LDS & ex-LDS Political Ideologies
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 523
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:42 am
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4627
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am
Coggins7 wrote:Fascism, Communism and Socialism are all collectivist, authoritarian/totalitarian, statist systems of governance hostile to economic liberty, property rights, and the rule of law.
How do you feel about the argument put forth by Marx that Capitalism began the process of eroding property rights by sweeping away the older systems of property rights (dynastic rights to land, jobs, etc) that existed under feudalism?
Also...how about Marx's arguments that all products under capitalism are really socialized already because of the complexity and agreements required by most of society to make capitalism flourish?
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
Uh, I'd just like to mention that fascism is nationalistic in nature.
Most fascist states heavily subscribe to the ethnicity of it's populace as superior, the cult of personality, or national supremacy. Social upward mobility in the fascist state is also embraced. Superior individuals were rewarded and there was no to little concern for class inequality.
Coggins, I think you are tacking on some similarities and yet are not looking at the entire picture to see how radically different some of these actual states and ideologies differ.
It's actually difficult to even make broad generalized statements about economics when it deals with fascist states. Most often the economics was secondary or not seen as important to those that rose to power. The driving force behind the fascists ideology was supremacy in class, ethnicity, as well as nation. Social darwinism is perfectly acceptable and encouraged in the fascist state.
How does that compare with socialism or communism?
Most fascist states heavily subscribe to the ethnicity of it's populace as superior, the cult of personality, or national supremacy. Social upward mobility in the fascist state is also embraced. Superior individuals were rewarded and there was no to little concern for class inequality.
Coggins, I think you are tacking on some similarities and yet are not looking at the entire picture to see how radically different some of these actual states and ideologies differ.
It's actually difficult to even make broad generalized statements about economics when it deals with fascist states. Most often the economics was secondary or not seen as important to those that rose to power. The driving force behind the fascists ideology was supremacy in class, ethnicity, as well as nation. Social darwinism is perfectly acceptable and encouraged in the fascist state.
How does that compare with socialism or communism?
Last edited by Guest on Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 523
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:42 am
barrelomonkeys wrote:Uh, I'd just like to mention that fascism is nationalistic in nature.
Most fascist states heavily subscribe to the ethnicity of it's populace, the cult of personality, or national supremacy. Social upward mobility in the fascist state is also embraced. Superior individuals were rewarded and there was no to little concern for class inequality.
Coggins, I think you are tacking on some similarities and yet are not looking at the entire picture to see how radically different some of these actual states and ideologies differ.
It's actually difficult to even make broad generalized statements about economics when it deals with fascist states. Most often the economics was secondary or not seen as important to those that rose to power. The driving force behind the facists ideology was supremacy in class, ethnicity, as well as nation. Social darwinism is perfectly acceptable and encouraged in the fascist state.
How does that compare with socialism or communism?
And especially Marxism, which makes its emphasis on social classes instead of nationalism.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
Let me just mention this as it relates to the left-right scale of political theory.
Left concern for redistribution of wealth vs. laissez-faire, social darwinism on the right
Left concern for workers rights vs. management and employers on the right
Left concern for class conflicts vs. class collaboration (which fascists fully embrace by the way) on the right
Left concern for internationalism vs. purely national interests on the right
Hopefully that helps. :)
Left concern for redistribution of wealth vs. laissez-faire, social darwinism on the right
Left concern for workers rights vs. management and employers on the right
Left concern for class conflicts vs. class collaboration (which fascists fully embrace by the way) on the right
Left concern for internationalism vs. purely national interests on the right
Hopefully that helps. :)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 523
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:42 am
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
Zoidberg wrote:barrelomonkeys wrote:by the way, just to clear up any lingering doubts; I do not suffer from penis envy.
:)
I suppose I have double penis envy, being both a woman and from a third-world country.
You poor thing. I'm sure Coggins can whip it outta ya with a bit of right ranting vitriol.
Or go to your nearest gun store to purchase a large, impressive firearm, scream about the bastards at the UN, and wear an American flag on your underpants and you'll be cured.
;P
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am
What "actual nature" of ideologies are you referring to? So far you have not referenced a single relevant analytical piece of writing
Except the piece above, which you apparently only skimmed.While accusing everyone here of ignorance, including people who have actually studied political science.
Uh huh...
But close-minded, fundamentalist, bigoted idiots like you piss me off. To be fair, I've met plenty of those types in Russia. They piss me off just as much.
Uh huh...
Snip irrelevant drivel...
I live in the United States. Here I'm free to pay ridiculous amounts of money for health care or make my own cast, buy all the guns I want and start a shooting in any given public place, and spend my tax dollars on funding executions. I'm living the American Dream.
You come from Eastern Europe, former socialist societies, and in that case, you should know better than to spout this kind of nonsense. Apparently, to do not understand either the history of the countries you came from nor the history and philosophical grounding of the the country you are in.
CFR. "Building communism" is not the same as "having communism", just so you know. Perhaps by "the Soviets" you mean some Joe Blow who happened to be living in the Soviet Union? That's not the same, my friend.
Let's be more specific and stop hiding behind vague platitudes. Care to elucidate?
Lenin ruled in very much the same manner as Stalin and Stalin's successors ruled in very much the same manner he did, with some modest differences, to be sure.
Perhaps your moment of clarity didn't last too long since you are back to thinking communism and socialism are synonymous.
You should probably start reading my posts if you're going to respond to them. I never said they were synonymous. I even mentioned (which apparently you glossed over, as you glossed over Riesman's lecture) the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as the theoretical half way point between the development of socialist institutions and pure Communism. There are, of course different schools of Socialism, but all of them contain similar elements and oppose liberal democracy for similar, if idiosyncratic reasons.
The short answer, famously given several generations ago, is that Socialism is Communism without a gun. Even more to the point, however, are the words of another Joe Blow who just happened to be living in Russia at the time. As Lenin said, "The goal socialism is communism."
Here's a definition I'll excerpt, my own italics, from Leo Huberman and Paul Sweezy of Monthy Review http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm:
Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).
It must not be assumed, from the distinction between socialism and communism, that the political parties all over the world which call themselves Socialist advocate socialism, while those which call themselves Communist advocate communism. That is not the case. Since the immediate successor to capitalism can only be socialism, the Communist parties,-like the Socialist parties, have as their goal the establishment of socialism.
Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises.
The attitude of both parties toward the Soviet Union grows directly out of their approach to this problem. Generally speaking, Communist parties praise the Soviet Union; Socialist parties denounce it in varying degrees. For the Communists, the Soviet Union merits the applause of all true believers in socialism because it has transformed the socialist dream into a reality; for the Socialists, the Soviet Union deserves only condemnation because it has not built socialism at all—at least not the socialism they dreamed of.
Huberman and Sweezy, "Introduction to Socialism," Monthly Review
On second thought, I'll have to revise, based upon the above, my understanding of these two as siblings to something more along the lines of a single entity growing from youth to adulthood.
by the way, Marx did not envision building communism in a single closed down country. He thought global revolution necessary. If you think Stalin was following the communist path as laid down by Marx, you have just demonstrated you have no clue.
Uh huh, no kidding. Lenin, Bakunin, Trotsky, Molotov, and the NKVD begun by Lenin certainly thought they were, and Stalin's heirs certainly thought they were. Mao and Kang Sheng thought they were, Pol Pot thought he was, as did Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. The cult of personality built up around Stalin, while a personal idiosyncrasy, is
1. exactly the kind of personality one would expect to be attracted to power in a Marxist political system, and
2. Hardly confined to Stalin in the 20th century. Mao cultivated and encouraged a similar personality cult, and killed many millions more than even stalin managed to do.And I'm sure you have wet dreams about how you could make sure to take them away from me. Perhaps kicking all foreigners out of your promised land would be the first step?
You may be from Eastern Europe, but to talk like a spoiled Northern California rich kid who's taken far too many Sociology classes as SFSU. You really are nothing but a terribly uneducated, jingoistic left wing bigot, typical of what passes in this country for serious analysis unfortunately. You fit right in with the KOS kids and MoveOn.org.Coggins, I have a suggestion: learn English and stay out of things you don't understand.
And I'd suggest reading up on a little history, political philosophy, and economics before you jump into an empty pool again.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
- Thomas S. Monson
- Thomas S. Monson
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am
How do you feel about the argument put forth by Marx that Capitalism began the process of eroding property rights by sweeping away the older systems of property rights (dynastic rights to land, jobs, etc) that existed under feudalism?
Also...how about Marx's arguments that all products under capitalism are really socialized already because of the complexity and agreements required by most of society to make capitalism flourish?
The first assumes that "capitalism" (whatever this actually is; this is a term coined by Marx as a foil for his own system), and property rights are different things, which is flatly not the case. "Capitalism is nothing more nor less then property rights in the economic sphere; it is economic liberty. Therefore, "Capitalism" cannot erode property rights because the right to own property, including money, which is a form of property and behaves regarding market forces as any other kind of property (excepting that it functions as a general medium of exchange as well), is synonymous with Capitalism, or, more properly, economic freedom in a deliberative democratic society.
Democratic Capitalism, as far as real life history goes, has been the greatest engine of the extension of property rights (through the massive creation of more and more property to own), in human history. However, without property rights, Capitalism crumbles,a s without the right to own, create, and accumulate property, Capitalism cannot exist in any substantive sense. Democratic Capitalism is property rights.
The second is pure sophistry and bespeaks the fact that Marx was, after all is said and done, an economic crackpot with little actual knowledge of either human nature or economics. In point of fact, as the great Austrian and other free market economists have been pointing out for generations (especially Von Mises, Heyek, and other Libertarian thinkers), it is precisely the unimaginably vast individual economic transactions that occur in a free economy between different individuals, each with his own particular interests and creative entrepreneurial potential, hour by hour, day by day, that obviate any possibility of such a system ever being "socialized" at all. No such human relationships can possibly ever be brought under the control of any central authority or the economic life of a society "planned". The socialization of such a massive, complex, highly interdependent network of human economic relationships means very simply the dismantling and destruction of that network. It also means the destruction of the market forces, especially the price mechanism, through which productive economic activity can be made profitable, and hence, economic growth made possible.
Socialism can do nothing else other than eat wealth. It can create none where none was before, but only move it from one set of hands to others in a ever diminishing cycle of economic stagnation and decline.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
- Thomas S. Monson
- Thomas S. Monson