-
The Loss of Trust
June 18, 2013 | 32 comments
-
Sex and the Military
June 12, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Economics vs. ‘Need’
June 11, 2013 | 29 comments
-
Historic Rescuers
June 5, 2013 | 48 comments
-
Abstract Immigrants
June 4, 2013 | 31 comments
The Obama Watch
Socialist or Fascist?
Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters.
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a “socialist.” He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.
What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.
Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.
Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous — something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.
Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the “greed” of the insurance companies.
The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.
One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.
Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely — and correctly — regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg’s great book Liberal Fascism cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists’ consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left’s embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.
Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.
It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot — and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.
What socialism, fascism, and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people — like themselves — need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.
The left’s vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, “We the People…”
That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution’s limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges’ new interpretations, based on notions of “a living Constitution” that will take decisions out of the hands of “We the People,” and transfer those decisions to our betters.
The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.
Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
About the Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (135) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Thomas Sowell
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/12/socialist-or-fascist
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Drink Earlier, Drink Less
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Way Beyond the Lemonade Stand
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
DTOM| 6.12.12 @ 6:57AM
Doc;
Very valid points - but if we stop referring to Obama as a socialist, it's very hard to communicate his true position and intentions to our ADD'd electorate.
If I try to tell people that, Pres. Obama is socialist to the extent that he only wants to own companies' profits, but capitalist to the extent that he does not want to own their losses, it lacks a little zip.
So, good Sir, can you give us another pithy term for Obama's predilection: is he a neurotic-socialist, a "nocialist?" Or is there some other term of art we can use.
You have correctly identified his attitudinal problem, but you leave us no way to communicate it efficiently to others.
Lacking that, he wins! So Doc, please help!
Love your work!
Don't TreadOn Me!!!
s in neuroticwants
Cobalt| 6.12.12 @ 9:14AM
Neo-socialist or State Capitalist
Brooksifier | 6.12.12 @ 9:47AM
If it weren't for Big Government in the form of Grant and Sherman, Tom Sowell would be a cuffie.
But Sowell is so old now it doesn't matter, he's AS's token black and token old sage.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.12.12 @ 10:20AM
Grant and Sherman? Token black? Are you on the right site?
Brooksifier | 6.12.12 @ 10:38AM
If it wasn't for Big Guvmint starting (yes, they attacked the South) the biggest war in American history, your boy Sowell would be picking cotton-- not pecking at a keyboard.
You think all the money spent on the Civil War-- billions in today's value-- all the boys drafted (on both sides) wasn't socialistic or fascist because it was in the 1860s and not the 1960s? Big Guvmint began in the 1930s?-- is that what you think- that Big Guvmint popped out of nowhere?
The Big E| 6.12.12 @ 10:58AM
You know, if a conservative said something like this you would call him a racist. You say it, and somehow it's supposed to pass for an intelligent comment - which it obviously is not.
It does, however, reveal the deep seated racism at the heart of the left's positions on race. Your aver that, without the help of superior whites in the 1860's, blacks would never have risen above their 1860's status of slave. You aver that left on their own, they would have been unable to rise above what their superiors thought of them.
Quite frankly, sir, your's might be the single most bigoted comment I've ever seen on AS.
Pecos Pete| 6.12.12 @ 11:17AM
Agreed with Big E. Brooksifier is Alan Brooks back to haunt us.
Albertus Magnus| 6.12.12 @ 11:22AM
Brooks, your comment is over the top, in stupidity, asininity, rudeness, and imbecility. You are upset that slavery is over in the USA, but get used to it. You suffer "white man's burden" and can't stand the fact the Blacks are free people and don't need your condescending, racist patronizing. Also, slavery was ended in England without a war and could have ended here without one too. The war was not over slavery, as Lincoln himself stated very clearly, when he wrote that if he could "preserve the Union" by abolishing slavery or by keeping slavery he would. The war was over secession and secession was over trade, taxes, and yes, slavery too. That war was completely unnecessary and slavery would have been ultimately abolished in these United States or in the United States AND the Confederate States without it just as it had been in England.
Albertus Magnus| 6.12.12 @ 11:23AM
The point of the essay is not when "big guvmint" began (big government has been with humans throughout recorded history; check out some Roman history for starters) but the fact that WE have it NOW! And "big guvmint" is being pushed heavily by YOUR heroes in the Democrat Party.
Before you start crediting "big guvmint" for ending slavery, remember that big governments throughout history were the biggest promoters of slavery. Abolition was a grass-roots movement and "big guvmint" had to be dragged into it kicking and screaming.
Lastly, your asinine remark about Dr. Sowell "picking cotton" is uncalled for, rude, insulting, and completely false. You are one sick puppy.
Fast and Curious| 6.12.12 @ 11:36AM
He's a little boy. Jumping up and down for attention. Best to ignore and extinguish the behavior rather than rewarding it with more attention.
Ryan| 6.13.12 @ 8:30AM
Several things.
One, you're right that slavery would likely have gone out of existence without a war. It would have taken another half-generation or so - it was becoming economically inviable.
Two, if slavery was NOT an issue, the war would not have been fought. People had come to blows over slavery before, within states. The South was right about the principle of states' rights, but wrong about the specific right to which it was applied.
Bill84728| 6.12.12 @ 12:07PM
I doubt very much if the Confederate States of America, whose troops fired the first shots of the Civil War on the ship Star of the West and later Fort Sumter, would identify itself with "Big Guvmint."
Truth to Power| 6.12.12 @ 10:38AM
Does Tom Sowell owe everything to our modern day fascists and should he just shut up while they funnel money off to their friends? I don't think so. You have a bunch of true believers in Detroit, Mr B. Save this silliness for them.
Brooksifier | 6.12.12 @ 10:51AM
You were convincing in the '80s- but no longer. Now, why is that? Would you like three guesses?
What do you think has changed?
Why do you think it changed? And give a complete answer; not merely "those statists"; that would be a libertopian reply, not a conservative one.
Truth to Power| 6.12.12 @ 11:07AM
You were convincing in the 20's. Now you look like a crook.
Albertus Magnus| 6.12.12 @ 11:25AM
Brooks was never convincing.
CJW| 6.12.12 @ 12:15PM
Brooks,
You have a different name but still the same old idiotic Alan Brooks.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 3:15PM
The term is fascist. Period. It's even shorter than "socialist". We just need to make people understand what fascism is and why it's on the left.
Bob K| 6.12.12 @ 7:47PM
If you want to know what Fascism is and who it applied to read about it in the great Historian John Lukacs's essay "DEMOCRACY AND POPULISM." At page 116. It began with Mussolini.
This book was recently published in 2005. You will also find in it that Germany's National Socialism was not Fascism. At page 131.
You will also find out how the term "Fascism" came to be used against German National Socialism in the 1930's. p. 117. It was ordered by Stalin to be used. The term "National Socialism" was forbidden to be used in Soviet Russia or by Communists world wide because Stalin feared it would be confused with Russian National Socialism as Stalin came to believe that National Socialism was more applicable to his Russia than the term International Socialism was.
Also from p. 117 this quotation from Professor Lukacs: ".....the history of ideas (indeed, of all human thought) is inseparable from the history of words."
JD| 6.13.12 @ 11:56AM
I like that last quote.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.12.12 @ 7:03AM
Great essay!
TLP| 6.12.12 @ 9:18AM
He's a Muslim Marxist.
Just like his Daddy.
MK48| 6.12.12 @ 11:00AM
Definition of a Liberal......is a communist with a college education thinking negro thoughts.
J. Depp
Appleby| 6.12.12 @ 7:17AM
The hallmark cry of the teenager is "You're Not The Boss of Me!" which signals that, regardless of whether what you want him to do is good for him or bad for him, he's not going to do it as long as doing it would make you happy.
Obama is at heart a teenager, sticking to what doesn't work and in fact is harmful because adults want him to stop doing it.
There's a branch of psychology that says a person who has suffered trauma at a certain age is unable to develop beyond that point until he has faced and dealt with that trauma. Apparently Obama is still dealing with something major that happened to him when he was around 15 years old, and thus what we have is a rampaging teenager with the keys to the family Porsche.
Von Mises Jr| 6.12.12 @ 7:31AM
Dr. Sowell is spot on in his general depiction of Obama as a fascist. He has fascist control of the banks through TARP and Dodd Frank. He has fascist control of health care through ObamaCare, although it leads to more traditional socialism when the insurance companies and hospitals fail. The left has fascist control of the MSM.
But my hero, Von Mises (and I am sure one of Dr. Sowell's mentors) taught in "Socialism" that when Marxism and other strains of socialism failed, fascism was invented and portrayed as the "Third Way." But Mises argued that ownership of the means of production versus control of the private sector was a distinction without a difference. Dr. Sowell is quoting Von Mises in his description of the "crony capitalism" game of blaming capitalism and corporations for the failures of central planning.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 3:28PM
Spot on. One could add communism to the mix as well. They're three names for the same system, with varying degrees of honesty. Communists are the most honest - they admit that their government runs everything. Socialists are less honest - they say that people still have private property, despite leaving them no choice in how to use it. Fascists are the most dishonest - they claim that the private sector owns everything, and that government imposes only "rules", when in fact those rules might effect as much state control as some implementations of communism.
Obviously, the "success" of these systems follows this ordering, where the less honest are more successful. Success here means simply "staying in power", not prosperity for the society.
Von Mises Jr| 6.12.12 @ 7:31AM
But I would also add that neither Obama nor socialism is pure in form. I would argue that takeover of the student loan program and creating a housing cabal through Fannie, Freddie, HUD and GMAC is more towards pure socialism. While Fannie and Freddie stock are sold on the exchange, FNM.F is $0.20 versus an all time high of $66 and FMCC is $0.26 versus and all time high of $74 range. They are subsidized by continuing bailouts and are nominally private at best.
Also you had Chrysler and GM bailouts that funded the union pension and benefits at the expense of 70% of the bond holder's wealth. This seems like syndicalism; at least until the union sold the stock it got for nothing in the takeover.
And you have the public sector unions that have functioned much like Guild Socialism during serfdom. During Guild Socialism, trades were hereditary. Today, jobs as teachers, cops and firemen are selected by ideology. You must survive the teacher's college or police academy and a few years of to achieve tenure in order to become a full fledged member of the guild. If you slip up and advocate capitalism during your training, you are out.
JimH| 6.12.12 @ 8:06AM
VM, you and I have been pointing out here that the O’s policies are more fascist than socialist, at least by traditional definitions. A problem with this term is that the left uses it as a pejorative for anything conservative or patriotic and for the right the term conjures images of ultra-nationalistic militarism. O’s fascism is of a trans-national globalist nature. I don’t think that his ambitions are as lofty as Hitler or Mussolini. I think he more in the way of someone like Juan Peron writ large. This also allows Michelle to play the role of Evita. While possibly not as specific as other terms, the word Statist is an accurate term.
Von Mises Jr| 6.12.12 @ 8:42AM
JimH, the problem with language is that we allow the left to pervert the meaning of words. The answer is not to find a new word, but to re-enforce the original definition of the word.
Von Mises advocated division of labor and free trade as the origin of society. He taught that central planning always results in misery and promulgates war. Hayek, his pupil, wrote "Socialism and War" that explained that socialist always revert to war to implement a war (centrally planned) economy, and then say it worked so well during war, we need to have a planned economy in peacetime.
Fascism was always a leftist, socialist phenomenon. Hitler had universal health care, green energy, MSM propaganda, central planning and totalitarianism. It was no different than Lenin or Mao except they tell us they don't own, but only control the markets. That is like saying we never had slavery in America because we only controlled the slaves with whips and really couldn't own a person.
But statism is different. If you read "Ameritopia" by Levin, Plato's "The Republic," More's "Utopia" and Marxism all look for Philosopher Kings, enlightened Princes or Nietzsche "Supermen." Hobbes "Leviathan" is the statist program with bureaucrats, IPAB-like Boards and EPA-like Administrators. So we get Utopians leading the DNC and statist running the GOP. After we get rid of the Utopian's "The One," the "messiah" (who is yet to lower the sea levels), then we must get rid of the Republicans "Leviathan."
Purp| 6.12.12 @ 10:31AM
Germany had Universal Healthcare since the late 1800's, it was not invented by Hitler. Neither was propaganda, although he wielded it to tremendous effect. Green energy? That's news. Moreover, many of Hitler's economic successes were actually started by his predecessors. He simply took the credit for them.
Fascism is associated with Socialism only because Hitler wanted to appeal to the Social Democrats and other parties in the Weimar Republic of Germany to make his takeover of the government more easily accomplished. Making Krupp Werks and IG Farben even richer by government fiat is akin to Corporatism, or Fascism by another name, which is what is occurring in the United States today. All we need is the Totalitarianism to make fascism complete.
Von Mises Jr| 6.12.12 @ 11:14AM
Jefferson, I know you were annoyed and declared victory since I did not respond to your nonsense yesterday. But I did a charity dinner for our Priest's 40th Anniversary of his Ordination and helped sponsor a presentation on the infringements of freedom of conscience from the PPACA that took about a dozen hours of my time in the last two days.
So quite frankly, I really don't have time for your bullshit. Mental masturbation with reverse causation proves nothing and is a waste of my time. So why don't you get a real job or do some charities work that helps people, Mr. Liberal? Isn't it amazing that the people who call themselves liberals are the most selfish and greedy of all?
Purp| 6.12.12 @ 2:28PM
Annoyed, no. Victory, yes. Whether you respond or not is immaterial to me. Since you can't respond and hide behind the veneer of your oh-so-important-life, a non-response is actually a response. You can't refute facts, and I can understand that.
When you start professing your philosophical, psychobabble bullshit, you may THINK you are oh so clever, but your conversation devolve into gobbledegook that has no bearing on anyone's life - unless you live in some Ivory Tower of Babble somewhere. Since most people don't live in an Ivory Tower, your pronouncements are basically useless theoretical drivel that does nothing to put food on the table or money in the bank.
Moreover, following your advice would destroy America as we know her. How sad.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 3:31PM
It looks like he's just too smart for you, that's all.
Riff Raff| 6.12.12 @ 5:09PM
Is that dhimm-bulb "purp" still here? Pathetic.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.12.12 @ 10:31AM
Much of the fascist program derived from Haeckel and the German Monist League. For a good book on the subject, see Daniel Gasman's *The Scientific Origins of National Socialism*, 2004.
Statism, Darwinism, and anti-Christianity were common traits of fascist movements.
Statism of course was directed against classical liberal views of limited government, and Christianity was seen as supporting universalism (rather than volkish concreteness). Darwinism was used to support racialist conceptions, though not all fascists were racialists, nor were all Darwinists fascists or racists.
It's too bad Mises and Hayek adopted the fundamental Darwinist assumptions of Haeckel, et al. It greatly weakened their case for classical liberalism and free economies.
Von Mises Jr| 6.12.12 @ 11:07AM
I appreciate your always interesting and detailed comments, Vern.
I am currently reading Hannah Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism." It discusses the origins of Anti-Semitism, Imperialism and Totalitarianism leading up to the Nazi Movement. I have about (35) unread books on my shelf focused on economics, philosophy, classical liberal ideas that influenced the Founders, as well as revolution/Islamist terror. Yet you always have interesting data and references.
You cite fascism as an offshoot of Haeckel that was adopted by Von Mises and Hayek. But after reading a dozen books by the latter two economists, I am not sure I see the connection to fascism. I draw the opposite conclusion. Perhaps you can clarify your progression to connect the Austrian School with what appears to be diametrically opposed fascist ideologies?
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.12.12 @ 3:42PM
No, Mises and Hayek didn't adapt facism, but fought against it. However, they accepted the Darwinist assumptions behind much of Progressivism, fascism, and Nazism.
CJW| 6.12.12 @ 12:20PM
Obama is creating a new form of fascism and socialism. With the laws and regulations he is forcing companies to act as he wants to redistribute money in the form of benefits. Except for GM, the government does not own companies, but with all the laws/regs it is not necessary to own them. It may be a distinction without a difference because to redistribute you must have a powerful government to impose the distribution as to who pays and who receives benefits.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 3:51PM
That is not a new form of anything. It is and always has been fascism. That's the point of the article.
Nancy in NC| 6.12.12 @ 7:39AM
I love Dr. Sowell's description of Obummer. He would hate being called a Fascist. I think he rather enjoys being called a socialist...it fits with his so called social justice agenda. We know however he cares little about justice for anyone.
Buzz| 6.12.12 @ 8:36AM
"But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production...."
What do you think AGW/Cap and Trade is all about? It's a blatant attempt to control the means of production on a global scale. Just as Obamacare is the socialist means to establish absolute control of our society.
"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine." Ronald Reagan
Ryan| 6.12.12 @ 8:39AM
The more I look at it, the more I see it as a mixture of both the socialist and fascist animals.
I think that there are two sides using each other here. One side is Obama - who definitely is showing a LOT of socialist tendencies, even if he is not embracing the term.
The other side is the corporatism - large companies using their stroke with the government to use taxpayer dollars to prop up bad business practices, and deny the general citizenry of a true free market.
It's both sides working together, to the detriment of us all. Obama is getting his socialist-style goals accomplished (to a point), and corporatists (I refuse to use the term crony capitalism, as it has nothing to do with real capitalism) are getting their market control, protection from fraud, and monopolies on our backs.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 3:56PM
The combination you refer to is textbook fascism.
When government meddles in business to the degree that ours does, it doesn't just invite business to meddle in government; it REQUIRES it. Businesses that don't lobby for subsidies and regulatory privilege cannot compete with those that do - not in an environment where the government's influence is so strong. Look at wind power - the subsidy is equal to the entire cost of production of equivalent coal power!
People who want to hate businesses will blame them for their participation in this scheme (and of course, the idea that conservatism requires holding business blameless is a common liberal lie). But business really doesn't have much of a choice. This is the game - they have to play it or lose to those that do.
Recall the character Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged. He thought he could ignore the collectivist nonsense in Washington and just focus on building his business. He was wrong - the collectivists destroyed his business because he failed to play their game. Modern business leaders learn from this example. They learn to play the game.
Stuart Koehl| 6.12.12 @ 8:58AM
Those who have read my comments concerning Obama's economic policies will realize I said this first, and quite a while ago, too. Nice to have some validation.
Purp| 6.12.12 @ 10:20AM
"What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands." - What a bunch of bull. Not government control, but government incentives. If you don't like that - talk to Alexander Hamilton who, in his treatise on Manufactures, outlines Industrial policy for the United States. Yes, picking winners and losers - for the betterment of the country. And, he didn't do so badly. We followed his policy for 200 years, until Senile Reagan won election, and it's been downhill ever since for the U.S.
"That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector." - Since the founders were all of the landed gentry, and were the only ones that could vote at the time, I guess that is right. Government incentives for private sector to take risks. Some win, some lose. And, that IS capitalism.
The partnership between government and business has always promoted growth in the economy. It's a matter of where that growth occurs - to the upper class, such as in Mercantile Britain in the 1700's or to the middle class as in Post-WWII America.
As we've lost that partnership, we're losing the middle class.
Obama wants to re-establish that partnership for the betterment of all, not just the upper class.
Truth to Power| 6.12.12 @ 10:31AM
The middle class is being sold off to the big O's money bundlers. This is what fascism is always about in the end, payoffs to friends that are called "investments".
Peppermint Tea | 6.12.12 @ 10:50AM
Obama wants betterment of the middle class?
In case you haven't heard, the net worth of the middle class has shrunk by 30 percent in 4 years, while the national debt per person has increased to MORE THAN their net worth.
Be truthful; Obama want more money and perks (no betterment) of the people who aren't skilled, stable, or serious. He wishes Michelle would go down "all the way." He wishes the conservatives would be more civil. He want America to s**k his c**k.
Purp| 6.12.12 @ 11:03AM
Yes, yes, i read the same article and it was 3 years and from 2007 to 2010. Which is when the economy started turning around from the Great Depression II. What we really need to know is what has happened since. 4.3 million new private sector jobs, but 60o thousand loss of public sector jobs, the government is shrinking (which was not the case for Reagan, and the Bush twins for their minor recessions).
Nothing's perfect, but it's better than when he came into office. By far better.
Truth to Power| 6.12.12 @ 11:12AM
Spoken like a person with massive credit card debt admiring all the things he bought. The big O's false party is over.
Ryan| 6.12.12 @ 11:40AM
How, then, is the massive loss of wealth explained in the past few years?
Is it better for government to take from net earners and give to those who do not earn, or to simplify the process to entering the workforce?
Do government workers add value to an economy? If so, how?
Purp| 6.12.12 @ 2:35PM
Do government workers get a paycheck? Yes. Do they spend money? Yes. It's called circulation of money and it helps the economy.
Government work does not equal freeloader. So that's a red herring.
What the article was talking about was the massive loss of wealth for the middle class. The upper class lost also in 2007-2009, but they have come back gangbusters. Why not the middle class? One thought is that a huge portion of a middle class families wealth is tied up in their house and we all know that housing is just starting to turn around. TARP was a failure, but it's the best Bush could muster at the time. He tried, but failed. Obama couldn't or wouldn't do more with a recalcitrant Republican Senate and Blue Dogs after the Recovery Act, and Healthcare passed, and the House Republicans couldn't care less now. So here we are.
Truth to Power| 6.12.12 @ 2:56PM
It is striking that Purp doesn't seem to realize that government functions exist as a result of private productive activity. When that is over regulated, discouraged and reduced as we have seen in the last four years then the consequence of inventing unnecessary government jobs is unsustainable debt. It is a scam that is coming to an end in Europe and America.
Purp| 6.12.12 @ 9:09PM
I hope you remember that when your house is on fire or you are burglarized that you are calling on unnecessary government workers. Let's also hope you remember that when you want the border controlled, it's those useless freeloaders that are putting their lives at risk helping to protect you. And, I unbelievably have to hope your remember your disgusting attitude if you are ever robbed or burglarized and have to call on those useless freeloading police. You really are a sick, anti-American, unpatriotic boob.
I should also remind you that you have thrown all teachers, the Armed Forces, nurses all of them into the trash pile too. That is an appalling stupid thing to do. Your side needs to clean out your brains and put something back in there.
Truth to Power| 6.12.12 @ 10:29PM
Nice argument. We can't pay for it but let me name some things that maybe you want so you will approve giving mass big bucks to Democratic allies. The same lame arguments were used in the blue state of Wisconsin. The first thing that happened that costs were cut without losing vital services. Second, you had your sad sack butt handed to you. You are one stinky corrupt dude. My firemen, policemen and teachers are hired at the state and local level. I pay state and local taxes for such things. Mailing my money to Washington to payoff the big O's gay money bundlers doesn't figure in providing local services. It just encourages waste at the state and local level. Thanks but no thanks. What an idiot! We will show you where the waste is in January.
Ryan| 6.13.12 @ 8:31AM
Nice hyperbole, and lumping in honorable professions (police and fire) with useless bureaucrats. We're not talking about essential services...why are you?
Ryan| 6.12.12 @ 3:12PM
Money circulation is NOT productivity - it's actually a loss (mostly by lost energy, in a sense). It's energy that is unproductive - producing no good nor service which adds value.
"Busy-work" IS freeloading - we may as well just give someone a check, as they are burning resources being "busy."
It's bad economics, is what it is.
Purp| 6.12.12 @ 9:11PM
What an idiot - police, fire, teachers, nurses, the Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, CIA, FBI you classify them all as "freeloaders"? You're an appalling anti-American.
Economists don't agree with you when the economy is hurting, btw - but you wouldn't know that would you?
JD| 6.12.12 @ 3:32PM
What Purp describes is exactly what the Left derides as "trickle down" - the process of money given to some percolating to others to the benefit of society. Liberals use the term "trickle down" to condemn conservatives, when in fact only liberals believe in it.
Purp| 6.12.12 @ 9:12PM
Now that is twisted logic, isn't it? Amazingly - stupid.
George S| 6.12.12 @ 3:47PM
Spending money does not grow an economy; only the exchanging of labor makes that happen. The labor must be mutually beneficial... again, if you pay me to dig a hole in your yard and fill it back up you do not gain anything. I, meanwhile, was paid by you for my work. This is no different than you handing me money for doing nothing -- since the dug hole disappeared and you are right back to where you started -- and I get to spend that money instead of you.
Now, when we pay public employees for their work, we expect something in return. However, a lot of "public service" work is equivalent to digging holes we do not need. Check the roster at any government agency for those who get to stay home during snow storms because they are "non-essential".
Purp| 6.12.12 @ 9:18PM
OMG what a specious argument. Fire, police, teachers, the Armed Forces, FBI, CIA, NSA, nurses, streets and sanitation workers, postmen, all are doing useless work? Do you know the % of government workers that do this work? You get plenty in return for their labor and it's disgusting you begrudge them their salaries.
BTW - non-essential does not mean useless, now does it? What an elitist, condescending attitude. Otherwise, you and everyone else on this site is useless too, since you aren't "essential". I am essential, or you all would get away with believing all your crap that you really think is sooooo true what made America great. Your party is destroying America and you are happy to help them - it's amazingly stupid.
Ryan| 6.13.12 @ 8:36AM
You're setting up a strawman, pretending that we mean those categories you listed. What we're talking about is NOT defense, or police, or fire. What we're talking about is those idiotic government bureaucrats who add no value to anything, who don't protect anything, and who just take money from taxpayers and don't produce anything but extra paperwork and regulations that we don't need.
George S| 6.12.12 @ 3:47PM
Another fallacy is that the "wealthy" are the same people (as well as those on minimum wage). For your blanket statement to stand, you have to show that the same people who lost wealth are the same ones who had it come back. That is, no new wealthy from the middle class were promoted.
The wealth of the middle class is tied up in overvalues houses that people themselves raised in bidding against Fannie Mae sponsored mortgages to dead beats. That is the only worldly explanation why, for the first time ever, the price of housing exceeded the inflation index. Exceeded by seven times, no less. That can only happen with GOVERNMENT intervention -- passing out mortgage qualifications when the free market would never have done it on their own ('cause they are racists, you see).
The middle class is stagnating because their employers are spending a lot of money on regulatory compliance costs. That means lawyers, accounting, human resources, lobbyists, consultants -- a lot of people who do not produce anything but are being paid from the work you do just to keep the federal government at bay. If you ran a business, you know what I mean.
Ryan| 6.12.12 @ 4:37PM
Actually, the government's problem is the implicit and explicit guarantees given through Fannie and Freddie. The ratings agencies are mostly private.
Purp| 6.12.12 @ 9:26PM
I have run a business, and I know regulations are a pain - but it is the law, so you do it and stop griping. You're competing against all others that have to do the same thing, so stop your sniping. If you ran a business, you would know that too.
You would also know that the last thing you do is hire new people unless you have so many customers you have to put on more staff to serve them. When you don't have customers, you cut back. Investors can invest all they want, but without customers, investing goes nowhere. You would know that too. The customer is always right - not the investor, not the" job creator". The true job creator is the customer. Giving Americans jobs, however done, jumpstarts the economic engine, it primes the pump, creates more customers for businesses, until the private sector can take over the economic engine completely. Lawyers, accountants, etc. are all important to a varying degree to businesses. If you ran a business, you would know all this. IF.
Truth to Power| 6.12.12 @ 10:31PM
You are painfully stupid but entertaining.
Ryan| 6.13.12 @ 8:34AM
The problem you run into is what if the government is giving money to customers of your competitor...and not to yours?
It's not the government's job to encourage economic activity. Let them get out of the way so the rest of us can, and have honest prices on our products.
WillyP | 6.13.12 @ 9:01PM
Ok, purp, I understand that if you give a company money they pay employees and employees go out an spend money... but where did that money come from? Thuis is what you are missing... the money has to come from somewhere. Some of it comes from taxpayers, who then have less to spend themselves. Net benefit to the economy, zero. Some of it comes from borrowing, which adds to national debt and lets not forget interest. Net benifit to the economy, less than zero. And so it gets passed on to our children, or if you don't have kids, the future generations who will have to support you.
Ryan| 6.12.12 @ 11:23AM
We also had no income tax during a great portion of that time. And a Gold Standard.
If you're going to argue for Hamilton, you may want to consider other issues that you don't agree with, either...
CJW| 6.12.12 @ 3:06PM
Purp
What exactly is this partnership between government and business? Care to be specific,if you can?
The only incentives a government can give to a business or anyone else is to reduce taxes or give them money, like Obama giving 500 million to his campaign contributors at Solyndra. This means the government has to take my money and give it to others. This does not matter to you since you do not work and pay taxes.
How exactly did Reagan end this so called partnership? Was there a partnership agreement ?
You make general statments not backed up by facts or reality, like a true lefty.
Purp| 6.12.12 @ 9:31PM
Are you that oblivious to American history? Did you miss the Transatlantic shipping in the 19th Century/ Did you miss the Transcontinental Railroad later? How about the Interstate Highway in the 20th Century? All were unconstitutional btw. Should we dismantle them because YOU think they are not worth it?
CJW| 6.12.12 @ 9:49PM
Purpie,
Try reading the questions before exploding into your programmed rants.
What do you mean by transatlantic shipping?
The government always builds roads, moron, how is that a partnership between government and business? Do you know what a partnership means? The government piad contractors to build roads, that is not a partnership.
What court decision held these to be unconstitutional?
C'mon Man!| 6.12.12 @ 3:24PM
Ah yes, the good times under Carter that Reagan ruined - gas lines, hyper inflation, huge unemployment, malaise, Purp, you convinced me, let's go full boat on Obama.
Wow, you really are stupid.
spike59| 6.18.12 @ 5:56AM
sometimes i wonder if Purp is really EJ Dionne; both worship big government, and neither has an IQ above room temperature
The Big E| 6.12.12 @ 11:13AM
Dr. Sowell,
I agree completely that Obama's economic policies are fascist more than socialist, but I think there is a better word to decribe his policies, whether economic or otherwise - racketeering.
He takes taxpayer dollars and funnels them to his political friends in companies like GE or Solyndra, who then funnel a portion of those funds back to Obama through campaign donations and the like. That's called money laundering.
He uses the power of the federal government, from IRS to FBI to SEC to intimidate those who question or oppose him, and to extract their support out of fear of what the federal government will do to them next. That's called extortion.
I'm reasonably confident that I could think of a few more such examples if I devoted some time to it.
The point is, we can call his economic policies what we like, but in reality, what he's doing is running the largest organized crime syndicate in the country.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 3:34PM
And the name for such a system is "fascism". You might as well make the same charges about communism, which has always collapsed in corruption, but as we know, you can't separate the communism from the corruption that plagues it - corruption is an inevitable part of communism. So too, the "racketeering" you describe is an inevitable part of fascism.
RAM| 6.12.12 @ 11:20AM
Now, Obama wants to discredit corporations, so he wants to dominate them in a fascist manner to make them look bad. Later, Obama wants to push towards socialism. See how this plays out in health care. Step one is to slime the insurance companies through ridiculous mandates and red tape. Step two is to make us want relief in the form of an exclusively single-payer system.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 3:35PM
Actually getting socialism would be a bad thing for the Left, and the smart leftists know this. They need their private sector scapegoats to remain. They will eventually get their socialism because most leftists are not smart leftists, and the masses will gain control of party policy. But they would be better off sticking with fascism.
EclecticHorzman| 6.12.12 @ 11:30AM
We can go back and forth forever on what label sticks best, but none of it will matter if we cannot communicate the core problem and the path to solving the problem to those who are willing to listen. The issue is not academic but actual, and if we want to put a stop to what Obama is doing we need to speak to it accordingly.
Ryan| 6.12.12 @ 11:44AM
I think this is the key. We can't get into the debate over the terminology, but the concept of what is going on - that government is distributing money to failed enterprises.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 3:37PM
How can you debate concepts without words? We need words - words with meanings - to have any sort of conversation. That's why the modern liberal tactic of changing the meanings of words is so dangerous, and why it must be fought.
Ryan| 6.12.12 @ 4:36PM
I partially agree, but I wonder if the problem here is whether or not the word meaning has already changed. Should we be arguing over the term used, or the idea behind the term first?
JD| 6.12.12 @ 5:34PM
If we choose another term, they will distort it as well. We need to draw a line.
Timely Renewed | 6.12.12 @ 12:07PM
"Statist" is probably the most comprehensive term. To stop the judicial tyranny of the "living Constitution" school we should amend the Constitution to restore it to its original meanings, including an amendment restricting judges to following the original plain meaning of the constitutional or statutory language and making it an impeachable offense if they don't. To accomplish this we first need to reform the amendment process to give the States the ability to initiate constitutional amendments without the cumbersome and unnecessary convention now required by Article V. With this power, grassroots constitutionalists can restore the Constitution's original meaning and end our decline into statism. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
JD| 6.12.12 @ 3:37PM
You request no rules which don't already exist. What good will new rules do if they are enforced no more than the existing ones?
Bill84728| 6.12.12 @ 12:11PM
I don't recall Jonah Goldberg giving much historical justification for the claim that fascism was originally seen as a manifestation of leftist thinking in Liberal Fascism.
I would really like it if someone would provide that historical gloss on Mr. Sowell's statement. I too think fascism is more leftist than rightist, but I don't know any historical evidence to say that, and would LOVE to have that ammo in my intellectual arsenal so as to address the lefties I occasionally debate things with because they all assume, more or less as a matter of course, that fascism is a right-wing phenomenon.
Simon Templar| 6.12.12 @ 12:43PM
Bill,
Did you read the book?
Read it again, if so.
The word itself is Italian for "bundle", was conceptually and practically developed by former communist, Mussolini and implemented in Italy during his dictatorship. There have been many political derivatives and strains of socialism and socialistic thought since Marx defined it in the Communist Manifesto and Das Capital. Lenin himself strayed from the 'great' Marx developing his own brand of Leninism and Bolshevism. Stalin was the first to brand his enemies 'fascist', that is is former socialist allies that broke with him. The 'Progressive' Left in the US started using the term in the same manner and created this false distinction. It is all clearly described in the book.
The concept of right wing and left wing itself is a false dichotomy and the paradigm applied to European politics and political thought can not be a placed over American political dynamic as it does not fit both historically and substantively.
The term is being misused by your lefty friends and is another false premise by which they begin an argument. Dictatorship and Statism is a European idea, not an America conservative concept. Our founding fathers rebelled against monarchical tyranny and developed a new political philosophy and form of self government, a democratic Republic.
Simon Templar| 6.12.12 @ 12:44PM
Continued......
Europe destroyed its monarchies and replaced them with socialistic statist governments of various forms from Fabian socialism to communistic experiments. Included in this was national socialism and fascism, offshoots of European Left wing thought. Their political history took a completely different track.
Simon Templar| 6.12.12 @ 12:58PM
By the way, Mussolini still considered himself a devout socialist. The term itself is a misnomer as socialism is a stage as described by Marx between capitalism and the ultimate, the communist paradise.
Hey, what would you expect from a lazy rich kid and bum (Marx) that had a doctorate of philosophy who thought he could write a book on politics and economics that knew nothing about either of them nor had any credentials in either?
Riff Raff| 6.12.12 @ 5:18PM
I agree with everything you wrote. I would only add that "fascism" is a modern word coined by Mussolini and derived from the ancient Latin word "fasces." The fasces was a "bundle" of rods lashed to the long handle of a two-headed axe, and was carried by the lictors, or escorts for high public officials. The fasces represented the power of the State to kill (the axe) and to torture (the rods) on site and on demand, and the word was employed by Mussolini to represent a return to the glories of the Roman Empire with himself as "Imperator."
Simon Templar| 6.12.12 @ 6:01PM
You are correct, sir! I mentioned the bundle meaning as well; you gave a very good and historical definition. It has also come to mean, in a political sense, the bundling of all institutions into a single unit under the direction of the state.
Riff Raff| 6.12.12 @ 6:45PM
Agreed, and this is where the problem lies, the supremacy of centralized government, controlling all aspects of life. This by definition and design means the suppression of freedom. But it does make great spectacle of the "great leader". Big government has always been about the ego and narcissism of the one who would be that "great leader."
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 10:50AM
Well, but if modern-day political characterizations can be forced on civilizations that had nothing to do with that sort of thing, the Roman Empire was pretty conventionally right-wing, don't you think?
Riff Raff| 6.13.12 @ 4:52PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "had nothing to do with that sort of thing." The Roman Empire was all about centralized power, ego, corruption, and wealth acquired through plunder and taxes. Roman civil wars were fought by competing families over power, and sometimes over power vs. freedom. By old-standard definitions, yes, Rome was what one might call "right-wing." But those definitions have changed. "Liberal" used to mean toward freedom, but today "liberals" are all for centralized government, confiscation of wealth, denial of private property, and the celebration of ego. Just look around you. "Conservatives" today, or what CNN calls "the right wing," want nothing to do with centralized power and want individual freedom. Rome is a perfect historical lesson on the pitfalls of centralized government and those lessons are quite applicable today. Politics has really not changed much in 2000 years.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 3:45PM
Right-wing and left-wing are a false dichotomy? Really? You mean those advocates of bigger government who condemn their opponents for somehow simultaneously advocating anarchy and tyranny are guilty of logical fallacy? Shocking!
Look at history's swings. In ancient days there was anarchy, which suffered from anarchy's flaws. Governments grew to combat those flaws, but introduced the opposing flaws of tyranny. The move to restrain government in favor of individual rights was called "liberalism" in those days, and we still call people like the framers of the Constitution "classical liberals".
The fallacy was introduced when 19th Century heirs of the classical liberals came to see that the utopia they expected their ideals to build failed to materialize, and began to pursue stopping other sources of oppression besides government. Soon they were so obsessed with private oppression that they forgot that government even could oppress, and came to think of government as the savior from oppression. That thinking continues to this day. However, these people have tried to retain for themselves the title "liberal", despite their reversal of position.
Now we have liberals who are the opposite of classical liberals, and we don't even know what to call their opponents. The freely interchange their roles and histories in conversation. That is why their opponents can be condemned for being on both ends of the spectrum - anarchy and tyranny - at the same time.
Simon Templar| 6.12.12 @ 6:16PM
Not sure if you are agreeing with me or not, but you make some very salient and important points.
Yes, our modern progressive liberals have indeed taken it upon themselves to revise history, set the language of political discourse and definition, as well as create false paradigms! This is how they have advanced most of their ridiculous ideas and hidden their true agendas.
Look around and see so many who do not have a clue as to not only where and from whom they have gotten their world views and supposed values and beliefs let alone have any understanding of the history and agendas behind those ideas.
There are only two different and opposing philosophies that have been in conflict since the beginning of time. Freedom, liberty and the right of people to govern themselves on the one side of history and the tyranny of elites imposing rule and oppression on the other side. There is your left and right, if one needs one.
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 10:40AM
I was thinking of a vetting more like the analysis contained in Main Trends in Marxism by Leszek Kolakowski, more than a kind of socio-political claim based on what Mussolini's original politics were. After all, David Horowitz began as a hard leftist but his ideas today are hardly left-wing, so the Goldberg analysis only has limited value.
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 10:42AM
The book is Main Currents of Marxism. My error.
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 10:46AM
Hannah Arendt was interested in the underpinnings of fascism. Maybe her book The Origins of Totalitarianism would have what I'm looking for.
Who Knows?| 6.12.12 @ 1:55PM
Words matter.
Ponder these.
Can one eat the word “food”? No, it’s what it symbolizes that “matters”, that IS matter.
Humanity is so deeply buried in centuries of words that, like peeling an onion, getting to the core truth is practically unheard of.
Physics can serve---there is a primeval “war” between order and chaos. Humans are ordering “machines”, different from animals and lower entities, who only fight over the naturally growing and dying chemical elements.
I continue to think the best cutting-to-the-core pair of words with which to, literally in the gut, get people’s attention, are---
Maker and Taker.
There’s always a whole lot of making AND taking going on.
Therefore, to simply “box in” any particular action, set of words, idea, and especially a powerful politician like Obama, just decide---“Is this taking or making?”
Obama and his dark side acolytes are simply TAKERS.
Why, he even admits it.
Essentially, then, it comes down to each person choosing whether to, THEMSELVES, be a taker or a maker.
More taking than making is NOW the reality.
Maybe the “OH MY GOD!” realization is happening.
Always love Thomas Sowell!
Hail “The Vision of the Anointed”
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 11:10AM
Personally, I favor A Conflict of Visions.
cicero| 6.12.12 @ 3:13PM
I think we give too much credit to our leftist friends. They go into government b ecause that is where the money is. They work for the redistribution of the nation;s wealth because they get to do the redistributing. Before it gets handed around, they take their cut. They come right out of school, and go into government, because it takes no more talent than being able to convince most of the people that they will give them the other guy's stuff. They never have to actually create anything, or do anything productive. They only need get into a position, and stay there.
That is the code of the beaurocrat - maintain position. But to be truly successful, they have to acquire more and more power. Our president has never created or accomplished anything in his life. But he has been able to get up to the public trough, and elbow his way into the first row. In doing so, he has become ennourmously wealthy. Sure beats working for a living.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 3:49PM
There certainly are some with such sinister motives, but we will not win the debate by treating them all as people with such motives. Instead, we will appear indistinguishable from them, when they accuse all conservatives of being equivalent to the most immoral businessman.
Most liberals believe their own bunk. Many have not created any of the lies that are their platform; they only believe them. Even the creators of lies do not create all the lies. They believe all the lies (created by others) except one, and add a lie of their own in support of an agenda they believe in. Their lie then becomes part of the "truth" that motivates a subsequent liar to add to the collection. None realizes that there is more than one lie in the platform, and each lies because the end justifies the means.
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 11:15AM
They go into government because that is where the power is.
The kind of power that allows them to make a serious effort to realize their utopian visions for society.
The trouble is, their philosophical attitude is that if they make a mistake, they just correct the course and hope that the new course will take them where they want to go. Naturally, the new course is wrong too, and as many times as they try, they can't get us on the true course. They won't admit that the reason is that our human nature simply won't take us there, so they just continue to make the same mistake over and over again, expecting a different result.
It's also why they worship youth over experience, because they believe that a new approach is an improvement over approaches made with the caution of age and experience.
But their political leanings exist because it's power they crave.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 3:16PM
Did I write this article myself? It sure feels like it. I've been harping on these points for years.
Petronius| 6.12.12 @ 3:50PM
Pegging this despot philosophically is moot. The notorious Bill Maher says he is "looking forwards to Obama's Black term." For the Leftist definition of that, look to Ruanda and all of their banditry and murder. This bunch of lowlife has desired a pogrom against the White middle class since Stalin slaughtered the Kulaks. Leftists are tribal savages determined to rid the world of everyone who is not like Them and all cultural manifestations not of Them. They will only be fulfilled and validated in the shedding of Our blood and the acquisition of loot, hence the affinity for Islam. During the Chicago Riots of '68 one of "The 7" responded to the question about what they wanted thus: "A new economic order beginning with US." The late Jim Morrison echoed this in kind. "We want the world. And we want it; NOW!" They are taking it with no regard to law or the Constitution. Those Documents we swore to uphold, protect, and defend, are in as many shreds as the Magna Carta. Words never put a halt to Evil. Case in point. Armed EPA agents confronted a man in his Asheville, NC home over an e-mail. Can you say Geheimstatzpolizzei? Intimidation will escalate to crucifixion.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 4:05PM
You're wrong. Recapturing the meanings of words is paramount. The Left thrives on revisionist history and other misinformation. The simple spreading of the truth is the most effective way to combat it. We must stop letting them redefine words and mis-assign blame and credit.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 4:07PM
Once we get them to stop calling fascism "right-wing", can we get them to stop referring to any and all instances of racism as "far-right"? Or to Muslim theocracies as "extremely conservative"? Like fascism, these are examples of things consistent with the practices of the American Left which that Left erroneously attributes to their rivals instead of to themselves.
Thom| 6.12.12 @ 6:33PM
For reasons demonstrated in many of the comments above, I gave up on academic arguments about the differences one finds in the 31 flavors of what we call “socialism” today a very long time ago. Thomas Sowell is certainly no academic shut-in and would understand my salient point.
Regardless of the flavor of a particular collective they all share certain common tenets and a singular end result given time and resources. Even under Marx’s explicit definition of “socialism” there were transitions from one form of his beloved Bee Hive society to the final destination under “communism”. Everywhere Communism has been tired has resulted in total economic and social calamity along with over 100 million deaths as a byproduct. Everywhere that intermediate “socialism” has been tried has resulted in economic collapse and ruin. That leaves practical “socialism” or Fascism which works with human nature rather than trying to re-invent it. Democracies will vote in Fascism long before they accept what Marx described as this middle “socialism” but in the end the “state” will take from you what you produce and leave you only that which the “state” deems you “need”.
While interesting to discuss at times, the distinctions are truly without a meaningful difference to the victim. What is also important to understand is that “socialism” is not a new concept in practice and did not start with Karl Marx. It is just repackaged for modern audiences.
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 11:05AM
Your point is well taken except that, in the German instance, the attitude of the German power structure under the Nazis was that as long as you obeyed their law, you would be left alone to be whatever you wished to be. In that regard, they were different from the leftists, particularly the Soviets, who demanded that any choice a Soviet made was to be measured against the perceived wishes of the collective. So in that particular regard, the Nazis leant more toward respect for the individual (a typically right-wing attribute) than the Soviets (seen by nearly 100% of everyone as left-wing).
JD| 6.13.12 @ 12:01PM
Right of extreme left is not right, though. You make the same argument for the Germans that Obama makes for America - that you just have to "obey the law". But the law is itself a forcing of collectivism - redistributive taxes, anti-competitive regulations, et al.
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 12:44PM
It's not my point; it was the message of the Nazis: "Do what we say in the areas we control and we'll leave you alone in the other areas." For the Soviets there were no other areas: mankind was collective and that was that.
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 12:47PM
I don't read Obama the same way you do, either. I don't any restrains to his vision of government control. I'm sure Obama has no problem with Mayor Bloomberg's soft drink size ban; if I'm right, Obama's vision of government power is the collective, left-wing one, in which there are no private areas for social beings to left alone.
JD| 6.13.12 @ 4:17PM
I don't see the Nazis as leaving people alone in "other areas". Whatever areas of life they didn't seek to control through government probably got omitted due to lack of time and other activities (that little war thing they started). I'm sure they would have gotten around to them had they survived.
Thom| 6.12.12 @ 8:07PM
The “lie” that Nazism is a “right wing” ideology can be refuted simply by looking at the 1932 German Parliament elections. The Nazis got 33.6% of the vote and Hitler lost to Hindenburg yet Hitler ends up Chancellor and the “Nazis” in control of Germany. From that 10,000,000 men were put under arms which is way beyond the historic % norm for abled bodied military aged personal any population can sustain. How did that happen?
20.7, 17.1 % voted for the Socialist and Communist Parties. The National Party got 8.9 %. The Center 12 %. 7.7% filled in the rest yet 71.4 % voted for some form of “collective” socialist government. If the Nazis were “right wing” and managed to build a coalition of power with those that didn’t vote for them and the “socialists” and the “communists” are left wing where did those people go when Hitler got power and started raising an army like Europe had never seen? Back to Berkley, Cambridge or Brooklyn? The Nazis were a minority party and yet somehow managed to win the support of the majority “socialists” and “communists” coalition else they could not have dominated the way they did and built an armed force the size they did without overwhelming support from the bulk of the population. If the Nazis were the opposites of the “socialist” ideology there is no evidence of that where all three existed and eventually merged in practice.
DRed| 6.12.12 @ 8:55PM
I suppose it depends on what you mean by right wing. If you think right wing means a contemporary american small government conservative, than no, the Nazis were not a right wing party.
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 10:55AM
The mainstream attitude was of "law and order" versus the chaos of revolutionary socialism. Looking at the rise of the Nazis and German totalitarianism from that perspective, the choice of the German was a counter-revolutionary rejection of left-wing politics, and in that sense is clearly right-wing. It was also anti-democratic for the reason that democracies were sustained by the forces of amalgamation of diverse groups ("civilization") while the Germans were brought to worship tribalism and racial purity ("culture").
Theo Prinse| 6.13.12 @ 10:11AM
Thanks for the sharp article Prof. Sowell on the definition of 'left and right' !
In the Netherlands - where freedom fighter mr. Geert Wilders (his recent book: Marked for Death) is right now convening both Chambers of the Staten Generaal to postpone the European Stabilization Mechanism until after the Dutch elections on the 12th of September - the terms 'left and right' are defined by the left.
The Dutch right perceives Mussolini's fascism as right and Hitler’s Nazism as left but then one has to weigh the perceptions of their bygone respective electorates and study Quadragesimo Anno (Latin for “In the 40th Year”) encyclical written by Pope Pius XI, issued 15 May 1931, 40 years after Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, corporatism etc.
1. The Dutch left (multiculturalist Jan Willem Duyvendak) defines 'right' as culturally tradition (??) when the economy is doing fine ... and 'left' as socially economics when in recession.
However man is surrounded by infinity (which is the realm of scientific research) ... moral is finite ...
2. In America 'left and right' is determined by Freedom of Speech (or religion) But moral cannot be defined by science ..
3. From a republican standpoint it is also true that the State's monopoly on violence is a defining term of the right.
The monopoly of violence is one (albeit primal) Freedom of Speech
ObamarStomper| 6.13.12 @ 10:23AM
Liberal Socialism is nothing more than an updated version of Facism and National Socialism. People don't see this, because most are loathe to read HITLER'S BOOK, Mein Kampf. Far being soley a rant against Jews and other minorities, Meim Kampf is a BLUEPRINT for the establishment of a Hitlerist- SOCIAIST nation. Originally, Hitler fully intended to SEIZE all business and industry and place ALL under his National Socialist government. However, he adopted Mussolini's ideas and left ownership alone. However, Hitler DID put lots of money into German industry which allowed him to place a National Socialist Party hack on the Boards of Directors. Thus, Hitler, like Obama, took CONTROL of selected industries, without ANY responsibility for possible failure. Obama is not nearly the Communist (Marxist Socialist) he's made out to be. He's MUCH MORE a Hitlerite! HITLERISM is Obama's blueprint (eventually there will be a reckoning with Whitey too). Not Marxism!
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 11:29AM
There's no doubt that totalitarians have more in common than they have differences, but some totalitarian regimes act from a right-wing perspective and some act from a left-wing one.
For us pragmatic American types, it may be a meaningless issue, after all, totalitarians are totalitarians, aren't they? But a totalitarian system that says if you obey its laws they'll leave you alone is different from a totalitarian system that says all of your decisions and choices are subject to review after the fact.
JD| 6.13.12 @ 11:53AM
And just what is a "right-wing totalitarian"? That's the central question here. The only people who even think there is such a thing as a "right-wing totalitarian" are left-wingers who know that "totalitarian" is a bad word and want to associate it with those on the right.
Many here are arguing that supposed "right-wing totalitarians" are in fact left-wing, and that the true right wing's only potential flaw is trending too far toward anarchy. This gives us sensible definitions of "right" and "left" - left is a move towards totalitarianism, and right is a move towards anarchy. Anarchy and totalitarianism are clearly opposite extremes, so these definitions work well.
Is an over-the-top military state "right-wing"? I say no. Why would it be? The left distorts the common conservative's belief that military is an actual, valid function of government (unlike social welfare) into an over-the-top love of excessive military. I don't want excessive military. I want necessary military. I also want no social welfare. That's why I oppose making proportionate cuts to military and social welfare, which leads the left to mischaracterize me as a lover of excessive military.
JD| 6.13.12 @ 11:56AM
Another reason the left associates left-wing things with the right is that leftists like to lump all their enemies together. They have other enemies on the left, because leftist principles can be used to pursue a variety of ideals. The Middle East is full of totalitarian states that pursue Muslim ideals. The American left calls them "right-wing", even though there's nothing right-wing about them, because the American left hates both them and the right-wing. By lumping all their enemies together, the American left can treat all members of all groups as people who hold all the beliefs of all groups, even though many of these beliefs contradict each other. The American left then points out these contradictions as supposed fallacies and hypocrisies in our beliefs. In truth, they're all straw man arguments.
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 12:30PM
Hannah Arendt defines right-wing totalitarianism and left-wing totalitarianism fairly well, I think. Although she maintains that they are much more similar than different, she can distinguish what appear to be typically right-wing and typically left-wing tendencies in the varieties of totalitarianisms she writes about.
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 12:34PM
I detect in your argument a tendency to assume that there can be no such thing as a right-wing totalitarian state, therefore any state that approaches totalitarianism must, by definition, be a state grounded in left-wing ideology.
I don't think that's true. It's probably some sort of logical error that's long been classified, but I'm not sophisticated in my learnings about logic, so I can't pinpoint it.
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 12:38PM
I mean, the Muslim states are clearly preservative in their thrust, as it's obvious they want to return to the great days of the Caliphates back in the Middle Ages, and the tendency toward that kind of chauvinism (for lack of my thinking of a non-loaded term) is commonly interpreted as right-wing rather than left-wing.
But I know there's no point in continuing to debate this issue. You have your view and I have mine, and no doubt the twain are not going to meet. So I give up. You win.
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 1:33PM
If I may be permitted one last remark: Hannah Arendt makes a distinction between the "totalitarian" and the "authoritarian" regime. Perhaps it's the definition (or the substance of the effect of each) where there's disagreement. Maybe you would agree with one commentator on The Origins of Totalitarianism: "Authoritarian regimes oppress people because they want results. Totalitarian regimes oppress people because they want to mutilate their very sense of being."
But then, maybe the rub is not in that place.
DRed| 6.13.12 @ 1:46PM
American conservatives (for lack of a better term) define right-wing or conservative as meaning that one supports limited government. Therefore, any authoritarian or totalitarian state cannot, by definition, be right-wing or conservative. It's a neat trick, and to be fair, one that I think they've adopted because far too many liberals cry Nazi at the drop of a hat. But it's not very useful because it means you'd describe people like Louis XVI or Franz von Pappen as being left-wing, which makes no sense whatsoever.
Bill84728| 6.13.12 @ 1:55PM
That's very interesting; I hadn't thought of it in that way, but of course you're right about the limited-government-by-nature-not-being-totalitarian thing. It still seems like ducking the heart of the matter, though, but maybe not. I need to digest that idea a bit.
JD| 6.13.12 @ 4:24PM
I made this point earlier. What it means to be right or left has been distorted ever since Marx's era, when those on the left called themselves "liberals", despite classical liberals being a group that moved from totalitarianism to smaller government.
I maintain that there is anarchy on one extreme and totalitarianism on the other, and the most common historical adjectives for these sides are right and left, respectively. The idea of distinguishing flavors of totalitarianism is a subset of these broader categories, and is not particularly applicable to those of us who are not in the totalitarian camp in the first place. I think dialogue is simplified and clarified if we do NOT attempt to assign the label "right-wing" to flavors of totalitarianism, because that creates the problem of distinguishing between "right wing totalitarians" and small-government advocates, who are anti-totalitarians. We'd need separate words for both.
Furthermore, the American left likes to lump small government advocates with totalitarians that they don't like, then accuse their invented allies of taking contradictory positions (by putting the totalitarians' positions together with the small-government positions). I seek language that thwarts this dishonesty.
DRed| 6.13.12 @ 4:46PM
Anarchism was traditionally thought of as a left wing phenomenon. Honestly, the whole debate is hopeless complicated at this point. We should all probably stop using leftwing/rightwing at all. They mean completely different things to different people.
JD| 6.13.12 @ 4:58PM
And that's the point. We can't win debates over our collectivist enemies if we don't have meaningful words to use in conversation. Because they are best recognized today, I advocate the use of "right" with "small government" and "left" with "large government". To those leftists who complain about being lumped together with oppressive governments like North Korea, I say "too bad, you guys started the language conflation game, and it's more accurate than your efforts to mix US with regimes like North Korea, with which we disagree in ideals AND implementation. At least YOU align with them in methodology."
Which brings up another point - small vs big government is not an ideal. It is not an endgame. It is a means of achieving the ideal. The ideals themselves are surprisingly similar, at least as Americans are concerned. For example, we all want economic prosperity; we just disagree as to how to achieve it.
Cubanology | 6.14.12 @ 3:46AM
Let's compare and take a look at Cuba and the Castro Brothers, what are they exactly? Communist, Socialist or Facist? All of the above, wrapped up into one government. Call it whatever you want but it all boils to having the right to own property (Land), having the right to vote, having the freedom of press, having the freedom of speech. When the government has total control of these freedoms, then you are a slave. It doesn't matter really, Communist, Socialist, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Facist and so on. The people are the ones who should control the government because they pay the salaries of government officials. Sitting back and allowing your government to "guide" you will only place you in the back seat. This is what happened in Cuba and look at how the Cuban so-called citizens live. It really wasn't the business or lad owners and hard working people who helped give Fidel Castro the power. No, it was the lazy individuals who were looking for handouts and the idealistic intellectual pompous media magnets who placed him on a pedestal.
We have too many people in the US who actually think that government will resolve every problem for them, that they are their saviors. Obama is a Socialist, just listen to his speeches, he is actually telling you. It seems that many people in the US have given up on themselves and feel that Socialism is "okay." Blind acceptance and the idealistic intellectual pompous media magnets are placing Obama on a pedestal.
Mistral| 6.15.12 @ 12:28PM
Mr Sowell, Socialism does not set out to own all the means of production but certainly it regulates them in such a manner as to control almost all aspects of economic life. Your view of the means of production is very limited. Infrastructure and capital are also part of the equation. Socialism makes some compromises with private capital but uses various mechanisms to control every aspect of national life - political, social, economic and so forth.
Hitler was a socialist and therefore left of centre. He eventually aimed to control every political, economic, social and religious institution once his Nazi state had supreme dominance in Europe, for example, he wanted to install his own pope to control the Catholic Church, industry was geared to the national economy and the media was totally under his control. This is leftism at its most poignant. Frankly speaking, when we make comparisons and contrasts there is little difference between Stalinist Russia and National Socialist Germany except that private ownership was permitted in the latter but little more than a charade.