It was socialist in name only, it was fascist.
Facism and socialism do not have to be mutually exclusive. They are both highly opressive state models
Upvote
0
It was socialist in name only, it was fascist.
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).
Facism and socialism do not have to be mutually exclusive.
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.
And neither is, by definition, totalitarian.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.
No it's not historical because capitalism doesn't flourish without the state, it requires it. History contains examples of this.
I don't see how the claim that getting rid of the state (which enforces private property) will result in private property flourishing is anything but unintuitive.
How condescending of you.
I've read plenty of Rothbard, thank you.
Only because capitalism is dependent on it.
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!It was socialist in name only, it was fascist.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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
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.
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.Here's another interesting political spectrum chart:
The German people and the Italian people of the 1930s were very dependent on the government.
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.
There are numerous stateless societies that are well documented.
Capitalism is inhibited by the state, liscenses, permits taxes, inspections, etc.
With the state there is never any private property, ever heard of eminent domain.
Try not paying your property taxes and see how the state enforces your property rights.
Our failed Keynesian economy, with our worthless debt based currency, controlled by corporations is dependent on a currupt state to exist.
I refer in actuality to a free market capitalist society, free of the coercive, and corressive constaints of the overlord state.
A great point. Left and Right mean quite different things across the pond.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.
A good reason for thinking in a two-dimensional political spectrum ... rather than one-dimensional "left-right".We need to consider that as part of the spectrum.
Questions are good.These images are helpful, but I may have a question of my own about this after I read over it a little more.
In that area and time, Left & Right were/are different than what they are in American Politics.... Socialism is collective ownership, but it doesn't have a monopoly on the idea of welfare...
Exactly... I was stumbling around to say the models you displayed showed that depth of complexity that L & R do not adequately describe.... A good reason for thinking in a two-dimensional political spectrum ... rather than one-dimensional "left-right".