However, this idea includes various factors that should be considered. It was first started in Italy in the early 20th century and took a massive turn in Europe by the end of the world war II to strengthen the german nazis by Adolf Hitler. Socialism can be described as the form of government that believes that a lot of various properties, some of the productions of natural resources, economy, etc.
It follows multiple regulations and has specific ideas and beliefs. The people who work in this type of government are called socialists. So basically this they are opposed to capitalism , which refers to private ownership. The socialists believe that giving controls over properties, investments ad productions to specific individuals will lead towards the misuse of wealth and power. They think that these individual are the more prosperous part of the society and hence make their own decisions such as the choice of a property.
And this does not leave many options to the more inferior part of the community. So the socialist believes that giving these controls to the state will ensure equality. Apparently fascism is not to be feared anymore. We are on the precipice of fascism. We might as well know how to define it. Fascism is an absolute and very easy to define. It is a word like "dead" or "capsized". It has no gradation.
It has no dimmer switch. Its either On or Off. When it's "On" democracy is off. It has been clear from the start of our Republic that NO amount of fascism is tolerable in our political system. It's like lead in our water. No amount is safe.
There was a time when people living in this county wouldn't tolerate being controlled, without the right to vote or representation. Those people fought a war with England so that we could have a government accountable to its citizens with checks and balances and limits to individual power. Fascism has its faces it's not pretty : Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco are the most well known. They reigned terror on the world during the early 20th century. They answered to no one and they punished and silenced their critics.
They don't like journalists scrutinizing their behavior. They think that the media is a nuisance and they want to discredit it. They decide what you can do and say. They decide everything. They are subjected to no scrutiny. In the last century Fascism was responsible for the deaths of 80 million people and half the world's Jewish population. On the other hand, Socialism only exists if the people vote it into power. It's not upheld or enforced by an egomaniacal dictator.
It's subject to review and scrutiny by its citizens. Fascism is not subject to any such review. It exists as long as there is a singular thirst for individual power over others. Because that is so dangerous and destructive to a free society it must be confronted vigorously.
Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers were willing to die opposing Fascism and monarchy.
They believed in a government of laws, not men. In this model all "profit" actually belongs in part to the laborer, not, or not just , those who control the means of production, such as the business or factory owner.
Profit that is not shared with the laborer, therefore, is considered inherently exploitive. This should clue you in that Fascism attempts to recapture both the glory and social organization of Rome.
Unlike communism, fascism is opposed to state ownership of capital and economic equality is not a principle or goal.
During the s and WWII, communism and fascism represented the extreme left and right, respectively, in European politics. Hitler justified both Nazi anti-Semitism and dictatorship largely on the basis of his working to fight-off communism. The church also played a major role in all of the European fascist countries Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal as the authority on religious and moral issues, which was opposed to the threat of "godless communists". Many religious communities have been socialistic and widely recognized as such.
An organization could also be socialistic without being overtly so. Third, you have lost sight of a point essential to Smith, that there is a very great difference between working for the benefit of a community and working to its benefit. It has been suggested to me in e. Socialism is internationalist and egalitarian. Naziism and fascism are nationalistic and hierarchical to Nietzschean extremes. Naziism and fascism claim to be recovering a lost national greatness.
Socialism claims to be reforming an embarrassingly corrupt past. Naziism and fascism explicitly endorse the value of private property while socialism explicitly rejects it. Naziism and fascism found strong support among industrialists while socialism found none there.
You could get rich as an industrialist supporting Nazism or fascism. You would get expropriated by the socialists if you were an industrialist. Both do value collectivist goals over individual ones in terms of political and economic freedom when they conflict.
Where in the actual definition does it say that socialism regards the entire world as the relevant community? Indeed, if socialism were intrinsically internationalist, then no smaller socialist communities could exist within a world that were not socialist. Further, you too ignore the explicitly made point that property is right of control, whereas fascism and Naziism took that right, while pretending to preserve private property.
If you had asked what the similarities were, then a different question would have gotten a different answer. I explained the real world differences, not just how they compared to one theoretical definition.
The allies also took also an unprecedented right of control in taking over major industries and imposing rationing on previously free markets during the war.
The cut and paste below is where I did address aspects of private property that are relevant and go beyond the right of control which was infringed on in major ways by all combatants:. There were and are things in the real world that conform to that definition without being internationalistic, so your reference to the real world is at best a confusion. Nor does the lip service paid by fascists and by Nazis to private property somehow refute the point that they effected state ownership.
No, it absolutely does. But there is an even more fundamental defect in your argument. As you acknowledge with delay, my question, which you and Mr Murphy were supposedly answering was. Indeed, after the death of Stalin and acknowledgment of his crimes by many of the Communist parties in the West, definitions shifted still further.
Elsewhere, I have written more extensively and more precisely about these shifts. It is not amusing to see you try. It makes perfect sense to note that an institution cannot operate internationalistically without operating internationalistically. You are claiming that any infringement of the right of control over private property is sufficient to give you license to call it socialist even if people are allowed to get rich from profit making businesses with less than full control.
Well then every country with a system of mandatory taxation which is to say all of them is socialist by that definition. It is always amusing when someone purporting to make a libertarian argument makes this classic mistake.
You see, language is the most perfectly libertarian of all human institutions. Everyone gets to decide for himself what the words he speaks and hears mean. Language is entirely conventional. When logic and convention conflict, convention rules.
For example, you often hear it said in English that a double negative is wrong because the second negative negates the first making it a positive, not a negative statement. But there are languages where a double negative is understood by everyone to simply emphasize the negative aspect, not reverse it, even in the most formal speech.
There has been a great deal of work done in philosophy and linguistics and all of it has led to the conclusion that language is conventional all the way down. There simply is nothing more foundational to appeal to. This why different languages can and do use entirely different words to refer to the same things. Dictionaries are consumer products that are revised every year in a lagging attempt to keep up with changing conventions.
Such a thing does not exist. There is a reason real world socialists and real world fascists have always regarded each other as mortal enemies not natural allies and a reason why conventional language use reflects that reality. Socialism has long been concerned with international matters the definition of internationalistic.
So, we have an issue: according to your definitions: the USSR is both socialist and non-socialist. Same with the US. It can be, but for me the definition of socialism relies only on the ownership of means of production rather than the focus of welfare.
Coming of American Fascism, economic freedom, Lawrence Dennis, market. Read This Article. Thomas Hutcheson Dec 9 at am. Pierre Lemieux Dec 9 at am.
0コメント