Communism, fascism, socialism, free enterprise
If you haven’t guessed it, with my last post I began to answer a comment that was recently posted on my blog. The comment was:
“Dave said …
You divorced?
8:02 PM”
From the beginning of the blog, I decided not to personalize the material posted. Originally, I didn’t even identify myself. I decided to do so after a time but still desire to keep me out of it as much as possible. Consequently, I debated with myself whether or not I would even answer the question. I finally decided to do so and to expand it to deal with the larger context of today’s society and the political, social, and economic events that are presently occurring. That is why I started with the communist goals listed in 1963. Among those 45 goals listed were the following eight:
“Basic social, moral changes (Change that we can believe in?) advanced by the 1963 goals:
1) Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them ‘censorship’ and a violation of free speech and free press.
2) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
3) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural, and healthy.’
4) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with ‘social’ religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a ‘religious crutch.’
5) Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of ‘separation of church and state.’
6) Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
7) Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
8) Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.”
Pertinent to Dave’s question is number 7: “Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.”
However, because of the larger context, I’ve decided that it is necessary to define some terms that are commonly used but also often misused or misunderstood. That’s what tonight’s post is about.
Economically, the means of production (or as Karl Marx refers to them: “the instruments of production”) are:
1) land
2) labor
3) capital and
4) entrepreneurship
In the context of the means of production, I’m going to briefly identify four entities: communism, Nazism, socialism, and free enterprise.
Economically, socialism is the government ownership of the means of production. Encarta says the following about socialism:
“Socialism, economic and social doctrine, political movement inspired by this doctrine, and system or order established when this doctrine is organized in a society. The socialist doctrine demands state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and distribution of wealth, to be achieved by reconstruction of the existing capitalist or other political system of a country through peaceful, democratic, and parliamentary means.” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.
Notice that the above identifies socialism as an economic, social, and political movement. In fact, economic, social, and political aspects are interwoven within each of the four entities.
Encarta further identifies Nazism as a socialist movement in which the means of production are not directly owned by the government but they are fundamentally CONTROLLED by the government.
“National Socialism, commonly called Nazism, German political movement initiated in 1920 with the organization of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or NSDAP), also called the Nazi Party. The movement culminated in the establishment of the Third Reich, the totalitarian German state led by the dictator Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945.”
“Concretely, the ‘new order’ involved abolishing trade unions and cooperatives, confiscating their financial and other assets, eliminating collective bargaining between workers and their employers, prohibiting strikes and lockouts, and requiring membership by law of all German workers in the state-controlled Deutsche Arbeitsfront (German Labor Front), or DAF. Wages were determined by the ministry of national economy. Government officials, called trustees of labor and appointed by the minister of national economy, handled all questions relating to wages and hours and conditions of work.
The trade associations of business owners and industrialists of the Weimer Republic were transformed into organs of state control. Membership by employers was compulsory. Supervision of these associations was vested in the ministry of national economy, which had the power to recognize trade organizations as the sole representatives of their respective branches of industry, organize new associations, dissolve or merge existing ones, and appoint and recall the leaders of all the associations. Through the exercise of these powers and also as specifically empowered by law, the ministry of economy greatly expanded existing cartels and cartelized entire industries. The banks were similarly ‘coordinated.’ Private property rights were preserved, and previously nationalized enterprises were ‘reprivatized’—that is, returned to private ownership but all owners were subject to rigid state controls. By all of these and related means the Hitler regime eliminated competition. Ultimately the ‘new order’ was economically dominated by four banks and a relatively small number of huge conglomerates, including the vast munitions and steel-manufacturing empire of the Krupp family and the notorious Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie, known as I. G. Farben, which produced dyes, synthetic rubber, oil, and other products and participated in or dominated almost 400 enterprises. Some of these enterprises made use of millions of prisoners of war and inhabitants of conquered countries as slave laborers in German industry. The cartels also supplied materials for the systematic and scientific extermination by the Hitler government of millions of Jews, Poles, Russians, and others.” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.
Communism as envisioned by Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engels) in his book “The Communist Manifesto” and in other related writing was socialism in which the means of production were, in the beginning, owned by the government (or state). However, over time, the government (state) would “wither away” and the means of production would be universally administered by the proletariat (workers and every one would be workers).
“The Communist Manifesto” says: “In place of the old bourgeois society (basically, owners of the means of production—my addition), with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, Edited with an introduction and notes by David McLellan, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, © 1992, page 26.
Obviously then, there has not be a large scale society in which communism as envisioned by Karl Marx was successfully instituted. The government (state) has never “withered away” and been replaced with an association of any type.
In socialism, Nazism, and communism; the means of production would, in one way or another, be controlled by society as a whole rather than individually. In contrast, the Free Enterprise System provides for the private (rather than public) ownership of the means of production. Each of us, individually, rather than as a collective group, would make the decisions necessary to advance economic progress and growth. “In a now famous phrase, Smith (Adam Smith, author of “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” published in1776. Note: This book was published in the same year as the beginning of the American Revolutionary War—my addition.) said that the combination of self-interest, private property, and competition among sellers in markets will lead producers ‘as by an invisible hand’ to an end that they did not intend, namely, the well-being of society.” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006. Further according to Encarta, “Government will be necessary only to protect society from foreign attack, uphold the rights of private property, and guarantee contracts.”
If you haven’t guessed it, with my last post I began to answer a comment that was recently posted on my blog. The comment was:
“Dave said …
You divorced?
8:02 PM”
From the beginning of the blog, I decided not to personalize the material posted. Originally, I didn’t even identify myself. I decided to do so after a time but still desire to keep me out of it as much as possible. Consequently, I debated with myself whether or not I would even answer the question. I finally decided to do so and to expand it to deal with the larger context of today’s society and the political, social, and economic events that are presently occurring. That is why I started with the communist goals listed in 1963. Among those 45 goals listed were the following eight:
“Basic social, moral changes (Change that we can believe in?) advanced by the 1963 goals:
1) Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them ‘censorship’ and a violation of free speech and free press.
2) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
3) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural, and healthy.’
4) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with ‘social’ religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a ‘religious crutch.’
5) Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of ‘separation of church and state.’
6) Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
7) Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
8) Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.”
Pertinent to Dave’s question is number 7: “Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.”
However, because of the larger context, I’ve decided that it is necessary to define some terms that are commonly used but also often misused or misunderstood. That’s what tonight’s post is about.
Economically, the means of production (or as Karl Marx refers to them: “the instruments of production”) are:
1) land
2) labor
3) capital and
4) entrepreneurship
In the context of the means of production, I’m going to briefly identify four entities: communism, Nazism, socialism, and free enterprise.
Economically, socialism is the government ownership of the means of production. Encarta says the following about socialism:
“Socialism, economic and social doctrine, political movement inspired by this doctrine, and system or order established when this doctrine is organized in a society. The socialist doctrine demands state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and distribution of wealth, to be achieved by reconstruction of the existing capitalist or other political system of a country through peaceful, democratic, and parliamentary means.” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.
Notice that the above identifies socialism as an economic, social, and political movement. In fact, economic, social, and political aspects are interwoven within each of the four entities.
Encarta further identifies Nazism as a socialist movement in which the means of production are not directly owned by the government but they are fundamentally CONTROLLED by the government.
“National Socialism, commonly called Nazism, German political movement initiated in 1920 with the organization of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or NSDAP), also called the Nazi Party. The movement culminated in the establishment of the Third Reich, the totalitarian German state led by the dictator Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945.”
“Concretely, the ‘new order’ involved abolishing trade unions and cooperatives, confiscating their financial and other assets, eliminating collective bargaining between workers and their employers, prohibiting strikes and lockouts, and requiring membership by law of all German workers in the state-controlled Deutsche Arbeitsfront (German Labor Front), or DAF. Wages were determined by the ministry of national economy. Government officials, called trustees of labor and appointed by the minister of national economy, handled all questions relating to wages and hours and conditions of work.
The trade associations of business owners and industrialists of the Weimer Republic were transformed into organs of state control. Membership by employers was compulsory. Supervision of these associations was vested in the ministry of national economy, which had the power to recognize trade organizations as the sole representatives of their respective branches of industry, organize new associations, dissolve or merge existing ones, and appoint and recall the leaders of all the associations. Through the exercise of these powers and also as specifically empowered by law, the ministry of economy greatly expanded existing cartels and cartelized entire industries. The banks were similarly ‘coordinated.’ Private property rights were preserved, and previously nationalized enterprises were ‘reprivatized’—that is, returned to private ownership but all owners were subject to rigid state controls. By all of these and related means the Hitler regime eliminated competition. Ultimately the ‘new order’ was economically dominated by four banks and a relatively small number of huge conglomerates, including the vast munitions and steel-manufacturing empire of the Krupp family and the notorious Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie, known as I. G. Farben, which produced dyes, synthetic rubber, oil, and other products and participated in or dominated almost 400 enterprises. Some of these enterprises made use of millions of prisoners of war and inhabitants of conquered countries as slave laborers in German industry. The cartels also supplied materials for the systematic and scientific extermination by the Hitler government of millions of Jews, Poles, Russians, and others.” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.
Communism as envisioned by Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engels) in his book “The Communist Manifesto” and in other related writing was socialism in which the means of production were, in the beginning, owned by the government (or state). However, over time, the government (state) would “wither away” and the means of production would be universally administered by the proletariat (workers and every one would be workers).
“The Communist Manifesto” says: “In place of the old bourgeois society (basically, owners of the means of production—my addition), with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, Edited with an introduction and notes by David McLellan, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, © 1992, page 26.
Obviously then, there has not be a large scale society in which communism as envisioned by Karl Marx was successfully instituted. The government (state) has never “withered away” and been replaced with an association of any type.
In socialism, Nazism, and communism; the means of production would, in one way or another, be controlled by society as a whole rather than individually. In contrast, the Free Enterprise System provides for the private (rather than public) ownership of the means of production. Each of us, individually, rather than as a collective group, would make the decisions necessary to advance economic progress and growth. “In a now famous phrase, Smith (Adam Smith, author of “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” published in1776. Note: This book was published in the same year as the beginning of the American Revolutionary War—my addition.) said that the combination of self-interest, private property, and competition among sellers in markets will lead producers ‘as by an invisible hand’ to an end that they did not intend, namely, the well-being of society.” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006. Further according to Encarta, “Government will be necessary only to protect society from foreign attack, uphold the rights of private property, and guarantee contracts.”
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:50 AM
4 Comments:
Labeling everyone a socialist or communist. Is that what Jesus would do? BTW, entering the President's middle name every time you mention him is getting old and ignorant. My middle name is Ted. Am I a serial murderer?
3) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural, and healthy.’
I question why part of the communist agenda in 1963 would be promoting homosexuality. While some homosexual groups like the Mattachine soceity were communist or communist leaning, the overall communist movement was not particularly homosexual friendly. Homosexuality was by and large looked down upon as a bourgeois decadence in most communist countries and by many communist orgainizations. In the 1930s the Soviet Union enacted laws that made homosexual punishable by 5 years of hard labor, a law that was on the books until the Soviet Union collapsed, Communist China outlawed homosexuality until the 1990s, When the communist took power in Cuba they outlawed homosexual activity until the late 70s, and most of the Soviet controlled nations in Eastern Europe outlawed homosexuality. So I have a hard time believing that the American communist movement that was controlled by Moscow saw presenting homosexuality as normal was a major goal of the movement.
I would also point out that the Communist Part of the United States expelled a number of members during the 1950s-60s for being homosexuals and that homosexuality was viewed as an activity done by those with fascist leanings, which was the Stalinist view point.
Very good job of side stepping the question regarding if you are divorced, not that anyone would care (my addition).
I would say never married. What woman would go for a man this unproductive?
Post a Comment
<< Home