Leftists, Progressives and Socialists

Leftists, Progressives and Socialists


Prof. Walter E. Williams
Oct. 20, 2010

One of the greatest sources of confusion and deception is the difference between leftists, progressives, socialists, communists and fascists. I thought about this as I caught a glimpse of the Oct. 2 "One Nation" march on Washington. The participants proudly marched with banners, signs and placards reading "Socialists," "Ohio U Democratic Socialists," "International Socialists Organization," "Socialist Party USA," "Build A Socialist Alternative" and other signs expressing support for socialism and communism. They had stands where they sold booklets under the titles of "Marxism and the State," "Communist Manifesto," "Four Marxist Classics," "The Road to Socialism" and similar titles.

The gathering had the support of the AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, stalwarts of the Democratic Party such as Al Sharpton and organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club, and the Children's Defense Fund.

What goes unappreciated is that socialists and communists have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history. You say, "Williams, what in the world are you talking about? Socialists, communists and their fellow travelers care about the little guy in his struggle for a fair shake! They're trying to promote social justice." Let's look at some of the history of socialism and communism.

Nazism is a form of socialism. In fact, Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers' Party. Nazis murdered 20 million of their own people and in nations they captured. The unspeakable acts of Adolf Hitler's Socialist Workers' Party pale in comparison to the horrors committed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and their successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tse-tung and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. The most authoritative tally of history's most murderous regimes is in a book by University of Hawaii's Professor Rudolph J. Rummel, "Death by Government." A wealth of information is provided at his website.

You say, "Williams, isn't it a bit unfair to lump the "One Nation" communists, socialists and their supporters with mass murderers such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse-tung? After all, they expressed no such murderous goal." When Hitler, Stalin and Mao were campaigning for political power, you can bet they didn't campaign on the promise to murder millions of their own people, and probably the thought of doing so never crossed their minds. Those horrors were simply the end result of long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for "social justice." It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans, Russians and Chinese, like many of today's Americans, who would have cringed at the thought of genocide, who built the Trojan horse for a Hitler, a Stalin or Mao to take over. But as Voltaire said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

While America's leftists, socialists and communists condemn Hitler, they give the world's most horrible murderers a pass. First, they make a false distinction between fascism, communism and socialism but more importantly, they sympathize with the socioeconomic goals of communism and socialism. The primary goal of communism and socialism is government ownership or control over the means of production. In the U.S., only a few people call for outright government ownership of the means of production. They might have learned that government ownership would mess things up. Instead, they've increasingly called for quasi-ownership through various forms of government regulation, oversight, taxation and subsidies. After all, if someone has the power to tell you how you may use your property, it's tantamount to his owing it.

I believe most Americans find the ideals and principles of socialism, communism and progressivism repugnant, but by our sanctioning greater government centralization and its control over our lives, we become their dupes or, as Lenin said, "useful idiots."

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics

First, they make a false distinction between fascism, communism and socialism but more importantly, they sympathize with the socioeconomic goals of communism and socialism.

Sorry, but this is utter garbage: so socialism and fascism are one of the same thing? By that logic, Pinochet being the fan of laissez faire economics, must be morally equivalent to Thatcher or Reagan. This idiot goes further, socialism "leads" to genocide? Really? So if this is the case, where are the French, British, Spanish, Swedish and Italian Hitlers, Maos or Stalins?

Nazism is a form of socialism? No, really? Who on Earth is he addressing exactly with this incredible piece of news? Who doesn't know that exactly?

And why is socialism so horrendous? I'm sure you or dbldoggie would pipe in and give your reasons, but his entire claim seems to rest upon what the American public think, and that is enough. As if to say that the thoughts and opinions on the subject from non-Americans don't matter so much.

To pretend that Hitler's Nazi Party fit neatly in any one box politically is deceitful. Hitler picked and chose his political policies and religious ideologies depending on convenience.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:And why is socialism so horrendous? I'm sure you or dbldoggie would pipe in and give your reasons, but his entire claim seems to rest upon what the American public think, and that is enough. As if to say that the thoughts and opinions on the subject from non-Americans don't matter so much.

Maybe to you it isn't. You're in Europe. We here in America don't care for it. We prefer gov't to stay out of our business. Not to mention, it's not compatible with our constitution. It's why today's breed of Democrats are losing a lot of support for much of the legislation they put into play in the last 21 months.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:To pretend that Hitler's Nazi Party fit neatly in any one box politically is deceitful. Hitler picked and chose his political policies and religious ideologies depending on convenience.

This is true. He used elements of socialism and capitalism, sprinkled with far-right fascism. But his government policies were socialist in nature. If one takes the racist and bigotry policies out of the equation, that's what he was.

TexasBlue wrote:

merkwurdigliebe wrote:And why is socialism so horrendous? I'm sure you or dbldoggie would pipe in and give your reasons, but his entire claim seems to rest upon what the American public think, and that is enough. As if to say that the thoughts and opinions on the subject from non-Americans don't matter so much.

Maybe to you it isn't. You're in Europe. We here in America don't care for it. We prefer gov't to stay out of our business. Not to mention, it's not compatible with our constitution. It's why today's breed of Democrats are losing a lot of support for much of the legislation they put into play in the last 21 months.

Socialism isn't just about state interference in business, it is also about a collective social responsibility toward each other.

TexasBlue wrote:But his government policies were socialist in nature. If one takes the racist and bigotry policies out of the equation, that's what he was.

Not when he sent so many Socialists and Communists to the gas chambers.

TexasBlue wrote:This is true. He used elements of socialism and capitalism, sprinkled with far-right fascism. But his government policies were socialist in nature. If one takes the racist and bigotry policies out of the equation, that's what he was.

You know? I actually agree with that to a point. There probably were a lot of "different things" in their "ideology". But at least as far as history is concerned, Nazis were Fascists - and that is about as far from being Communist as one can get. So the premise of the article is just wrong.

And as far as Tex's comment, again I agree to a point. But the same could be said for most "politicial" leaders. Many take aspects of one ideology and mix it with aspects of other ideologies and then mix that with their own personal views. It's just the way people are. But the point of mentioning it is to show that (IMO) probably very few (especially nowadays) follow a "strict" ideology. It's more likely a mish-mash of ideas - some of which may actually be opposites (probably included to form a more "perfect" ideology). But to say (as the article seems to be doing) that "socialism" is like "Nazism" is ludicrous.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Socialism isn't just about state interference in business, it is also about a collective social responsibility toward each other.

I understand that. But it's not something compatible with our style of gov't.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Not when he sent so many Socialists and Communists to the gas chambers.

That hearkens back to his bigotry. I was speaking of gov't policies. No right winger is going to abolish private ownership of weapons (which Hitler did). Hence, a mix of socialism and capitalism.

i_luv_miley wrote:You know? I actually agree with that to a point. There probably were a lot of "different things" in their "ideology". But at least as far as history is concerned, Nazis were Fascists - and that is about as far from being Communist as one can get. So the premise of the article is just wrong.

And as far as Tex's comment, again I agree to a point. But the same could be said for most "politicial" leaders. Many take aspects of one ideology and mix it with aspects of other ideologies and then mix that with their own personal views. It's just the way people are. But the point of mentioning it is to show that (IMO) probably very few (especially nowadays) follow a "strict" ideology. It's more likely a mish-mash of ideas - some of which may actually be opposites (probably included to form a more "perfect" ideology). But to say (as the article seems to be doing) that "socialism" is like "Nazism" is ludicrous.

Walter Williams wasn't saying all socialism is like Nazism. He was making it known that "socialist" was part of the name of the party.

There's a difference between European socialism (social democracy) and Cuban socialism (communist) and Venezuelan socialism. Of course, this is just my opinion.

TexasBlue wrote:I understand that. But it's not something compatible with our style of gov't.

I hope you don't mean "social responsibility" there.

TexasBlue wrote:That hearkens back to his bigotry. I was speaking of gov't policies. No right winger is going to abolish private ownership of weapons (which Hitler did). Hence, a mix of socialism and capitalism.

And no Socialist is going to promote a rival authority such as a state church... an authority that might challenge it at a later date.

TexasBlue wrote:Walter Williams wasn't saying all socialism is like Nazism. He was making it known that "socialist" was part of the name of the party.

So was "National". And "national" conflicts with "social".

TexasBlue wrote:There's a difference between European socialism (social democracy) and Cuban socialism (communist) and Venezuelan socialism. Of course, this is just my opinion.

Of course there is, but the author of that article doesn't seem to recognise it.

Again, it goes back to the "mix" of ideologies and political policies. When people say Hitler was a left winger or say he was a right winger, i disagree with both labels.

Of course, which is what I have been saying all along. I found an amazing article some time back about the full political spectrum of Hitler. If I find it again I will post it, but I seem to remember posting it in SP some time back during a heated exchange between dblboggie and bubblebliss.

I studied the history of 1930's and 1940's Germany back in high school. I found it more fascinating than the Japanese side of the pre-war and war periods.

TexasBlue wrote:Maybe to you it isn't. You're in Europe. We here in America don't care for it.

This is what is called "begging the question" logic, you can't prove a statement by going back to the initial proposition. Just saying because people don't like it isn't an argument, people can be wrong.

We prefer gov't to stay out of our business. Not to mention, it's not compatible with our constitution.

This is an example of why I don't think arguing by what is "constitutional" isn't good goverence, politicians should only argue over what is good, not what is good according to what people in the past before near instant communication and globalisation thinks.

This is true. He used elements of socialism and capitalism, sprinkled with far-right fascism. But his government policies were socialist in nature. If one takes the racist and bigotry policies out of the equation, that's what he was.

He was a Third Way politician, Hitler used the powers of government to support and give dominance towards "German" industries. A socialist would nationalise industries. Hitler based his economic ideas not on Keynes or Marx, but his conception of the American "frontiersmen", forever pushing the white man's borders overtaking native American land and resources.

TexasBlue wrote:Again, it goes back to the "mix" of ideologies and political policies. When people say Hitler was a left winger or say he was a right winger, i disagree with both labels.

Neo-Nazism has a home on the far-right, the far-left are sworn enemies of Nazism and fascism in general. Not surprising, as fascism had originally begun as a counter-socialist, counter-revolutionary and pro-traditionalism movement that found a natural audience among catholic conservatives.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:This is what is called "begging the question" logic, you can't prove a statement by going back to the initial proposition. Just saying because people don't like it isn't an argument, people can be wrong.

It doesn't matter whether you don't like the fact that we over here don't like socialism. It's a fact that the majority here do not like it or want it. It is a valid argument. We here get to vote on things at the state level and for federal politicians. If the politicians start ramming things down people's throats that they don't like, then they can vote them out and put people into office that will change it back or to improve it. This is exactly why the Democrats are going to get their asses trounced in less than two weeks. They rammed a health care bill thru without taking any amendments from the other side of the aisle. Plus, it was well-known that they didn't read the damn bill! How the hell can anyone just passing legislation without reading what's in it? It's the same thing that the Republicans pulled with the Patriot Act back in 2001. The same damn thing!

merkwurdigliebe wrote:This is an example of why I don't think arguing by what is "constitutional" isn't good goverence, politicians should only argue over what is good, not what is good according to what people in the past before near instant communication and globalisation thinks.

So, by that logic, we should ignore the constitution and put slavery back in lace if the majority of politicians want it back? I don't think so. Our constitution is the law of the land. It's fine if you disagree with what our constitution says but to say that we should ignore it for the "good" of the people is insane. If people want to change it, there's an avenue to do so. Otherwise, it stands.

There's not much to our document. Have you read it? It places limitations on the power of the federal government, not the other way around. It places certain powers with the states and the people. These powers are clearly outlined and not open for interpretation.

TexasBlue wrote:It doesn't matter whether you don't like the fact that we over here don't like socialism. It's a fact that the majority here do not like it or want it. It is a valid argument.

No it isn't, you can't prove something by repeating and rehashing the initial statement. "Socialism is bad" because "most people don't like socialism"? Why "most people don't like socialism" because "Socialism is bad"; circular logic. Even if it is (as you point out) certainly true that most Americans dislike socialism, that isn't a real argument.

So, by that logic, we should ignore the constitution and put slavery back in lace if the majority of politicians want it back?

Right, so the only thing that is stopping the return of slavery today is the Constitution right?

It's fine if you disagree with what our constitution says but to say that we should ignore it for the "good" of the people is insane.

Why is it "insane"? Why is it insane that politicians spend more time addressing the particular and individual merits of a bill as opposed to arguing whether or not it fits in with a vision of the US that was formed 300 years ago ? Yes, I get that there are means of changing it, but that's not the point.

There's not much to our document. Have you read it? It places limitations on the power of the federal government, not the other way around. It places certain powers with the states and the people. These powers are clearly outlined and not open for interpretation

And?

merkwurdigliebe wrote:No it isn't, you can't prove something by repeating and rehashing the initial statement. "Socialism is bad" because "most people don't like socialism"? Why "most people don't like socialism" because "Socialism is bad"; circular logic. Even if it is (as you point out) certainly true that most Americans dislike socialism, that isn't a real argument.

Why not? If most people disapprove how how a socialist government governs (which leads to a change in the way they live), then they can say they dislike it. Also, i never said it (socialism) was bad. I don't care for it. But if people choose to live (by elections) in a socialist country, that's their business. Not mine. You never ever see me criticizing European social democracy. You won't find a post by me putting that thesis forth. But you're sitting here telling me that we're wrong about it or uneducated about it.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:Right, so the only thing that is stopping the return of slavery today is the Constitution right?

It'd never happen again. This country is light years beyond that. But if you're asking a theoretical question, yes. But you apparently don't know the mechanism here to change (or make) an amendment to the constitution. It's hard to do.... and purposely so.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:Why is it "insane"? Why is it insane that politicians spend more time addressing the particular and individual merits of a bill as opposed to arguing whether or not it fits in with a vision of the US that was formed 300 years ago ? Yes, I get that there are means of changing it, but that's not the point.

Because, as i stated, there's limitations on the power of the federal gov't here. It's not an accident. It's a vision from 300 years ago? That vision has stood the test of time. You may like gov't intrusion in your personal life. That's fine. If i want that intrusion, i have the freedom to move to a country that does it.

But Tex, there is clearly a public misperception in your country not only what socialism is but also the difference between it, liberalism, social democracy and communism. It seems to us that certain people have invented a parody of left wing philosophy that nobody really recognises as having a basis in reality.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:But Tex, there is clearly a public misperception in your country not only what socialism is but also the difference between it, liberalism, social democracy and communism. It seems to us that certain people have invented a parody of left wing philosophy that nobody really recognises as having a basis in reality.

I think people know the difference between what Hugo Chavez puts forth versus what your gov't puts forth. It's almost night and day. But how anyone can say that Cuba or Venezuela are better off with the gov'ts they have is crazy.

And yes, there are some who draw a blurry line here in the USA.

TexasBlue wrote:Why not?

This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

My objection is to do with the logic the article was written in, not the truth-content of the specific points. But even they are somewhat suspect: Medicare and Social Security are all incredibly popular with American voters still. Hell, you even see it reflected in some of the Tea Party members without a hint of irony: "Get Government's Hands off of Medicare".

It'd never happen again. This country is light years beyond that. But if you're asking a theoretical question, yes. But you apparently don't know the mechanism here to change (or make) an amendment to the constitution. It's hard to do.... and purposely so.

You never asked me if I knew, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. And despite your wranglings, I don't see how I manage to be incorrect on anything as of yet.

Because, as i stated, there's limitations on the power of the federal gov't here. It's not an accident. It's a vision from 300 years ago? That vision has stood the test of time. You may like gov't intrusion in your personal life. That's fine. If i want that intrusion, i have the freedom to move to a country that does it.

And we could still have that very discussion without reference to a Constitution. We have no such "safeguard" from state intrusion here in Britain (Parliament is still sovereign, all the documents that supposedly make up our non-existent Constitution matters for nothing if the majority of MPs had it their way), but we are still functionally a liberal democracy. I have no idea why you must automatically think I must be in complete favour of an overly intrusive government.

My problem with modern politics is that way much of politics today boils down to an argument over sectional interests (be they unions, business groups, pressure groups etc), immediate particular interests (constituencies, popular vote), legal or bureaucratic technicalities or some other arbitrary bit of vaguery. Things should only ever be spent on arguing over how various bills or laws would serve the greater good, politicians as philosophical kings rather then legal technocrats.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:
This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

My objection is to do with the logic the article was written in, not the truth-content of the specific points. But even they are somewhat suspect: Medicare and Social Security are all incredibly popular with American voters still. Hell, you even see it reflected in some of the Tea Party members without a hint of irony: "Get Government's Hands off of Medicare".

Your objection is noted and it's a valid one. It doesn't change the fact that pure socialism isn't a viable system. We've seen that already.

As for the people and these programs.... these people have paid into it already. They're DUE their money when it's time to retire. But if the money isn't there, they're screwed. And they'll have been screwed by the very system they paid into; government.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:You never asked me if I knew, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. And despite your wranglings, I don't see how I manage to be incorrect on anything as of yet.

If you knew how our constitution is changed, you never would've thrown out....

Right, so the only thing that is stopping the return of slavery today is the Constitution right?

merkwurdigliebe wrote:And we could still have that very discussion without reference to a Constitution. We have no such "safeguard" from state intrusion here in Britain (Parliament is still sovereign, all the documents that supposedly make up our non-existent Constitution matters for nothing if the majority of MPs had it their way), but we are still functionally a liberal democracy. I have no idea why you must automatically think I must be in complete favour of an overly intrusive government.

My problem with modern politics is that way much of politics today boils down to an argument over sectional interests (be they unions, business groups, pressure groups etc), immediate particular interests (constituencies, popular vote), legal or bureaucratic technicalities or some other arbitrary bit of vaguery. Things should only ever be spent on arguing over how various bills or laws would serve the greater good, politicians as philosophical kings rather then legal technocrats.

The whole point of the last few posts is that there are limits on what our representatives and senators can and cannot do. Just because it feels good, doesn't make it lawful for them to pass legislation on.

TexasBlue wrote:Your objection is noted and it's a valid one. It doesn't change the fact that pure socialism isn't a viable system. We've seen that already.

Where on Earth was I making that claim?

[quote]If you knew how our constitution is changed, you never would've thrown out....

Right, so the only thing that is stopping the return of slavery today is the Constitution right?

I still don't see how you reached that conclusion. You said that "So, by that logic, we should ignore the constitution and put slavery back in lace if the majority of politicians want it back?", to which I replied that there are MANY other things stopping the return of slavery regardless of the Constitution. If the UK parliament left the EU, it would be free to re-enact slavery if it so wishes, the fact is I don't see how that could ever serve the greater good.

Even if I were completely ignorant on how the Constitution worked, I don't see how this must mean I'm wrong to say that I prefer if politicians spent more time arguing over the specific merits of bills and laws.

The whole point of the last few posts is that there are limits on what our representatives and senators can and cannot do. Just because it feels good, doesn't make it lawful for them to pass legislation on.

???