Socialism good or bad?

[Todd00000]

The meaning of "right wing" would have to be twisted and warped for Fascism to be right wing. Extreme right wing is anarchy - no government control of individuals or businesses - basically a free for all with everyone doing whatever they want. Not quite so extreme right wing is libertarianism - government only defends people (police and military, but no other assistance) - or at least that's how I understand libertarianism to be defined. It's theoretical because a real libertarian state will probably never happen. Government officials never want to give up power and control. Also, people need roads and an electrical grid, so government has to do more than just protect people from each other.

Both socialism and communism feature heavy controls on individual freedom, hence both are left wing. Same thing applies to fascism. Industry and people are tightly controlled and regulated "for the good of the people" - and usually lots of people end up suffering and dying.

I think the thing that is the most scary about socialism and communism is that many people believe that it would work if somehow they found a good and benevolent person to be the head honcho. Reality seems like that never happens. At least in history it never has happened.

Anarchy is far right under the umbrella of all political theories, but we are talking about Socialism. Under Socialism Fascism is the right and Communism is the left wing of Socialism. Libertarian is one of the basic 4 philosophies we have in American politics. Republicans are right, Dems are left and Populism and Libertarian-ism are mixtures of our brands of left and right.

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

Anarchy is far right under the umbrella of all political theories, but we are talking about Socialism. Under Socialism Fascism is the right and Communism is the left wing of Socialism. Libertarian is one of the basic 4 philosophies we have in American politics. Republicans are right, Dems are left and Populism and Libertarian-ism are mixtures of our brands of left and right.

Socialism is all left. There's no right in socialism. Right is where people have freedom.

 

[Todd00000]

Socialism is all left. There's no right in socialism. Right is where people have freedom.

You are wrong, unless you can site a source? I have a Masters in Pol Sci.

 

[CAL Captain]

You are wrong, unless you can site a source? I have a Masters in Pol Sci.

There's the trouble right there: you have a degree in the subject yet can't seem to figure out that socialism, communism, and fascism are not academic subjects; they're just evil.

 

[Weather Man]

You are wrong, unless you can site a source? I have a Masters in Pol Sci.

You should be embarrassed. It is interesting that if you look on latest lefty bullshit posting, they put Fascism on the right. It of course is not, but then a university education isn't what it was anymore either. The corruption of liberal art degee's by the echo chamber of lefty professors is astounding. But, AOC has a degree in economics and didn't even know how the American banking system worked, so there you go.

You owe an apology to @Hack

 

[Caballus]

Interesting conversation. I believe when categorizing philosophies, it’s useful to look at two factors:

1. History
2. Key elements

History
Starting point—there has never been pure capitalism, pure socialism or any true (state-wide) communism.

From a European perspective (where the paradigms originated), the concept of right vs. left wing began as a delineation between centralized control (monarchy—right) and decentralized control (people/democracy—left). Left evolved and splintered to explain several economic and governing concepts: i.e., ownership by the people—not just the monarchs or wealthy; state ownership of production to achieve equitable distribution on behalf of the people—intended to be a temporary condition until the people could take control for themselves; voting rights for common citizens, and countless other left wing concepts.

The foundations of the U.S. political values were rooted in left wing (liberal democratic) philosophies—individual rights over government control; as Lincoln would later say, “government of the people, for the people and by the people…” These were radical concepts at the time. From and within that liberal democratic philosophy, we carved a left and right (liberal and conservative) paradigm that was unique to the United States (and soon after France).

Socialism—left—Socialism grew from the same roots and gained followings throughout the 19th Century, partly as part of the anti-monarchical movements and largely in response to “difficult” working conditions brought on by the industrial revolution. The U.S. began to implement socialist policies in the late 1800s during the technological revolution for the same reason—protect workers from the robber barons, restrict monopolies, etc. Socialist policies were a counterbalance against unchecked capitalism.

Communism—extreme left—Back in Europe, Russia was rejecting imperial rule by implementing Marx and Engels' communist philosophy, which was far left. Per the Communist Manifesto, socialism is not communism—it is the fifth phase en route to communism—seen as a necessary (temporary) evil. Russia (and the Eastern Bloc) never reached the final phase, nor has China, Cuba, Vietnam, NK… Marx and Lenin both recognized it was unachievable. Reality—phase five was a farce too, because the government did not distribute wealth evenly on behalf of the people; corruption ruled. The U.S. opposed communism, despite being allied with Russia for both World Wars, not because it was left or right, but because according to communist doctrine, communism cannot succeed unless the entire world is communist.

Fascism—extreme right—is neither communist nor socialist. In terms of political philosophy, what makes it right are its core components: nationalism and centralized government (i.e., supreme ruler). The principle component of Fascism is nationalism, eventually along ethnic lines—ethnic purity. Its principle implementers—Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Hirohito—all believed that their nations and races were superior to others and their states should be closed to outsiders. Hitler, for example, viewed Italians as inferior, even though he studied Mussolini’s philosophies and feigned friendship. Similarly, Mussolini saw Italy as being for Italians only and had the same sense of superiority from where he sat, as did Hirohito. All believed that nationalism could only be assured and sustained by a strong central government, which would look out for the good of the people and protect them from the elites—elite having many definitions. Italy, Germany and Spain used socialism a facade to give the people a sense of participation, when really the fascist government was distributing wealth per its own liking, not much different than their communist rival.

Today
What is referred to as socialism most often refers to a welfare state. In European terms it’s democratic socialism—Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Norway, Finland, etc. All have strong capitalist underpinnings and strong democratic foundations as well. But all also redistribute wealth beyond the level that Americans would ever (likely) accept. The German Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union is a perfect example of a political compromise meant to prevent the reemergence of fascism (or communism), while protecting democratic values and capitalist doctrine. Works for them. Doesn’t mean it would work for us.

 

[CAL Captain]

Interesting conversation. I believe when categorizing philosophies, it’s useful to look at two factors:

1. History
2. Key elements

History
Starting point—there has never been pure capitalism, pure socialism or any true (state-wide) communism.

From a European perspective (where the paradigms originated), the concept of right vs. left wing began as a delineation between centralized control (monarchy—right) and decentralized control (people/democracy—left). Left evolved and splintered to explain several economic and governing concepts: i.e., ownership by the people—not just the monarchs or wealthy; state ownership of production to achieve equitable distribution on behalf of the people—intended to be a temporary condition until the people could take control for themselves; voting rights for common citizens, and countless other left wing concepts.

The foundations of the U.S. political values were rooted in left wing (liberal democratic) philosophies—individual rights over government control; as Lincoln would later say, “government of the people, for the people and by the people…” These were radical concepts at the time. From and within that liberal democratic philosophy, we carved a left and right (liberal and conservative) paradigm that was unique to the United States (and soon after France).

Socialism—left—Socialism grew from the same roots and gained followings throughout the 19th Century, partly as part of the anti-monarchical movements and largely in response to “difficult” working conditions brought on by the industrial revolution. The U.S. began to implement socialist policies in the late 1800s during the technological revolution for the same reason—protect workers from the robber barons, restrict monopolies, etc. Socialist policies were a counterbalance against unchecked capitalism.

Communism—extreme left—Back in Europe, Russia was rejecting imperial rule by implementing Marx and Engels' communist philosophy, which was far left. Per the Communist Manifesto, socialism is not communism—it is the fifth phase en route to communism—seen as a necessary (temporary) evil. Russia (and the Eastern Bloc) never reached the final phase, nor has China, Cuba, Vietnam, NK… Marx and Lenin both recognized it was unachievable. Reality—phase five was a farce too, because the government did not distribute wealth evenly on behalf of the people; corruption ruled. The U.S. opposed communism, despite being allied with Russia for both World Wars, not because it was left or right, but because according to communist doctrine, communism cannot succeed unless the entire world is communist.

Fascism—extreme right—is neither communist nor socialist. In terms of political philosophy, what makes it right are its core components: nationalism and centralized government (i.e., supreme ruler). The principle component of Fascism is nationalism, eventually along ethnic lines—ethnic purity. Its principle implementers—Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Hirohito—all believed that their nations and races were superior to others and their states should be closed to outsiders. Hitler, for example, viewed Italians as inferior, even though he studied Mussolini’s philosophies and feigned friendship. Similarly, Mussolini saw Italy as being for Italians only and had the same sense of superiority from where he sat, as did Hirohito. All believed that nationalism could only be assured and sustained by a strong central government, which would look out for the good of the people and protect them from the elites—elite having many definitions. Italy, Germany and Spain used socialism a facade to give the people a sense of participation, when really the fascist government was distributing wealth per its own liking, not much different than their communist rival.

Today
What is referred to as socialism most often refers to a welfare state. In European terms it’s democratic socialism—Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Norway, Finland, etc. All have strong capitalist underpinnings and strong democratic foundations as well. But all also redistribute wealth beyond the level that Americans would ever (likely) accept. The German Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union is a perfect example of a political compromise meant to prevent the reemergence of fascism (or communism), while protecting democratic values and capitalist doctrine. Works for them. Doesn’t mean it would work for us.

Thanks.

So... is socialism, communism, and fascism evil?

 

[Caballus]

Thanks.

So... is socialism, communism, and fascism evil?

My opinion:

Socialism & communism are not evil in concept; they are in practice, because they are unattainable--a function of human nature (and fairness)

Fascism is evil--period.

Capitalism in a totally pure form becomes evil--human nature.

So, the tension in an open, democratic society is over the balance between capitalism and socialism. The result in a democracy (I believe) is always some blend of those two economic systems...

 

[CAL Captain]

My opinion:

Socialism & communism are not evil in concept; they are in practice, because they are unattainable--a function of human nature (and fairness)

Fascism is evil--period.

Capitalism in a totally pure form becomes evil--human nature.

So, the tension in an open, democratic society is over the balance between capitalism and socialism. The result in a democracy (I believe) is always some blend of those two economic systems...

Any system that fails to account for known and predictable human nature when the addition of this known and predictable human nature will cause the system to become evil, is evil in concept.

Unfortunately, we are no longer in an age where we can debate this stuff down at the local coffee house because it's about to eat us alive.

 

[Weather Man]

Fascism—extreme right—is neither communist nor socialist. In terms of political philosophy, what makes it right are its core components: nationalism and centralized government (i.e., supreme ruler). The principle component of Fascism is nationalism, eventually along ethnic lines—ethnic purity. Its principle implementers—Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Hirohito—all believed that their nations and races were superior to others and their states should be closed to outsiders. Hitler, for example, viewed Italians as inferior, even though he studied Mussolini’s philosophies and feigned friendship. Similarly, Mussolini saw Italy as being for Italians only and had the same sense of superiority from where he sat, as did Hirohito. All believed that nationalism could only be assured and sustained by a strong central government, which would look out for the good of the people and protect them from the elites—elite having many definitions. Italy, Germany and Spain used socialism a facade to give the people a sense of participation, when really the fascist government was distributing wealth per its own liking, not much different than their communist rival.

It is not extreme right, it has never been extreme right and it will never be extreme right. If you read some of what Hitler was saying, it sounds just like what is spewing from the radical left today. Look at the freaking charts.

 

[Caballus]

Any system that fails to account for known and predictable human nature when the addition of this known and predictable human nature will cause the system to become evil, is evil in concept.

Unfortunately, we are no longer in an age where we can debate this stuff down at the local coffee house because it's about to eat us alive.

I disagree insofar as no system fully accounts for human nature--including organized religion. Capitalism, which I believe is the most equitable economic system, is corruptible without rules--how much regulation is the point to debate.

I disagree that we are not in an age where we can debate at the local coffee house. I think our failure to debate rationally and respectfully at the local coffeehouse is a failure on our part and contributes to the corruption of the system. Democracy is "by the people," which means, by definition, it requires personal involvement by the citizenry--from the coffeehouse to the courthouse to the ballot box.

 

[Caballus]

It is not extreme right, it has never been extreme right and it will never be extreme right. If you read some of what Hitler was saying, it sounds just like what is spewing from the radical left today. Look at the freaking charts.

I disagree with the charts from a factual/historical standpoint. Fascism is considered an extreme right political philosophy. I've read everything that Hitler wrote and listened to much of what he said. Hitler (not the originator of Fascism) claimed to be neither right nor left. He claimed to be anti-establishment--a good political narrative for him at the time. Nevertheless, his philosophy (fascism) was extreme right wing and is still considered such. If you disaggregate it to try to place it into today's political context, you can argue that the socialist element of it is left and the nationalist is right. The problem with that argument is that he socialist element was a farce, save the state control of the means of production.

 

[CAL Captain]

I disagree insofar as no system fully accounts for human nature--including organized religion. Capitalism, which I believe is the most equitable economic system, is corruptible without rules--how much regulation is the point to debate.

I disagree that we are not in an age where we can debate at the local coffee house. I think our failure to debate rationally and respectfully at the local coffeehouse is a failure on our part and contributes to the corruption of the system. Democracy is "by the people," which means, by definition, it requires personal involvement by the citizenry--from the coffeehouse to the courthouse to the ballot box.

When I have a monster breaking down my front door with the goal of killing my family and me, I'm no longer interested in the monster's motives, background, history, and mitigating facts.

This is what infuriates me about "intellectuals": they know everything... and nothing.

And, by the way, Christianity PERFECTLY accounts for human nature.

 

[CAL Captain]

I disagree with the charts from a factual/historical standpoint. Fascism is considered an extreme right political philosophy. I've read everything that Hitler wrote and listened to much of what he said. Hitler (not the originator of Fascism) claimed to be neither right nor left. He claimed to be anti-establishment--a good political narrative for him at the time. Nevertheless, his philosophy (fascism) was extreme right wing and is still considered such. If you disaggregate it to try to place it into today's political context, you can argue that the socialist element of it is left and the nationalist is right. The problem with that argument is that he socialist element was a farce, save the state control of the means of production.

Who would Corporal Hitler find more simpatico? Ronald Reagan? Or Stalin?

We no longer have time for "political context". It's now freedom vs enslavement.

 

[Caballus]

When I have a monster breaking down my front door with the goal of killing my family and me, I'm no longer interested in the monster's motives, background, history, and mitigating facts.

This is what infuriates me about "intellectuals": they know everything... and nothing.

And, by the way, Christianity PERFECTLY accounts for human nature.

There has always been a monster at the door. As a life-long monster killer, I understand the importance of being smarter than the monsters rather than being afraid of them. The only way to defeat them and keep them at bay is to understand their motives, backgrounds, history. Sun Tzu got it right 2,000 years ago: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Sponsored