Azazello1313 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 good op-ed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Not bad until this: Critics on the right accuse the administration of socialism, but its economic approach more closely resembles fascism properly understood — in which the means of production are privately owned but business decisions are centrally made through a policy of dirigisme. Socialism and fascism are incendiary words, tossed about by people who are upset that they have not gotten their way. That does not render them entirely inapplicable. This kind of drivel betrays the complete lack of a proper frame of reference. Socialism and fascism are indeed incendiary words and the examples cited by the commentator have little or nothing to do with real socialism / fascism, thus they are entirely inapplicable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 14, 2011 Author Share Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) This kind of drivel betrays the complete lack of a proper frame of reference. Socialism and fascism are indeed incendiary words and the examples cited by the commentator have little or nothing to do with real socialism / fascism, thus they are entirely inapplicable. I guess it depends how you define "real" socialism and facism. do you define them by their economic characteristics, or by their excesses and abuses? I thought he was pretty even-handed there, but I see your point. I agree they are prejudicial terms, almost always thrown about to inflame rather than explain. I did like his use of the more helpful term, dirigisme. Edited June 14, 2011 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I guess it depends how you define "real" socialism and facism. do you define them by their economic characteristics, or by their excesses and abuses? I thought he was pretty even-handed there, but I see your point. I agree they are prejudicial terms, almost always thrown about to inflame rather than explain. I did like his use of the more helpful term, dirigisme. That's not too far from the inevitable truth. generally designates a mainly capitalist economy with strong economic participation by government. Most modern economies can be characterized as dirigiste to some degree – for instance, state economic action may be exercised through subsidizing research and developing new technologies, or through government procurement, especially military (i.e. a form of mixed economy). China is the clearest example to date. It's a question of degree (and the perception as to whether capitalism is fulfilling or failing the nation). In the 1990s that perception is likely widely divergent from now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.