would be sent to state farms or camps while those judged to be mentally defective or incurably diseased would be sterilized."

Granted Douglas became disillusioned with these ideas when he visited Germany. Alberta had sterilization laws on the books until the fifties.

Yes, they are socialist tools for progressively achieving the totalitarian state.

No, because you've got no idea what socialism means.

You only envision the ideal and not the progression towards it.

In order to understand socialism in it's ideal you have to understand how it is attained. Only under communism do you wake up to the total socialist state after the revolution.

It is through the growth of the State and the increasing engineering of society that the total state is achieved on a progressive level. You seem to believe their will be no progression toward the totalitarian state once a certain level of social engineering is reached. You are dreaming if you think the growth of the State stops anywhere. It will only stop if the people demand to retain individual power and decentralize government power.

Theoretically communism is the end point of socialism. Whether it's totalitarian or not depends on the state. After the death of Stalin, you simply cannot define the USSR as totalitarian. Authoritarian? Absolutely, but not totalitarian. In that, I suppose we should define totalitarianism. It's a society controlled through fear, ideology, oppression, dictatorship usually with a "cult of personality" around the dictator. Socialism is the complete government ownership of the economy combined with marxist ideology and an authoritarian system of governance; always a one party state structured around the national communist/socialis/labour party. Communism, the idyllic area that will never exist, is merely the end point of socialism. During the days of the Soviet Union, propaganda slogans such as "working together to build communism" was more than merely a slogan. It was what they believed. They believed they were in the evolutionary state of socialism which would then lead to communism as Marx himself laid out. I recommend you read him.

No, the goal of socialism is to implement socialism. Whether it's totalitarain or not depends on the people attempting to implement it. Socialism itself, just by the definition, cannot be totalitarian. There are many ideologies that can fit the term totalitarian.

Yes and they are all about social engineering.

No, non-nazi party members flourished. They just didn't get in the way.

They did until the war I suppose. After the mobilization ho wdid they do?

Yes, but what you seem to lack the understanding of is that power doesn't equal ideology. They're very different.

I don't know how you gleaned that out of my statements but I do know they are different. An authoritarian ideology would not exist without centralized power.

Again, socialism is an ideology, not the grab for power itself. As for China, a little bit but for the most part no. They're turning more to private business and open markets, yet the sphere of economics is still farily highly controlled by the government. Fascism also requires a cult of ideology and a cult of personality; a certain fanatacism shown off by members of society combined with a generally free market.

Fascism can require a cult of personality or a cult of ideology or whatever, that doesn't diminish the role of the state in engineering society it only makes for differences in the way someone believes your life should be run.

[Pliny]

I remember reading somewhere that if you sat Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler were in a room together,and you removed the economic differences,they would probably both agree with each other.I can't agree with you tht Adolph Hiter was bringing about socialist change from a leftist perspective.That's simply not true.In fact,Hitler modelled his early forms of NAZIsm on Mussolini's Fascists,based on Corporatism and extreme Nationalism.Those are two of the defining tenets of Fascism.

If your arguement is that totalitarianism is all the same,you're about 90% correct.There are defining differences,however,and they cannot be dismissed because they are the heart of the extreme dislike between the two opposing ideologies.The roads to the two end games are very different.

To your point about Tommy Douglas...It is true that as a young man he did have some admiration for Hitler...So did alot of people who were hoodwinked by him.Douglas disavowed himself from those leaning fairly quickly.It should be noted that eugenics is NOT a NAZI cause.In fact,many prominent Americans like Teddy Roosevelt and Thomas Edison and Woodrowe Wilson all espoused views that favoured eugenics at on time or another.

As far as getting rid of people goes,it could be said that Earnst Rohm was Hitler's Leon Trotsky.Rohm was murdered during the Night of the Long Knives purges so the SA would be effectively neutered,and the army would back Hitler.

Your point about Castro is interesting,in that originally he was'nt Communist at all.In fact he asked for US assistance.It was'nt until Nixon basically gave him the bird that he went to the Soviets.Another thing,and I think this will illustrate the differences between Fascism and Communism even better....It is true that Castro is a leftist,Communist dictator.But his contemporary counterpart in Latin American at the time would probably be General Augusto Pinochet in Chile.Pinochet was also a brutal dictator,but no one would confuse him for being a Communist at all.Both are/were extreme authoritarians who wanted total state control.The difference being that Pinochet was also a Friedmanite who opened up the Chilean markets while Castro stayed with state control of the Cuban economy.It's that Corporatism that always seperates the right from the left.

Pinochet was indeed a right wing brutal dictator. And as you say the difference between right and left is mostly in their economics.

Corporatism is a factor of right wing socialism.

Now Pinochet also had to deal with left wing socialists and didn't tolerate them. If we look at Chile now it is doing quite well economically. Cuba - the people are still pretty poor.

In order to establish any kind of "capitalist" economy Pinochet had to keep the barking dogs at bay. Left wing guerillas were not sitting idly by and were ready to overthrow him.

This is why I have disagreed with Friedman he was a monetarist and believed in government intervention in the economy. He later regretted some of his economic contributions to government but the damage was done.

Your point about China right now is also interesting.Personally,I no longer think China is a Communist country.It simply no longer fits the ideological bill!If a totalitarian/authoritarian country is embracing things like a quasi free market,private property ownership,private life insurance,a vibrant Bourgois middle class etc.,by definition it is not a state of the extreme left.In fact,I think China has flipped into a crypto-Fascist state fairly easily.If you allow for some form of Corporatism and private property ownership plus the heavy hand of a totalitarian government intruding into almost every aspect of every citizens lives,you've pretty much become a Fascist.Couple that with a creeping sense of Nationalism,that I've noticed beginning to come out from the Chinese government ,as it relates to its attitude internationally...well...Don't get kicked with the goose step...

Well, I wish I had more time but I appreciate your more liberal point of view. All that is trying to be achieved is an understanding and a reconciliation of points that seem at odds with each other under the accepted academic view.

[nicky10013]

The National Socialist party was the national socialist party.

Was he just being coy calling his party socialist?

That's pretty much exactly it.

Engineering society from a central authority is socialism. In it's total form the State owns the means of production and controls the distribution of production.

Socialism in it's ideal is the totalitarian state. As you say. There is a progression towards that state and it is a progression or gradual implementation of socialist concepts leading to the ideal. So the part of socialism that is forgotten is how the total state is achieved. Communism achieves the total socialist state through revolution. That's easy to understand. How else does the socialist ideal of a totalitarian state become a reality? Through a progressive introduction of socialist concepts.

Engineering society is not socialism. Socialism is not the totalitarian state. A socialist state can be totalitarian but they certainly aren't synonymous.

From Wikipedia:

"M.A. thesis on eugenics

Douglas graduated from Brandon College in 1930, and completed his Master's degree (M.A.) in Sociology from McMaster University in 1933. His thesis entitled The Problems of the Subnormal Family endorsed eugenics.[11] [12] The thesis proposed a system that would have required couples seeking to marry to be certified as mentally and morally fit. Those deemed to be "subnormal" because of low intelligence, moral laxity or venereal disease would be sent to state farms or camps while those judged to be mentally defective or incurably diseased would be sterilized."

Granted Douglas became disillusioned with these ideas when he visited Germany. Alberta had sterilization laws on the books until the fifties.

I'm still trying to figure out what Tommy Douglas has to do with anything. Just because he is a "socialist" and went to Germany doesn't make Germany a socialist country. Yet another fallacy; an example of weak thinking. If I clap and then there is rain, a person using the same logic as yourself could then infer that by my clapping, I caused it to rain. Naturally, of course that's not what happened.

Yes and they are all about social engineering.

No, it's about implementing their own economic system.

They did until the war I suppose. After the mobilization ho wdid they do?

Farily well. As long as they didn't get in the way.

I don't know how you gleaned that out of my statements but I do know they are different. An authoritarian ideology would not exist without centralized power.

Yes, but here's the point you're getting confused about. Centralized political power doesn't denote socialism. Centralized power over the economy is a different story. As I mentioned before, you've taken every authoritarian trait and have labelled it socialist when nothing can be further from the truth. You've made several comments that things like state education and propaganda are socialist traits. They aren't they're authoritarian traits which both the left and right use in their quest for power. Socialism is not a catch all word that can be used to describe everything. It is a specific definition of a form of governance based on marxist ideology. Clearly, you still don't understand that.

Fascism can require a cult of personality or a cult of ideology or whatever, that doesn't diminish the role of the state in engineering society it only makes for differences in the way someone believes your life should be run.

Sure it can.

Edited May 3, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Pinochet was indeed a right wing brutal dictator. And as you say the difference between right and left is mostly in their economics.

Corporatism is a factor of right wing socialism.

Now Pinochet also had to deal with left wing socialists and didn't tolerate them. If we look at Chile now it is doing quite well economically. Cuba - the people are still pretty poor.

In order to establish any kind of "capitalist" economy Pinochet had to keep the barking dogs at bay. Left wing guerillas were not sitting idly by and were ready to overthrow him.

This is why I have disagreed with Friedman he was a monetarist and believed in government intervention in the economy. He later regretted some of his economic contributions to government but the damage was done.

Well, I wish I had more time but I appreciate your more liberal point of view. All that is trying to be achieved is an understanding and a reconciliation of points that seem at odds with each other under the accepted academic view.

Right Wing Socialism? Holy smokes.

[Jack Weber]

I think I stopped buying this line about limited government when I noticed how many faux libertarians want smaller, less effective government so that corporations have more control over our lives.

Hehehehehe...

Uncle Milty must be so happy with the willing nodders of the con/libertarian political class...

I always here from the right about socialism and it's "wealth redistribution exercises..."

The Friedman/Hayek Free Market version is nothing more than a wealth redistribution exercise the politcal right wants to see...Namely back into the hands of the few at the top...

Trickle down...

Edited May 4, 2010 by Jack Weber

[WIP]

The National Socialist party was the national socialist party.

Was he just being coy calling his party socialist?

By your definitions, North Korea is a democratic nation since Kim Il Sung called his country the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Engineering society from a central authority is socialism. In it's total form the State owns the means of production and controls the distribution of production.

Sounds like a good reason not to believe the entries in Conservapedia!

Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.[7]

and from this we can see that capitalist nations with large public sectors such as Western Europe are not really socialists

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

So, state control of capital is the only unifying value of various socialists and that means the Glenn Beck type of definitions you are using are just labels applied by conservative fascist leaning talking heads, who want to divert public attention from the obscene increase in wealth of a powerful elite. Fascists use fear of outsiders (different races, different religions etc.) and resentment against the poorest segments of society to maintain loyalty to a wealthy powerful ruling class that acts against the economic interests of average citizens.

[Jack Weber]

By your definitions, North Korea is a democratic nation since Kim Il Sung called his country the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Sounds like a good reason not to believe the entries in Conservapedia!

Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.[7]

and from this we can see that capitalist nations with large public sectors such as Western Europe are not really socialists

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

So, state control of capital is the only unifying value of various socialists and that means the Glenn Beck type of definitions you are using are just labels applied by conservative fascist leaning talking heads, who want to divert public attention from the obscene increase in wealth of a powerful elite. Fascists use fear of outsiders (different races, different religions etc.) and resentment against the poorest segments of society to maintain loyalty to a wealthy powerful ruling class that acts against the economic interests of average citizens.

Correctomundo!!!

The Nationalistic compoent is the 3rd tenet of Fascism and generally seperates it from the extreme left positions.Fascists always frame the question as an "Us vs Them" two dimensional way.This usually morphs into a "we are superior,they are inferior" groupthink mindset.

I'm afraid this converstion is beginning to morph into ideological camps.When I read that Fascism is just another extreme form of Socialism,I have to wonder about the motives of a person who believes such things.I suspect it's because that person might think that only extreme ideologies come from the left side of the political spectrum?That would a hugely false assumption...In fact,slightly right of centre people have to come to grips with the fact that their ideological extreme cousins are just as bad as the extremists on the left...

Edited May 3, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Shady]

By your definitions, North Korea is a democratic nation since Kim Il Sung called his country the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Not at all. But when a government calls themselves the National Socialist Party, and then proceeds to implement actual socialist policy. It's doesn't take a genius to add 2 + 2 does it?

It's not just about labels, it's about labels backed by policy.

[nicky10013]

Not at all. But when a government calls themselves the National Socialist Party, and then proceeds to implement actual socialist policy. It's doesn't take a genius to add 2 + 2 does it?

It's not just about labels, it's about labels backed by policy.

Considering you and your conservative friend would rather consult Beck rather than textbooks about what socialist policy actually is, apparently it does take a genius to add 2+2.

[Jack Weber]

It's a "forced tithe" that delivers a better life to those at the bottom. Have a look at the worst parts of American cities, and you'll see how bad things can get under pure capitalism.

Cabrini Green,anyone?

[bush_cheney2004]

Cabrini Green,anyone?

Davis Inlet, anyone?

[ToadBrother]

Not at all. But when a government calls themselves the National Socialist Party, and then proceeds to implement actual socialist policy. It's doesn't take a genius to add 2 + 2 does it?

It's not just about labels, it's about labels backed by policy.

Sigh. National Socialism was a totalitarian political ideology. Actually, when you boil it down, it wasn't much of an ideology at all, beyond concentration of the organs of the state into the hands of a small elite lead by Adolf Hitler.

By your definition, Hoover and FDR must have been Nazis.

But frankly, your knowledge of history, economics, politics, philosophy and probably everything also is so questionable that I doubt you really could judge various ideological movements.

Edited May 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Pliny]

Have a look at the worst parts of American cities, and you'll see how bad things can get under pure capitalism.

Is there some pure capitalism somewhere?

[waldo]

Davis Inlet, anyone?

do you really want to compare any number of the worst U.S. inner-city problem situations... to the less than 700 Innu person community relocation of what was Davis Inlet? Besides... Rhasida... couldn't you come up with something a little closer to your SK home?

[Jack Weber]

do you really want to compare any number of the worst U.S. inner-city problem situations... to the less than 700 Innu person community relocation of what was Davis Inlet? Besides... Rhasida... couldn't you come up with something a little closer to your SK home?

She could have chosen Uranium City???

I wonder if she wears mini haystacks for a brassiere???

[Jack Weber]

Sigh. National Socialism was a totalitarian political ideology. Actually, when you boil it down, it wasn't much of an ideology at all, beyond concentration of the organs of the state into the hands of a small elite lead by Adolf Hitler.

By your definition, Hoover and FDR must have been Nazis.

But frankly, your knowledge of history, economics, politics, philosophy and probably everything also is so questionable that I doubt you really could judge various ideological movements.

"But...But....But Glenn Beck and Rush said Obama is a stateist ...Adolph Hitler was a stateist...Can't you see the link you dizzy pinko/Fascist liberal????"

[Pliny]

I have been presenting here a simplified concept of governments. the intellects here insist on keeping it complicated.

Now I am going to make it really simple. Since we can't tell anything from labels. The National socialist party is not socialist.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not democratic. And I tend to think the BC Liberal party is a little more conservative than liberal. And while we ponder if China is more Fascist than Communist these days or if Stalin really held true to the Marxist -Leninist ideology and try to figure out where it really diverged from it's true socialist roots. Let's just do away with all that BS and, as I said, make it really simple.

When we are talking about the extreme left and right wing of the currently popular political spectrum we see at both ends what I think can safely be called "Big government". The bigger the government the more intervention, more regulation and the more the necessity to draw wealth from the economy to sustain itself, the greater the presence of government in our individual lives and in society.

The smaller the government's mandate, the less intervention, the less regulation, the less it must draw from the economy to sustain itself and the less their is a presence of government in our daily lives and in society. That all means of course that we must do more things for ourselves as individuals and as a society - or not, we can take risks and be less responsible for ourselves if we choose but we shouldn't expect someone to feel sorry for us if we gamble and lose. Where on the political spectrum is "little government"? At the centre? To tell you the truth, here is another confusing aspect of current political academia that perhaps the public gets tripped up on. where is the centre? I like to think it is somewhere where there is small government and as we move left we get more and more liberal progressivism in government and if we move right we get more and more conservative discipline and morality in our government. For instance, I would call Obama a leftist. Many on the left see him as a centrist and even some here who I think are quite leftist consider themselves centrist.

So the labels are all too confusing.

As a citizen and as a voter all I need to know is whether or not my vote is for bigger government, more entitlements being given away, more regulation and intervention in society, more bureaucracy, or smaller government. Most of the time the major parties are falling all over themselves giving things away and making promises to do more so there really isn't too much choice for me. I have watched political correctness come into being and all sorts of progressive ideas and concepts instituted in government, with very little opposition. In other words I feel the left has made "progress" in growing government as they see it should. The right seems, rather than stemming the tide of bigger and bigger government, intent on trying to catch up with it's own ideas on how government should grow.

So in the end we are working towards some form of "big government" and we know not which because the ideology of it hasn't been formulated yet. We can know it will be something like socialism or fascism or communism but it will undoubtedly be big government.

That's as simple as I can get it for you.

Just a word to Jack on Friedman and Hayak. Friedman was always a government economist and liked to deal with the aggregates of economics. He liked to see how they functioned in the macro sense and how it could be influenced. He also gave us the withholding payroll taxes in WW II. A brilliant idea to pay for the war and government liked it so much they kept it. Just as they did income tax in the first world war. That was Friedman.

Hayak is a different man and understood economics would not fare well under governments attempts to regulate and influence, that is attempt to control it. It had it's own self-corrective elements in his view and intervention in the ebb and flow of the economy created imbalances that would inevitably require further intervention and greater regulation.

As for Corporatism, it sounds like a sore point in your view, it only comes about under government stewardship. There should not be corporate welfare or subsidy. Large Corporations do have a tendency to amass wealth though and government knows it. It gets most of it's money from those corporations in the form of payroll and corporate taxes. It only makes sense that the two be in bed with each other and the bigger the government the more necessity to cater to where the money is in the economy. And what kind of government like that can deliver justice? If the people demand justice all they get is "social justice" and not a correction of injustice and inequality. In other words, two wrongs are created to make a right. We won't take away any one's earned entitlements so we will just give some entitlements to the whiners and even it up.

Corporatism is for sure a part of fascism. but don't ever mistake it for capitalism. Capitalism hasn't been around for at least a century.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Pliny

[Bonam]

The best way to classify states when it comes to their economic and social leanings is the spectrum between collectivism and individualism. Socialism, communism, totalitarniasm, etc, all fit on the collectivist side of the spectrum.

A central government, which can be comprised of either elected or unelected persons, controlling to a large degree the lives and actions of the population, is the hallmark of collectivism. In modern "benign" socialism, such a government aims to redistribute wealth so as to "equalize" society. In fascism, the government funnels wealth to the military and to the industries that support the military, as well as to other nationalistic endeavors. In communism, the government takes over the means of production and distribution and is the universal employer and provider for the population, and holds absolute control of the economy and its direction of development. Where the money goes and what values the government emphasizes differ, but the fundamental premise, that the state is supreme and that the individual exists to serve the goals of the collective as defined by the government is the same.

The opposite side of the spectrum is the individualist state, where the fundamental rights of the individual are supreme and the only role of government is to ensure that those rights are protected. No such states exist, but most Western nations lie somewhere along this spectrum between individualism and collectivism. The US constitution, for example, is written from the perspective of trying to set up something very close to a purely individualist state, but that ideal has taken on ever more elements of collectivism over time.

This is why some people can look at Nazi Germany and the USSR and see, primarily, great similarities. Besides being murderous and evil regimes, they held in common the notion that the state is the supreme being, and that people must live out their lives in performing their duty to the state. Meanwhile, others focus on the lower level distinctions, specifically the exact interactions of entities within the economy, where there are indeed significant differences. However, these are secondary and of lower importance when compared to the overarching theme of the supremacy of the state.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Bonam

[Pliny]

"But...But....But Glenn Beck and Rush said Obama is a stateist ...Adolph Hitler was a stateist...Can't you see the link you dizzy pinko/Fascist liberal????"

I can see they both foster the state. They may not be ideologically close but what's the next form of statism? Communism has been replaced with Environmentalism - the most revolutionary lot. But what will they term Chavezism or will there ever be Obamaism left as a legacy?

[Pliny]

The best way to classify states when it comes to their economic and social leanings is the spectrum between collectivism and individualism.

I think most of those on the left here enjoy the complexities and confusions of political nomenclature and focus on the nuances and defining but unimportant aspects of the different extremist ideologies. You have illustrated the greatest importance to be considered, the individual and the collective. Although, if I may make a finer distinction, the collective does not necessarily have to be of government as there are things we can only accomplish as a collective entity - that is what society is about. Government from the collective standpoint is about collectively enforcing the State upon society.