Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Fascism, Democracy, and Totalitarianism

A friend of mine on Facebook referenced this article and asked if aid to farmers was a form of socialism.

-----------------
Taxpayers will pay for $12 billion in aid to farmers to cover losses caused by Trump's tariffs
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-trade-wars-tariffs-farmers-bailout-1040309
-----------------

She went on to ask:

"""
It seems like it to me. I'm reflecting on some posts I've seen from people trashing Socialism, but without stating exactly what it is. The posts are, well, sarcastic. I think I 'get it' but I've asked for some explanation.... so far, none.
"""

Here's my long winded response:

First, all terms are true by convention, not because your teacher says it "true", not by some divine intervention, not by scientific experiment.


Dictionaries can and do tell us how a word is currently being used, whether it's being used in different ways at any point in time, and how the meaning may have changed over time. But, they cannot tell us what the "true" meaning of a word is.


So, as adults we should read definitions from right to left. In other words, don't argue about the "true" meaning of a word. That's reading the definition from left to right.


Instead, try to work with your friend(s) to figure out what some of the conflicting definitions are on the right and then agree to hang labels on these definitions.


Abstract, politically charged words like capitalism, socialism, and democracy have multiple meanings today and their definitions have changed over time. Often, these three words are used together, which is understandable.


In my opinion, it would be a mistake to assume that capitalism simply means not-socialism, and that socialism simply means not-capitalism. By defining these two terms in this way would suggest that there are no other possible alternatives. I, for one, believe that there are other possible alternatives (i.e. there are ways of running an economy that "should in my opinion" be defined with some other term).


We often make the same mistake by saying that totalitarianism simply means not-democratic, and that democratic simply means not-totalitarian. In my opinion, this is also a mistake.


Keeping in mind these two mistakes, it is very common and understandable for people to make both of these mistakes when they reason about these six terms:

1. capitalism, 
2. socialism, 
3. fascism, 
4. communism, 
5. democracy, and 
6. totalitarianism.

So, many often combine these terms in this way:

In the center, there two democratic forms of political economy:

1. democratic capitalism and
2. democratic socialism.

Many often say that there are two non-democratic forms of political economy:

1. communism, which is totalitarian socialism, and
2. fascism, which is totalitarian capitalism.

Many conservatives in the US think that the US is an example of democratic capitalism, and the fear that any increase in the size and power of government would put us on the slippery slope to communism. This is why you have conservatives like Grover Norquist who want to shrink the size of government to the point where it can be strangled in its crib. So, these conservatives are OK with increasing the role of the market, which progressives see as handing over power to big corporations and the rich.


Many liberals/progressives in the US also think that the US is an example of democratic capitalism. But, they fear that any further increase in the power of the rich and big corporations would put us on the slippery slope toward fascism. They would not mind increasing the size of a democratic government (e.g. medicare for all, tuition free public universities), but they don't want to create a USSR style communist state.


Of course, there are conservatives who like some big government programs - e.g. fossil fuel subsidies, farm subsidies, the military, etc. - but dislike other government programs (e.g. publicly financed higher education).


As for liberals/progressives, there are those who like some government programs (e.g. publicly financed higher education), but dislike other government programs (e.g. they want less military spending and no fossil fuel subsidies).


Finally, there's the distinction between atomism and organicism.

Atomism is where you favor a system where the individual is of paramount importance. You believe that the whole is just the sum of its parts. So, economically you elevate the importance of the customer who votes with their dollars in the market, just as you favor the citizen who votes in elections. Of course, the downside here is that some people have more dollars to vote with in the market, and these dollars can also be used to lobby with and buy advertising. democratic capitalists and democratic socialists both see the importance of democracy and having markets. As for the latter, democratic socialists, generally speaking, don't want to see the government being in charge of everything and trying to plan everything (e.g. they would not want to see state controlled media being the only source of news).


Organicism is where you favor a state that can work for the betterment of all. You believe that the whole is more than just the sum of its parts. So, economically you elevate the importance of the state because it can take on projects the market cannot handle on its own - e.g. climate change, national defense, care for the poor and elderly, scientific research. Communism and Fascism are examples, in my opinion, of taking organicism way to far. In both cases, they ditch democracy in favor of a totalitarian state.

References

-------------------------------------
Beshears, Fred


Social Democracy: the Common Ground Between Capitalism and Socialism
https://innovationmemes.blogspot.com/2020/02/social-democracy-common-ground-between.html