mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (05/02/85)
To have PROPERTY in something, one must have the right to bring-about or prevent changes in that thing. Socialism is a social order in which, rather than allowing private property and markets, decisions about the use of resources are made by administrative institution (whether it be a bureaucracy or democratic assembly). Under Fascism, individuals retain POSSESSION of resources, but decisions about HOW these resources are USED are made by a system of government institutions. Thus, the possessors do NOT actually have PROPERTY in the resources. Fascism is a veiled form of Socialism. The appeal of Fascism (whether that of Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, or Roosevelt) is that it maintains a fiction of private property but lets those who fear market-processes feel more secure. To many, it seems a happy middle-ground between Communism and Spencerian Darwinism. Obviously, since WWII and the horror of the Holocaust, the word 'Fascism' has unpleasant connotations; so Fascism must call itself by other names ('Fair Deal', 'New Frontier', 'Great Society', &c), altho there ARE some Liberals who refer to their Fascism as 'Friendly Fascism'. It is quite true that most Leftists are horrified by German National Socialism, and honestly don't recognize it as a true Socialism; but this is rather like failing to recognize a degenerate cousin spawned by a branch of the family which inbreeds in Appalachia. To say that 'Capitalism' persisted under the National Socialists is to confuse the issue. It is quite true that there was a class of industrialists who controlled the means of production (and who were therefore 'capitalist' in one sense), but their power did not derive from a market system (and they were therefore not 'Capitalist' in the other sense). Hitler regarded Market Capitalism as a Jewish subterfuge. Wages and prices were fixed by the government (and as Galbraith, Deputy Administrator of the Office of Price Administration from '41 to '43, notes: "A market system in which wages and prices are set by the state is a market system no more. Only the blithely obtuse can reconcile 'this Free Enterprise System' with the enforcement of wage and price controls."), the money-supply was drastically inflated (resulting in shortages, which were responded to by administrative rationing), the institutions of financial intermediation were integrated into the state, &c. Some (whether they are Socialist or not) object to the definition of 'Socialism' which I give above. It IS possible to define it such that Fascism is excluded, but it is not as easy as it may seem, and will involve re-categorization of most who think themselves Socialist as Fascist (including most in this newsgroup). And while a semantical change may enhance discussion, it will not invalidate the CONCEPTUAL content of Libertarian claims. TNX, Daniel Kian McKiernan
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/10/85)
>/* myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) / 3:08 pm May 9, 1985 */ > . . . My view (and that >of many others) is that large clumps of means of production cannot be >privately owned, but that small holdings are fine. How much, and why? >Many are also convinced >that the market process is necessary in a Socialist system in order to help >ensure that production fits demand. What do you mean by "the markey process?" As I understand it, the market process is antithetical to Socialism. Mike Sykora