| Communism Socialism Latin America South Africa The Middle Canada United Nazism Fascism Africa Oligarchy Western Europe England States |
The basic opposites are individuals acting solo and one person controlling
everything seamlessly. These "ideals" at either end represent extremes. The only
two ways in which societal organization can go, either more control or less control,
though they have never reached absolute extremes, they have gone fairly far. To
wit: Hitler, Louis XIV, Stalin, and others in near total control, even if only in image.
The system of total no government exists mostly after a major disaster, or war or
revolution. A cataclysmically violent event, here it becomes every man for himself.
It rarely becomes extremely individualistic peacefully. If only because people
almost immediately form groups, the family unit, or even just the couple as building
blocks. Animalisitcally, people are social. They group together much like herds or
ants. It just seems to work that way; it is for the preservation of life. Such a given
that it seems silly to discuss the point. At this time, there are so many of us that we
could not operate alone if we tried.
Total control is not possible because one person could not run everything, and no
system could be devised to handle every contingency to have just a written plan to
follow faithfully.
These two extremes are unreachable, and somewhere in the middle is where
these two opposing forces meet: More government pulling in one direction and
less government pulling in the other.
The middle can best be described as "anyone can do anything he wants, alone or
in tandem with willing others, so long as he does not forcibly interfere with the
same right of all others to so act, alone or in tandem, and to take responsibility for
mistakes."
There is no place on the current political economic political spectrum to place such
a theory. After all, it definitely does not match socialism, which even allows the
elimination of people opposed to it, and this concept is not capitalism, because
capitalism is defined as a system that is intrinsically harmful to those who practice
it. And it is not nazism on the right because nazism is like socialism -- and then
there is no place to fit, nor on the circle.
Yet this is the political position held by 90% of all Americans. Even people who do
not like other groups tend to only become upset when they are forced to spend
time with these groups or are forced to support them in some other way.
The average American would rather leave everyone alone if everyone else would
leave them alone. But the socialist paradigm first says that everyone must be
involved. Second, that capitalism does not leave anyone alone. Third, that
socialism must bother everyone to protect everyone from the evils of capitalism.
Making peaceable people when left alone; irritable when bothered.
That middle ground of being left alone is the goal of 90% of people all over the
world. They all want to live happily with their customs, families, groups, being only
concerned with making enough money to survive comfortably in the context in
which they live.
The Tagalog speaking Filipino peasant wants to live comfortably in his place as
much as the American worker wants to live comfortably in his suburban space.
That dividing line between the state and the individual is the only mechanism a
person has for surviving in his context.
There is a range somewhere in the middle that will be slightly different in each
society, A dividing line where the state's power ends and the individual's begins.
It is in determining that range, that edge, and in determining which criteria to use
and which philosophical stepping stones to use that this issue becomes more
complex.
It is not sufficient merely to point out a different way of looking at the political
spectrum. But that does help in seeing why the old way will not work. Why the
socialist theory is unworkable, and the attempt to go some third way between
socialism and capitalism is fruitless. We now have a frame work in which to
operate and place specific policy options -- with a new way of looking at things.
everything seamlessly. These "ideals" at either end represent extremes. The only
two ways in which societal organization can go, either more control or less control,
though they have never reached absolute extremes, they have gone fairly far. To
wit: Hitler, Louis XIV, Stalin, and others in near total control, even if only in image.
The system of total no government exists mostly after a major disaster, or war or
revolution. A cataclysmically violent event, here it becomes every man for himself.
It rarely becomes extremely individualistic peacefully. If only because people
almost immediately form groups, the family unit, or even just the couple as building
blocks. Animalisitcally, people are social. They group together much like herds or
ants. It just seems to work that way; it is for the preservation of life. Such a given
that it seems silly to discuss the point. At this time, there are so many of us that we
could not operate alone if we tried.
Total control is not possible because one person could not run everything, and no
system could be devised to handle every contingency to have just a written plan to
follow faithfully.
These two extremes are unreachable, and somewhere in the middle is where
these two opposing forces meet: More government pulling in one direction and
less government pulling in the other.
The middle can best be described as "anyone can do anything he wants, alone or
in tandem with willing others, so long as he does not forcibly interfere with the
same right of all others to so act, alone or in tandem, and to take responsibility for
mistakes."
There is no place on the current political economic political spectrum to place such
a theory. After all, it definitely does not match socialism, which even allows the
elimination of people opposed to it, and this concept is not capitalism, because
capitalism is defined as a system that is intrinsically harmful to those who practice
it. And it is not nazism on the right because nazism is like socialism -- and then
there is no place to fit, nor on the circle.
Yet this is the political position held by 90% of all Americans. Even people who do
not like other groups tend to only become upset when they are forced to spend
time with these groups or are forced to support them in some other way.
The average American would rather leave everyone alone if everyone else would
leave them alone. But the socialist paradigm first says that everyone must be
involved. Second, that capitalism does not leave anyone alone. Third, that
socialism must bother everyone to protect everyone from the evils of capitalism.
Making peaceable people when left alone; irritable when bothered.
That middle ground of being left alone is the goal of 90% of people all over the
world. They all want to live happily with their customs, families, groups, being only
concerned with making enough money to survive comfortably in the context in
which they live.
The Tagalog speaking Filipino peasant wants to live comfortably in his place as
much as the American worker wants to live comfortably in his suburban space.
That dividing line between the state and the individual is the only mechanism a
person has for surviving in his context.
There is a range somewhere in the middle that will be slightly different in each
society, A dividing line where the state's power ends and the individual's begins.
It is in determining that range, that edge, and in determining which criteria to use
and which philosophical stepping stones to use that this issue becomes more
complex.
It is not sufficient merely to point out a different way of looking at the political
spectrum. But that does help in seeing why the old way will not work. Why the
socialist theory is unworkable, and the attempt to go some third way between
socialism and capitalism is fruitless. We now have a frame work in which to
operate and place specific policy options -- with a new way of looking at things.
| CHAPTER 4 |
| Jim Hlavac |
The Socialist Era
| Poltics, Theory & Economics |
