Skip to comments.Religious Right Historian: Net Neutrality is “Unbiblical Socialism” ( David Barton )
Posted on 04/27/2011 8:05:44 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
On his radio show yesterday David Barton and sidekick Rick Green claimed that FCC-supported net neutrality legislation which, as PFAW put it, ensures that Internet service providers cant charge higher rates for faster delivery of content, violates biblical principles of free market, and that they are socialist.
Its easy to dismiss that charge as nothing more than demagoguery, but in fact, the discussion gives us insight into what they (and the tea partiers as well as the slew of potential Republican Presidential candidates who seem to be falling all over themselves to cozy up to Barton) mean by socialism and, ultimately, how they understand freedom.
Most of us understand socialism as a system in which there is no private ownership and all power (political and economic) is centralized in the State; so tea party accusations that any policy they oppose is socialist seems, at best, like hyperbole.
(Excerpt) Read more at religiondispatches.org ...
I wish more people would study progressivism.
But in the case of net neutrality, net neutrality's founder has came out and taken his mask off. See this:
Tim Wu, the creator of the term 'net neutrality' is a fellow over at the marxist, soros funded group 'free press'. Knowing that, who could say Barton is wrong?
I know I can't.
The author's understanding is a little bit off, as the definition she provides for socialism is actually closer to the definition of communism. In socialism some private property ownership is allowed, but the central government controls and directs production and other economic decisions. Most economic resources are owned by the state, but some - especially agricultural - are owned privately.
Hmm....interesting, but where does that leave fascism?
Isn’t Communism best defined as socialism ruled by the dictatorship of the proletariat (as represented practically by Politburos and nomenklatura)? Seems you could have democratically-elected socialism, representative socialism and even monarchical socialism.
For me, indirect control of the means of production is fascism. Socialism is direct control of the means of production.
That's only the extreme form. Internationally, there are plenty of people who happily describe themselves as socialists and don't go that far. This seems to be a usual bit of sophistry ont he part of the left: i.e. that they and their party aren't socialists because they're somewhat to the right of Mao and Stalin - an absurd point of reference.
I figured you’d like to know that there is someone out there who is pushing an alternative view of net neutrality:(contrary to what I wrote earlier about the marxist version being the only one in motion)
===========As Congressman (Joe)Barton tries to explain Net Neutrality he reveals important aspects of how these folks understand freedom in entirely economic terms:
JB: [Net Neutrality means we] cannot regulate the internet, it should be open and free. Democrats definition of Net Neutrality is we want to give FCC the authority to tell people who actually provide the internet [again, they dont provide the internet, only access to it] what they can and cant do with it. Now, what people like yourself and myself mean is no government interference; its pretty straightforward. Republicans and conservatives have always tried to keep the internet totally free.================
So that’s the difference.
But you have put yourself on the marxist side of net neutrality, where government usurps.
I’d prefer to keep the government out of it. I’ll keep my freedom, you can have the “hope” and “change” that I don’t believe in.
Fascism is really more of a political designation than an economic one.
Captialism, Socialism, and Communism are economic systems, regardless of the political structure by which the government is established. In simplest terms, the distinctions between the economic systems are as follows:
In Capitalism: Ownership of economic resources (land, labor, capital, entrepreneurship) is private. Production decisions are made by the owners of the resources.
In Socialism: There is some private ownership of property and economic resources - especially land, but the government controls industry. Government directs production decisions. Capital is owned by the government. Prices are typically set by the government.
In Communism: There is no private property. Land and capital are all owned by the government and distributed according to the ruling party whims. All production decisions and pricing levels are directed by the government.
Net neutrality means both the government and corporations keep their hands off the content when they both want to get their hands on it. This is the way the Internet has been operating, it's not a new concept. Barton is being ignorant because keeping the corporations free from government interference in this aspect means they are able to make the Internet non-free.
Id prefer to keep the government out of it. Ill keep my freedom, you can have the hope and change that I dont believe in.
You are simply choosing corporate serfdom for yourself over government serfdom. I'd prefer neither. As far as the government goes, there is no "camel's nose under the tent." The government created the Internet, has ultimate say in many of its policies, and has passed various laws governing its use (some of which FR leverages in order to operate).
I could respect the anti-neutrality viewpoint if I could see it through all of the strawmen.
It’s a tricky situation because it appears that the definitions have been arrived at by people not applying a reasonable analytic standard. Fascism appears to be just any kind of government so long as it is “led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.” citation: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
This appears to me awfully situational. Is not a king a ‘dictator having complete power’? So what is the difference between a fascist dictatorship and a monarchy? Were there not many racist monarchies? Yes, there were. What the definition to me defines is not fascism in general but NAZISM in particular which is not even the most common form of fascism observed in the mid-20th century. Perhaps others notice considerable racism in fascist Italy, but I have not heard of much. The Jews in Italy weren’t persecuted in any meaningful way until the Nazis took control of the country upon Mussolini’s fall. That was when Pius XII moved to protect them, and not before.
This tendency to identify fascism with Nazism is, to me, harmful to eonomic analysis because, as your definition notes, anything having at least some governmental intereference counts as socialism. That utterly denatures the concept as an analytic tool. Is it socialist to insist on everyone driving on the same side of the road? How about safe work standards? How about taxes being collected from the states for highways that are preferentially built only in certain ones?
It’s probably a useless effort on my part but I really do prefer to state capitalism as you have stated it, but make what you call socialism fascism and what you call communism socialism. To me, it is not fascism that is the political term but communism, because you don’t need to have any particular governmental structure to achieve fascist ends. You do need to have the dictatorship of the proletariat to have communism, no matter to what economic purpose you turn the resulting governmental structure.
After all, China is ‘communist’, but its economy is becoming increasingly capitalist, due to easing of laws against private ownership of the means of production. There remain no free elections, however, and the nomenklatura nominate from among themselves who will succeed to positions of power (always in the interest of the proletariat, of course).
I agree that there is no particular ‘socialist’ form of government. You have democracy, oligarchy or monarchy, and that’s it. If the monarch has no breeding, I guess that’s when the intellectuals say that ruler is a fascist. Sounds like class distinction, rather than cogent political analysis, though.
I agree about the distinction to draw. My issue is that government is so ready to breach the boundary and dictate particular behavior, which amounts to indirect control of means of production (hence I consider it fascism).