Initially my reason for investigating this was in response to hearing people debate whether our current Congress + President is or is not moving our country toward Socialism. In addition to that I have listened to discussions where people want to talk about various sliding-scales of socialist ideals and how a government could employ an administration that is either more or less “socialist” without actually being or legitimately moving toward a truly socialist form of government. I have come to a few conclusions on these points but I think it is important that people read the included links to my 5 previous blog entries before entering into debate about my conclusions. Here are a few of my thoughts:
Social politics is a scale from a category I will call “complete automatons” on the left to “total personal freedom” on the right. In the case of utopian social control or “complete automatons” is complete and total fiction. And in the case of utopian liberty or “total personal freedom” you again have a fictional reality that will never be attained. So the scale seems to look like this, in short:
- Fascist / Communist: Total tyrannical control.
- Socialism: Karl Marx said this is a temporary transitional form of government at best from capitalism to Communism.
- Capitalist / Republic: Values driven civic-liberty-focused governance with a free-market economy.
So if you have been thinking that Socialism is an issue of being “more socialist” or “less socialist” then you would be right because at it's nature it is transitional. The problem is in embracing an increasingly socialist-trending government. We know by definition, literally, where that is headed and it is unsuccessful.
I also found the tactics of Stalin's form of Communism an eye-opener. From the manner of propaganda to the intentional “cult of personality”, it reminds me of the current trend in American politics. These days I regularly read about how the opinion polls on Democrats and Republicans are down but the “Obama brand” is strong. This is very Stalin-esk in the light of history. All of that to say that I think we have nearly outlived our roots as a society and that the most basic political tricks are ruling public opinion these day. We are nearly ignorant of our history or of world history and as a result we are a living example of repeating that history.
Finally, in the Socialist example of Robert Owen I found too many parallels for the way he invested in the Socialist economy to what America is doing right now, HOWEVER, these investments will likely fail for the same reason Owen's New Harmony, Indiana, experimental community failed. To recap, like New Harmony, America's leadership is mostly sloppy with their theory and implementation at best and that for our investment to be a success we would have to subjugate some basic capitalist ideals such as personal sovereignty and self-preservation. I will be bold in saying that I am not in favor of such a plan succeeding under any conditions. I would rather be a person of values, knowing the importance of civic liberty and sovereignty rather than trade those values in for a socialist transition toward nationalized communism.
Understand that communism comes in many forms (it is all not Stalinism.) There is Maoism and a host of other variant from parts of the world with flavors of communism that seem far less tyrannical but that are all equally failing. If someone were to say “Socialism is a sliding transition toward communism” people today would be quick to call you a conspiracy theorist. But it is the very definition. And people continue to absorb the principles in those philosophies and styles of governance. For example, Socialism is primarily an economic theory. People who rage against “corporate America” yelling non-specific stereotypical accusations at people who support Capitalism are in fact siding with Socialist philosophy. It isn't like Socialism, rather it is part and parcel with the "class war" agenda against industrial development in a free market categorically that makes it Socialism specifically. Contrast that with people who talk intelligently about actual problems in a capitalist society that are not proposing Socialist solutions that contradict the values of Capitalism. Equally so, people who rage against any semblance of a faith-informed politics are actually siding with a number of oppressive tenants of Communism. Again, contrast that with people who don't demand that a person compartmentalize their life but rather allow their faith, education, intelligence all inform their decision process in a truly rational manner. Ruling out faith as an inappropriate informing factor is specifically an agenda item for the Communist model. I am not making these talking points up. It is in there!
I am learning to think through this stuff as I am sure we all are. But as an experience, I highly recommend people take the time to review history on this topics and not simply take someone else's word for it. In the mean time, TAKE MY WORD FOR IT... just kidding. Feel free to read my thoughts and come up with some of your own (as I am sure you will.)
Here are the links to the blog posts:
No comments:
Post a Comment