In our political discussions,
certain words are usually tossed about.
Capitalism. Communism.
Socialism. Fascism.
And now more lately,
Corporatism.
There’s an intriguing bunch
of “isms”. The definitions, theory, and practice of these “isms” have taken on
numerous forms and functions; and they often stir up a lot of confusion and
anger.
According to some
definitions, I am both a capitalist and a socialist.
Just to help navigate
through this discussion, I include as footnotes, definitions of the four “isms”
from both Miriam-Webster and the American Heritage dictionaries. Corporatism is
still being defined, but as they say of porn, we know it when we see it, where
corporations have more rights than people.
Socialism as theory can be
rigid, but is very flexible in practice. The same is true with Capitalism and
Communism. Fascism and Communism can be
very rigid in both theory and practice, yet capitalistic and socialistic
aspects endure under them. Dictatorship under any “ism” results in democracy
being crushed, though.
This is exemplified by the
corporate/government nexus we have that is tightening its grip as we speak. Yes
we have fascistic mechanisms too. What we see growing in the US is
antagonism for democracy. We have corporations and government eager for war,
building a surveillance state and militarizing police departments.
We need corporations and
business. But we need them to mind their own business, not meddle in our public
elections.
It is not anti-business or
anti-capitalism to want free public elections. I have a 401k and other
investments. Does that make me a capitalist?
I've always thought we need
regulated commerce. Is that socialism? Does that make me a Socialist? I've
agreed that government should provide for the general welfare. Is that
socialism? Does that make me a Socialist?
Is the Constitution a
manifesto of Socialism?
No. But these are clearly
socialistic. No nation is exclusive of capitalistic or socialistic systems.
They would not function as free societies without a blend, or checks and
balances, of “isms”. All “isms” can be exploited and twisted for abuse.
Socialized public service is
not the same as a socialized economy. We don't have a system of worker
ownership of production. We have been doing quite well with that mix of
democracy, socialism and capitalism.
But we have rigid ideologues who can't see
this simple reality.
Democracy, voter
registration, and poll access are being restricted, not the right to private
property.
There’s a Forbes article
called “Is Obama a Socialist?” (To them, of course Obama is a socialist)
A comment that follows makes
a good point.
Obama does not advocate for
the elimination of private property so he is not a socialist.
Conservatives do not do
themselves any favors labeling everyone they don’t like “socialists”. The
ordinary American has largely come to think of “socialism” as “A government
that helps people” and “capitalism” is “A government that does not help
people”, which is fundamentally incorrect but the inevitable result the
conservative attack upon any who advocates for the government helping the
ordinary citizen being labeled a “socialist”.
Sound familiar?
Americans are caught in an
ideological war between two extremes where only one exists in reality. We don’t
have a socialist economy or a socialist government. There’s no movement to
abolish private property. We do have crony, cutthroat and corrupt capitalism
waging a war on democracy from within the government.
The fictitious “socialist”
agenda of no private property is being attacked by a real agenda that wants to
accumulate ALL property, wealth and political power. They also want their
financial risks socialized but their profit privatized. Hello Wall Street.
This is the real threat and
danger of unregulated capitalism. The only cure is a socialized system of
balance, with regulation of commerce and promotion of the general welfare. And I don’t mean
corporate socialism where we keep bailing out the failed capitalists.
Banks’ Lobbyists Help in
Drafting Financial Bills
In a sign of Wall Street’s
resurgent influence in Washington,
Citigroup’s recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House
committee’s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in
conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word.
(Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural.)
Now what are we going to do
about banks writing their own legislation and regulations? Let the “free
market” decide? Vote for the next candidate in their pocket? Or regulate them?
Giving banks and
corporations the privilege of person-hood and citizenship, allowing them to use
bribery money as “free speech” is the recipe for more disaster. Citizens United
v FEC has wiped out McCain-Feingold. We need a law that both limits private
campaign contributions, and addresses the issue of corporate money in our
public elections.
I suggest we let the
Constitution guide us. We agree a corporation is an artificial (man made) group
of persons, property and money, a collective bound by their shared interest in
productivity and profit. All we need is a law that says, regarding elections, a
corporation is not a person, and not entitled to the same rights as we the
people. I include unions. A union is also not a person.
Corporations, unions, and
other artificial entities may keep their right to free speech in advertising
their products and services, legal representation in court, and even lobbying
politicians. Those are enough rights for a collective.
So with such a law, not one
living soul would have his rights restricted. Some fat cats will bitch because
their privilege of having their additional collective right to political speech
will be gone. Their individual rights would be the same as yours, mine and
every person.
Who was it who said:
“At the root of all their
conceptual switches, there lies another, more fundamental one: the switch of
the concept of rights from the individual to the collective—which means: the
replacement of “The Rights of Man” by “The Rights of Mob.”
Since only an individual man
can possess rights, the expression “individual rights” is a redundancy (which
one has to use for purposes of clarification in today’s intellectual chaos).
But the expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms."
Yes, that was none other
than Ayn Rand.
Individual rights. This is
what equality means.
Rights are individual, or
not at all.
This is what Americans need
to learn. This is what democracy needs to survive.
====
From Miriam-Webster
Dictionary:
Capitalism: an economic
system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by
investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production,
and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a
free market
Communism : 1. a: a theory
advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods
are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 a : a doctrine based on
revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official
ideology of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics
b : a totalitarian system of
government in which a single authoritarian
party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society
in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are
distributed equitably
d : communist systems
collectively
Fascism: A political
philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation
and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized
autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and
social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 . a tendency toward or
actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Socialism: 1: various
economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership
and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2:a : a system of society or
group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of
society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in
Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished
by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
From The American Heritage
Dictionary:
Capitalism n. An economic
system characterized by freedom of the market with increasing concentration of
private and corporate ownership of production and distribution means,
proportionate to increasing accumulation and reinvestment of profits. 2. A political
or social system regarded as being based on this.
Communism n. A social system
characterized by the absence of classes and by common ownership of the means of
production and subsistence. 2. A political, economic or social doctrine aiming
at the establishment of such a classless society. 3. The Marxist-Leninist
doctrine of revolutionary struggle toward this goal, the political movement
representing it, or loosely, socialism as practiced in countries ruled by
Communist parties.
Fascism n. A philosophy or system of
government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right,
typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with
an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
Socialism n. A social system
in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing
and distributing goods. 2. The theory or practice of those who support such a
social system. 3. Under Marxist-Leninist theory, the building, under the
dictatorship of the proletariat, of the materiel base for communism
Posts
