Hi I'm new to Austrian Economics and Political Philosophy, so sry if the question is a bit elementary. Thanks.
Not much.
Communism, to Marx, was stateless socialism.
Socialism in practice is state ownership of the means of production, though socialists will claim to advocate worker ownership of the means of production.(The state is just a means to an ends)
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Dylangal: Hi I'm new to Austrian Economics and Political Philosophy, so sry if the question is a bit elementary. Thanks.
Socialism is pretty much the same as Communism however Facism is not. We all seem to think that National Socialist Germany were Facist but they weren't in its traditional sense. All it really means is a system based on one leader who previously presided over an authoritarian regime; a few people get killed and kicked about but not on a huge scale. They also tend to be "culturally conservative" and have support of the church ie facist Italy. Other classic Facists would be Franco and Pinochet. Hitler though was different. He supported National rather than International Socialism. Further he kept the nominal private property owners in place instead of taking the means of production into public ownership to preserve the social structure. So there isn't much difference between Hitler and Communism but there is between Facism and Communism.
Paul Gottfried has a great lecture on it here.
Socialism is in theory a state of society in which the means of production are in the hands of 'the people.'
Communism, as defined by Marx, is a state of society in which the wants of the individual have become indistinguishable from the common interest.
Fascism is a state of society in which the individual is considered important only as he contributes to the welfare of a given ethnic or national group.
Fascism, communism, and socialism are all alike in that the individual is subservient to some collective in which individuals have invested some portion of their identity and self-worth, but which in practice is always really the state. People have been programmed by evolution to perceive authority as the voice of tribal consensus. Government is the parasitical exploitation of these instincts.
A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people.'—Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Dylangal: What's the Difference btwn Socialism, Communism, and Fascism?
Presently, the USA has the worst features of all three.
Welfare programs such as medicare, medicaid, and social security are socialist. In socialism, productive workers are taxed and the proceeds are given to the poor masses.
If you read the Communist Maifesto carefully, the USA actually is a communist country! A central bank credit monpoly, income taxes, property taxes, and extensive regulation of industry are key components of a communist economy. Corporate control of the means of production is the functional equivalent of State control of the means of production. A corporate bureaucracy functions very similarly to a State bureaucracy. Large corporations receive State subsidies and are shielded from competition via regualtions.
The USA has a limited free market, but it's organized along communist principles much more than free market principles.
Fascism is a government that violently restricts people's rights. For example, the FBI/IRS raid on the Liberty Dollar offices is an example of fascism. When the FBI raids someone's business for suspected tax evasion, that's an example of fascism.
Socialism, communism, and fascism are the opposite of a true free market. Each of them restrict the market in different ways.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
fsk: Dylangal: What's the Difference btwn Socialism, Communism, and Fascism? Presently, the USA has the worst features of all three. Welfare programs such as medicare, medicaid, and social security are socialist. In socialism, productive workers are taxed and the proceeds are given to the poor masses.
Some of the taxed productivity of the workers is given to the poor masses. Most of it is distributed to government employees and other political interests.
fsk: If you read the Communist Maifesto carefully, the USA actually is a communist country! [...]
If you read the Communist Maifesto carefully, the USA actually is a communist country! [...]
To be accurate, Marx's Ten-Point Plan was not actually communism, but supposedly the way to bring about communism. Of course true communism is a logical impossibility
fsk: [...] Socialism, communism, and fascism are the opposite of a true free market. Each of them restrict the market in different ways.
[...]
Indeed. More importantly, each restricted individual liberty in different ways.
hjmaiere: Some of the taxed productivity of the workers is given to the poor masses. Most of it is distributed to government employees and other political interests.
I should have emphasized this point more. Some people say that welfare program is actually welfare for the social workers and bureaucrats who administer the welfare programs. Some people estimate that less than 50% of the budget of welfare programs goes to the people. The rest is in the hands of bureaucrats. Private charities were much more efficient, before the welfare state was established.
In a truly perfected communist economy, everyone lives in complete poverty. Why bother working, when the fruits of your labor are stolen by the State! The USA is reaching that point, but not quite yet.
Fascism is a sort of merging between nationalism and socialism, a sort of conservative socialism, that became popular in the early 20th century. Buisiness and state have a considerable degree of synergy, but they still remain superficially separate. What most people call "capitalism" is basically a fascist system. Keynsian economics, which gained popularity in the west in the 20th century, is basically a soft version of fascism at best. Fascists tend to oppose communists primarily because communism is ideally an international or global system (and from the perspective of the , because the Communists were heavily associated with the Jews). However, fascism is also anti-laissez-faire (and of course the also tended to associate the Jews with big banking and big buisiness).
Communism as an ideal is a stateless classless society. What's called communism as a political system is an attempt to obtain this ideal through statist means. As a political system, communism is what happens when the synergy between buisiness and state become so strong that they essentially merge into the same institution so that the state is buisiness. The state absorbs capital and becomes the equivolent of the "monopoly capitalist". As envisioned by Marx, communism is an inevitable future stage of history and "capitalism" and state-socialism are viewed as transitory stages. Marxism, however, is not the only form of communism. In particular, the anarchist communist Bakunin's version involved quite a heavy criticism of Marxism, essentially amounting to a rejection of political means.
Socialism originally was a term applied to a broad array of political philosophies, particularly originating in the 19th century, which were concerned with the problems of labor and the centralization of economic power. Socialism, almost from the beginning, was split between the state-socialists and the anarchists, with the state-socialists supporting government ownership of the means of production and political means in general in the name of helping labor and the anarchists rejecting political means and opposing the state. Of course, the segment of 19th century anarchism that most strongly opposed state-socialism was individualist anarchism, particularly in America. Benjamin Tucker essentially stated that sometimes they may overlap but one need not be a socialist to be an anarchist. In either case, the vast majority of people who identify as socialist are state-socialists and at best the state-socialists support a soft variant of state-communism as an ideal.
Edit note: the board won't let me type the word N A Z I?
Fsk said something about the US being somewhat all three and that's sort of why I asked the question. I was confused, or couldn't ascertain whether something like Universal Healthcare was more of a Socialist or Fascist or Communism kinda of program, whenever I would think about it. Regardless, the fact that this country has one or more elements of the three is scary enough.
In economics, fascism, socialism, and communism are heresies. The differences between them, although ostensibly great, are in fact quite small which is why they are commonly associated together. Fascism ="we'll only keep 45% of the economy controlled, temporarily and only in order to maintain reasonable organization of the system. We're not crazy; we won't take away all of the businessman's freedom; indeed such a policy will work if we have the right leader." Socialism = we were wrong to have only 45% of the economy regulated -just look at how unscrupulously the businesses have risen prices -instead we must have 85% control; then we'll be good. And communism ="we'll have 100% control because the business weren't that great anyway and we might as well wrest all production from lawless anarchy and hand it over to rational planning."
Dylangal:Fsk said something about the US being somewhat all three and that's sort of why I asked the question. I was confused, or couldn't ascertain whether something like Universal Healthcare was more of a Socialist or Fascist or Communism kinda of program, whenever I would think about it. Regardless, the fact that this country has one or more elements of the three is scary enough.
Universial Healthcare is simultaneously Socialist, Fascist, and Communist! It depends on how it's implemented.
The State pays for health care for everyone, out of tax revenue. This is socialist. Alternatively, not having health insurance is illegal. I believe Massachusetts currently does this. That is also socialist.
Everyone is required to purchase health care, but insurance companies are forbidden to price-discriminate based on risk. That is communist. For example, suppose you had a kidney transplant, which means you have to take drugs for the rest of your life and are at greater risk for further illness. Insurance companies are barred from charging such patients extra. In this manner, the healthy people are subsidizing the care of sick people. That is communist.
In some countries, doctors are forbidden from working outside of the State medical plan. A doctor who directly accepts payment for service is a criminal. That is fascist. It is illegal to work as a doctor without a license from the State. That is also fascist.
Ideally, a plan with the worst features of each should be implemented. Anything that makes people lose respect for government is fine with me.
Universal healthcare in the USA is going to be an incredible disaster! I'm looking forward to it.
Socialism is outright ownership of capital (ie. the means of production) by the state, while fascism (or coporatism as Musolini termed it) the state only controls them -- ie. they tell you how much to produce, for how much to sell, requirments for business licenses, etc. Western economies are sometimes called mixed economies, because they share these elements, and even the more unrestricted, productive sectors are then taxed to the hill to pay for the more statist sectors. However, socialism is also considered the branch of a lot of philosophies like the social-democrats that would likely be closer to fascists. Overall, I'm not sure if politiceans are really that literate into the differences, or care about being consistent with one, so they'll just do stuff as they go: if rent is expensive, they put controls on them. Now, they create a shortage, so they come up with a public housing plan. Then, the rent controls effictively ellapse as inflation kicks in. You know, it's just a mess, they have no roadmap other than appeasing the people when the next elections approaches.
About communism, I'm not sure if even Marx would give you a precise definition of that. You can read his Communist Manifesto that advocates progressive taxation and stuff, and his critiscisms to capitalism, but he never quite described how life would be under communism. As I understand it, he hoped that a new man, the communist man, a selfless man, would be born from his policies, who wouldn't mind to work in the fields or the factories and together they'd all provide for the all nation. He talked about armies of workers, as disciplined as the soldiers ones. But he had a lot of theories, to the point that he said he was not a marxist. Now you have a lot of groups like the Leninists, Trostiks, Maoists and whatever -- I don't know what the differences of these are though.
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
fsk:Some people estimate that less than 50% of the budget of welfare programs goes to the people. The rest is in the hands of bureaucrats. Private charities were much more efficient, before the welfare state was established.
Something that should be pointed out here is that the alternative to state welfare is not necessarly charity. You can have private welfare. In fact, Mutual Aid Societies were popular until government got into that business.
BlackSheep:Something that should be pointed out here is that the alternative to state welfare is not necessarly charity. You can have private welfare. In fact, Mutual Aid Societies were popular until government got into that business.
I read that Mutual Aid Societies were ruined by the AMA. At that time, mutual aid societies hired a full-time doctor. Members of the society could use the doctor's services. Self-policing by the mutual aid societies guaranteed that people didn't abuse the doctor's services.
The mutual aid contracts were lucrative and highly sought after by doctors. There were no restrictive State licensing requirements for doctors. There were many doctors on the market competing for these contracts.
The AMA didn't like the fact that doctors were employed by mutual aid societies. Doctors' salaries should be set by other doctors, and not by the free market! How dare the common man decide how much to pay his doctor!
The AMA successfully lobbied for State licensing requirements for doctors. This restricted the supply of doctors and drove up prices. This wrecked the mutual aid societies' business model. Most of them folded during the Great Depression.
After WWII, people got health insurance via their corporate employer. The primary benefit of joining a mutual aid society was cheap medical care. The welfare State meant that it was silly to pay for mutual aid society membership when you can get support from the State.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap