I’ve always seen political discussions always end up being one of these three things besides “Certain Politician bad”. It can usually be summarized into:
So how the hell should humanity govern itself anyway? Theocracy? Anarchy? Do we have any other options?
Communism, fascism, socialism, and capitalism are all very different.
You are confusing the regimes with the titles they give themselves, communism is a system based around a theory of economic equality and advocates for a classless society, that it does not or has not achieved this, and often involved a single dictator leader with absolute power does not mean communism and fascism are the same, though it does perhaps mean that communism is an impractical ideology that ultimate betrays ideals in reality. Though of course this could be true of all leaders given enough power.
Similarly, capitalism as an economic system, is very different from fascism, indeed one could argue that fascist ideology is incompatible with many aspects of capitalism, though again a dictator could claim to be championing capitalist ideals, this does not make them the same.
No it is not, there is a global ranking of countries on how democratic they are:
NB Look at the USA at 36 on that list is classed as a “deficient democracy”.
It leaps out that some of those at the top of that index also consistently top global rankings on the best or happiest places to live.
For more on why the USA is considered a deficient democracy, and possible changes that might help address those deficiencies, here is a very good citation.
Nice quote here, that seems apropos to the thread:
“the really difficult task is not to criticize the Constitution but, rather, to suggest feasible ways of responding to its many imperfections.”
One the one hand, enshittification also affect politics. On the other, if you look more closely, you will find that there is a great deal of variance here, with some countries and regions that are less shit and less person-focused than others. Your characterisation is singularly one-dimensional.
Nope. Communism and fascism as political ideologies are polar opposites on the right/left political scale. Communism emphasise a classless society where private property and a profit-based economy is replaced with communal property and and control over the means of production.
Fascism is a an ideology that emphasises militaristic nationalism and a natural social hierarchy ruled by the elites, and it despises electoral democracy as well as liberalism.
What was and is touted as communism or socialism in the Soviet Union w/vassal states, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. was/is communism/socialism on the surface only. They were/are totalitarian (tending towards autocratic) states with the party elite as the ruling class and a strong leader on top, using only a pro forma adherence to socialist ideals. And to keep a dictatorship stable over time, you need to employ some elements from the fascist playbook, even if you call it communism. And to keep a totalitarian fascist state stable over time, you need to give the masses their due, i.e. implement some ideas from socialistic ideology.
Not quite. Communism is regarded as a more evolved form of socialism, with e.g. communal ownership taken to the extreme.
No. You can have functioning capitalistic societies with free markets where both fascism and the destructive sides of unregulated capitalism are kept in check. Even in the US under the orangutan, capitalism is not entirely unregulated.
Perhaps that’s what it looks like in the US right now, but if you look outside the USA, you will find societies that are definitely not like this.
Except an enlightened autocracy with me at the top, there are quite a lot of variance in the implementations of democratic states. My biased opinion is that the model we have in the Nordics works quite well. It is not perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than some other systems around.
You guys generally consider Bernie Sanders and his Democratic Socialism totally uncontrovertial and unremarkable, as has much of Europe really. What a lot of people in the US don’t understand it that European conservatives are roughly equivalent to our Democrats and our conservatives are roughly your far right.
Rock, paper, scissors
If someone in the UK claimed to be a member of the communist party, and an atheist, I doubt most people would care. The largest communist party in the UK, there are 4 apparently, fielded 14 candidates for parliament at the last election, though none got in.
It’s like we live on similar, but different planets.
I have pondered over these points on occasion, as I am a nurse and we often have discussions about the consequences of socialized medicine.
In my mind, I think what is holding us back comes to two reasons: We get hung up on labels, and we discuss these issues in terms of “black and white.”
Why can’t we have some things partially socialized?
In medicine and nursing, why is it so heretical to suggest that maybe obstetrics, vaccines, and some other aspects of medicine could be socialized while leaving other things capitalistic?
The United States has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world, which is inexcusable when considering our vast wealth.
There are politicians who say that such a move would establish a precedent and then everything would become socialist, but I see this argument as an example of the slippery slope fallacy.
Libraries, police, EMS, and the fire department are mostly socialized, and we get these institutions to function.
I think that a small amount of socialism applied in the right places and in the right way might be very beneficial.
Lastly, I have never understood (perhaps because I’m autistic) how or why so many people interpret socialism as–somehow–”Godless” and atheistic. Many socialistic countries have thriving religious communities.
In my mind, the Jesus of the Bible seemed very socialistic. The story of the widow’s mite, the story about him asking a rich man to renounce his wealth and join the disciples, and his point about “rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and render unto God that which is God’s” seem to point toward a form of socialism.
Certainly Jesus didn’t want people to starve to death in the streets, or have mothers lose pregnancies from malnutrition.
So I don’t see how socialism is automatically considered Godless.
If anyone can offer any clarity on these points, I would appreciate it.
It is communism that was always labeled “godless”. It’s just that most people who would make that leap don’t know the difference between socialism and communism, much less democratic socialism and communism. And they don’t care to know. Their handlers have told the that they’re all dirty words, unambiguously evil and godless and therefore un-American. They might as well label it “Satanic” (and sometimes do).
One has to remind oneself what conservatives in the US are attempting to conserve: the status quo, which for fundamentalist Christians is basically white supremacy, though they’ll die before admitting it; and in terms of their religion, it is their imagined former hegemony over society, and some imagined “good old days” that never actually existed.
Either they’re associating it with atheistic regimes, or more likely they’re simply putting groups they dislike into an homogeneous group, so they can more easily justify they’re antipathy towards them.
It’s because socialism entails economic planning, an equitable distribution of wealth\resources and collective\state ownership. This is America. We’re capitalists. We just don’t do that shit here.
It’s not that socialism is anti-religious, it’s just the worst thing that the capitalists could think of to get the great unwashed to buy into it being bad.
The shepherd does not want the sheep to get smart…
To any Americans who want to see the arguments pro and con social medicine I commend to you the 1947-8 editions of Hansard (the Brits parliamentary minutes) although not quite as hysterical as the anti health factions in the US the fundamental arguments were the same as expressed today.
Similarly in Australia it is worthwhile researching the printed Parliamentary debates of the Whitlam government and the opposition statements. this is through the 1970s.
Subsequent right leaning governments have tried to cripple the system and it has been rescued by Democratic socialst governments twice since the foresight of the Whitlam government.
We are still fighting the war and slowly winning some important battles.
Theocracy is just a dictatorship but a magic guy in the sky is actually the head of state and the messenger of said magic guy is the head of government.
And since every government decision is done in the name of the magic invisible guy, the government is always right and never wrong. NEVER.
Of course, just like in every religion, the holy rules apply only when it’s comfortable for them to be applied; the moment the holy rules are not comfortable anymore they are just discarded, sometimes they find good mental gymnastic excuses for this, sometimes they just say: “shut up pleb, I command here”.