Subj : Re: Recession to Depressi
To : Arelor
From : Boraxman
Date : Sat Jul 23 2022 10:38 am
Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Arelor to Boraxman on Thu Jul 21 2022 06:18 am
> > What? Seriously, what??!
>
> > Whatever definition of Socialism you have in mind, must be so broad that
> > it capture
>
>
> If you check the political programs of actual Fascist groups, you will
> notice they are
> Socialist programs.
>
> The main difference between a Fascist State and a Communist State is that
> Communism
> does what it does in the name of The Workers while Fascists do for Our
> Country.
>
> In practical terms, this shows when Western Socialists are seen trying to
> provide
> Socialism for everybody (such as immigrants or poor people not related to
> the country)
> while Fascists want Socialism for nationals only.
>
> --
Many Western Socialists are Marxist in nature, or more specifically, Trotskyites
Fascism is only "Socialism" in that the state runs things, but the state doesn't represent the will of the people. It is on paper perhaps socialism, but in practice totalitarianism. The public don't really have any practical rights to control industry, commerce and production. This is the kind of sophistry that allows North Korea to proclaim itself Democratic. I mean, the ruling dynasty is the head of the people, right? Some of Hitlers writing sounded positively Marxist, but there was never any real Socialism, only the propagandist elements of anti-Capitalist thought.
A very broad defintion of Socialism covers everything that isn't Capitalism, so therefore is not useful. Government programs and welfare have been defined and Socialism, but this is a distinctly seperate idea to Marxist socialism, or other types.
Consider the term "Democracy". We call ourselves a democracy, but it is a distinctly different system to Athenian democracy. Democracy doesn't describe a system, but only characteristics. Two different systems can share the same characterstics and be called "Democracy".
This is also true for Capitalism. Any system where the means of production is privately owned is Capitalism, so "Capitalism" can describe two very different systems, one of totalitarian monopolist oligarchs, and one of an ownership economy with universal self-employment and democratically run firms, similar to what I endorse. Both technically Capitalist, but to lump them as if they were both the same would be in error.
This is the problem really, a system can be replaced by something quite different, yet claim to be the same thing because of a single shared general attribute or two.
Typically though, when someone says "Socialist" in an accusatory tone they are either referring to Marxism, or if they are of the libertarian/AnCap bent, referring to any system which has welfare and government spending more than their ideology deems appropriate.
