Democracy vs. Totalitarianism

Albion said:

You're correct--and the point has been made many times before--except that it's libertarianism that's at the opposite point, not anarchism (which is a variety of Socialism).

Click to expand...

True, but a matter of perspective.

mafwons said:

Facism and socialism do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

They are opposites in terms of economic policy.

Fascism = class collaboration
Socialism = class warfare

mafwons said:

I do not see Democracy (or a Democratic Republic for more accuracy) being far removed from one another. Most people I hear talk about this seem to view freedom on a linear continuum with Democracy being most free and Totalitarianism being most opressive.

Click to expand...

Democracy isn't necsesarily free, nor is monarchy neccesarily tyrannical. The indentification of democracy with liberty leads to the assumption that any infringement on liberty is just fine as long as it is done democratically.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Democracy isn't necsesarily free, nor is monarchy neccesarily tyrannical.

Click to expand...

And neither is, by definition, totalitarian.

The indentification of democracy with liberty leads to the assumption that any infringement on liberty is just fine as long as it is done democratically.

Click to expand...

Good point. Some of these terms are being used too casually.

HammerOfThor said:

It was socialist in name only, it was fascist.

Click to expand...

The German people and the Italian people of the 1930s were very dependent on the government. Socialism not only tries to supply the needs of the people, it give them precious few alternatives!

If you won't hear it from undereducated old me, listen to a highly educated, high achieving, economist:

Socialist or Fascist
Thomas Sowell | Jun 12, 2012
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist_or_fascist/page/full
Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

mafwons said:

Anarchism is the absence of an imposed state, that does not mean a state cannot exist, simply that participation is voluntary. As for as I can tell no socialist state can exist without a fairly strong central government, ergo socialism and anarchism are not alike. Libertarianism would be very close to the right of anarchism and its offshoots.

Click to expand...

While there are varieties of Anarchism, the main variety advocates a stateless society IN WHICH, it is presumed, the people will voluntarily operate as if in a Communist society. Of course, that's all theory. But this is why Anarchism is considered a variant of Socialism--because of the nature of the society and the economy that is predicted and wanted.

Libertarianism is similar to Anarchism in some respects, I agree, and especially with that wing called Anarcho-Capitalism. But it's only true in some respects. There is a huge difference between a society in which there is a limited government and one in which there is none.

Avid said:

NAZI is an acronym for National Socialist Party, or some variation thereof. (National Socialist German Workers Party)

The name of the Communist monstrosity that ran most of the 20th Century was Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the USSR.

Click to expand...

It really should be pointed out here that Hitler (and by extension, the Nazi party) essentially made up his own definition of "socialism" and applied it to his own party, in the process denouncing actual socialists and communists as not being "real" socialists.

Nazism as a variant of fascism shares some superficial similarities with the Soviet Union under Stalin, but to try to put Nazism and fascism under the umbrella of socialism is kind of silly. The underlying assumptions, many of the policies, and most of the end goals of fascism are entirely contrary to anything socialists are trying to do.

It doesn't have to be "socialism!!!" to be bad, you know.

Albion said:

While there are varieties of Anarchism, the main variety advocates a stateless society IN WHICH, it is presumed, the people will voluntarily operate as if in a Communist society. Of course, that's all theory. But this is why Anarchism is considered a variant of Socialism--because of the nature of the society and the economy that is predicted and wanted.

Libertarianism is similar to Anarchism in some respects, I agree, and especially with that wing called Anarcho-Capitalism. But it's only true in some respects. There is a huge difference between a society in which there is a limited government and one in which there is none.

Click to expand...

The thing that so many people don't remember about anarchism is that it's not, at its very core, so much about the abolition of "the state" as it is about the abolition of societal and class hierarchies. Under traditional anarchist thought, this necessarily entails the abolition of the state as well as the abolition of capitalism and its replacement with something else. The state is seen as an entity that exists to enforce hierarchy and oppression, and that is given a monopoly on force; capitalism is a system that is inherently hierarchical and entails the existence of wage labor ("wage slavery"), private property and private ownership of capital, the stratification of society into various classes, and so on. Whether you agree with any of it or not, that's the idea behind it: abolition of hierarchical social relations and the systems that keep those relations in place.

This is why many leftists think the idea of "anarcho-capitalism" is utterly ridiculous. It's an ideology that wants the state abolished, but it misses the point entirely about the state being a means by which all these other problems are implemented and maintained. It's a contradiction in terms, as capitalism cannot exist without social hierarchy, stratification, and all that implies; nor can it exist independently of a state of some sort that serves as a means of enforcing private property.

Here's another interesting political spectrum chart:

Redac said:

This is why many leftists think the idea of "anarcho-capitalism" is utterly ridiculous. It's an ideology that wants the state abolished, but it misses the point entirely about the state being a means by which all these other problems are implemented and maintained. It's a contradiction in terms, as capitalism cannot exist without social hierarchy, stratification, and all that implies

Click to expand...

Well, I'd say that that is up for debate. In addition, it would help if we were to speak of Free Enterprise rather than Capitalism, since that really is what is envisioned by advocates of a completely free society.

NightHawkeye said:

Here's another interesting political spectrum chart:

Click to expand...

Most people are so used to their limited understanding being described with only Left & Right, that these things seem to confuse them. It does take some thought, though. Left & Right mean something different across the Pond. We need to consider that as part of the spectrum.

These images are helpful, but I may have a question of my own about this after I read over it a little more.

Avid said:

The German people and the Italian people of the 1930s were very dependent on the government.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean it was socialist. Socialism is collective ownership, but it doesn't have a monopoly on the idea of welfare.

Avid said:

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

Click to expand...

I never said that fascism's domestic economic policy isn't left-leaning, but that doesn't make it a leftist ideology.

mafwons said:

There are numerous stateless societies that are well documented.

Click to expand...

The only ones that I can think of off the top of my head were socialist, so I'm curious if you can name a single example of a capitalist one.

mafwons said:

Capitalism is inhibited by the state, liscenses, permits taxes, inspections, etc.

Click to expand...

Taxes, permits, licenses, etc are all what create capitalism, not inhibit it. Without taxes there would be no money to defend private property, and a title to land is a permit.

mafwons said:

With the state there is never any private property, ever heard of eminent domain.

Click to expand...

Of course I've heard of eminent domain, but that doesn't negate the concept of private property since there is no private property at all without a state.

mafwons said:

Try not paying your property taxes and see how the state enforces your property rights.

Click to expand...

Why would I expect to receive a service without paying for it? Paying property taxes is payment for protection of property (plus other things). Paying taxes in general is payment for services provided by the state.

mafwons said:

Our failed Keynesian economy, with our worthless debt based currency, controlled by corporations is dependent on a currupt state to exist.

Click to expand...

Not sure how this is relevant.

mafwons said:

I refer in actuality to a free market capitalist society, free of the coercive, and corressive constaints of the overlord state.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you want then, because you want capitalism but not the institution that supports it.

Avid said:

Most people are so used to their limited understanding being described with only Left & Right, that these things seem to confuse them. It does take some thought, though. Left & Right mean something different across the Pond.

Click to expand...

A great point. Left and Right mean quite different things across the pond.

Avid said:

We need to consider that as part of the spectrum.

Click to expand...

A good reason for thinking in a two-dimensional political spectrum ... rather than one-dimensional "left-right".

One could also go to three-dimensional but it's not clear to me that there's a parameter for a third axis anywhere near as important as either the liberty/tyranny scale or the socialism/corporatism scale. Maybe there is though.

Avid said:

These images are helpful, but I may have a question of my own about this after I read over it a little more.

Click to expand...

Questions are good.

I think the political compass chart is simple and accurate enough.

HammerOfThor said:

... Socialism is collective ownership, but it doesn't have a monopoly on the idea of welfare...

Click to expand...

In that area and time, Left & Right were/are different than what they are in American Politics.

In the Communist Socialist model, the Government owns everything, and everyone works for the State. In the Fascist Socialist model, most companies are NOT owned by the Government, but controlled by the government. It is NOT the same thing, it works differently, but (you must have missed what I said) everyone depends on the government in BOTH of these models. Everyone is controlled by the government in both of these models. The government control differs, but they still control everything.

As far as the Welfare State is concerned, that is socialism. PP&ACA is socialism. Ronald Reagan warned of it specifically in 1961.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnLa1BvtaxM
.
.
To think that Communism is the only socialist model is a narrow view. We're trying to help you here.

NightHawkeye said:

... A good reason for thinking in a two-dimensional political spectrum ... rather than one-dimensional "left-right".

Click to expand...

Exactly... I was stumbling around to say the models you displayed showed that depth of complexity that L & R do not adequately describe.

If there are two people only, one is extremely one way, and the other is extremely the other, we have a reasonable use of L & R as the only descriptor.

I found it interesting how much of that last of your images was based in ancient ideas, and how they coincide rather accurately with what we see today!

HammerOfThor said:

Not really. Fascism opposes class warfare.

Click to expand...

And institutes racial warfare. Is there much difference?