Source: Douglas R. Casey. *The International Man,* 2nd edition, Alexandria House Books, © 1979, p. 77-78 *I found this book at a local used book store many years ago, and despite its age, I found it full of useful information. I suggest that interested readers keep their eyes out for it, and buy a copy.* **A Short Course in Comparative Economic Systems** What is Capitalism? Socialism? Fascism? Communism? The terms are bandied about in a facile manner by those who have only a vague conception of their meanings. Taking a cue from Karl Marx, founder of "scientific" and opposed to "utopian" socialism, let us analyze the four basic economic systems based on his division of all wealth into either the "means of production" or "consumer goods." Bear in mind, also, that Marx believed that all social and political structures were a consequence of economic organization. **Capitalism** Capitalism does not and never has existed in pure form. The system may be defined as one where both the "means of production" (factories, mines, farms, and other basic income producing property) and "consumer goods" (houses, cars, clothing and other non-income producing property) are both owned and controlled by individuals. This system is the freest possible because it involves no legal coercion against anyone who does not use either force or fraud against his fellows; barring that, a person or group of persons (a corporation, perhaps) may do, or not do, exactly as they please in all spheres of human endeavor. The state exists only to prevent the use of force and fraud, and as such this implies only a police force (for domestic protection from murderers, thieves, rapists, etc.), an army (for protection from those initiating violence under the aegis of foreign states) and a court system (whereby men can arbitrate disputes without resort to violence). Anarcho-capitalism (advocated by many contemporary libertarians) lacking any government at all, is the purest form of capitalism because it lets the "market" handle even these three endeavors.The US is, clearly, not a capitalist nation. Its government attempts (as an analysis of its budget, as well as its practical effort indicates) to do everything but the three things mentioned. Instead, the U.S. (and most other Western nations) is a fascist nation. **Fascism** This term immediately brings to mind images of jack-booted storm troopers, Chicago's late Mayor Daley and militarism. These things are only accidental (albeit usual) political ramifications of the system - which is purely economic in itself. Fascism may be defined as an economic system where although the "means of production" and "consumer goods" are owned by individuals, they are essentially controlled by the state. Hitler's Germany is, of course, the classic example. Krupp, I.G. Farben, Messerschmidt - all were privately owned, but the government told them what to produce, how much to charge, what to pay their laborers, how much profit they might make, and regulated every other aspect of their existence. Just so, are General Motors, Lockheed, Westinghouse and most other U.S. corporations privately owned; but the government dictates maximum prices, quality ("safety") standards, minimum wages and every other detail directly through the various regulatory agencies (CAB, FTC, ICC, OSHA, etc) in addition to profit margins through its monetary, taxing and, increasingly direct "bailout" policies. There is no difference whatsoever in kind between Nazi Germany's and America's systems; the differences are only in degree and in detail. Scandinavia is another superb example; don't be confused by all the welfare benefits; Hitler's Germany also had a full complement of them. **Socialism** It has become chic in recent years (since 1900, actually) to advocate socialism as a cure for the world's economic and social ills, in spite of the fact that it can be shown that this "cancer of the body politic" is responsible for most of them. Socialism may be defined as a system in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state, although consumer goods remain privately owned. Most of the ruling political parties of the world are socialist in philosophical bias if not in overt practice, and since people apparently like to believe that their own laziness, or stupidity or misfortune can be made a mortgage on other peoples' lives, they vote Socialist (or Christian Democrat, Social Democrat, Democratic Party or any of numerous other equivalents). They are usually less happy to reap the consequences of others' demand upon them, however, so socialism inevitably turns into a "dog eat dog" society where everyone is attempting to live off others' production as a "right." Under a socialist regime all decisions about production are taken from the mass of people in the market and placed in the hands of a leadership cadre who must then substitute either what they think people want produced or, more likely, just what they themselves want produced. Despite the fact that the individual must be forcibly subjected to the will of the state for this to work at all, it is lauded as "humanitarian" by those with distorted or selective powers of perception. Note that even under the Marxist formula for socialism, ownership of such things as shops and boutiques are not necessarily state monopolies, one factor (along with a still substantial percentage of privately owned means of production) that keeps England's standard of living above that of the Soviet Union even though both lands are, strictly speaking, socialist. Most of the authoritarian Third World, all of the Second World, and several Western countries are trodding this road; The U.S., as shown by its nationalization of the railroads and talk of taking over the medical and energy industries, is moving more and more from fascism to socialism. But, if the USSR is only socialist, aren't there any Communist states? **Communism** Marx said communism would be the final stage (an evolutionary dead-end, as it were) in human social development. It will be characterized by the "withering away" of the state (fat chance!) and the communal ownership of all property (consumer goods as well as capital goods) - as well as a basic change in the nature of the human animal as we know him. Despite the make-believe world view of this secular religion, or more likely because of it, it is held as an ideal by many who feel unable to cope with the real world. Marx believed that mankind, in the distant past, lived in a state of pure communism, but was corrupted by "reactionary(?)" elements; the ostensible goal of the movement is to return mankind to its economic womb while retaining the technological benefits of the capitalist present. Communism can work, after a manner, if participation in its society is voluntary (e.g., a monastery) or genetic (e.g., a herd of cattle), but since people are not carbon copy androids with identical desires, it is, at best, an opiate fed to the gullible by those hungry for political power over them. http://ift.tt/eA8V8J http://ift.tt/2jsJWox
ADS HERE !!!
