Ron,
Dictionary definitions tend not to be particularly helpful when it comes to ideology, in my opinion, because they are generally still thinking in terms of the old left-right paradigm. If you're familiar with the Nolan or Advocates for Self-Government chart, you are no doubt aware of the shortcomings of that political model. Both supposedly far-left communism and supposedly far-right fascism involve subordinating the individual to the interests of the state or society as a whole. This is their most important characteristic, one which places them both in diametrical opposition to libertarianism, which promotes individual choice.
If you set aside rhetoric and self-perception, and compare the actual public policies advocated and practiced by fascists versus those advocated and practiced by other state socialists, I think you will find it difficult to draw arbitrary lines between them. The main difference seems to be the attitude toward corporations and making money -- fascists embrace these things more than most state socialists, though of course they must not interfere with the interests of the state. There is also more of an emphasis on militarism and nationalism than under other brands of state socialism. Yet the Nazis favored many welfare state programs such as compulsory health insurance and government pension funds, and famously scapegoated Jews as profiteers, while the Soviet Union was highly militaristic and enamored of the "strong leader" model -- remember all the statues of Stalin and Lenin, and the parades of tanks and missiles through Red Square every May Day? The country I would consider the leading example of fascism today is the "People's Republic" of China -- not coincidentally, a country that is nominally "communist."
Libertarians probably talk about "socialism" more often than "fascism" in regard to U.S. government policies, yet don't present circumstances in the United States -- the sanctioning of private property being seized for the benefit of corporations, a nationalist and militaristic reaction to terrorism, continued antipathy toward explicitly left-wing regimes such as Cuba's, the world's largest percentage of people behind bars mostly for "personal choice" rather than "economic choice" offenses -- seem more indicative of a trend toward fascism than toward communism? If fascism and communism are "very contrary" ideologies as you assert, shouldn't it be more obvious which of the two has been gaining in the U.S.?
An interesting thing about the Scandinavian countries, including Sweden, is that they apparently have less state socialism in practice than their reputations would lead one to believe, and this in fact probably explains why they remain relatively prosperous. I refer you to the Heritage Institute's Index of Economic Freedom in which countries are ranked by the amount of government interference in the economy (see http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm ). The 2005 index ranks Sweden at #14 in the world, just one spot below the United States! Sweden may have some prominent welfare state features, but clearly it is not a paragon of state socialism now, if indeed it ever was. (Incidentally, Denmark is #8, Finland #15, and Norway #29, while among the Baltic newcomers, Estonia places 4th in the world after only Hong Kong, Singapore and Luxembourg, while Lithuania is #23 and Latvia #28. All fairly respectable economic liberty standings given a pool of 155 countries surveyed.)
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Dear Starchild;
Beg to differ on socialism and fascism being of the same genre. As examples: take Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain or Hitlers's Germany. Compare them to Swedens Socialist State. Au contraire!
They are very contrary forms Fascism being generically considered right-wing and socialism being considered left-wing but to the right of Communism.
From Wikipedia:
Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. In application, however, the de facto meaning of socialism has evolved and branched to a great degree, and though highly politicized, is strongly related to the establishment of an organized working class, created through either revolution or social evolution, with the purpose of building a classless society. It has also, increasingly, become concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. This concept and the term Socialist also refer to a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed.
Fascism was typified by attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life. Many scholars consider fascism to be part of, or in coalition with, extreme right politics. The definitional debates and arguments by academics over the nature of fascism, however, fill entire bookshelves. There are clearly elements of both left and right ideology in the development of Fascism.
Modern colloquial usage of the word has extended the definition of the terms fascism and neofascism to refer to any totalitarian worldview regardless of its political ideology, although scholars frown on this. Sometimes the word "fascist" is used as a hyperbolic political > epithet.
Similar political movements spread across Europe between World War One and World War Two and took several forms such as Nazism
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianPhil,
For the sake of everyone, I certainly hope you are wrong\. I do appreciate this gem from your comments below: "faith based papermoney system." I am going to use that! Do you recall where the phrase
came from, or did you come up with it yourself? You also use the word
"campaceny" below. I can't find anything like that in the online
dictionary; did you mean "complacency?"As far as "socialists and fascists fighting it out," I would point outthat fascism is a *form* of state socialism. If we want people to
recognize this, it is best to avoid speaking or writing as if they were
two separate creatures.Interestingly, the distinction I like to make between state ortop-down socialism, and voluntary or bottom-up socialism, has a longer
pedigree than I was previously aware of. The June issue of Liberty
magazine has an article titled "Anarchist Socialism" in which Wendy
McElroy presents an essay by John William Lloyd."The term 'socialism,'" she writes, "as used by the 19th centuryindividualist radicals differed in meaning as dramatically as the word
'liberal' today differs from its 18th century usage. As used by Lloyd
and his contemporaries, socialism per se -- as opposed to State
Socialism -- did not negate private property or the primacy of the
individual but referred more to voluntary, cooperative ventures through
which a just society could be achieved. Thus, many of the voluntary
communities of early libertarianism could be viewed through either a
socialist or individualist lens. To the extent that Individualist
Anarchists who sometimes used the label 'socialist' had a point of
overlap with collectivist-socialists, it is: they agreed with the labor
theory of value. Since Individualist Anarchists also insisted on the
primacy of contract, however, their position devolved to the statement:
interest and rent are invalid practices, nevertheless everyone has the
right to make a foolish contract, and no third party has the right to
interfere."Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>> If you believe the government statistics on cpi and unemployment, then
> some research on your part might be advised. I don't know if the Mises
> Institute sees unrest in our future, but it seems to this obsrever
> that there is a great deal of suffering going on in the cities the
> suburbs and the hinterlands, and that when viewed through an Austrian
> lens, our economy and our people are in for a very rough ride.I think
> that the failure to educate the public , or even the elite about the
> fundamentals of Austrian economics is a gret tradgedy. for as
> conditions worsen Americans will be looking for someone to blame, and
> it won't be the true culprits, the Fed. Usually the socialists and the
> faschists fight it out. Already the battle lines are being drawn.
> Cato has absolutely failed on this score. I vividly remeber one Cato
> scholar on C Span smugly telling folks, if they just put thier 401 k
> into stocks they will be OK. Well anyone who retired in 1929 or 1966
> would have waited 20 years for the purchasing power of thier portfolio
> to break even. By not explianing to the American people that we do not
> have capitalism, but centrally planned corporate socialism at the
> finacial core of our economy, and that the problems of inflation and
> deflation are not inherant in capitalism, but the result of systemic
> banking errors, leaves the public open to Socialism or Faschist
> leanings when times get tough, as they inevitably do. We have
> undergone an historic credit expansion under greenspan. It has been a
> great ride. But all credit expansions end in trdgedy. They always
> have. This one being global due to Bretton Woods, and unlimited due to
> the worldwide adoption of a faith based paper money system, will end
> very badly. Even the ultimate insider Paul Volker in a recent
> Washington Post Op ed, understated his concern and questioned wether
> anything can be done at this late date to fix the world economy.
> Talking to San Fransiscans who are riding high on the real estate
> credit bubble about trouble ahead is like talking to a flapper in
> August 1929 about what her life will be reduced to in 1933.Nobody
> drinking from the punch bowl cares to listen. Even is this group,
> economic campaceny is the prevailing sentiment. We;; I can't tell you
> how or when the party ends, but my bets are on worldwide
> hyperinflation.The pity is the socialist will blame the greedy
> corporations and the faschists will blame the revenge of God for the
> loose morals of the liberals and nobody will blame the Fed. Freedom
> will be the victim. It already is.
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>