Skip to comments.Statism vs. Communism vs. Socialism vs.... (open question)
Posted on 12/25/2012 8:36:39 AM PST by FreeAtlanta
I looked up Statism and is seems a whole lot like communism. I thought it would be good if we had a discussion/education effort to explain the different political and economic systems.
On a scale of 1-10 with 1 representing Good and 10 representing Bad, how do you rank them?
On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is God's Kingdom and 10 is Satanism, how do you rank them?
Socialism, Communism, etc are different names for Statism/Fascism.
I will start with saying that Statism, Communism, Despotism and Dictatorship in practice all seem like the same thing. They may have slightly different theories, but the end result seems to always be the same.
I rate those systems as a 10 for bad and a 10 on the Satanism scale.
For good, I have Conservatism, Capitalism, Republicanism as similar and as a 3 for goodness because noting is perfect except God. I think on the Religious scale they are about a 5 or 6. It is the best we can do as men.
I think God’s Kingdom is a good monarchy or dictatorship. It is funny that we rarely have a good monarchy or dictatorship among men, but that is likely the ultimate government under our God.
Anyway, if anyone wants to chime in. Feel free to talk or not talk about the religious aspects.
There is a book from the 1930’s written by a guy named Albert Jay Nock. The book is called: Our Enemy The State.
It is written on a very high political, abstract level geared mostly to post graduate students. You may have to read some paragraphs 2 or 3 times to grasp the true meaning.
When you do get through it, you will find the answer to most of your questions.
It boils down to this thumbnail; there are two kinds of people in this world, the collectivist and the individualist. The individualist believes in God, the collectivist believes in all kinds of cockamamie.
Plow through it, at the very least you will have tons of food for thought.
I agree. Now Democracy/Democrat, Liberalism and Progressism have had their modern meanings corrupted to mean those things, too.
I guess a note on classic vs. corrupted meanings would be good.
if you ignore linear left/right (left is 1 and right is 12) and look at it more like a clock leftist socialism (redundant) would be at 0100 and fascism (so-called right wing by libtards) would be at 1100 almost next to each other because they are the same. the only reson nazism and fascism were called right wing is because they were fighting the darlings of the left communists in ww2 and both sides just couldn’t be that similar. i believe hitler is actually 3rd or 4th on the list of biggest murders in the 20th century NYTimes buddies mao and stalin are above him.
Thanks ConradofMontferrat. If I have to read something 2 or 3 times, then I am toast. I will likely fall asleep before getting through the first time.
I think I mostly agree with the idea of two kinds of people, the collectivist and the individualist, but what about the third, the I don’t have a clueist and haven’t engaged my minidist?
Some of those would surely break our way, if we can figure out how to message them.
lol, that was good.
The frustrating thing is educating people who just don’t want to think about it. We know what is good, but our message is apparently too complex for what many are willing to consider.
I guess the term “low information voter” that Rush coined is accurate. It is hard to even say we have the right plan to get things working when we don’t have a plan to convince people we have the plan to get things working. :-(
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert A. Heinlein
The Founding Fathers use a political spectrum that had statism at one end and anarchy at the other end. Their goal was to find the golden mean of freedom somewhere in the middle. Thanks to the libtards, this country has been moving from their golden mean toward statism.
I’ve found it much more useful to consider the enormity of a government versus left or right comparisons.
The following is excerpted from an essay entitled The Responsibility of Citizens in "Our Ageless Constitution."
"What follows, if we are to judge by the history of fallen civilizations, is described by Albert Jay Nock in his book Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (1943):
"... closer centralization; a steadily growing bureaucracy; State power and faith in State power increasing; social power and faith in social power diminishing; the State absorbing a continually larger proportion of the national income; production languishing; the State in consequence taking over one 'essential industry' after another, managing them with ever-increasing corruption, inefficiency, and prodigality, and finally resorting to a system of forced labor. Then at some point in this process a collision of State interests, at least as general and as violent as that which occurred in 1914, will result in an industrial and financial dislocation too severe for the asthenic [weak] social structure to bear; and from this the State will be left to 'the rusty death of machinery' and the casual anonymous forces of dissolution."
Can we, then, conclude that no matter by which "ism" it is called, any set of ideas not consistent with the principles underlying America's Declaration of Independence and Constitutional limits on coercive government power is inconsistent with individual liberty?
I can sum up all of your list with only one word: Totalitarianism.
There is no “free” place on the planet unless one owns his own island that is not a subject of some other ‘government’ somewhere.
The only conclusion that one can make! You have basically distilled the quote down to the kernel that sums it up about as good as it gets.
I'd also like to note that he was referring to other situations in the past, but just damn, if one can't see that history repeats itself when one refuses to look at history correctly, one is BOUND to make the same mistakes over and over again. And so we are.
statism ( socialism is the most extreme kind of statism because the government controls and OWNS most property. that is why democrats are socialists as socialism allows the most control over individuals)
You also posted on the Sam Donaldson thread today. My post there also references some comments by Dr. Russell Kirk in "The Conservative Mind." Pity folks weren't paying attention to his and others' cautions to those who called themselves "conservatives" back then.
Well, in my understanding, Statism is not strictly a single political system, but a philosophy that is incorporated into many distinct political systems. So, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism are all Statist systems, but they differ in other details.
Some of the other items on your list are similar, for example, imperialism, liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, and objectivism are all philosophies and not forms of governance. So, you need to separate those in your thinking, if you want to get a clear understanding.
Now, just looking at the forms of governance, you can put anarchism at 10 right away, since it is purely theoretical and can’t exist in the real world, so it’s a horrible form of government. Next in line, I would put both Communism, and Fascism as the next worst offenders, because they both violate basic natural rights, and virulently spread the destruction of those rights outside of their own borders. Next, I would place Socialism, since it does destroy the same rights, but more slowly, and it spreads less virulently than Communism or Fascism. Really, it’s only a step above them because it is a weaker and less effective version of Communism, so it’s less likely to be successful in its destructive tendencies.
Above them, I’d place Despotism, Dictatorialism, Autocracy, Plutocracy, and Theocracy, since they are all generally destructive of some natural rights as a rule, though they are not usually very viral. Monarchy is a funny case, because, at its worst, it should be placed alongside these systems, but, at its best, it could even perform better as a government than Republicanism. However, the performance is inconsistent, and trends towards a middle position, above the more authoritarian governments, but below Republicanism.
Republicanism, I am of course placing in the highest position since, although it’s far from a perfect form of government, it’s the best one we have come up with so far.
Oh, it seems like I skipped over Democracy. A pure democracy, except on the smallest scales, tends to function just as badly as a dictatorship, but less efficiently in every regard, which is why we don’t any viable pure democracies as national governments. A mixed, representative democracy is a decent form of government, but usually less effective than a Republican one, since it has fewer safeguards against the eventual usurpation of rights that all governments tend towards.
That’s not quite true. You’ve got a free piece of territory that no other man can claim, right between your left ear and your right ear.
Here's a good ten minute youtube vid that lays out my understanding fairly well:
Self ping for keeps
The other guy was correct, separate the forms of government from ideologies.
BTW, here is one symptom of a kleptocracy:
ORGANIZATIONAL SCLEROSIS: When so many special interests are given so many benefits that the standard of living is lowered for everyone.
Thanks everyone. I enjoyed reading each of your posts. I hope the thread was useful and we can formulate a way to pursued the masses toward leaders who will protect our Constitutional Republic and Free Enterprise system.
After the 2012 election, my confidence has taken a beating. I don’t understand how so many could have been so poorly informed or just didn’t care.
I hope we can do better in 2014. I know there is a lot of vote stealing and corruption going on. I am confident that is what got Obama over the top, but a lot more people voted for that joker than should have. That is more depressing than the election fraud.
I can’t seem to find a consistent definition of the words “democracy” or a “republic”. To me, “democracy” applies to a country that has freedom from political coercion, while “republic “ pertains to a government that operates by rule of law. Both are required to have a functioning free country.
A person cannot be free to pursue his own happiness if he cannot predict what consequences his actions will have. Thus, freedom from political coercion requires a government that follows the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rule.
As someone else noted, you left out Fascism. Mussolini is famously reputed to have said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
To me it is a significant omission, because I believe that is exactly the description of the totalitarian system we are living under today.
That doesn’t sound a lot different that Socialism or Communism. At some point the corporations and government merge and we have totalitarianism or statism.
The funding of GM, GE, Solyndra and other boondoggles against tax payer approval is thuggish. It crushes smaller companies and chooses winner and losers while not letting smaller but possibly better companies and products win.
government should have no involvement in the economy IMO, except when it comes to honoring contracts and some basic stuff.
They should never fund any private or non-government organization or corporation ever.
I agree, with the exception of military equipment and defensive projects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.