Democracy vs. Totalitarianism

[NightHawkeye]

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

The problem is that "left-right" lacks any definite meaning in that model. One could just as well use Republican and Democrat.

Fill in the blanks though and it becomes a little clearer.

 

[mafwons]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not sure how this is relevant.

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

The institution does not support capitalism.

 

[HammerOfThor]

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.

So what?

As far as the Welfare State is concerned, that is socialism. PP&ACA is socialism.

I don't see how it's socialism. Calling the ACA socialism is ridiculous.

To think that Communism is the only socialist model is a narrow view.

I never said it was.

We're trying to help you here.

Please don't be condescending.

 

[HammerOfThor]

And institutes racial warfare. Is there much difference?

Is this rhetorical? Obviously there's a difference when it comes to whether or not it's socialism.

 

[HammerOfThor]

The problem is that "left-right" lacks any definite meaning in that model. One could just as well use Republican and Democrat.

No, it's referring to economic left and right.

 

[HammerOfThor]

The institution does not support capitalism.

Last I checked property rights are instituted by the state, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The problem is that "left-right" lacks any definite meaning in that model. One could just as well use Republican and Democrat.

Equality vs. Hierarchy. That was the original meaning back in the time of the French Revolution.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No, it's referring to economic left and right.

That sounds like socialism versus corporatism ... essentially the same left-right axis I offered in post #2 of this thread.

 

[HammerOfThor]

That sounds like socialism versus corporatism ... essentially the same left-right axis I offered in post #2 of this thread.

Corporatism can be left-wing, like in Scandinavia.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Corporatism can be left-wing, like in Scandinavia.

True, the National Socialist Party, the Nazis, is another such example.

 

[Albion]

And institutes racial warfare. Is there much difference?

Yes. Quite a lot--and that's conceding the claim that Fascism "institutes racial warfare." Actually, it is not fundamentally racist. That would be its cousin, National Socialism.

 

[HammerOfThor]

True, the National Socialist Party, the Nazis, is another such example.

They were not left-wing.

 

[Avid]

Yes. Quite a lot--and that's conceding the claim that Fascism "institutes racial warfare." Actually, it is not fundamentally racist. That would be its cousin, National Socialism.

The NATIONALISM in National socialism is the part that defines what is referenced as racism. Most countries would be more of one race than another. The example of Germany brings in the idea that the Aryan race was dominant, superior and more privileged. The idea for them was to blame a "lesser" race, and even eliminate them through genocide. This Nationalism is being used in other places as an excuse to do similar things.

That it was socialist was contrasted with other socialist models since Communism was not only a different form of socialism, but was pitted against the NAZI's as an enemy. It was a socialist system, regardless.

 

[Albion]

The NATIONALISM in National socialism is the part that defines what is referenced as racism. Most countries would be more of one race than another. The example of Germany brings in the idea that the Aryan race was dominant, superior and more privileged. The idea for them was to blame a ""lesser" race, and even eliminate them through genocide. This Nationalism is being used in other places as an excuse to do similar things.

That it was socialist was contrasted with other socialist models since Communism was not only a different form of socialism, but was pitted against the NAZI's as an enemy. It was a socialist system, regardless.

and this is different from the Fascist model. That's what I was pointing out, although it's only a technicality to a lot of people.

 

[Avid]

and this is different from the Fascist model. That's what I was pointing out, although it's only a technicality to a lot of people.

Thanks for that.

There are differences in each of these, but the confusion many have comes from not realizing how different the US has been for most of its time here. It is so far removed from what was done in Europe or Asia that, when WE say LEFT or RIGHT, we are not talking about the same things they are in Europe. It is because they are, almost all, way left of us (at least, us in our founding!) Each version of these European socialist models is different from others, but are all socialist (to varying degrees) from our perspective. (we are slipping into socialism now!)

 

[DaisyDay]

There are numerous stateless societies that are well documented.

Could you name a few?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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. I purpose a circular continuum, wherin anarcy is top dead center and bottom dead center is the thin line seperating Totalitarianism from democracy, and in between we have the various forms of government based on their opressiveness. I am interested in any thoughts on this, agree or disagree.

One excellent chart on the issue which I greatly appreciated...

​

There was a very good podcast on the issue that I came across recently, from one of the parties that I am a part of (Coffee Party)...if going here.

For an excerpt on what they are about:

Press [1] for Democracy (P1FD) is a Coffee Party Radio show that discusses the political issues of the day in a civil, fact-based, and transpartisan manner. Transpartisan is quite different from bi- or non-partisan in the we encourage callers to be passionate about their positions, but also that they listen and respond to those with differing points of view repsectfully and with a true desire to find common ground on which solutions can be built. ​

And for more information on the issue:

• Social Democracy Is 100% American - Bill Moyers
  
• A. Lincoln, Socialist? « The Berkeley Blog
  
  
• 15 Quotes From The Founding Fathers About Economics - Zero Hedge ...
  
  
• What the Founding Fathers Believed: Stock Ownership for All
  
  

As noted there for a brief excerpt:

The economic benefit of increasing workers’ shares of the income earned by their employers jumps out in the data. On average, workers produce more in those firms in which they have a stake and in which they participate in workplace decision-making than in those in which they are merely hired hands. To be sure, worker ownership of shares and of the stream of returns through profit-sharing or gain-sharing or other forms of shared capitalism does not alwaysproduce better outcomes, any more than medicines cure all diseases. But empirical evidence reviewed in chapter five of our new book shows that on average, ownership and decision-making based on all employees owning a stake in performance beats out hierarchical economic structures dominated by the few. Technical aficionados will find details in “Shared Captialism at Work.”

One way to avoid the danger of inequality subverting democracy, then, and at the same time to improve corporate America’s overall economic performance, is to create tens of millions more citizen capitalists by giving workers stock in their companies — enough to focus their efforts on improving firm performance. In short, we favor employee stock ownership based on grants of stock to broad-groups of workers rather than workers buying shares with their wages or savings.

Our new book, “The Citizen’s Share,” makes the economic case in greater detail. It references the detailed scholarly studies that underlie our conclusion. It directs attention to individual firms that reward workers with different forms of capital and notes that these firms are disproportionately among Fortune Magazine’s “Best Places to Work,” among the star performers in the industry in which they primarily operate, and they play important roles in high technology industries (think Google).

But in researching the book, the biggest surprise was that citizen ownership — often stigmatized as “socialist” or pie in the sky — has a pedigree stretching back to the American Revolution. And it wasn’t just James Madison and John Adams. Other be-wigged early presidents of the U.S. and half the crew on Mt. Rushmore — George Washington and Thomas Jefferson — believed that U.S. democracy would work best if citizens had a broad-based ownership stake in the economy. They too feared that extreme property inequality would prevent America from fulfilling its promise.

George Washington, top; bottom, left to right: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams. “American Star,” by Thomas Gimbrede, 1781-1832, via Library of Congress.

Madison wrote in a letter on voting that “the owners of the country itself form the safest basis of free government” and stressed “the universal hope of acquiring property.” Washington, in aletter on immigration,
said broad-based ownership would insure “the happiness of the lowest class of people because of the equal distribution of property.” Adams favored “preserving the balance of power on the side of equal liberty and public virtue (by making) … the acquisition of land easy to every member of society.”

Jefferson wrote to Madison that “legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property.”

Even Alexander Hamilton, favorite of the moneyed interests, argued that few people wanted to be wage laborers only, and he believed, like Henry Ford centuries later, that a strong middle class was needed to become energetic customers of businesses in the entire economy.

This view showed up in policies. Washington gave tax incentives to New England cod fishers to rebuild their fleets after the Revolutionary War on the condition that the captains and the crew sign contracts ensuring broad-based profit sharing among all workers. He also favored grants of substantial land to veterans of the Revolutionary War to make them into self-sufficient property-owners. Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase to allow for more land ownership by citizens. The founders also sought to outlaw primogeniture, the practice whereby all property was inherited by the first-born son, the underpinning of feudal economies throughout Europe.

Since the early days of the U.S., land was the main productive asset. Administration after administration provided inexpensive land to citizens. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 allowed citizens to cheaply acquire land in what would become Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and a third of Minnesota. Throughout the first half of the 19th century, the Federal government sold large plots to citizens at low prices, often using installment loans, and foregoing federal revenue to do so. Under President Abraham Lincoln, Congress enacted the Homestead Act of 1862, which gave 600,000 citizens access to about 100 million acres of land in 160-acre plots if they lived on the land and improved it. States such as Texas and Florida implemented generous state homestead acts. And most significantly, for our argument, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, Pennsylvania Rep. Galusha Grow, who managed the Homestead Act through the Congress for Lincoln, believed that the future of the homestead idea was in workers owning shares of corporations.

The extraordinary success of farming and economic shift toward manufacturing and services changed the main form of productive capital in America, from land to business capital — machinery and equipment, stores with stocks of goods, and yes, Mr. Hamilton’s beloved financial capital as well. But to share in the income generated by business capital, workers needed ownership stakes in the firm. Some famous industrialists — Charles Pillsbury of the Pillsbury Flour Mills, William Cooper Procter of Procter & Gamble, John Rockefeller of Standard Oil, George Eastman of Eastman Kodak (who invented the broad-based stock option idea in high-tech companies in the 1920s) — developed low-risk ways for employees to acquire corporate shares of their companies’ stock or profits.​