Reality Liberation Front

In recent months, I’ve complained about the use by some conservatives of the term “Socialism.” First off, it is most often used inappropriately, reflecting that the speaker has little or no knowledge of what it actually means. Secondly, the REAL reason most speakers use the term is not for its actual meaning, but rather for the visceral, knee-jerk response that it provokes in many Americans. Many Americans, particularly those who lived through the Cold War, associate Socialism with Communism…even to the point of mistakenly believing the terms to be synonymous. And Communism, representing the economic and social system of our long-time enemies, carries an obvious, highly negative connotation.

In short…the use of these terms is nothing more elegant than simple name-calling, mixed with a healthy dose of fearmongering.

Lately…I’ve heard something even worse. Several individuals have chosen to invoke the terms “Fascism” and “Nazism,” with similar goals: to label their opponents and provoke fear. The abuse of these terms is even more obvious, and even more irresponsible. As both a former English teacher, and a graduate with a philosophy degree (with a focus on logic and political theories), I find it inconceivable that people would use terms that they don’t understand…particularly terms loaded with emotionally and culturally pejorative connotations.

Seriously: we live in the age of Google and Wikipedia…it takes SO LITTLE to learn at least the basics of a term PRIOR TO using it while participating in public discourse. It takes so little to avoid the trap of appearing both ignorant and as a person wishing to spread ignorance. It takes so little to avoid sounding like little more than a parrot of the political demagogues.

So, for the edification of friends and all…I present a brief primer on major socioeconomic ideologies. Most of these entries come straight from Wikipedia, and pass my basic test that they succinctly reflect, in short form, what I spent a great deal of time studying…that is to say I hold them to be accurate summaries, but by no means are they exhaustive definitions:

CAPITALISM:

• WIKI Definition: “Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled.^[1][2] Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded by private individuals either singly or jointly,^[3][4] and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy.^[5][6] A distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns his or her own labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to employers.^[3][7] In a “capitalist state”, private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework.^[8][9] In the modern capitalist state, legislative action is confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market,^[8][9] though the state may provide some public goods and infrastructure.^[10]Some consider laissez-faire to be “pure capitalism.”^[11] Laissez-faire (French, “leave to do (by itself)”), signifies minimizing^[12] or eliminating state interference in economic affairs and the competitive process, allowing the free play of supply and demand. Laissez-faire capitalism has never existed in practice.^[11][13][14] Because all large economies today have a mixture of private and public ownership and control, some feel that the term “mixed economies” more precisely describes most contemporary economies.^[15][16] In the “capitalist mixed economy“, the state intervenes in market activity and provides many services.
• Comments: One should immediately observe that, clearly, it is possible for government involvement and socialized services and goods WITHIN a capitalistic system. Only “laissez-faire” capitalism would prevent this inclusion…but this view of capitalism is more of a “theoretical concept” than a practical model. Also, the entry mentions “market economy,” which is a subset of capitalism and may be studied here.

SOCIALISM:

• WIKI Definition: “Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.^[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late 19th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, and would represent a transitional stage between the capitalist and communist modes of production.^[3][4]The first socialists predicted a world improved by harnessing technology and combining it with better social organization, and many contemporary socialists share this belief.^[5][6] Early socialist thinkers tended to favor more authentic meritocracy, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach. There is disagreement over the extent that National Socialism is socialist; although Adolf Hitler‘s party program included socialist elements, the Nazis did not nationalize industry, but instead created a highly regulated economy with state-led economic planning.

  Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

  Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and the revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.”

• Comments: Again, one thing should be strikingly clear…there is no single, concrete definition of socialism. In its purest form, all private property would be abolished, and instead distributed based on the decisions of the group. Also, each person would be paid an amount exactly commensurate to how much “actual work” he or she performed. However, under this definition, no country has ever truly been “socialist,” including Nazism (which is also a political system, which did not nationalize industry, and which kept a noble/wealthy class firmly established) and Communism (which is also a political system, and goods and services are distributed based on “need,” not the amount of “work” a person does, and instead of many/all people controlling the economic structure, it is much more centralized in the hands of a few). There are many variations of socialist philosophy, and most of them share little in common…it is also related to the idea of a “participatory economy.”

COMMUNISM:

• WIKI Definition: “Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.^[1][2][3] Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. “Pure communism” in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism; a broad group of economic and political philosophies that draw on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.^[4] Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems with the capitalist market economy and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Marx states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class (proletariat), who according to Marx are the main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the Capitalist-class (bourgeoisie), to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in order to establish a free society, without class or racial divisions.^[2] The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarcho-communism) also exist.

  Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as an economic system, but it is understood that a communist economy would consist of common ownership of the means of production, culminating in the negation of the concept of private ownership of capital, which referred to the means of production in Marxian terminology. Unlike socialism, which is compatible with a market economy, a communist economy consists of local or communal democratic planning.”

• Comments: Yup…there are many different forms of Communism, too. The most widely acknowledged is Marxism…but it is important to note that Marx never really wrote on the detailed implementation of Communism, and therefore the system of the former Soviet Union does not exactly match up with Marxism in some KEY respects. While Communism may be related to Socialism, the entry notes a clear difference: Socialism is compatible with a market economy, whereas Communism is not. As stated before, Communism is not Socialism: it includes political aspects not present in Socialism, is “need-based” (instead of “work equity-based”), and is much less participatory. Communism is related to the idea of a “planned economy.”

FASCISM:

• WIKI Definition: “Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} Fascist movements promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution.^[9] In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, fascists believe only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive warrior mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate.^{[10][11][12][13]}Fascist governments permanently forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.^[14] Fascist movements oppose any ideology or political system that gives direct political power to people as individuals through elected representatives rather than as a collective nation or race (individualism, liberalism, representative democracy); that is deemed detrimental to national identity and unity (communism, class conflict oriented labour movements, internationalism, and laissez-faire capitalism); that protects and empowers people deemed weak and degenerate (egalitarianism) and that undermine the military strength and military ambitions of the nation (pacifism); that may seek to preserve any of the privileges, institutions and cultural values that fascism seeks to overthrow (traditionalism and conservatism).^{[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]“}
• Comments: The abuse of this particular term is obviously irresponsible, in light of the extremism of true fascist ideology. While some mistakenly believe it to be similar to Socialism, or to represent little more than a “corporate-run state,” this is clearly not the case. Fascism requires authoritarianism, militarism, suppression of dissent, elimination of the weak, the removal of all democratic elements, and rampant nationalism (nationalism is “rah-rah-my-country’s-the-best”…and is not the same as “nationalization,” which is the government taking control of an industry…and is not the same as “patriotism,”…which is the love of one’s country and its principles…it’s sad that I have to point this out). It is, in fact, anti-Communism, anti-labor, anti-union, anti-Democracy, and anti-globalization…and has little or nothing in common with capitalistic OR socialistic systems.

NAZISM:

• WIKI Definition: “Nazism, officially National Socialism^[1][2][3][4] (German: Nationalsozialismus), refers to the ideology and practices of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.^[5][6][7][8]Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.^[9] The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,^[10][11] eugenics, anti-Semitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.^{[12][13][11]“}
• Comments: There should be a light bulb going off over your head right now…despite being referred to as “National Socialism,” Nazism has almost nothing in common with Socialism…and almost EVERYTHING in common with Fascism. It should be obvious that the inclusion of the terms “Socialist” and “Worker’s” was more intended to make the German people accept the party as “theirs” than it was to accurately describe their ideology. Note: it is specifically opposed to both economic and political liberalism.

Having the general definitions of these terms in mind…I would actually recommend NOT USING THEM AT ALL. Truth is…a country may have capitalistic elements, and not be a Capitalist economy. Almost all countries have some socialized industries…that doesn’t make them socialist (we’ve had socialized industries in America since its inception…yet we’ve never met the criteria for being “Socialist”). A country can have corporations and a strong military…but that doesn’t make it a Fascist country. And in the end…isn’t there a more pragmatic test of a successful system? In terms of laws…politics…the economy…isn’t the devil in the details? Must a society be all one thing or all another…or should we be constantly adjusting as we find in each specific case what works best? Isn’t that what we’ve been doing all along? If you believe that we are a “PURE 100% CAPITALIST DEMOCRACY,” or that we ever have been…then you are SORELY mistaken. We are much closer to what is called a “mixed economy“…wiki definition here…and most countries are. Aren’t there, perhaps, socialized programs that would benefit from going “free market“…and similarly, private programs that would benefit from being socialized, or at the very least, heavily regulated? And…here’s the big question…isn’t any society’s real success and “goodness” going to be judged more by the BEHAVIOR of its citizens and its companies than by which particular model’s “label” they use? Because, let’s face it: a company operating illegally…or mistreating its employees…or mistreating its customers/clients…or producing shoddy and/or dangerous products…well, that company is bad for society, regardless of who runs it. And the society that allows that company to do such things…is no better.