However, in actual practice many similar debts are assumed (transferred) among the States through federal government programs in education, welfare, highway projects, etc....
Therefore, in the current climate it's unlikely to garner much of a protest from other states.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
But no..."macroeconomy" is not "made up terminology," and "macroeconomic" is thus not either, nor is "stability."
Uh...that isn't from a news source, DJH. She presumably wrote it herself.
Firstly, as Zanden puts it, "[O]bedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along creative lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism." This is not consistent with the socialist principle of elimination of alienation as defined by Marx's The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Such elimination necessitates revolutionary class consciousness, which obviously conflicts with "obedience, discipline, faith, etc." Revolutionary class consciousness is also rather inconsistent with the "cult of tradition" identified by Eco as an integral tenet of Eternal Fascism. "[T]here can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."
From an insistence on revolutionary class consciousness comes opposition to class itself on the part of the socialist. This is egregiously contradictory to the elitism that constitutes a core tenet of fascism. As Eco writes, "[e]litism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism."
Fascism also has a necessarily anti-democratic nature. As Zanden notes, "the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions." Similarly, Eco writes that "the Leader, knowing his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler." This strongly conflicts with the participatory elements of socialism, as it necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. For instance, Noam Chomsky notes that libertarian socialism is "based on free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control and with limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all." Other forms of socialism are of course necessarily democratic at the very least.
Hitler’s Fascism was not that far off from Soviet Communism; both political ideals wanted to dominate the world; both were repressive SINGLE party regimes; both preached about the common man/woman citizen; both repressed religion and freedom of expression; both had vast secret services which intimidated their societies and prevented many from escaping their repression; the list is LONG and there are many other similarities.
The reason Capitalism trumps all other of man’s idealistic political endeavors and fantastical notions about what constitutes the ideal Government is the "human" factor.
On paper Communism looks terrific to some, it has NEVER appealed to me, but in actual practice the temptation to corrupt those ideals to elevate one's own economic conditions and power over his fellow man supersedes the desire to follow the ideology. In other words, human nature trumps the ideology; which is why Communism is such a failure.
Only Capitalism understands the desire and greed of man. Capitalism doesn't care if you are black or white, if you are rich or poor, whether you are man or woman or where you came from; it only cares about bringing two parties together in an agreement to exchange goods or services.
The founders of the United States realized that if the proper Democratic principles and laws were designed to take advantage of such a Capitalist idea, it had a chance for successfully creating a great and free society.
The most ironic thing I see today are people who denigrate this ideal and treat it as if it is some kind of evil. I blame this on the systems of education we see in the Western hemisphere which is infested by teachers who carry the dark seed of Socialism within them and attempt to plant/indoctrinate it into their students through their teachings.
But REALITY trumps idealism and the best friend we have is the historic record. It is the ONLY thing we can look at and point to the abject failure of all other ideologies. The USA form of Democracy is a shining beacon to the world for those who wish to truly free their societies and provide them with the tools for peaceful coexistence and prosperity.
The ONLY thing that can destroy that which has developed into the most diverse, powerful and free nation in the world is our own ignorance of what it is that makes it so great; it wasn't political correctedness and it certainly wasn't creation of a Government that is the people's nanny.
I am always amazed how easily the gullible, uninformed, uneducated are willing to give up their freedoms to some political ideal that promises nothing more than to take away choice and reduce everyone to the same mediocre outcomes. Then allowing these political leaders, who are only interested in maintaining their political power, to turn them into slaves working for more than six or even eight months of the year to send their paltry wages to this vast Government bureaucracy in the FALSE belief that ONLY a huge and vast Government can provide for man's well being when all along it is us as individuals given the freedom and legal framework to decide for ourselves what it is WE think is in our own best interests that can do it.
Right now thanks to a lack of education, but in many cases thanks TO a poor education, we are watching the United States become that which the founders feared the most; a Community Organizing States of America where the differences between the major political parties become blurred and where the citizens are actually gullible enough to want to believe that politicians can solve all their societal and economic needs. I rue the day that I should live long enough to see this occur. But at the pace we have recently seen, it might actually occur during my generation and not my children’s.
Unlike you I did not need to READ someone's ideas about what I believe in or cut and paste them here; these are my own thoughts based on my experience, knowledge of history and education which fortunately at the college level occurred when I was more mature and experienced so that I could put my lessons in context of REALITY.
Sorry for the treatise, but you asked for it. I close with this; show me ONE REAL instance where Communism has or is actually working better than the system we have in the United States. If we honestly look at Fascist regimes along side of Communist regimes in the historical sense, what we see is little difference in the real outcomes of both extremes.
Last edited by Truth Detector; 05-31-09 at 05:22 AM.
As to the main point, there is absolutely no one with even the slightest conception of political economy or theory that would claim that the Soviet Union was "communist" in nature. Even the most die-hard Leninists and Stalinists would concede that the Soviet Union was a socialist "workers' state" that did not achieve communism. But more than that, legitimate socialists would recognize that the Soviet Union itself was not legitimately socialist in nature. The Soviet Union effectively imitated Western capitalism in that it concentrated political and economic power in the hands of a ruling class (the Bolshevik party elite), rather than instituting any legitimate form of "collective" ownership or management, thus creating a critical conflict with and divergence from socialism, in that collective ownership is a necessary element of socialism.
For instance, Noam Chomsky retains a similar objection, as elaborated on in The Soviet Union Versus Socialism. As he notes therein:
Of course, Chomsky's article was written in 1986, so you might be inclined to respond that socialists only rejected the Soviet Union once its numerous failures were apparent. (Thought that would still conflict with your claim that socialists ignore the failures of their ideology.) But this claim applies only to certain classes of socialists, and certainly cannot include all. You might mention failures of the Soviet Union when conversing with a Marxist-Leninist, for instance. (And I have many times.) But that approach will likely do you little good in a discussion with those who espouse more libertarian variants of socialism, such as anarchists.When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction...The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to "vigilant control from above," so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest. Before seizing State power, the Bolshevik leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed State power in October 1917.
Indeed, legitimate socialists identified the Soviet Union as anti-socialist once they became aware of its authoritarian and statist nature, which might serve as a response to your possible claim that socialists only condemned the Soviet Union once its failures became apparent. For instance, the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin recognized the authoritarian, anti-socialist nature of the Bolshevik regime immediately after the Russian Revolution. In a 1920 letter to Lenin he writes this:
Kropotkin quickly recognized the state capitalist nature of the Bolshevik regime and the calamities that socialism would later face if the Soviet Union was identified as "socialist." Hence, it is not only Chomsky, nor even only Kropotkin or other anarchists, but all legitimate socialists who recognize the state capitalist nature of the Soviet Union. Kropotkin's prediction has of course proved to be correct, which is why "socialism" and "communism" are merely considered to be synonymous with the state capitalism of the Leninists and Stalinists of the Soviet Union.Russia has already become a Soviet Republic only in name. The influx and taking over of the people by the 'party,' that is, predominantly the newcomers (the ideological communists are more in the urban centers), has already destroyed the influence and constructive energy of this promising institution - the soviets. At present, it is the party committees, not the soviets, who rule in Russia. And their organization suffers from the defects of bureaucratic organization. To move away from the current disorder, Russia must return to the creative genius of local forces which, as I see it, can be a factor in the creation of a new life.And the sooner that the necessity of this way is understood, the better. People will then be all the more likely to accept [new] social forms of life. If the present situation continues, the very word 'socialism' will turn into a curse. That is what happened to the conception of equality in France for forty years after the rule of the Jacobins.
Indeed, it could be argued that anarchists recognized the imminent failure of authoritarian varieties of Marxism long before the establishment of the Soviet Union or the Bolshevik party, as evidenced by anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's observations that "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself" and "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick." (Bakunin was Marx's chief foe in the First International, later to be expelled along with the anarchist contingent, marking the beginning of the divide between Marxist and anarchist socialism).
Marx himself cannot be entirely blamed for the state capitalist legacy of the USSR, of course, but it's worth noting that anarchists predicted that authoritarian elements would be able to base themselves upon Marxist principles and tenets. For instance, Bakunin wrote this in his 1871 manuscript Statism and Anarchy:
Though many now lament the consequences of establishing "socialism," it is and always has been anarchists who were quick to predict the inevitable failure of the establishment of authoritarian social doctrines masquerading as "socialism," and accordingly, it was anarchists who were the first to be eliminated after the establishment of the state capitalist dictatorship. It's thus rather absurd to lecture libertarian socialists about the alleged failure of their doctrine, as so many unfortunately do, and all in all, my belief is that the anti-socialists' desperation to cling to the falsity that the Soviet Union or its state capitalist ideology was socialist reveals the fact that they have no other arguments against socialism to provide.Idealists of all kinds – metaphysicians, positivists, those who support the rule of science over life, doctrinaire revolutionists – all defend the idea of state and state power with equal eloquence, because they see in it, as a consequence of their own systems, the only salvation for society...This fiction of a pseudo-representative government serves to conceal the domination of the masses by a handful of privileged elite; an elite elected by hordes of people who are rounded up and do not know for whom or for what they vote. Upon this artificial and abstract expression of what they falsely imagine to be the will of the people and of which the real living people have not the least idea, they construct both the theory of statism as well as the theory of so-called revolutionary dictatorship.
The differences between revolutionary dictatorship and statism are superficial. Fundamentally they both represent the same principle of minority rule over the majority in the name of the alleged “stupidity” of the latter and the alleged “intelligence” of the former. Therefore they are both equally reactionary since both directly and inevitably must preserve and perpetuate the political and economic privileges of the ruling minority and the political and economic subjugation of the masses of the people.
Now it is clear why the dictatorial revolutionists, who aim to overthrow the existing powers and social structures in order to erect upon their ruins their own dictatorships, never were or will be the enemies of government, but, to the contrary, always will be the most ardent promoters of the government idea. They are the enemies only of contemporary governments, because they wish to replace them. They are the enemies of the present governmental structure, because it excludes the possibility of their dictatorship. At the same time they are the most devoted friends of governmental power. For if the revolution destroyed this power by actually freeing the masses, it would deprive this pseudo-revolutionary minority of any hope to harness the masses in order to make them the beneficiaries of their own government policy.
We have already expressed several times our deep aversion to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as a final ideal at least as the next immediate goal, the founding of a people’s state, which according to their interpretation will be nothing but “the proletariat elevated to the status of the governing class.”