Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (323398)	11/26/2002 1:57:21 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: "These systems are defined by their views of man." Is a philosophies' impact ("where the rubber hits the road") not the important factor? Yeah, the impact of a philosophy is indeed terribly important. But I don't think it is most important. Philosophies are truly defined not by practical application (i.e. their impact), but rather by their motives. Communism is practically a washout due to its mismeasurment of man's nature. Nevertheless the philosophy of communism is not defined by this weaknesses, but instead by its view of humanity and what it aims to achieve based upon the view. It sees mankind as fundamentally a collective organism wherein individuals are not ultimately significant. Fascism is likewise a statist system, but its aims are a bit different. So are the philosophical motives behind the aims. Re: Communualism (public ownership of production) is EXACTLY the opposite of private ownership (Capitalism). Totalitarianism or Authoritarianism is a 'view of the <governance> of man' that is irrespective of the economic structure. The difference is important as what we are talking about is the Ownership of Capital resources vs. the Control of Political Power... two quite different axis of measurement. I see. The problem is, it seems we were ultimately confusing property ownership structures with social structures, treating property rights as entities when the fact is, property rights (or the view of them) emanate of social structure. If you are going to talk markets, it seems to me you cannot do it adequately unless you speak to the social structure in which those markets exist. Neither markets, nor property rights ultimately define fascism, communism or capitalism. These rights all flow from the posture these social systems take toward the individual. Re: Authoritarian forms of political rule can exist in either Market or Socialist economies... But Communism is antithetical to private ownership. Not really. It is antithetical to private ownership as a terminal end. Folks in Soviet Moscow still had their flats and they still had a defacto right to make love behind closed doors, though those flats were technically "owned" by the state. Re: In the absence of public ownership - indeed, where private ownership is encouraged and promoted as a great good - then Totalitarianism may remain, as in the example of China... but it is increasingly less 'Communist', despite whatever PR propaganda is put out by the authorities to cover their retreat from Communualism. Okay. I see the problem. And you are correct. Kinda. You see, whereas capitalism flows toward marketization as an expression of individualism, as an end unto itself (the purpose of which is to allow individuals greater self-actualisation), communism might flow toward marketization as a means to enhance the state. The issue here is not the fact of marketization, but of purpose. Marketization is allowed in a communist social context as long as it is deemed helpful to the ultimate statist order. Were marketization by neccessity and with a purpose most helpful to the individual, without regard to the state or even to the state's detriment, then you would be quite correct. Re: Is the proper term then 'Mob-ocracy', or "Fascism", or simply a more pragmatic form of Totalitarianism? ... Sacrificing the economic precepts of Communism to preserve the one remaining fundamental desire of the ruling elites: their hold on political power.... I don't exactly think a new term is required because my view of these social systems is flexible enough to allow for the use of markets as tools to bring about their varying ends. Capitalism, Fascism and Communism each have different motives and yet all can exploit markets to help achieve those different motives - some better than others.