I thought this was a good commentary to share.
Not all fascists sport military uniforms and funny mustaches
By Charley Reese Commentary
Have you ever thought about whether you are a socialist, a capitalist or a fascist?
It's an interesting mental exercise.
Don't decide on the basis of your current situation. You can be a capitalist and still suck on the government teat. Most big corporations do. You can be socialist and yet make a lot of money. "Hanoi Jane" Fonda is a good example of that.
Just to keep it simple, a capitalist believes that the means of production should be privately owned; a socialist believes that the means of production should be owned by the government; and a fascist believes that the means of production should be controlled by the government.
It seems to me that folks who favor heavy government regulation are fascists, and most of them don't even know it. Americans have been brainwashed by Hollywood into thinking fascists wear military uniforms and have funny mustaches. In fact, fascists can look exactly like Bill Clinton or Alan Greenspan.
I count myself a capitalist -- even though for most of my life I didn't even need to take my shoes off to count my money. Capitalism, however, is the only economic system compatible with individual freedom.
You can't separate freedom from economics on account of the fact that we are flesh and need sustenance. In a capitalist society it is up to us to earn our own sustenance as best we can. If someone else controls our ability to earn our sustenance, then we aren't really free even if the controller chooses to leave us alone most of the time.
In the Soviet Union and other communist countries, the first level of punishment for dissidents was to take away their housing (there was no privately owned housing) and their job (there were no private businesses either). Thus, a dissident soon found himself homeless and hungry and soon thereafter discovered that being homeless and hungry was a crime.
In a society in which there is no private property, the individual is at the mercy of the government. On the other hand a person in a capitalist society can voluntarily become a slave, simply by going deeply into debt. When all the money you earn is owed to somebody else, you don't have a lot of freedom left.
You may ask how is a safety net provided in a free society?
Well, by family and church. The large, tight-knit families that characterized America of the 18th and 19th centuries were based on a strong element of economics. The family worked together to raise the standard of living of the whole family; when old age or sickness came, the family took care of them. Before Medicaid and Medicare came along, there were charity hospitals operated by churches and sometimes the local community.
Although native-born Americans have largely abandoned that for extreme individualism, you still see it working among Asians and other immigrants. That's why so many of them prosper despite the difficulties of adjusting to a new country and new language.
The most common characteristic of human beings is their adaptability. They can adapt to taking care of themselves and their kin if the environment forces them to do so. They can also adapt to dependency if the government forces that system on them.
People often complain that Americans are irresponsible. That attitude has been fostered on the people by the government: Don't worry. The government will feed you; the government will provide you with health care; the government will take care of the old folks; the government will protect you from the bad guys. You just enjoy your self-indulgence and be nothing but a mindless consumer.
The hidden price, of course, is freedom.
Published in The Orlando Sentinel on July 18, 2000
Charley Reese Commentary
Webmaster Tom you wrote :
Just to keep it simple,
a capitalist believes that the means of production should be privately owned;
a socialist believes that the means of production should be owned by the government;
and a fascist believes that the means of production should be controlled by the government.
___________________
A socialist believes that society should take care of responsibilities of the individual (such as feeding, clothing, housing, educating, caring for elderly parents, etc.; and (at least on paper) that the workers should own the means of production .
A fascist (and Hitler was not a fascist but a National Socialist [or so he considered himself]) believes that enterprise should be private but regulated by the government (as Mussolini said : "We have solved the problem of production, now we have to solve the problem of distribution" [notice distribution and not re-distribution]) in order that everyone who works would benefit from the blessings of the land and the work of his hands . Meaning : your enterprise cannot be harmful or detrimental to others, and you cannot just gobble up the whole industry for yourself, and your employees have to earn a living (living as opposed to starving or existing).
Both, socialists and fascists, subscribe to the idea that the employees/workers should be the share-holders of a joint-stock company ; which would more-or-less ensure that there would always be just as much purchasing power around as production capacity -- no more need for boom-and-bust cycle .
Laissez faire capitalism leads to monopoly (see Coke/Pepsi, Ford/GM) and allows corporations to grow bigger and stronger than the government, which leads to just as bad a form of government as what we saw in eastern Europe . (Don't forget, communism was the brain-child of capitalists).
______________
was to take away their housing (there was no privately owned housing) and their job (there were no private businesses either).
Wrong again . About half of the housing was privately owned houses with backyards, employment was a constitutional right . There were many, many self-employed taylors, plumbers, electricians, car-mechanics, etc., and even joint-stock enterprises under the dictatorship of the proletariat .
The problem of the socialist countries was not so much the state-controll of the means of production, but the ability of their managers . Under Hitler's dictatorship Germany's industrial out-put was higher in 1944 than in 1943 -- inspite of all that bombing . Under socialist dictatorship East-Germany couldn't even come close to West-Germany's level .
I didn't write it, I shared it. Tell Charley Reese. Good comments though.
Socialism -- in all its many forms, including in its extreme communism and fascism -- is an oppressive form of government, necessarily parasitic on the productive class, and absolutely unable to sustain itself over the long term. I believe it was Lenin who proposed, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." The problem is, when a government system is set up to provide for your needs, what is your motivation to use your abilities? Extremely socialistic nations, such as Russia and China, have thus discovered the need to implement some sort of temporary free market reforms at various stages in their history in order to counterbalance (for a time) the drain on their country's economy caused by their socialistic system.
Laissez faire capitalism does not lead to monopoly (in a majority of cases, and certainly not in the long term) when truly implemented as a free market system with no government intervention. The free market is ideal in the sense that it is the only system that naturally promotes competition and requires consistent ingenuity and diligence on the part of the entrepreneur to keep up with the changing demands of the public. In such an environment, it is highly unlikely that a monopoly would develop except where the business is exceptionally good at satisfying consumer demand at a reasonable price -- in which case, it deserves its status. But in a free market, if the monopoly (or any business) tries to use its position to take advantage of the consumer, the market will automatically turn against it and another business will step in to fill the gap.
This is assuming, of course, that the business doesn't have any inherent advantages given to it by favorable legislation or other government regulations that work to its advantage and against competing businesses. I refer anyone interested to a marvelous (and very short) book called "The Incredible Bread Machine" by a group of young students (Brown et al.) that were part of the World Research, Inc. Campus Studies Institute Division. The book is a wonderful treatment of the merits of the free market system, and the devastating effect government intervention has had on the economic health of America throughout its history. Many misconceptions about the causes of such economic misfortunes as the Great Depression, inflation, and boom-and-bust cycles, are laid to rest in this book.
Celeste,
Amen!
The First Plank of the Communist Manifesto is Property Tax.
When discussing Socialism, you should know what Socialism is.
Socialists believe in the Internal Subversion,
of a Nation.
Communists believe in the Violent overthrow of a Nation.
Both agree on the same goals.
The First Plank of the Communist Manifesto is Property Tax.
There are nine other Planks.
I will find them, and then share those with you.
To Celeste Skousen (Cskousen)
Laissez faire capitalism does not lead to monopoly (in a majority of cases, and certainly not in the long term) when truly implemented as a free market system with no government intervention. The free market is ideal in the sense that it is the only system that naturally promotes competition and requires consistent ingenuity and diligence on the part of the entrepreneur to keep up with the changing demands of the public. In such an environment, it is highly unlikely that a monopoly would develop except where the business is exceptionally good at satisfying consumer demand at a reasonable price -- in which case, it deserves its status. But in a free market, if the monopoly (or any business) tries to use its position to take advantage of the consumer, the market will automatically turn against it and another business will step in to fill the gap.
Unfortunately laissez faire does lead to monopoly -- and we may clearly see that (oil, cars, chemicals, soft-drinks, telecommunication, airlines, retail) -- for every manager's #1 goal is to gain ever larger market-share .
Under mob-rule and circus a sizable corporation very soon buys its own politicians and puts them in government . This we can also see with our naked eyes . . . no need for theory . (State-monopolist capitalism, in marxist terms)
The 19th century also clearly have shown that the market did not solve anything . What fun it must have been working 12 hours with half-an-hour lunch-break in Mr. Carnegie's factories, or having one's independent refinery burnt down by Mr. Rockefeller's freely enterprising thugs . Not to mention the joy of those 5-6-7-8 year old children working in textile factories under the whip . (Oh, but if the children don't work, the whole family starves -- what blessing this laissez faire is ; wonder why this blessing was never extended to the doughters of the factory owners and the promoters of free-market)
During the wars of the 20th century free-marketeering industrialist regularly supported, supplied, traded with the enemy -- all in the name of laissez faire .
GE, GM, Ford, Standard Oil, banking, supported the U.S., the 3rd Reich, the Soviet Union . Should we let them do what they want -- in the name of free-enterprise --, or, perhaps, regulate them, to make shure that they don't do anything that is harmful to the nation ?
Socialism was/is financed and promoted by laissez faire industrialists and financiers, for they mean "let them do it" only for themselves .
Socialism will develop first in the most developed capitalist countries, then the socialist state will wither and give its place to the communist world government . And this is exactly what we see today, promoted by whom ? internationalist owners of international corporations . Oh joy, this laissez faire really is good for us ; Randian billioners are bringing us the socialist dream fulfilled .
______________
Property-tax makes tenants of the people .
The above is:
Laissez Faire Capitalism as conducted by CORPORATIONS.
By Law Corporations are Artificial Persons.
Artificial Persons cannot have a Soul.
In the big Scheme of things, who is incharge of the Souless Persons?
Now you know why Corporations act they way they do.
There can be Laissez Faire, for Sole Proprietorships,Partnerships,but not for a Corporation.
Corporations have no Soul.The Managers of Corporations act accordingly.
When a business become Large and unweildly the owners Incorporate and then will no longer be under Laissez Faire,but will enter the arena
of Regulation.
The other option is to Reinvoke the Law of MORTMAIN:Artificial persons can not Own Land,can not contribute to Political Ideas,or Campaigns,or
Politicians.
structural,
After years of being married to a man who has worked for many different companies, from small start-ups to large businesses, it's clear to see that the larger a business gets, the less efficient it is. Yes, huge companies have more power monetarily, and even buy politicians--however, simply because of the increased structural complexity that comes with thousands of employees, large companies just can't change fast enough to keep up with demand. Also, most managers do not have a #1 goal of increasing market share--they're usually more concerned with lording their power over the few employees they get to badger, or making themselves a cool million or two and then getting out (depending on their position in the company). Most managers are not owners; they're hired help, and act accordingly--their paycheck is what's most important, not the business.
Take, for example, Microsoft. Five years ago, there were people who were absolutely petrified that Microsoft would completely take over the Internet, corner the personal computing market, and own us all. Every home would be wired to the Microsoft network, every person would be Windows-dependent, and Apple and Novel and all the other software companies out there would either be absorbed or run out of town.
Now, what do we have in reality? (Despite our greatly controlled economy.) I'm sitting in front of a Windows machine, running NT 4.0. However, I also use software from Adobe, SmartDraw.com, Netscape, and about ten other minor vendors. My husband uses even more alternates for his work in software engineering--and he's not employed by Microsoft, the "all-powerful threat to the economy." He's an independent contractor, and of necessity, the software tools he uses are highly specialized, robust, and incredibly fine-tuned--which is a far cry from most of what Microsoft puts out. His success depends on delivering working code as efficiently as possible--and the Microsoft programming environments just aren't stable enough to do that up to his standards.
Linux has survived, and will soon have a graphical interface easy enough to use that it will cease to be solely a programmer's operating system, becoming a contender in the home computing market.
Over the last five years, hundreds of companies have arisen to challenge Microsoft's market share. Some have gained a niche, while others haven't even made a dent. Some have become serious contenders--enough to make Microsoft nervous.
Microsoft's current prosecution under the anti-trust laws aren't because they're a monopoly--far from it. "Monopoly" means you don't have any other choice--while in reality there are hundreds of other choices in that market. Microsoft's no more a monopoly than Daylight Donuts or Circuit City. Gates has refused to buy himself politicians, and I think the PTB have decided that he's dangerous because he's not playing the game exactly the way they want him to.
--------
You mentioned the concern of letting large market share holders "do whatever they want" as opposed to regulating them to prevent them from doing things that would be "harmful to the nation." There's another name for things "harmful to the nation"--treason. That's clearly prohibited in the New Constitution of Liberty, and would be enforced by the judicial system.
To PatriotsMother
By manager I meant someone like a CEO . (sorry)
Yarmouth,
What I said about managers applies to CEO's also--they are usually hired help, not major owners in a company.
Fascism is a form of socialism... I think it is a bit reductionist to oversimplify fascism as being simply "government controlled, but not government owned..." Granted, Fascist regimes never collectivized to the degree that the Soviets did. Hitler's stooge Goering was always nationalizing industries left-and-right. The Reichswerk AG, a state-run holding company, built on legal plunder and nationalization, threatened to gobble up almost half of all industry in Europe, before the tide was turned against the Nazis.
"Unfortunately laissez faire does lead to monopoly..."
Unfortunately, too many people presume we have a laissez faire economy now!
Actually rsetliff, fascism and socialism are two very different animals. The dictionary definintion of fascism is: "A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism".
The Bush administration appears to be a textbook example of this genre, yet my fellow conservatives seem to be very quiet about it all. Isn't anyone here a little unsettled about what is happening to our liberies under a Republican administration?
Large powerful government = left
No government = right
The dictionary is wrong. Both socialism and facism are philosophies of the extreme left.
The dictionary is wrong?.......(ok, whatever). So "The Right" only exists in an environment that is without any form of government? That seems a rather eccentric stance but if you can defend it, more power to you!
I think you might also get a little lonely trying to put fascism in to the left catagory but I'm always ready to give a listen to whatever, er... unique ideas folk might have.
So, back to the issue you neglected to address: Does the Bush administration fall into the catagory of "fascism", or am I to understand from your answer that you consider them "leftists"?
The correct political spectrum places large intrusive government on the left and the lack thereof on the right. The right believing in anarchy and the ability of basically good human beings being able to govern themselves. The left believing in an all powerful state that regulates every aspect of life and promises to grant the citizen-slave's cradle to grave care and parenting.
It is the only spectrum in my oppinion that makes any sence. Socialism and Fascism differ slightly in flavor but are fraternal twins in intrusiveness. Facism also very closely resembles the militancy of communism.
I believe the correct place of government is a little to the right of center on this spectrum.
I am far from alone in this view and find that most constitutional conservatives agree.
I have never heard any reasonable rationalization of any other spectrum espoused in the government brainwashing centers or their media. However, if an other intelligent theory can be presented I am always ready to learn.
You are to understand that I do consider the Bush administration to be "Leftist Fascists."
Political spectra (right vs. left) are a tool of those who would manipulate the public mindset. The same goes for "Fascism". I will explain below:
Political spectrum:
The "right" vs. "left" political spectrum stems from a time in France when those in favor of change would site on the left side of the table, and those in favor of maintaining things as they are sat on the right end of the table. Therefore, left vs. right should be understood to be change vs. status quo. Naturally, such classification says little about one's political views. Such spectra only have utility within a small, well-understood political environment. Any larger than that, and it loses its meaning.
For instance, if I said an American was “leftist” (meaning in favor of change) to a European, it would mean very little to him unless he fully understood the political environment in which the subject exists. What’s more, the individual in question may want some things to change, and other things to stay the same. In addition to this, merely saying he wants “change” says nothing about the direction in which change is desired.
Today, left vs. right has gradually become associated with specific political systems. Even still, there is not universal understanding about which wing means what. Does “left” mean total government and “right” mean no government? Does left mean “Communist” and “right” mean “Fascist”? Since there does not seem to be a clear consensus about which is the proper application, it is probably best that such spectra not be used in the first place. Especially when faced with the latter definition. Communism and Fascism cannot, in any way, be said to exist at opposites of each other.
Fascism:
Fascism is yet another term used to illicit emotional responses from those whom one wishes to manipulate. But doesn’t fascism, like socialism, describe a particular political philosophy? The answer is, quite simply, no. At least, not apart from that assigned to it by those who like to slant the tables in favor of Socialism. I will demonstrate why this is.
Where do we get the term “Fascist”? Truthfully, the first fascists were members of Mussolini’s “Fascist Party”. This political party was so named because of its symbol: the Roman fasces -- an ancient Roman symbol of authority. Therefore, the only valid means of defining “Fascism” is to examine the political ideals espoused by Mussolini’s Fascist Party. After doing this, we see that Fascism is merely a subset of general Socialism. Its tenets are based upon principles that form the foundation of socialism. Whether the means of production were “controlled” vs. “owned” by the State is immaterial. Something that is completely at the disposal of one cannot be truthfully said to be owned by another. Therefore, total control is essentially ownership.
So in true substance and outcome, there is little to distinguish Fascism from Socialism. The former is merely a more specialized form of the latter.
Therefore, as disputed earlier, the dictionary is indeed wrong in that it gives a definition which: (a) employs the use of a flawed descriptive mechanism – the political spectrum, and (b) neglects to properly associate the term with its historical roots.
In summary, it is dangerous to use, or consent to the use of, terminology such as “fascist”, “right-wing”, etc. The definitions of each are elastic so as to provide a versatile tool to the propagandist. They are not useful at all to one who is concerned with the discovery and exposure of truth. For one to use such terms is to play on the “enemy’s turf”.
I beg to differ Brady. If we are to be consistent in our language and logic and yet excise terms such as "fascist" and "right-wing" from our conversation then, by extention, we should also remove "socialist", "communist" and "left-wing" from use also.
Perhaps a political dialogue of sorts could be carried on in this forum given your restraints but how do we take ideas formulated here into (for lack of a better phrase) "the real world"? The very title of this particular forum "Socialist, a Capitalist or a Fascist?" was given to it by the webmaster, yet you would censor him?
I personally have found the chain of this discussion to be very educational so I'm a little baffled as to why you urge these restrictions... can you explain further please?
I do not believe it is an issue of censorship, so much as an excersize in futility. As you are aware most of society does not subscribe to our understanding. Therfore to use the terms that have been so effectively used by the propaganda machine further complicates the attempt to win political converts. Using language that can not as easily be misunderstood Is vital when speaking to those who are being guided out from the darkness of ignorance.
Quote:I beg to differ Brady. If we are to be consistent in our language and logic and yet excise terms such as "fascist" and "right-wing" from our conversation then, by extention, we should also remove "socialist", "communist" and "left-wing" from use also.
"Socialist" is indeed a well-defined word that has a definition upon which most people would agree. There are some specifics that some might add here or take away there, but in large part, everyone can agree on a general definition of "Socialist". However, you point out two other terms that we should consider not using. I personally avoid using "Communist" unless I'm specifically referring to people who call themselves such. There are many disagreements about what "Communist" means, and therefore, to avoid confusion and possible ridicule, it is good to avoid its use. As for "left-wing", I've already explained why this term should be avoided. Furthermore, using "left-wing" opens us up to a retaliatory use of "right-wing". While we might all agree what "left-wing" means, I'm certain there are disagreements as to what "right-wing" means.
The solution is to call a "left-winger" what they really are: socialist.
Quote:As you are aware most of society does not subscribe to our understanding.
This is precisely the problem. We can put whatever definitions we want on terms such as "left vs. right-wing" and "fascist", but whenever we consent to the use of terms that have elastic and varied definitions depending on who you ask, we are asking for trouble.
Most Socialists (or Marxists) will label anything and everything they disagree with as "fascist". From this usage, it becomes clear that it is little more than a term designed to demonize any opponent.
What's more is that Fascism, when properly defined by its historic origins, is nothing more than a variety of Socialism. So let's consider the propriety and strategic value of its use against its most popular subject: Hitler.
Everyone (with VERY few exceptions) considers Hitler to have been "evil". Subsequently, everyone considers "Fascism" to be evil as well. But by applying the term "Fascist" to Hitler, we do two things:
1. We reinforce the socialist's use of the term against us. We confirm that fascism is Hitler-like, and since the socialist calls us fascist, we have helped to supply him with the tools to damage our own image by association with Hitler.
2. We relieve Socialism of its true guilt by placing the blame on "Fascism". Socialism gets off easy because "Fascism" takes the bullet for it. Since most people do not realize Fascism’s relationship with Socialism, Socialism remains unstained, and in some ways, vindicated.
As you can now see, the use of the term "Fascist", rather than “Socialist”, can do us no strategic good in influencing public opinion and educating the public. In fact, it works against us. On the other hand, if we illustrate and emphasize the Socialist component of Hitler’s rule, Socialism will become associated with Hitler and will then eventually become universally hated just as “Fascism” has.
The case against the "left vs. right" spectrum is similar. Currently, the predominate understanding is that Socialists are on the “left” and “Fascists” are on the “right”. Whether or not this definition is “correct” is irrelevant. (Incidentally, any standard of measurement is arbitrary and there is therefore no “correct” definition. The only “correctness” that can be achieved is by public consensus. In this case, the consensus is not in our favor.) Most people are not aware that other definitions exist for the spectrum. Therefore, in the public arena, when we invoke the term “left-wing” it implicitly validates the use of the term “right-wing”. I think all of us here would agree that we are not happy with the popular use of the term “right-wing”. Therefore, to use the label “left-wing” allows the other side to label us “Fascists” via the term “right-wing”. Once recognized as “right-wing”, it is difficult to illicit any sympathy from the public. After all, you’re suddenly akin to Hitler (fascist) himself! So, by consenting to the invocation of the “political spectrum”, the average person will think you accept the popular definitions given to each end of it. Few people, if any, possess a sufficient attention span to hear and understand your personal definition of the spectrum. Nor is it practical to expect our definition to proliferate widely enough to change things… at least not in the near future. And in the mean time, there’s no sense in reinforcing the opposition’s case against us.
I've considered the last couple of posts for a while and I've just got to disagree. I've been a proud member of the right all of my political life so I'm not about to back off from calling myself a member of the right wing.
Brady, not all members of the "left" are socialists, I know this for a fact as I count a good number of them among my friends. If you can objectively define a political center then I doubt you would call someone who's a hair's breadth to the left of center a socialist, yet that's just what you're doing.
As to avoiding calling yourself a member of the "right" because of its association with fascism and Hitler, well, that seems just plain silly to me. The left has to shoulder the burden of explaining communism and Stalin in just the same way. I understand that there's some confusion about precise definition of what constitutes the right, but let's not play word games by trying to lay fascism on the left, it's dishonest (IMHO).
Frankly, I've been uncomfortable for some while with talk that depicts those on the left as the enemy. If we haven't converted them its because of our poor powers of communication coupled with flaws in our political philosophy. Let's face it, this whole Trent Lott thing didn't pop up out of nowhere, its something that is woven into our side's history. Sooner or later the left is going to notice Cheney's awful record on civil rights and his past is going to damage our cause and rightly so. How have so many principled patriots allowed such people to rise up in our ranks?
Denying fascism's roots in the right (Hitler attacked the Soviets because they stood on the opposite political pole, not because they shared the same viewpoint) is not going to help our cause.... denying it life in our midst will! We ought to be going out of our way to sniff out the scent of it and lop off its many heads as they poke up here and there.
You know, I wasn't happy voting for Bush, but I held my nose and pulled the lever. I had no idea that the choice was going to be between Big Government and Big Brother and I'm really steamed that these (let's just get this out in the open) fascists were going to twist the ideals of the right and supplant our freedom with totalitarianism. This is a damned sad thing to write on an early Christmas morning, but that's where we are.
Those to my left aren't the bad guys in the world today, those to my right are. Now is not the time to worry about identifying yourself as a member of the right...simply add "a freedom loving member of the right" and those on your left will extend their hand to shake yours. Like it or not, left and right have a common enemy so think about working with them rather than hiding your politics behind words.
Peace and goodwill to all of you.
Quote:Brady, not all members of the "left" are socialists, I know this for a fact as I count a good number of them among my friends. If you can objectively define a political center then I doubt you would call someone who's a hair's breadth to the left of center a socialist, yet that's just what you're doing.
To the contrary, this is precisely what I am *not* doing. I am asserting that our “left” vs. “right” spectrum has ceased to have sufficient meaning or utility in facilitating the classification of our ideas. Therefore, how could I be applying it to the “left”? I decline to even invoke the terms “left” and “right” in a political context. Clearly, you are mistaken. The only association I make between Socialism and the “left” is to say that this is the popular assignment. But again, I protest the use of this spectrum from the onset and can therefore not be in any way construed to be labeling those who are “a hair’s breadth to the left” as Socialists.
Quote:The left has to shoulder the burden of explaining communism and Stalin in just the same way.
But that’s just it, in popular politics today, if someone is known as a “leftist”, nobody has ominous visions of Stalin the same way Hitler is conjured at the word “right”. Therefore, as it concerns the general public’s opinion, the whole popular use and understanding of the “left” vs. “right” spectrum is weighted against those of us who find their label on the “right”.
Quote:I understand that there's some confusion about precise definition of what constitutes the right, but let's not play word games by trying to lay fascism on the left, it's dishonest (IMHO).
First, explain to me the logic in assigning “fascism” (a dubious word in itself) a place on the opposite end of the spectrum from outright Socialism. The two are so utterly similar in their nature that it baffles me how anyone could consider them opposites.
Secondly, word games are more important to our cause than you might think. One of the reasons our cause suffers today is largely due to the subtle manipulations of the language (word games) that have eroded public perception over time. If we are to turn the tide, we must counter this tactic and not underestimate its strategic importance. One of the first things we must do is to neutralize these catalysts. The next thing we must do is to introduce our own catalysts. Call it “spin” if you will, but it has worked for the opposition for decades. Don’t forget, this is a war of ideas, and as in any war, we must not rely solely upon a single weapon. The brute force of our ideas will not, by itself, win the day. We must also counter the enemy’s subtle and cunning tactics.
Do not forget, it is not the hardened Socialists who we are trying to convince. They will most likely never be convinced. Rather, we are trying to convince that great majority: the Undecided. Most of the Undecided know little about the specifics of “right” vs. “left”. They only know the “spin” given to these various terms.
Quote:Denying fascism's roots in the right (Hitler attacked the Soviets because they stood on the opposite political pole, not because they shared the same viewpoint) is not going to help our cause....
First, if Hitler was on the “opposite political pole” from Stalin, explain to me in what specific and meaningful ways Hitler was the opposite of Stalin.
Second, denying fascism’s roots in Socialism will hurt our cause.
Third, continuing the usage of such arbitrary and illogical spectra (“right” vs. “left”) will also hurt our cause.
Perhaps a more logical spectrum could be a circle with Socialists and Fascists together at the “south-pole” and freedom-lovers at the “north-pole”?
Quote:Those to my left aren't the bad guys in the world today, those to my right are.
This is why the spectrum breaks down. Many of the policies of those whom you term the “bad guys” are, indeed, socialist. And according to the traditional spectrum, socialists fall on the left. But are these same individuals not also considered on the “right”? This is precisely why this spectrum does not work. It fails miserably to adequately map and describe these people’s philosophies.
Quote:Like it or not, left and right have a common enemy so think about working with them rather than hiding your politics behind words.
Hiding politics behind words is precisely what is being done with terms like “right-wing” and “fascist”. The general public is not enlightened in the least by the use of terms like these. In the end, they’re the adult equivalent of name-calling since most people can’t actually define them. And in reality, these terms DO lack logically consistent definitions.
Quote:Sooner or later the left is going to notice Cheney's awful record on civil rights and his past is going to damage our cause and rightly so.
Now we’re veering off of the subject. You are probably right that it will damage our cause. But I don’t see why it is rightly so. What have we to do with the likes of Dick Cheney? Yes, thanks to silly spectra like “right” vs. “left”, we have become associated with people like these simply because we’re all supposedly together on the “right”. Once again, another reason why such spectra are dangerous. What is needed is a spectrum that properly defines and assigns the philosophies of the subjects in consideration. As such, people like Cheney and Bush would be quite some distance from us in such a spectrum and we’d have little fear of being associated with them. With such a spectrum our cause need not suffer at all.
Quote:How have so many principled patriots allowed such people to rise up in our ranks?
The answer is that we have been too busy concerning ourselves with whether we’re Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, “left” or “right”. Each of these labels is so generic that it is easy for a wide variety of individuals to fall under any given one of them. Consider, for instance, the fact that Bush – a “right-wing” Conservative Republican (note that I’ve drawn upon each of the label categories listed above) – supports several socialist entitlement programs. He also supports and promotes vast expansions of government control. But he has the requisite labels to qualify as a member of our “side”. Ill-defined terms such as these are far too malleable to be of any long-term use. And in the end, they work against us as we are now seeing. Some might argue, “that’s not a Conservative position!” But who is to say what is Conservative and what is not? If you go read up on the word, you won’t find anything keeping it from covering such policies. What it means to be a right-wing Conservative Republican has changed drastically in recent years – all with little protest. If, however, we used terms that more concretely described the philosophy in question, it would be very difficult for someone to pass themselves off as something other than what they are. Someone who supports socialist programs would be hard-pressed to call himself anti-Socialist.
I think the points brought out by Brady are worthy of our consideration. Labels as they have tradtionally been used are a short hand method of brain washing. He is suggesting that we do it in our favor by correctly labeling politicians and ideologies promoting Socialism as what they are. I wholeheartedly agree.
Either we believe in minimal government interference (or the least amount of government necessary) or we believe in cradle-to-grave government that will meet all our needs, Socialism. Joel is trying to lay out a program of fundamental principles that will clearly define the government's role.
The only lack I see in Brady's comments (I may have missed it) is a name for those who believe in what Joel is trying to propose. The original article would label us capitalists, but I think we are going so far beyond that trite title we need to come up with a new one: principalist? Any other ideas?
I agree. A term for ourselves is in order. We're not quite Libertarians since we do accept the idea of the State to some degree. Might history one day call us "Skousians"? :-) The key is to use a term that contains in it a kernel of our true belief. "Principalists" may not acheive this as it leaves the definition of those principals undefined. Much like the term "Conservative". It is never defined to what we are being conservative.
The principals to which we adhere do have a close relationship to the old idea of "Natural Law". We believe in natural, inherent, individual rights that are supremely sovereign. Could these rights be termed "Natural Rights"? This could be a start. Any ideas?
Yes I see your point, Brady. We need something specific rather than vaguely general. I would love Supreme Soverignists but it would be alienating, I am afraid, to some of those that Joel is trying to embrace.
Inalienable Rightists is accurate but doesn't roll off the tongue well. In-a-lien-able or not lienable harkens back to: what God has given us man cannot.
Covenant Constitutionalist
Personal Soverignists
Fundamental Constitutionalists
Foundational Rights
Any other suggestions? I think this is a worthwhile objective as titles tend to define groups in a way that makes them start to cohere and grow. I would love to see this movement move from an intellectual one to an actual active going concern. Having a name would start that in motion and make it seem real and something to go after.
New Constitutionalist might work. It would embrace the concepts of the old constitution but allow for the changes we are exploring here.
Joel have you had any thoughts in this direction?
Yes, a name is important for cohesion. It is also important for recognition as a group. It allows the group to rise from the shadows of obscurity. Currently, there are many of us out there who, unfortunately, have no idea where to find their bretheren for the simple lack of a name. I mean, you can go and do a google search for "Conservative" or "Liberal". But how do you do a search for us? It's much more difficult.
I'd also like to emphasize the importance that we, as a movement, develop a vocabulary that works for us and that works with us. I'm currently compiling a document of advantageous terminology and terminology to avoid. As a social strategy, this cannot be underestimated. For instance, in our discussions with others, we should not merely use the term "Democracy" but rather something like, "Brute Democracy" or "Raw Democracy", or even "Mob Rule". Democracy, in our age, has a decidedly positive sound to it. And indeed, elements of democratic rule, when properly limited and applied in a restricted fashion, are a good thing. But we must "spin" things in our direction. This is not being dishonest. If anything, it is being MORE honest because we are assigning words that more accurately describe the true nature of the things being described. Unlimited Democracy is very accurately described as "Brute". It is essentially based upon the notion that "Might makes right".
Obviously, the refinement and perfection of our principles must be our primary goal. But close on the heels of it must be the priorities of acquiring a name and of adopting a workable vocabulary.
Very interesting conversation. Truly wish it could be broadcasted on radio or tv, and for a change, provide insight and a good dose of communication skills, to a public that so desperately needs it. At some point, I may add some of my own personal ideology, but for now, know that it is conversations such as these that will inspire all who read, to understand how much more they need to learn. Thank you one and all for your efforts.
Regardless of the name, mainstream media and the "powers that be" will alway be able to turn the definition of the name in the minds of an ignorant public. Take "Fundamentalist" Christian--the pictures coming to mind are radical right-wingers who bomb abortion clinics. Or the John Birch Society--named for a true patriot, war hero, and devoted religious individual, yet today it is associated almost with facism.
I agree that vocabulary is important--especially in countering dangerous movements around us, but hoping to label those seeking a "truth-based" government, will likely end in similar fashion as those already slandered names.
Perhaps the lack of a name, though limiting reach, might enable us to better get our ideas out--one by one--without the prejudice a name would be subject to.
Just my two-cents worth.
You all are missing a key element of leftist politics: It's all about social equality, and doing away with social inequity. What is the responsibility of a citizen? I believe one key element is that the citizenry has a collective responsibility to the other citizens, and therefore, they have a collective responsibility to those citizens less fortunate than themselves. Rightist politics believes in individual freedom at the expense of the rest of society. I believe that history has proven that society can't handle absolute freedom (anarchy) and neither can corporations. Its the reason for laws effecting personal freedoms and regulations for corporations in the first place--because individuals and corporations abused their freedoms. The kind of dog-eat-dog,survival of the fittest, social darwinistic economic system that you all want to impose on the rest of us is the kind of utopian thinking that leads to elitism and social injustice that you claim to abhor. OTOH, many of you belong to religious organizations, so you support some degree of socialism even though you don't acknowledge it, or perhaps have not even thought of it before.
Just my two bit's worth.
Joe Blow
joeblow - I would have to disagree with your statement about "rightist politics," at least in the sense you seem to be using it (the Libertarian sense), as it's more like individual freedom at individual expense. Where is the societal expense for the individual freedoms? We are not total anarchists, and I'm pretty sure that everyone here recognizes some place for central government in a personal-freedom oriented, free-market economy.
AB in SC wrote:
"Perhaps the lack of a name, though limiting reach, might enable us to better get our ideas out--one by one--without the prejudice a name would be subject to."
You've got a good point here. This is definitely a valid thing to consider.
I would also say, however, that while it is true that the media can probably spin almost any term in a nagative direction, they cannot easily take a bad-sounding term and spin it in a good light. For instance my example of "Brute Democracy". It is hard to fathom how such a term could be countered to sound positive. So whether or not we adopt a name, we should begin using carefully chosen terminology such as this.
joeblow wrote:
"OTOH, many of you belong to religious organizations, so you support some degree of socialism even though you don't acknowledge it, or perhaps have not even thought of it before."
This really isn't true. While compliance with religious views and beliefs are voluntary, the sort of benevolence through coercive force espoused by socialism is entirely different. Benevolence is not the same as socialism.
Please help, I need some funds to start my own business in South Africa, life is difficult here.
I will repay you as soon as I make money.As the Bible say, blessed are those who give....
Life is difficult everywhere these days, Nkosinathi, including in the US, not merely South Africa. That's why our host at www.joelskousen.com wrote in his books, like Strategic Relocation: North American Guide To Safe Places and The Secure Home, that we should all prepare in advance and receive good training so we can become strong survivors. Learn to do it yourself; never take the easy way out or expect others to do it for you.
I'm glad you are already familiar with the Bible. It will provide you with the strength you need to survive and learn to stand on your own two feet as you start to grow spiritually, financially and in other ways. Check out the many Survival links in the “Self Sufficiency Resources” section at the “Research Archives” forum at www.joelskousen.com.
You can also find great information about becoming self-employed and on jobs at the Strategic Relocation forum under Relocation Discussions/Jobs/Relocation.
There is tons of valuable information at this web site which will teach you how to become self-sufficient so you can survive the coming storms in today’s troubled world.
I started my own business after studying many of the tips and survival strategies found at this web site. That's how I know firsthand that everything you need to know to survive is listed at this web site. Good luck in your quest to become self-sufficient and a hardy survivor.