This post is very much "dummied down" as to write at length would bore you. I'm open to (and would appreciate) constructive conversation and criticism, but seriously, every time this subject is approached it's like slamming my face against a brick wall.
Here are some concise definitions:
- Capitalism - an economic system based on private ownership of capital.
- Socialism - a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
- Communism - a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership.
- Dictatorship - a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
- Fascism - a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
- Democratic Socialism - is a description used by various socialist movements, tendencies, and organizations, to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation. The term is sometimes used synonymously with 'social democracy'.
It is possible to be one or many of these at the same time. For instance in China, Russia, North Korea,Laos, Vietnam and Cuba - Communism is the ruling party. They practice Socialism in an extreme way that some would even call Fascist and are considered Dictatorships.
Here is a list of a few Democratic Socialist countries- Canada, Australia, India, Austria, Denmark, Iran, Syria, Columbia, Albania, Sweden, England, Germany, France... most of Europe.
...and the U.S. We are not becoming Socialist. We are. We have been. The recent bank take overs and government ownership of General Motors (which I will get back to in a future post as I, a person raised in S.E. MI have a lot to say) are just the most recent signals. It's been going on a long long time, if not since the birth of our country. What do you think Social Security, medicare ,medicaid, military, police and fire departments are? All public works projects like TVA (things that brought us out of the last depression) are technically socialist. We all chip in and things like schools, hospitals, govt. buildings etc are built. Unfortunately, most Americans distort the word "Socialism" to mean something negative - spouting words like "Hitler", "Communism", "Facism" and "Castro".
I guess what I'm trying to say here is this- Please know what you are talking about before you throw around words and concepts you have no idea about. Do ANY of us really know how our country is run? I know this post is extremely simplified. The average person on the street can't name the Vice President, much less tell me how to feel about political ideology. 11 % of Americans can't even find America on a map!
As long as I have the ability to prosper and enjoy a quality, healthy life I really don't care what the economic term is. Labeling can be a dangerous thing.
I encourage any of you to discuss this as long as you will engage in conversation and not yell extreme left or right wing slogans at me.
9 comments:
I've matured where I stand on all this lately. I think the term you left out is Progressivism - the basic definition being the advocacy by the government of progress, changes, and reform. The opposite of Progressivism would be the Status-Quo.
The Status-Quo would be the republican (small R) form of government (i.e. the republic) that was originally set into existence by the Constitution. Progressivism is the belief that the U.S. Constitution is a living, breathing document that bends, morphs, and changes depending on how it is interpreted. These interpretations are in the context of the current state of social evolution in the country and more-so lately, in the world.
I believe Progressivism has hijacked the US and has led us down the road we are far down since the turn of the century. This path is away from the Status-Quo (a binding constitution which limits the powers of government) and instead continuously expands it.
The era of Lincoln gave us authoritarian federal government from which states could not escape, and what set the stage for taxation without representation at the turn of the 20th century.
Theodore Roosevelt (R) was the original Progressivist of the modern era. His square deal, the creation of the 'green' era and associated lobby, over regulation of business, and his use of the Interstate Commerce Clause to severely distort and remove state rights were the foundation of what followed for the next 100 years.
The elite Republican Taft, who was the next president, tried to undo (of course) some of the regulations that his predecessor had implemented. Nevertheless the split Republican party lost to Woodrow Wilson (D), the 2nd great Progressivist of the 20th century.
When he was president of Princeton, Wilson discouraged blacks from applying, and went on to establish segregationist policies that the country had not seen since the end of slavery nearly four score earlier. He saw the KKK as an normal result of reconstruction, and pushed hard for the U.S. to join the League of Nations. Lastly and most horrific, was the creation of the Federal Reserve of the United States, outsourcing money supply to a private bank, and beginning over 100 years of inflation, a phenomenon that was non-existent in the U.S. the 100 years before.
The next meaningfully progressive president was Herbert Hoover (R), who followed the more states-rights inclined and highly criticized for the roaring 20's Calvin Coolidge (R). While I feel the roaring 20's was mostly the result of the creation of the Fed, Hoover came in to 'save the day' as it were.
Hoover was the inventor of the new deal. He believed in the Efficiency Movement of Progressivism, which said that technology and advancement could solve every social and economic problem.
His administration immediately set out to undo the admittedly under regulation of the Coolidge era, though it is my opinion that it was more a failure of states to regulate industry and not the federal government. He canceled private oil leases on government land, used the IRS as a law enforcement tool, expanded the 'civil service' role of the government, expanded the power of government greatly, but signed the Norris-LaGuardia act taking government out of labor disputes.
...
...
He believed strongly in the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term economic growth. His high-regulation and big government spooked business and populous alike, and led to the pop of the bubble that had been the 20s.
He was followed by FDR (D) - the greatest Progressivist of the 20th century. FDR took all of his predecessor's policies and put them on steroids. I won't go into detail, this is all fairly well known. The result was the greatest expansion of government, ever.
The 50's and 60's were the result of the US becoming the 'gold standard' of the world's post-war economies selling all their gold for dollars to prevent manipulation by the Germans in the 40s.
The 70's were the start of Nixon's (R) unraveling of the dollar. He created the EPA and a smorgasbord of other agencies in his attempts to out-democrat the Democrats. Nixon's progressive and reckless tactics resulted in his having to resign the presidency, and leading to Jimmy Carter (D).
Jimmy needs no paragraph.
The only president in the 2nd half of the 20th century to take some steps a-la Coolidge was Reagan (R). Ronald Reagan's deregulation went too far, as states were no longer in a position (since 2/3 of a century of the Fed had made sure that was impossible) nor had the desire, to regulate business. In addition there was not a sufficient decrease in spending - though by today's terms it seems a pittance.
The tangible result of Reagan's policies was a shift towards a more republican (small R) form of government. Again like Coolidge, this was not to stick, except for the economic boom that came from it.
Clinton (D) took advantage of this and since he was not a Progressivist, government slowed in growth and GDP (and thereby income to the Federal Treasury) grew faster to the point where there were brief surpluses.
George W. Bush (R) was a progressivist, expanding government from the get-go with policies such as the No Child Left Behind law, the expansion of government power over U.S. citizens, the ethanol mandate, and most significantly the initial bank bailouts at the end of his term.
At that point, both presidential candidates, McCain (R) and Obama (D) stopped their campaigns and rushed to the capitol to support their fellow progressivist George W. Bush's policy of flooding banks and investment firms with U.S. funds, thereby diluting private shareholders and in effect nationalizing them.
The current president is to the previous as FDR was to Wilson.
When they were originally considering a union, the 13 original colonies formed a confederacy. If anarchy was 0% government, this form of central government was maybe 5% government. It proved too close to anarchy, so the Republic of the United States was formed.
I would place that original republic at about 10% government. If Hitler and Stallin were 100% government we can then draw were on this up and down slider the 'left and the right' have taken the country.
Lincoln took us to 35% government.
Woodrow Wilson left us at 75% government.
FDR took us past 85% government.
Reagan took us back to maybe 50% government.
Bush II took us down to 70% government.
Obama is moving us past 85% government into the 90's.
-Laz
PS: As both political parties keep us locked in a struggle between left and right ... extreme environmentalist, abortists, and anti-religion zealots on one side - militants, religious zealots, and domestic terrorists on the other ... these parties keep moving the slider towards their ultimate goal: power.
Damn Steinbeck,I now remember why I don't talk to my "friends" about this stuff...Just be glad I've not posted your opinions from last year. Nor have I thrown them in your face. I'll save this one to show you next year. :) Where did you come up with these stats?
No doubt they want power. Finally we agree on something- if only that 1 point. It's a start.
Nice blog post, and an amazing follow-up by Laz here. I'd love to know what you've been reading my friend.
Just found your blog via Vegas Flea---interesting. Added to my reading list.
Just a small comment---socialism doesn't always infer state ownership. There can can also be worker or member owned, as in the coops in the US, and other countries. Credit unions (common)and natural grocer coops (not as many as there used to be, it seems) are two examples.
Some years back, credit unions were very limited in terms of who could join. Usually it was an employee group. But federal rules changed to allow them to serve a broader membership. Mine used to be for telephone company employees only; now it is for anyone residing in this county.
tully
Good point. Glad to hear your credit union is still afloat! I was being very general- using broad terms that are most associated with the terms. Nice to see you here :)
Interesting posts but to put another thought to your many, to propose the defintions in purely economic terms and then make inferences about specific countries is surely not the full picture. to decribe England and Australia as socialist that by the defintion above advocates state ownership is ignoring the underpinning philosophy behind what is socialist etc..certainly in these two examples with the exception of the bank situation in the UK recently is not accurate. Rather a socialist ideology that offers a more extensive social safety net for those who have not (or have less), including state run health care/education access for all is a more accurate reflection of how countries are run. And yes I woudl agree that the US has many of these 'socialist' ideas in place..at least to some degree.
The apparent resistance by some to accept that recent events in the banking system take away from capitalism and that is a bad thing is not what sharing a planet with a heap of other folk is about totally surely..All for providing the max in opportunity but not when a guy down the street is rotting cos he cant access a hospital.
Your last point re. the ability to live a quality , healthy lifestyle you want sounds fairly and encouraging socialist. :-) Is that not a goal to aspire to irrespective of the economic labelling nonsense
PS Cuba did have a very good health care system for essentially a 3rd world cash starved country
the impact of a lack of
This is why they were called "concise" definitions. To go on ad nauseam would make little sense in the context of a personal blog about my opinions (rather than a text book). NO?
Post a Comment