Communism, socialism, fascism and capitalism

[nutronjon]

Democracy- government by the people, directly or through representatives.

 

Communism and socialism_

Communism is the opposite of democracy.

Communism is the opposite of democracy.

Again, history provides plenty of examples of undemocratic Communist tyrannies to justify this stereotype. Various rationalizations have been advanced by such regimes to justify their use of the term "democratic," but they do not seem to me worthy of examination here.

 

 

The important point is that Communism as Marx and others advanced it was to be a sort of super-democracy. What Marxists originally objected to were the limitations of democracy. Bourgeois democracy was denounced not because it was democratic, but because its benefits were concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The notion was to democratize the economy as well as government. With all wealth being held in common and controlled by workers, the factors in society which most directly affect daily life would come under the control of ordinary people, no longer to limited occasional trips to the ballot box.

 

 

During the Cold War, foes of Communism constantly articulated the struggle as being between Communism and democracy, while Communists insisted instead on seeing the struggle as being between Communism and capitalism--a term that was largely replaced in the U.S. by phrases with more positive connotations: "free enterprise" and "market economy." Refusal to acknowledge this difference in usage probably led to more mutual misunderstanding and wasted breath than any other.

 

 

Communists may have often betrayed the ideal of democracy and even sometimes condemned it, but the original socialists were inspired by it and created the idea of socialism as an extension of it.

 

Communism, socialism and fascism are democracies, as they all have a system for citizens to participate in governing decisions, but what separates them is the degree to which government controls industry. Fascism, is private ownership of industry, and government of control of it, such as the US has today, although it still does not have the control of resources that many countries desire to maintain.

 

The US adopted the German model of bureaucracy that makes fascism possible when Roosevelt took office, however, he wasn't the one who designed the new bureaucrat structure. It was Hoover who was mainly responsible for designing Big Government. It is what makes Social Security and Worker's Compensation possible, and it also what it has made it necessary for people getting driver's license to document their citizenship, and all name changes that occur with marriage and divorce, and their present address. There has been a huge shift of power in the US, and it is well we do have a good understanding of termonology and changes.

[jackson33]

Much of 'Johnson's' war on poverty and equal right legislation (1964-5) came from an Eisenhower program (never enacted), think about 1953. There are ideas and programs turned down each day that may become law in the future. Parties change attitudes as the electorate changes or the needs of society for guidance. Wasn't Kennedy a democrat, who first REALLY dropped the US tax rates, which were in the 90% range in the 50's...

 

Communism promotes liberalism in its purest form, democratically, any degree or under dictatorship. Simply, its the equalization of people (commune) regardless of contribution, effort or investment. Capitalism, as practiced today is just as equal for opportunity, but does not reward those not vested in the effort, nor should it be.

 

As for the 'Cold War', it was my understanding over ideology and the spreading of either, around the world. Economic Policy was only important to the support of either policy.

 

There is no HUGE shift in power in the US. My guess, your think the corporate structure (big business) is taking over or somehow controls American Politics.

Actually, the corporate structure is more world wide than American. All Dow 30, over half the S&P 200 and a good share of rest already do over half their business outside the US and every day foreign industry increases in the US.

Most Americans and a good share of the Worlds population is invested in this structure and if not, they want to be...

 

If by chance (doubt) your talking about the possible Democratic Control of both the Executive and Legislative Branches, you would have a point if that control was NOT time limited (2-4 years) and absolutely every action subject to some form of appeal...

[nutronjon]

Much of 'Johnson's' war on poverty and equal right legislation (1964-5) came from an Eisenhower program (never enacted), think about 1953. There are ideas and programs turned down each day that may become law in the future. Parties change attitudes as the electorate changes or the needs of society for guidance. Wasn't Kennedy a democrat, who first REALLY dropped the US tax rates, which were in the 90% range in the 50's...

 

Communism promotes liberalism in its purest form, democratically, any degree or under dictatorship. Simply, its the equalization of people (commune) regardless of contribution, effort or investment. Capitalism, as practiced today is just as equal for opportunity, but does not reward those not vested in the effort, nor should it be.

 

As for the 'Cold War', it was my understanding over ideology and the spreading of either, around the world. Economic Policy was only important to the support of either policy.

 

There is no HUGE shift in power in the US. My guess, your think the corporate structure (big business) is taking over or somehow controls American Politics.

Actually, the corporate structure is more world wide than American. All Dow 30, over half the S&P 200 and a good share of rest already do over half their business outside the US and every day foreign industry increases in the US.

Most Americans and a good share of the Worlds population is invested in this structure and if not, they want to be...

 

If by chance (doubt) your talking about the possible Democratic Control of both the Executive and Legislative Branches, you would have a point if that control was NOT time limited (2-4 years) and absolutely every action subject to some form of appeal...

 

It is too depressing right now, for me to go into why I say there is a huge and very serious power shift, so I won't.

 

I just want to point out, all the different forms of government, except maybe some dictatorships, include a degree of democracy, and the US has always been a bit autocratic.

 

In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon governmental inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely.

Aldous Huxley

[Overdog]

Aldous Huxley

 

Aldous Leonard Huxley (26 July 1894 – 22 November 1963) was an English writer and one of the most prominent members of the famous Huxley family. He spent the latter part of his life in the United States, living in Los Angeles from 1937 until his death in 1963. Best known for his novels and wide-ranging output of essays, he also published short stories, poetry, travel writing, and film stories and scripts.

 

Huxley was a humanist and pacifist, but was also latterly interested in spiritual subjects such as parapsychology and philosophical mysticism. By the end of his life Huxley was considered, in some academic circles, a leader of modern thought and an intellectual of the highest rank.[1]

 

He was also well known for advocating and taking hallucinogens.

Aldous Huxley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jackson33]

It is too depressing right now, for me to go into why I say there is a huge and very serious power shift, so I won't.

 

I just want to point out, all the different forms of government, except maybe some dictatorships, include a degree of democracy, and the US has always been a bit autocratic.

 

Its difficult for me to understand, why/how it should be difficult to respond to a reply to tour own post...The power shift, is the meat and should be addressed.

 

I usually use 'Autocracy' when defining a Monarchy, occasionally a 'Oligarchy' when explaining a dictatorship or some forms of democratic governments. Power in the US is limited to time, even if party affiliations are considered. I feel your trying to imagine the US Government as a singularity, not as the Governing force of (today) 50 separate and independent units. There is a difference and vital to understanding the system. Your discussing a union, made up of people and races from around the world that settled and developed the system and success of millions around the world.

 

If your coming at this from a minority viewpoint, Native/Black/Oriental/Muslim, what your thinking is probably contrary to you own argument of people power or majority rule. If you make your motive or agenda known, I would be happy to go forward with an explanation...