Forms of government[from John] One would assume that Fascism (Hitler) and Communism (Stalin) are worlds apart until one examines their definitions from the Encarta Dictionary.
Fascism Any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism
Communism 2. Any system of government in which a single, usually totalitarian, party holds power, and the state controls the economy.
They sound pretty much the same to me.
Socialism 3.A stage between capitalism and communism. In Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need.
Note: pay distributed according to work done rather than need. Also note the implied road to communism.
Republic A political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them.
Does a republic remain a republic if elected representatives do not listen to the people?
Does a republic remain a republic if elected representatives are chosen by two political parties rather than by the people?
Does a republic remain a republic if only half of the people vote?
Does a republic remain a republic if money and lobbying can seriously affect elections and legislation?
Democratic Party one of the two major political parties in the United States, formed after a split in the former Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828.
See we were friends once let’s try it again, friendship I mean.
The Market Place
Capitalism An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit.
Socialism A political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.
Socio-Capitalism (my word and definition) An economic and political system that seeks to find a reasonable blending and balancing of a limited free market with the societal need for equity and fairness toward its people.
It seems to me that this is where we are heading and is probably where we should go.
6 comments:
Good summary and conclusions, John, and I agree with nearly all of it!
Politico-Economic systems are best thought of as not being along a straight line, from "left" to "right" but in a circle.
......... Capitalist-Republic
Socio-Capitalist ........ Ruling Party
Socialist ............... One-Party
..... Communist .... Facist
Start with a Capitalist-Republic at top center. The economy is mostly capitalist with some government-run enterprises (post office, public education, ...) and the political system is a relatively stable democratic republic, generally with two broad-based political parties (each with left-middle-and right wings) and several splinter parties.
As you go to the left along the circle, you get to what you call "Socio-Capitalist", i.e., a mixed public/private economy with a Liberal Democratic government. There are multiple political parties, some large and somewhat broad-based, plus others that are narrow. They govern via fluid coalitions.
As you go further to the left along the circle, you get to a "Socialist" system, where the government dominates the economy (but some private businesses are tolerated) and multiple, sometimes quite narrow-based political parties compete by forming unstable coalitions.
Still further to the left, near the bottom of the circle, you get a classic "Communist" state-run economic system, with virtually no private businesses, and a single ruling party, invariably totalitarian. One person (usually a man) dictates policies.
Starting again at the top, and going a bit to the right, you get to a "Ruling Party" system, where major corporations are tightly connected to the government, but are allowed to run their internal operations more or less independently. There are several opposition parties which try, usually unsuccesfully, to bring the Ruling Party down.
Continuing around the circle to the right, you get a "Single-Party" system where opposition is suppressed. The major parts of the economy and government run by an oligarchy. These politically-connected people dominate the country. In addition to the ruling party, there are usually several narrowly-based political parties that put on a show of democracy, plus many small businessess.
Continuing around the circle, at the bottom right, you get the classic "Facist" state-controlled political system, where "private" businesses are arms of state power, and a single ruling party, invariably totalitarian. One person (usually a man) dictates policies.
Thus, as John observes, the "Facist" and "Communist" systems meet at the bottom and are quite similar.
Ira Glickstein
An interesting circle, Ira.
I would also like to point out that under a Republic form of government the people can have five forms of an economy.
Laissez Faire Capitalism, Capitalism, Socio- Capitalism, Socialism or Communism (See the definitions below.)
Each of these forms moves us further away from a free market economy. Still, it’s the people’s choice. I would argue that laissez faire capitalism and capitalism have proven unsuccessful as America has grown as a nation. We now have a form of socio-capitalism,which,I believe provides the optimum balance between conflicting needs. My principle concern is a continued slide favoring the societal needs to the detriment of capitalistic principles could easily slide the nation into socialism or even communism which have also proven as economically unsuccessful.
Laissez Faire Capitalism the principle that the economy works best if private industry is not regulated and markets are free.
Capitalism An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit.
Socio-Capitalism (my word and definition) an economic system that seeks to find a reasonable blend and balance between a limited free market and the societal need for equity and fairness toward its people.
Socialism A political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.
Communism 2. Any system of government in which a single, usually totalitarian, party holds power, and the state controls the economy.
John wrote, in part: "I would also like to point out that under a Republic form of government the people can have five forms of an economy[:] Laissez Faire Capitalism, Capitalism, Socio- Capitalism, Socialism or Communism..."
Yes to the first three but absolutely no to the last two! For a true, "representative" Republic to stand, there must be substantial independent centers of power and money that are not totally dependent upon the government.
If, as in a Communist system, the central government owns all the means of production, and therefore everyone's job and necessities of life are dependent upon the government's favor, there is an inevitable fall into One-Party rule. (Can you give me a real-world example to the contrary?)
The same is true, over time, for a full-blown Socialist system. Once the government has control over virtually all large business enterprises, there is no way any opposition can stand. It is therefore inevitable that a Socialist system will slide into either Communism or Fascism, or split into regional or religious or tribal domains.
In a Republic with either Laissez Faire or Moderate Capitalism, or even in milder forms of what you call Socio-Capitalism, there can be many relatively independent centers of power that span different regional and religious domains. Of course all or nearly all of these centers will have some dependence upon the government, but they will also be able to support themselves independently and thus exert pressure back against the government.
For a Republic to stand, the government must be as dependent upon coalitions of independent power centers as those centers are upon the government.
Thus, in the US a Republican majority cannot outlaw unions because they need a certain percentage of union workers and a Democrat majority cannot outlaw corporations because they need support from some of them.
The current health care debate is an excellent case in point. Although a single party rules both houses of Congress and the Executive, they cannot get their "Blue Dog" wing into government-controlled health care, as conceived by their leftist wing. That is the beauty of a two-party system with both parties rather broadly-based. Anything else is unstable and, if not rescued by some benevolent and saintly statesmen, or forced by some external power, will slide into Socialism or One-Party rule. The Republic will fall!
Ira
I agree with your argument on communism; I should have said descend into communism although the pretense of a republic could be maintained by allowing the people’s vote on a “rigged” ballot. This was practiced in the USSR to maintain the pretense that the Russians were electing their leaders.
I argue, maybe too emphatically, that we approach “rigged” balloting here. We are not there yet, but close. How else can an elected representative or senator be almost guaranteed of retaining his seat indefinitely as long as he remains a true party hack?
You say, “The same is true, over time, for a full-blown Socialist system. Once the government has control over virtually all large business enterprises, there is no way any opposition can stand. It is therefore inevitable that a Socialist system will slide into either Communism or Fascism, or split into regional or religious or tribal domains”. Again, I agree that eventually a socialistic system will fall however; it could remain in power over an extended period as the electorate gives away one freedom after another.
This is the danger of our system today, which I define as socio-capitalism. This system spans from capitalism on the “right” to socialism on the “left”. Ideally, our system should hover near the middle. The pendulum will swing from right to left and back again as administrations change, which is a good thing; however the danger always exists that too wild a swing will move the nation irreconcilably back towards capitalism or forward into socialism. Our current trend since the 1960’s and 1970’s has been toward socialism. It appears our current administration is moving us even further forward.
PS I do not care for our two party system as it functions today. The constitution does not call for a two party system it simply evolved. My principle concern with the two party system today is it divides the nation into two warring parties. I don’t have an alternative except a no party system which probably would be too unwieldy today.
Thanks, John, for your comments. You probably noticed that I chose King Solomon "dividing the baby" as the image at the head of your posting. The Bible presents him as a benevolent dictator skilled at determining who was the true mother of the baby.
For a Capitalist Republic to stand, we need a process that moderates, like Solomon, between the immediate needs (and wants) of the people and the long-term solvency and stability of the government.
In a pure democracy, once the majority of the voters figure out they can vote for candidates who pay them benefits out of the national treasury, the country is guaranteed to go bankrupt sooner or later. That is the "tipping point" - when fewer people are, on net, paying-in and more are, on net, on the dole. If you tax those who work and give benefits to those who don't, you should not be surprised when more and more people don't work (or don't work very hard)!
I think history, as far back as Greece and Rome, and up to more modern times in the UK and USA, shows that the most stable governments are multi-party, where two (sometimes three) major parties coexist and take turns at the head, with the legislature and judiciary and state govenments sometimes in the hands of the opposition.
Looking at the historical record, it is amazing that power is handed over peacefully when a different party wins 52% to 48% or even closer. The only reason that happens in the US is that both major parties have more philosophical and geographic overlap with each other than basic differences. Therefore, both strive to find the middle to pick up the independents and cross-over voters who make the final decision.
In countries with a larger number of smaller, more narrow parties that are sometimes quite regional, change of government can be threatening and may lead to national strikes and riots.
In your original posting, you seemed to be unhappy that candidates are "chosen by two political parties rather than by the people", and, in your most recent comment you ask "How else can an elected representative or senator be almost guaranteed of retaining his seat indefinitely as long as he remains a true party hack?"
Well, IMHO, that system promotes balance and compromise within the structure of each party and between them. I personally think things were better when party hacks in the proverbial "smoke-filled room" hand-picked candidates prior to our primary election system.
In an episode of "All in the Family" the "meathead" complains to Archie Bunker about the slate of candidates picked by the party. Archie says it is quite balanced: "Tory, Feldman, O'Reilly, Nelson... That's an Italian, a Jew, an Irishman, and a regular American there... what I call a balanced ticket.". He goes on to say that when you find an honest Italian for District Attorney you really have something. Feldman, the Jew for Treasurer, them people know how to handle money. O'Reilly, the Mick, can spread the graft around equally. And Nelson, the regular American, is good for TV appearances!
Ira Glickstein
For the record, here's the actual script for Archie Bunker on the balanced ticket I mentioned in my previous comment:
Archie: What's the matter with this? I call this representative government. You've got Salvatori, Feldman, O'Reilly, Nelson--that's an Italian, a Jew, an Irishman and a regular American there. That's what I call a balanced ticket.
Meathead: Why do you always have to label people by nationality?
Archie: 'Cause, how else are you going to get the right man for the right job? For instance, take Feldman there. He's up for treasurer. Well, that's perfect. All them people know how to handle money. Know what I mean?
Meathead: No, I don't.
Archie: Well, then you got Salvatori running for D.A. He can keep an eye on Feldman. You know, I want to tell you something about the Italians. When you do get an honest one, you really got something there.
Meathead: Aw, c'mon, Arch.
Archie: Well, then here you got O'Reilly, the mick. He can see that the graft is equally spread around, you know. You got Nelson, the American guy. He's good for TV appearances, to make the rest of them look respectable.
Ira Glickstein
Post a Comment