He's Not My President?

Thoreau: "Government is Best Which Governs Least"

Communism, Fascism and Socialism Defined

social obamaI read numerous blogs and blog posts every day, and I find the terms communism, fascism and socialism are thrown around  repeatedly often misused and sometimes not used effectively for the truly terrifying effects such isms have had on the people in our world’s history.  So instead of continuing to throw around these words, let’s define them (as provided by dictionary.com) right now and then determine their appropriate use in today’s modern America.  After doing so, we should be able to come to better conclusions about  what is happening in our country and more importantly a better understanding of the importance of protecting our Constitutional Republic and the difference in it from the isms we have defined.

com⋅mu⋅nism

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

fas⋅cism

–noun

1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

so⋅cial⋅ism

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
The one thing that we should first notice about all of these definitions is that America and American Capitalism have yet to be so circumvented or bastardized to reach full commonality with any of these definitions.  The other thing that is critical to note is that all of these definitions reside in a loss of personal property with the possible exception of fascism (please note that personal property also includes money not just property like homes, cars and other things).
The one thing that the founders of our nation made clear was that freedom and freedom from tyranny were rooted in personal property rights.  In fact, even when scholars have attempted to look at what Jefferson meant by the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence it is widely believed that property rights were a core consideration of what was meant.  As John Adams wrote:
All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.    (The Political Writings of John Adams)
Americans should be ever vigilant and quite concerned any time their property rights are being subverted.  And since property rights include money, Americans must also be extremely concerned when their money is being taken by their government regardless of government’s intended purpose. 
Often times the isms defined herein are referred to as left or right where communism is the extreme left, fascism is the extreme right and socialism, I guess, is somewhere in between.  What should be noted is that the founders of our country did not deal with isms but rather with governmental powers.  They viewed excessive government (the founders today would see all of the isms this way) on the extreme left, anarchy on the extreme right and our Constitutional Republic was an attempt to find the balance in between.
As America drifts toward any one of the isms above that drift is a complete afront to our founders.  We must be diligent in reigning it back in and returning our government to its founding principles which are limited government in all aspects of our lives and the freedom of the individual to live his life, protect his liberties and protect his property.  Make careful arguments for why limited government and a return to our founding principles is the best course for our country.  Avoid throwing around isms as they may not necessarily apply even when there is a creep toward them.
Advertisements

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Interesting commentary; having the three defined on one page was helpful. I think we have gotten closer to fascism in the past 8 years but that is just my opinion.

    Consider, however, the founding fathers could hardly have imagined the changes in society and technology that occurred over the past 233 years. What would they recommend when “seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness” has been thwarted by the rich and powerful who use considerable influence to quash competition and extort unconscionable amounts of money in the name of “free market capitalism”? Do you agree with paying $4.50/gal for gasoline when oil companies post record profits?

    David

    August 16, 2009 at 9:02 am

  2. PS. It would appear to me that government is the mechanism by which we “establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, (and)promote the general welfare.” Capitalism, being an economic, not a political, theory, isn’t interested in justice and the general welfare.

    David

    August 16, 2009 at 9:04 am

    • I understand your points. Our founding fathers would understand the nature of people today in a capitalized corporate America, but they certainly would not condone the behavior and would have much to say on why the behavior exists. My own argument would be that many of the power brokers of corporate America have no moral compass. The greed they engage in does not get measured in their minds as to their moral obligations to a civil society. Personal responsibility for one’s actions is almost passe now which is truly hurting this country and other civil societies. The problem is government cannot answer the morality issue because governments are not moral entities either. In fact, history has proven to us that governments in the name of socialism, communism, and fascism have been some of the most immoral entities in human history. So we are left to attempt to find the most civil society we can, and for me that always occurs when government governs less rather than more.

      For a more thorough discussion on how personal property rights plays into this moral arguemnt, and how justice by governments is only a small part of the moral equation, I would recommend the following article from the American Thinker website:

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obamas_adam_smith_problem.html

      curi0us0nefromthe60s

      August 16, 2009 at 9:46 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: