Democratic Socialism is Democratic Fascism; Democracy is Fascistic

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 20^th century (Kaye, 2016).  President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) proposed a ‘2^nd 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.

American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. (2019). The Kibbutz & Moshav: History & Overview. Retrieved from https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/history-and-overview-of-the-kibbutz-movement

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/.

Becker, G. (2008). Two Failures. Retrieved from https://www.hoover.org/research/two-failures

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.

Civil Rights Movement Veterans. (n.d.). Economic Bill of Rights: Southern Christian Leadership Conference ~ Martin Luther King. Retrieved from https://www.crmvet.org/docs/68ebr.htm

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).

Democratic Socialists of America. (2018). NPC Statement on 2018 Elections. Retrieved from https://www.dsausa.org/statements/npc-statement-on-2018-elections/

Democratic Socialists of America. (2019). What is Democratic Socialism? Retrieved from https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/

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/.

Greenberg, D. (2019). Socialists Are No Strangers to Congress. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/socialists-are-no-strangers-to-congress-11546530927

Hartig, H. (2019). Stark partisan divisions in Americans' views of 'socialism,' 'capitalism'. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/25/stark-partisan-divisions-in-americans-views-of-socialism-capitalism/

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.

Kaye, H. (2014). Obama Should Look to Roosevelt in Fight Against Inequality, Right Wing. Retrieved from https://billmoyers.com/2014/03/07/remembering-franklin-delano-roosevelt-and-the-second-bill-of-rights/

Kaye, H. (2016). Social Democracy Is 100-Percent American. Retrieved from https://billmoyers.com/2015/07/03/social-democracy-is-100-american/

Khalid, A. (2018). Who are the Democratic Socialist candidates in your state? Retrieved from https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/democratic-socialist-candidates/

Krieg, G., & Nobles, R. (2019). Bernie Sanders makes the case for democratic socialism as Trump attacks and moderate Democrats worry. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/12/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism-speech/index.html

Levi, S. (2018). The revival of the kibbutz: A uniquely Israeli institution. Retrieved from https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/A-uniquely-Israeli-institution-543296

Maniam, S., & Smith, S. (2017). Younger, older generations divided in partisanship and ideology. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/20/a-wider-partisan-and-ideological-gap-between-younger-older-generations/

Marxist Internet Archive. (2009). The Socialist Party of America. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/eam/spa/socialistparty.html

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.

Melman, Y. (1991). Struggling to Survive, Kibbutzim Lose Identity : Israel: The much-lauded kibbutz movement is relinquishing its past in an effort to surmount severe economic troubles. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-01-06-op-10829-story.html

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/

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/.

Naga Siu, D. (2018). Democratic Socialists of America scored wins in the midterms. What's on their agenda? Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/democratic-socialists-america-scored-wins-midterms-what-s-their-agenda-n941911

Newport, F. (2018). Democrats More Positive About Socialism Than Capitalism. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx

Ocasio-Cortez, A. (2019). Exclusive: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explains what democratic socialism means to her. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-explains-what-democratic-socialism-means-2019-3

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development . (2019). Taxing Wages - The United States. Taxing Wages - The United States.

Orwell, G. (2003). Animal Farm. Retrieved from http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/index.html

Paine, T. (2019). Thomas Paine: Agrarian Justice. Retrieved from https://www.constitution.org/tp/agjustice.htm.

Parker, K., Graf, N., & Igielnik, R. (2019). Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues. Retrieved from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/

PEW Research Center. (2011). Little Change in Public's Response to 'Capitalism,' 'Socialism'. Retrieved from https://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/

PEW Research Center. (2017). The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider (Rep.).

PEW Research Center. (2018). Republicans, Democrats See Opposing Party as More Ideological Than Their Own - Republicans increasingly rate Democratic Party as ‘very liberal’. Retrieved from https://www.people-press.org/2018/09/13/republicans-democrats-see-opposing-party-as-more-ideological-than-their-own/

Regev, D. (2016). Israeli kibbutz: Communal idealism or a privileged few?: DW: 16.05.2016. Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/en/israeli-kibbutz-communal-idealism-or-a-privileged-few/a-19261240-0

Richardson, G., Komai, A., & Gou, M. (2013). Gold Reserve Act of 1934. Retrieved from https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/gold_reserve_act.

Richman, S. (2019). Fascism. Retrieved from https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Sanders, B. (2006). Vermont's Bernie Sanders Becomes First Socialist Elected to U.S. Senate. Retrieved from https://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/8/vermonts_bernie_sanders_becomes_first_socialist

Schwartz, J., & Schulman, J. (2012). Toward Freedom: Democratic Socialist Theory and Practice. Retrieved from https://www.dsausa.org/strategy/toward_freedom/

Socialist Party USA. (2017). SPUSA: Principles & Points of Agreement. Retrieved from https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/principles-points-of-agreement

Spooner, L. (n.d.). No Treason (1867-1870). Retrieved from http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm#no.6

Spooner, L. (2019). Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, on his false Inaugural Address, the Usurpations and Crimes of Lawmakers and Judges, and the consequent Poverty, Ignorance, and Servitude of the People [1886]. Retrieved from https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-a-letter-to-grover-cleveland-1886

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/.

Vyse, G. (2018). Democratic Socialists Rack Up Wins in States. Retrieved from https://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-ocasio-cortez-tlaib-Democratic-Socialists-state-level.html

Wilson, E. O. (2007). Karl Marx was right, it is just that he had the wrong species [Interview by Michigan State University]. Retrieved from https://msu.edu/~lotz/classes/s2008humanities/eowilson_on_sociobiology.pdf

Zuckerman, E. (2017). Mistrust, efficacy and the new civics: Understanding the deep roots of the crisis of faith in journalism.