Democratic Socialism is Democratic Fascism – and
‘Democratic’ could be dropped for the principle to remain: Socialism is Fascism
This is a review which will show that ultimately, regardless
of how any administration is organized, compiled, brought together, or what its
goals are in achieving, that if the government goes beyond the principle of voluntarism
and a no-victim-no-crime position, the existence of government – by different
names – will be unified by one principle, which we will end with.
First, why is this review of these political positions important? Variant Socialist principles have been
informally part of the American political landscape for a long time, and
formally with the Social Democratic Party of America being founded in 1898,
which included in their principles ‘collective ownership of production for the
common good’ (Marxist Internet Archive, 2009).
This is a continuation from such principles advanced by Thomas Paine in
1795 when he wrote Agrarian Justice (2019),
whereby he advanced that proprietors owed communities ‘ground-rent.’ Lysander Spooner’s 1886 letter to Grover
Cleveland lamented the Capitalist (as it was perceived then) system and its
wage labor; Spooner wanted economies based upon commodities which were
cooperatives and partnerships where no one was a servant to another (2019).
Political and social movements have carried on Socialist
policies in the 20th century (Kaye, 2016). President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) proposed a
‘2nd Bill of Rights’ which included rights to a decent home,
education, adequate food and clothing and recreation, among others (Kaye,
2014); Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) in addition to combating racism, advanced
an Economic Bill of Rights which included a right to a ‘meaningful job at a
living wage,’ secure and adequate income, work, access to capital, among others
(Civil Rights Movement Veterans, n.d.; MLK Global, 2017). The first Socialist to be elected to Congress
was Victor Berger in 1911, and who also founded the Socialist Party of America
(Greenberg, 2019). Recently, multiple
Socialists and Democratic Socialists have been elected to office in various
levels of government, in the 2018 midterm election (Naga Siu, 2018).
When the Occupy Wall Street protests began, there was little
effect upon the overall public perception of ‘Capitalism’ and ‘Socialism’
between early 2010 and late 2011 (PEW Research, 2011). However, a change is emerging in perceptions
toward those systems, and amongst how Democrats and Republicans see one
another. Recently, Gallup has found an
increasing positive view of Socialism – for the first time over half viewed
positively – and a decreasing view of Capitalism by Democrats (Newport,
2018). More than half of the American
population rate themselves around the mid-point on an ideological scale (PEW
Research, 2018). Gallup (Newport, 2018)
and PEW Research (2018) have seen an increasing generational influence with the
younger generation having a more positive view on Socialism than on
Capitalism. Though they are younger,
leaving more time to change their views, Millennials and Gen Z have a
respective 64% & 70% of their generation that believes the government
should do more to solve problems (Page, Graf, & Igielnik, 2019); more than
half (52%) of Gen Z Republicans hold that the government should do more to
solve problems, while around 80% of Gen Z Democrats. Incrementally, the younger generations have
identified as more liberal democrats since 2000 (Maniam & Smith, 2017).
This is not to say the younger generations are anti-Capitalist, but they have
an increasing positive view of Socialism (Hartig, 2019).
Socialists and Democratic Socialists got 40 members elected
to various state, county, and federal levels of government (Democratic
Socialists of America, 2018; Vyse, 2018).
A couple of the most popular Socialist and Democratic Socialist
representatives being Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Bernie
Sanders, among many the others (Khalid, 2018; Krieg & Nobles, 2019). The youngest Democratic Socialist voice on
the national state is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (2018) “So when millennials talk
about concepts like democratic socialism, we're not talking about these kinds
of 'Red Scare' boogeyman…” & they are talking about “… basic levels of
dignity so that no person in America is too poor to live. That's what democratic socialism means in
2018, and not this kind of McCarthyism Red Scare of a past era.” One of the longest-lived voices in government
for Democratic Socialism, Bernie Sanders said “Well, I think it means the
government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right
of citizenship, all of our people have healthcare; that as a right, all of our
kids, regardless of income, have quality childcare, are able to go to college
without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large
corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a
government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me,
it means democracy, frankly. That’s all it means. And we are living in an
increasingly undemocratic society in which decisions are made by people who
have huge sums of money. And that’s the goal that we have to achieve” (2012). Democratic Socialism, after all, is not just
a political movement, for it is both ‘moral and political’ (Schwartz &
Schulman, 2012).
Socialist ideas have been around for a long time, and are
gaining popularity – in varying amounts – on ‘both sides of the aisle.’ “Socialism as a concept is open to many
interpretations” (Newport, 2018). As
such, it is in essence that the government should be able to do things, and
what those things may be are left to individual interpretation, though any
action is perceived as the collective voice of the majority. That the people will it so the government is
to provide that thing, without costs examined, is more mainstream. People are becoming more divided, with a
greater spike in division based upon politics than the old manners of gender,
race, ethnicity, and religion (PEW Research, 2017). The rate of party antipathy has almost
doubled in the past two decades (PEW Research, 2017; PEW Research, 2018). The amount of those who hold more of a blend
of conservative and liberal ideas has decreased, with more becoming liberal
(PEW Research, 2017).
With the aforementioned stated, we must have a brief review
of terms:
Democracy*:
1a : government by
the people especially : rule of the majority
b : a government
in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them
directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving
periodically held free elections
2 : a political
unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized :
the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S. from
emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy— C. M. Roberts
4 : the common
people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of
hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Socialism*:
1: any of various
economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership
and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of
society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or
condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled
by the state
3 : a stage of society
in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished
by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Fascism*:
1: often
capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the
Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that
stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader,
severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of
opposition
2 : a tendency
toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early
instances of army fascism and brutality
“While the exact details of a socialist economy are open to
debate, it will most likely be a mixture of democratic planning of major
investments (e.g., expenditure on infrastructure, investment in natural
monopolies such as telecommunications, utilities, transport) and market
exchange of consumer goods” (Schwartz & Schulman, 2012). An open-ended definition is no definition. If some definition is not a match for the
term used, there may be another word for the referencing the concept. We will see throughout if Socialism,
Democratic Socialism, or what other term may be best used to describe the
political movements.
As we have first looked at definitions, we must next look at
what Democratic Socialism is to do: for whom and why. According to the Democratic Socialists of
America (DSA), “Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society
should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a
few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and
economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social
democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that
affect our lives” (2019). After all, “Democracy
and socialism go hand in hand” (Democratic Socialists of America, 2019). The Socialist Party USA has in its own
‘Points of Agreement’ (2017) that it is a ‘democratic socialist organization.’ Democratic Socialism and Socialism are in
essence and word, the same thing.
With the definitions listed, and then applying what
democratic socialism is to do as described by the DSA and SPUSA, what
principles we have are ‘the common people’ having the ruling power in
government (whatever level) through having a majority, as they are the ones who
experience what affects them the most and are to have ‘public needs’ in mind
with what they vote upon. Blending
politics and economics, the democratically-run government is to control – for
the public – property and production.
With this, we must look specifically – as it is to be the
beneficiary of what is done – at what, or who is ‘the public.’ Schwartz and Schulman (2012) make a broad
claim in “Democratic socialism only promises the possibility of human
fulfillment.” Who or what is to be
fulfilled, and how?
Public* (noun):
1 : a place
accessible or visible to the public —usually used in the phrase in public
2 : the people as
a whole : populace
3 : a group of
people having common interests or characteristics specifically : the group at
which a particular activity or enterprise aims
There are issues of nuance in the definition for the first
three terms – and more – which will be reviewed again at the end; however, more
immediate concerns are evident in the definition of ‘public.’ Operational definitions are used for
specificity and uniformity for those involved in a debate or discussion so the
same concept of a term is being discussed: a stasis point. Without a stasis point, though the same term
or topic maybe discussed and debated, there is no actual debate. This can be seen in the ‘debate’ around
abortion where one side advances the abortion issue is about a woman’s right to
choose what to do with her body, while the other side advances that a fetus is
a human baby; neither of those are a stasis point from which to actually debate
and as such, neither side debates inasmuch as they pontificate. When specific claims are addressed, then debate
can advance with the goal of what is right emerging.
For Democratic Socialism here, an operational disagreement
making a stasis point impossible can be seen in the word ‘public.’ The DSA states that the economy and society
themselves are “…to meet public needs.”
What is ‘the public’ in such a case? – those who may access something, a
collective that contributes to something (is there a degree of contribution
that needs to be met? – various ways of using [definition 2], every person
within an area, or every person existing [definition 3]? Do the different
proponents of democratic socialism have the same understanding of ‘the public’
amongst themselves, with the DSA, or even consistently to themselves? Explicitly stated from the DSA ‘… to meet
public needs, not to make profits for a few…’ and ‘…democracy so that ordinary
Americans can participate…’ Both work
and home are covered by the Party as the SPUSA (2017) states “Socialism is a
new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production
and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools.”
But those are all lofty and vague goals with inclusive
language; there is no specificity. There
is an implied uniformity of opinion, and for those who are not uniform enough
the duty to still obey. People are not
uniform. The members of the same nuclear
family could want different toppings on a pizza; mere appetitive differences
can cause conflicts. When adding other
variables, there are infinite ways of disagreeing; what are moral values, roles
of members in the family, or women, or people in society, religious beliefs,
etc. The DSA stated ‘restructure gender
and cultural relationships’ (Schwartz & Schulman, 2012). SPUSA (2017) ‘members have various
philosophies from around the world.’ Who gets to vote in the democratic process
on how to run a company, what building should be built in a neighborhood? The company may sell non-locally, so would
that mean other areas that may purchase the product get a vote? – what about
areas that do not have the product but have one similar, or want it
available? What if the process violates
the norms of some members, but not others?
What if parts of the land are sacred to some and not others?
If the ‘public’ willed it, it will be so. Which of all those
various potential groups of people were considered the public?
People may change their minds over time, adapt to new
contexts and experiences as they happen, modify plans. Contextually a word may be used differently,
but people can adjust accordingly.
However, law is fixed until it goes through a formal process of
amending. Until that time, it carries
legal punishment of the State which can include fines, imprisonment, or death. The amendment process itself could be
suspect, which will be returned to again soon.
In addition to ‘the public needs’ the DSA (2019) mentioned
in a reference beforehand claims “Social ownership could take many forms, such
as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers
and consumer representatives.” The ‘public’
of who is to have its needs met from a democratically-run society was not
clarified, though hinted at with ‘economy and society’ and ‘not to make profits
for a few’ of which any less than all would be fewer than all those in
society. But with the ‘worker-owned
cooperatives’ and ‘enterprises managed by workers’ what constitutes as the
public for social ownership is reduced to some group: run by and to make
profits for a few, albeit more than a board of directors, but still a group – a
few compared to the rest of the public if that is everyone in an area
(definition 2 over definition 3 of the one term: public).
Unless one is part of a small community with members of a
shared vision and commitment, and the reach of decisions extends not beyond
that community, there is going to be the process of representatives to be
elected to represent ‘the people’; the larger the area, the more that
representation is to be for more people, done by fewer people. The people vote locally, which the majority
gets their will represented as the area’s, which is then represented in a
striated manner: neighborhood, districts, zip codes, cities, counties, states,
regions, then country, is one way of looking at the way ‘democracy’ works.
Millions across multiple states and zip codes could lose out to millions +1 in
a city; the community working the land had their ‘shared’ vision and sent a
representative for them, only to have him get stopped at the county level, and
he watched as others who did not share his or his electorate’s vision go to
represent his ‘party’ at the state level, and then that state representative
could be ignored at the national level.
This leads us to looking at Fascism. In particular, the
part including “…political philosophy, movement, or regime … that exalts nation
and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized
autocratic government…” Combine the
definition from DSA and SPUSA as summarized earlier ‘‘the common people’ having
the ruling power in government (whatever level) through having a majority, as
they are the ones who experience what affects them the most and are to have
‘public needs’ in mind with what they vote upon,’ with the amorphous concept of
‘the public.’ What remains is an
amorphous public that is to have its interest sated as the will of the majority
is “… above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic
government.” Adherents of Democratic
Socialism laud its goal of getting power away from corporations; however, what
Democratic Socialism also has done is a ‘democratization’ of autocracy, where
one or a few were to have political power, it is the new group and its
representatives rule over all, making each individual submit.
Some may lament that fascism ‘exalts nation and often race,
whereas that is not the case with Democratic Socialism.’ This is a partial return to the nuance of
definitions (unlike the glaring issue with public). Nation*
includes ‘a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and
possessing a more or less defined territory and government.’ Nation, in other words, can include a
collective within a given area, ‘a community’ which can include those that make
up a ‘public’ of who gets to participate in democracy. Democratic Fascism is ultimately the same as
Democratic
Socialism in that a group is to rule over and make limitations of
options of others.
This is not to say ‘Democratic Socialism’ could not work,
for it might in certain – quite limited – contexts. Any sense of a ‘sacred religious influence’
can be dismissed for the practical application of a socialist idea, or even
communism (Levi, 2018, Regev, 2016). A kibbutz* is an Israeli, communal farm;
true to a socialist ideal, wealth is communal and profits are reinvested into
the community. Established upon
‘socialist principles’ kibbutzim were “A radical communal experiment, the
kibbutz aimed for equality, where everyone shared everything, earned the same
wages (the manager of the farm earned the same as the dishwasher, etc.) and
every decision was made collectively as a group” (Levi, 2018). Members were to live in contentment as they
worked for the common good (Becker, 2008).
Kibbutzim (plural) have memberships between 40 and 1000, with most
having a total population of men, women, and children, of 500-600 members; even
in these smaller settings, there are still committees and chairs who form the
executives and a secretary who holds the top position in a kibbutz (American-Israeli
Cooperative Enterprise, 2019; Regev, 2016).
Notice, however, that even for this socialism to have a
chance at working the groups have to be small, as well as VOLUNTARILY joined in
by its members. To have a semblance of
success, members join together to have a shared vision of what each member’s
role is to be within the community. This
is Lysander Spooner’s vision of socialism through voluntary cooperatives. However, such a system requires members
enough of a shared vision and a level of indoctrination in order to maintain
itself.
E. O. Wilson (2007) stated “What I like to say is that Karl
Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species.” He said this when comparing the dedication of
ants to the colony as contrasted to human society, whereas ants evolved to
literally involve members that are [individual dead-end] drones to give all to
the colony, humans are more individualistic seeking their own independence and
survival as well as being social animals.
The consequences of these characteristics can be seen in the evolution
of the kibbutz.
Dawkins observed that not only is it that genes evolve, but
also ideas/concepts (unit of cultural transmission) or memes evolve
(2006). Modern communication and
technological capabilities help accelerate change of memes (Zuckerman, 2017). Additionally, Dawkins observed that people
tend to match their cognitive complexity to a belief system (2008). Applying Dawkins’ observations with E. O.
Wilson’s, and we see further examples of the original idea changing from the communal
life of democratic socialism (immediately striated) to a system-wide failed
attempt at amalgamation of different ideas being adapted within the democratic
socialist model.
For example: one of the key changes is in the parental-child
relationship. Kibbutzim used to have
communal rearing of children, whereby children were raised with peers in
separate houses from the parents, but that has changed as children are now
raised by their parents (American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, 2019; Levi,
2018; Melman, 1991). Not only did people
want their own children, but people wanted more of their own property, and they
grew more antagonistic toward members of the kibbutz that were not seen to
contribute appropriately. In an
interview with Melman (1991) Shmuel Hadash – born into a kibbutz and whose
father was among the first founders of kibbutzim in Israel – said “They tried
to change human nature and to create a new man… To my regret, the kibbutz did
not succeed in this task, because man’s nature is stronger than his ideas. In
the kibbutz, as in any other human society, people like to sow the minimum and
reap the maximum.”
The lineage factor of individually within complex animals –
mammals over ants for individual complexity – is part of E. O. Wilson’s
admonition. The more complex and
distinct individuals are within a group, the more they will tend toward
including their own specific family within and while contributing to a society
they want to continue. However, the
tribal nature of animals (a pack/herd/group against others of same species and
other species when same resources are needed) will place smaller, internal
collectives (e.g. families) against other families within a society which may
be against other societies. Even with
the designed, idealistic collectives, there are some conflicts between
kibbutzim and other communities within Israel (Regev, 2016). The grand sharing and equal contribution
ideal did not last, even among those who shared the vision.
Where does this lead us?
Even with collectivism’s best intentions, it cannot control impulses of
the individual, and individualism cannot treat all in the collective the same
as specific individuals within it.
Why is the problematic?
It does not matter what title the form of collectivism is given when it
is combined with the power of the State – communism, fascism, socialism, etc. –
the issue is that a group of individuals who have their own values, ideas and
preferences, share enough of them to form a collective, which by some
composition and support – the ‘democratic’ majority of whichever group is
larger at the moment, the ‘working class’ or the ‘wealthy class,’ elected or
appointed officials, or any other manner of some collective being formed – want
to use the power of the State – legal use of force – to impose their vision,
their will, upon all others, including those who do not share their vision,
goals, or methodologies.
Let us look at a few other terms:
State/state*:
(multiple meanings non-politically related, so the
politically-relevant ones will remain as noun and adjective): a nation or
territory considered as an organized political community under one government,
and of, provided by, or concerned with the civil government of a country.
Statism*:
Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands
of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of
industry
Capitalism*:
An economic system characterized by private or corporate
ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private
decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are
determined mainly by competition in a free market
With this definition recognized as what is Capitalism, we
can clearly point out the false labeling in such claims as “Trump is an
enthusiastic capitalist” (Newport, 2018).
Trump is no Capitalist, and the system he participates in is not
Capitalism ‘determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution’
when he engages in trade wars, imposes tariffs, provides subsidies and bailouts
(Bump, 2019; Charles, 2019). This
recognition what Capitalism is part of the reason why Schwartz & Schulman (2012)
stated “We cannot accept capitalism’s conception of economic relations as “free
and private,” because contracts are not made among economic equals…” What is it to be ‘equal’ and how would it be
different from a Capitalistic system as contrasted to other, or Socialist or
Statist systems? If some are to provide
for those who cannot provide for themselves, by order of the State, then where
is the equality in treatment? It is a
rhetorical trick to use improper terms when better terms exist. This is true with formal and informal
communication. At any point,
clarification and specification can be made.
It is an academic discussion as to whether a belief or
specific governmental program is socialistic or not, and exactly what is ‘true’
socialism, or ‘democratic socialism.’ As
a matter of practicality, it is Statism versus Capitalism. Statism is any form of government (even
democracies have their elected officials) whereby those in command (for the
moment) can use legal force upon all individuals in society to obey. Capitalism (if not laissez faire, then it is
not Capitalism, but a form of Statism**) are individuals interacting
voluntarily. It must be noted that the
voluntary aspects of Capitalism involve a lack of governmental interference;
economic and natural laws are still in place, the same as they would in any
system regardless of how much it is wanted for the State to override those laws.
When we review the above terms, we can see that with a
slight difference in style, the execution and principles are the same. Democratic Socialism is Democratic Fascism;
socialism is fascistic. Though socialism
may not (or may) include the same nationalist, or demographic-specific focus,
it still shares the base and methodology of action of using State force to
impose will. This is done by some group,
however achieving power – elected, appointed, or in the most consistent method
to achieve political power over others by using force to achieve it – to use
that State power to rule over others, making them obey or face the legal
punishments of the State.
This brings us to the final two terms:
Totalitarian*:
1a : of or
relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy :
authoritarian, dictatorial especially : despotic
b : of or relating
to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and
strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation
especially by coercive measures (such as censorship and terrorism)
2a : advocating or
characteristic of totalitarianism
b : completely
regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an
emergency
c : exercising
autocratic powers
Liberty* (of
which the first definition is):
1: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic (see despot sense 1)
control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or
economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
This is the ultimate division: Totalitarianism or Liberty,
to be recognized as Statism or Capitalism.
There will be some who talk of nuance in the differences between
Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Corporatism (what is labeled as Capitalism, when
‘Capitalism’ is blended with the State which negates what is Capitalism), and
the like. What their ‘nuance’ overlooks
is that the shared principle is in effect across all of those versions, and
that principle is the government is prepotent, and that government is made up
of individuals at any given moment, tending to the perceived moment’s needs. Principles are eternal; perceptions and needs
are momentary. Murder is recognized a
wrong across cultures and across time – for those who were recognized
individuals who had rights, which was a pragmatic application or denial for the
time or place as some recognized subclass had lesser rights and recourse for violations
of those rights, while slaves had little to no rights.
A more specific example as follows: theft/compulsory giving
through threat of force as contrasted to giving. Charity and gifts are giving, and are aspects
of voluntarism possible in Capitalism.
Taxes are not giving, but are taken in order to pay for whatever
programs those in charge of various levels of government want to fund, whether
one wants to support those programs or not.
Want to support the ‘war on drugs’ or on ‘terror,’ your opinion is
irrelevant, and we all are funding the arrest and imprisonment of millions who
have harmed none, but had the audacity to imbibe something someone, at some
point, with legal power did not want people to imbibe; not want to support
drones dropping bombs on multiple countries, killing and displacing millions,
it does not matter as those in charge of government are engaging in drone usage
without your opinion taken into consideration.
The principle of others needing to be forced to pay for
programs remains; the difference is in how, depending on who was in charge at
that moment.
In order to fund these programs, individuals in society are
resources (life, money, and more) to siphon by the ones in power. How much needs to be siphoned and in what
ways will change as time passes, with the underlying principle held: your
resources are the State’s when it is deemed needed, and they will take what is
needed. When the income tax was passed,
the top rate was 7% for those making more than $500,000 ($11 million
inflation-adjusted), while depending on what was perceived as needed at the
time, the tax rate went as high as 94% for those making more than $200,000
($2.5 million inflation-adjusted) (Bradford, 2019).
The Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913 “…to provide the
nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial
system” (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2017). However, since the Federal Reserve was
created, the value of the dollar decreased, making a single dollar at that time
equal in value to almost $26 in today’s value (Calculator.net, 2019; US
Inflation Calculator, 2019). In 1934,
Franklin Roosevelt signed the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, taking private property
(citizen’s gold) to devalue the dollar and change how the money market worked
at the time by “…the government converted paper currency to gold coins,
whenever citizens desired to do so. Now, the government converted gold into
dollars, regardless of whether citizens wanted to engage in the exchange” (Richardson,
Komai, & Gou, 2013). The base of
gold was the backing for currency for domestic exchanges in 1933 domestically,
and in 1971 internationally (Hasenstab, 2018).
The pros and cons of a gold-backed currency was not up to individual
choice, but to government decree; citizens will obey, including surrendering
their property, or face legal actions.
The beginning of quantitative easing is aligned with more than doubling
the national debt to a point that the debt is now higher than the gross
domestic product (Amadeo, 2019; DeSilver, 2019; Duffin, 2019). The level of debt is near what it was in
WWII, but a factor that makes it worse this time is the aging population who
will be relying more on government help, as well as an increasing interest rate
and spending packages that are not cut back (McCarthy, 2019). This level of debt is around what it was when
the tax rate was more than 90% for some.
The average tax rate for all Americans was 23.8% (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019).
The average American today pays three times what the highest income tax
rate was to be for the highest earners, when the income tax was passed as law.
What do all these taxes and debt pay for? – for whatever was
created by those who had political power at the time. It does not matter how much any individual
taxpayer may or may not support a policy, program, or law. By the power of the State, all must support
what was passed. The course of the
current war on drugs included an escalation by Harry Anslinger who headed the
newly created Federal Bureau of Narcotics whereby, among his concerns for
prohibiting drug usage was white women losing their virtue to blacks; he
continued to expand the number of drugs included in the laws and the severity
of punishments met out for violations, as well as used propaganda to push his
message to other members of government and the people (Stanford, 1999;
Tikkanen, 2019). These laws went into
effect in the 1930s, have been routinely held up and expanded across multiple
administrations with the formalization of the ‘War on Drugs’ made in 1971
(Stanford, 1999). Disagree with the
reasoning, implementation, punishment, or anything else that touches on the
‘war on drugs?’ It does not matter; as a
taxpayer, each individual is paying for it in some manner. The same can be said for the quantitative
easing and bailouts to corporations, or individuals; if you do not want to
support them, it is irrelevant. The War
on Terror has cost around six trillion dollars and directly lead to more than
half-a-million dead (Armstrong & Richter, 2019). The indirect costs in money and lives and
suffering is going to be higher. If you
do not support the ‘War on Terror’ it is irrelevant; all taxpayers are funding
the programs, creation of structure and weapons, and the execution of plans
destroying property, destabilizing regions, and killing many. Any and all government programs are the same:
compulsory.
Across whatever administrations, regardless of what promises
were made at the time they were campaigning, the lasting effects happen after
they take State power. You have blends
of democratic practices, with other practices such as fascism and
totalitarianism. Anslinger was not
democratically voted in by the public, but appointed by a democratically
elected official (President Hoover) at the time, yet his policies and positions
were made law for decades, much of which are still in effect today. The wars across the planet were not
democratically voted upon by the people, but those who call for those wars to
be waged and send soldiers out to fight them, were democratically elected. Many organizations and agencies involve
appointments made by democratically elected officials, over generations which
compound upon one another and pass on all of it onto the next generation. This is why it is not an issue of type of
State rule – democracy, socialism, communism, etc – but is simply Statism vs
Capitalism (Laissez faire again needed redundancy).
The new calls for democratic socialism are simply just new labels
onto the same principle. Democratic
socialism is just democratic fascism; socialism is fascism. Any form of Statism is totalitarian at base,
with allowances given which can be revoked as needed. Rights are given lip service, but as there
are restrictions on gun types and approvals needed, there is not a recognized
‘right’ but a privilege granted. Regardless
of whether the issue is abortion, guns, ‘wars on drugs/terror/poverty,’ speech
zones, or anything else, if those who control the government at the time enact
laws are enforcing their opinions, then it is Statism; a sufficient majority of
a populace, a board of directors, or a sole despot, they are just different
forms of the same principle: State over the individual.
Sounding like an ardent Capitalist with respect to property
rights Lysander Spooner said “the right of property is the right of supreme,
absolute, and irresponsible dominion over anything that is naturally a subject
of property,—that is, of ownership. It is a right against all the world.”
(Cleveland, pp. 32-33). He hated wage
labor that is available in Capitalist systems, and he hated the obligation
imposed by laws and governments. The
Constitution itself was not an obligatory document, for a contract can only be
made between the consenting parties – that supreme right against all the world
– includes no compulsion, even by the State, even the Constitution. This is a stark contrast to the democratic
Socialist vision ““Democratic control of consumption should be as central to
the socialist vision as democratic control over production…” (Schwartz &
Schulman, 2012).
In 1869, Spooner wrote in The Constitution of No Authority:
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It
has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and
man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons
now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons
living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be
supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come
to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory
contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even
of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or
permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner.
Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now.
Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their
contract, died with them. (original emphasis).
In addition, Spooner (n.d.) observed in No Treason:
For this reason, whoever desires liberty, should understand
these vital facts, viz.: 1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a
“government” (so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used
against him, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection
to its arbitrary will. 2. That those who will take his money, without his
consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and
enslavement, if he presumes to resist their demands in the future. 3. That it
is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would ever take a man’s
money without his consent, for any such object as they profess to take it for,
viz., that of protecting him; for why should they wish to protect him, if he
does not wish them to do so? To suppose that they would do so, is just as
absurd as it would be to suppose that they would take his money without his
consent, for the purpose of buying food or clothing for him, when he did not
want it. 4. If a man wants “protection,” he is competent to make his own
bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him, in order to “protect”
him against his will. 5. That the only security men can have for their
political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets,
until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will
be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their
injury. 6. That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a
moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer
than it depends wholly upon voluntary support.
Statism is a tool that gets wielded by whoever happens to
hold the power at the moment; that sword will continue to exist as it gets
handed down from one administration, tyrant, generation to the next, to be
imposed on whomever of the next moment.
George Orwell (2003) summarized in his satire Animal Farm, that after the veneer of the ‘revolution’ had faded
and the lofty goals had passed, and the leaders lived in opulence while the
rest lived in squalor “There was nothing there now except a single
Commandment. It ran ALL ANIMALS ARE
EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.” Even with the best intentions granted – which is
far more than many politicians deserve – it is the members of the State ruling
over the rest, being more equal than the rest.
By whatever name is used, there is a common thread that links them all together: that thread is some group of others, however formed, deciding what are someone else's legal options and rights. Socialism is Fascism; Social Democracy is Fascism; Democracy is Fascism; Corporatism is Fascism; Fascism is Totalitarianism; all of them fall under the concept of Statism. Practically, to distinguish between them is to identify the type of [State-sponsored] parasite latched upon your body. Rejecting each of the parasitic systems, and we have Capitalism, which is nothing more than the recognition of voluntarism among people, leaving no [State-sponsored] parasites, but free exchange.
*each definition from Merriam-Webster.
**if it is not an individual’s liberty to pursue own
actions, then it is some degree of permission allowed by the State.
References
Amadeo, K. (2019). How Central Banks Create Massive Amounts
of Money With Quantitative Easing. Retrieved from
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-quantitative-easing-definition-and-explanation-3305881.
Armstrong, M., & Richter, F. (2019). Infographic: The
Cost of the War on Terror. Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/chart/16125/the-cost-of-the-war-on-terror/.
Board of Govenors of the Federal Reserve System. (2017).
Federal Reserve Act . Retrieved from
https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fract.htm.
Bradford, M. (2019). History of Federal Income Tax Rates:
1913 – 2019. Retrieved from
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx.
Brosnan, S. F., & De Waal, F. B. (2003). Monkeys reject
unequal pay. Nature, 425(6955), 297.
Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. (2014). Evolution of
responses to (un) fairness. Science, 346(6207), 1251776.
Bump, P. (2019). Analysis | 9 in 10 counties that voted for
Trump have received subsidies to fight the trade war. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/01/nine-in-counties-that-voted-trump-have-received-subsidies-fight-trade-war/.
Calculator.net. (2019). Inflation Calculator with U.S. CPI
Data. Retrieved from
https://www.calculator.net/inflation-calculator.html?cstartingamount1=1&cinyear1=1914&coutyear1=2019&calctype=1&x=89&y=33
Charles, D. (2019). Farmers Got Billions From Taxpayers In
2019, And Hardly Anyone Objected. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/12/31/790261705/farmers-got-billions-from-taxpayers-in-2019-and-hardly-anyone-objected.
Dawkins, R. (2008). The God delusion. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene: with a new
introduction by the author. UK: Oxford University Press.(Originally published
in 1976).
DeSilver, D. (2019). 5 facts about the national debt.
Retrieved from
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/24/facts-about-the-national-debt/.
Duffin, E. (2019). U.S. national debt statistics 1990-2019.
Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-the-united-states-since-1990/.
Hasenstab, M. (2018). Here's Why the U.S. No Longer Follows
a Gold Standard. Retrieved from
https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2017/november/why-us-no-longer-follows-gold-standard.
McCarthy, N. (2019). U.S. National Debt Is Growing Rapidly
[Infographic]. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/08/26/us-national-debt-is-growing-rapidly-infographic/#1a2c99d3a9eb.
MLK Global. (2017). Dr King's Econ Bill of Rights revived.
Retrieved from
https://mlkglobal.org/2017/11/23/dr-kings-econ-bill-of-rights-revived/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development .
(2019). Taxing Wages - The United States. Taxing Wages - The United
States.
Paine, T. (2019). Thomas Paine: Agrarian Justice. Retrieved
from https://www.constitution.org/tp/agjustice.htm.
PEW Research Center. (2017). The Partisan Divide on
Political Values Grows Even Wider (Rep.).
Richardson, G., Komai, A., & Gou, M. (2013). Gold
Reserve Act of 1934. Retrieved from https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/gold_reserve_act.
Spooner, L. (2019). The Constitution of No Authority.
Retrieved from
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/constitution-no-authority.
Stanford. (1999). Poverty Prejudice Paradox. Retrieved from
https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/paradox/htele.html.
Tikkanen, A. (2019). Why Is Marijuana Illegal in the U.S.?
Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/story/why-is-marijuana-illegal-in-the-us.
US Inflation Calculator. (2019). Inflation Calculator.
Retrieved from https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/.
Zuckerman, E. (2017). Mistrust, efficacy and the new civics:
Understanding the deep roots of the crisis of faith in journalism.
