“Communazisocialerisms”
From Oxford University Press:
refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating public or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation.
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
the ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.
This definition of socialism is valid.
The common distinction of Nazis obfuscating racism and nationalism as socialism is also accurate.
All the myriad modern political criticisms voiced as Nazi, socialist, and communist comparisons are accurate as well.
Historically, politically, and situationally. Accurate.
But, not from your real “Funk and Wagnalls’”
These are basically dirty words in America. They bring scorn and derision from many. Torrents of online comments and forums are rife with eager right wingers slamming liberals as “socialist”. Eventually, as “commies”, and of course, soon after, as “Nazis”.
Theses comments represent the individuals understanding of these terms from knowledge of their application through history. All 3 terms are instantly associated with cruel, brutal, evil regimes and widespread abuse, corruption, murder, and imperial plans for military global domination.
Of course, from the current Communist view, we Americans are “greedy imperialists’”out to take monetary and military control of the world. While we suspect as a society that our financial sector has maybe too big of an appetite, I think few of us believe that our leaders or citizens have ever wanted to militarily control the world or, in fact, even to be an empire of colonies around the globe. I think we genuinely want everyone to have their choice and the knowledge to make it wisely. We don’t see ourselves as the ruthless conquerors we observed the Soviet Union to be.
So here we are. Completely divergent socio-political systems at odds with each other and the global economy batted about between them like a shuttlecock. The other is so evil, mine has to be right. So both will tell you, with plenty of horrifying indisputable examples of why the enemy is so bad.
What’s missing – that hidden truth in the middle.
The clarity of the words themselves. What do they really mean?
Well, we can dump “Nazi” because it was created by a murderous lunatic and is only an acronym for his intolerant evil movement. Please use it sparingly. And alone. Or not at all, maybe.
No such luck with the other two. They’re real words twisted past recognition.
“Communism” and “socialism” are words that have been re-defined by history and politics.
Even Karl Marx himself was so inane as to call them a “political struggle”.
Communism – from “commune” or “community”. “Socialism”- from “social” or “society”.
These words mean, basically, “for the community” or “for society”. It’s not politics.
In fact, it’s an economic/administration system that could only work as a classless democracy with voluntary and agreed levels of community ownership and responsibility.
No government on Earth’s ever tried this without military ruling-class domination and the virtual elimination of the middle class. Not Russia, not Cuba, and certainly not China. And the Nazis? Socialists? Hardly! As soon as Marx made it a political issue, he gave it to uncounted current and future despots as a new strategy.
The only example of socialism or communism ever attempted in the modern age was by – you guessed it – hippies in the late 60’s.
A “commune” was a community of people acting as one entity, sharing all assets and duties equally.
They ran into immediate difficulty because all needs and skills are not equally applicable. A variable scale has to come into play to account for demand, supply, skills, priority and value.
This goes against the philosophy itself unless you add individual ownership and capitalism to generate growth and stability.
In other words, free-market capitalism.
Socialism demands a common base for all and a common right to improvement and enrichment for all, balanced by the desire to contribute to the base by those who grow.
China is learning as we watch. You can’t sustain a true communist society of billions without growing economically. They are starting to evolve, albeit at a snail’s pace, to a free market-socialist hybrid. They’re seeing a dramatic increase in middle class as they take on a more active role in the world marketplace.
They have a long way to go, but you can see that they’re adding bits of capitalism here and there to keep the system running. While democracy may be light years away there, China is in a prime position to set the world example for nationalized health care and meeting public welfare/retirement needs.
Serious human rights issues remain from the military origins of Chinese communism, and these will need to be overcome as well before they can achieve this prosperous blend of east/west philosophy.
Simply put – they must find the necessary blend of socialist and capitalist practices to ensure maximum stability or they will die financially like the Soviet Union.
In any case, the stage will be set for a new attempt at democratic, free-market, socially-oriented government.
Think of it. The American dream – you’re right try to achieve anything you want and reap the fortunes you earn, anchored by the safety of knowing you have shelter, food, education, and communication at your disposal – you can try, really try, without risking your home, your livelihood, your family’s health. You can grow, earn, profit, and participate in your government. You can truly choose.
I have only ever seen one example of this kind of government.
Star Trek.
In this fictional Utopia of the future, it seems the lowest one falls is a place to stay with a replicator, communications port, and medical help if they need it. Above and beyond that – the universe is the limit.
You live a life of freedom of choice, of speech, of endeavor. You vote. You participate in your government’s affairs. Your politicians know this and act responsibly. (Ok, even I couldn’t keep a straight face on that one.)
In the Federation’s day, things are still made. People are still employed privately and civilly. There are still successful folks, and folks who just get by on the basics.
If we had to nitpick about how a fictional society works;
All housing isn’t arbitrarily free. You live in a small, clean, pleasant, healthy, and accessible studio apartment with a bath, sleeping area, a dining area, replicator, and communications hub. The furniture is built in and it retracts if you want to buy your own custom furniture. You can still buy or lease any size or style of home, but this one is free as long as you need it.
A basic communications system probably would give you all the same kind of things that are free or normal for general consumption now. A computer keyboard/lcd port for internet/Library access, news, TV, some entertainment, communication, correspondence, and education. Special programming and features would cost extra.
The replicator might come with about 500 normal everyday household patterns, from chicken soup, salads, and hot dogs to pajamas and screwdrivers. A small selection of toys and games. Specialty items, like designers clothes, sports equipment, musical instruments, and recreational items would cost. You’d buy the pattern for that brand-name tennis racket, and if it broke you could make another.
You see, you still can have a job and get paid. And you don’t have to spend 90% of your pay struggling just to exist. If this isn’t enough for you – if you want more, you can go after it all you want without fear of dying alone in the street.
And when you make it, you can have a mansion somewhere and your own shuttle-pod. Maybe even your own transporter. You can replicate Gucci underwear and famous gourmet recipes.
Gene Roddenberry’s world of our future implies a true fusion of democratic, capitalist, and socialist philosophies.
Does that make Star Trek a bunch of pinko-commie Nazis?
We can’t even use the word socialist without attaching the idiocy of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. The term itself is now vilified beyond repair.
So, my point stands. No one has ever tried to implement a proper working blend of democratic, capitalist, and socialist practices.
Well, a couple wanted to, but they immediately thought, “Ok, we can free everybody from this tyranny if we just get control of the military, banks, and broadcasters.” You know the rest.
It will be hundreds of years before mention of socializing or nationalizing anything is not tainted by these horrific examples.
And so it goes.
The subject of “socialism”, of welfare itself, in any form, is now immutably wed to the despicable crimes of fascist, insane, despotic megalomaniacs bending Marx’s already misguided words.
I’m just saying. Nothing but the shams of military dictators has ever seen the light of day.
Some of the most stoned people on the planet figured out by 1969 that socialism alone doesn’t work because it kills the economy. “Man, like, I need bread to make bread, you know, but i gotta sell some bread to get some.”
But, because of the historical morons I’ve named, it will take until Star Trek is real before the concepts themselves will be mentioned without generating revulsion.
I suppose we can wait. We’ve waited all this time already.
What’s another 300 years?
