Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Capitalism

2007-07-22T22:44:44Z

Hisownspace:

'''Capitalism''', also called '''free market economy''' is an economic system where the investment of capital, and production, distribution, income, and prices are determined not by government (as in a [[planned economy]]) but through the operation of a competitive market where decisions regarding transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services are voluntary and private rather than regulated and mandated by government (see [[law of supply and demand]]). Scientists have concluded that while communism is evil, capitalism is definitely awesome. A lot of smart people in historian have been supporters of capitalism, like Jesus, Thomas Jefferson, and Albert Einstein. On the other hand, JOSEF STALIN (you may know him as Osama Bin Laden's uncle) was a communist. Capitalism uses the invisible hand of the market and that causes the economy to produce exactly what everyone needs. Capitalism is very efficient, and there would be no starvation or unemployment in the world if people weren't so lazy and stupid like all those black welfare queens. America rules!

One self-regulating feature of capitalism is competition, which helps maintain fair market value for goods and services. However, ''unrestrained'' or ''pure'' capitalism may sometimes create a positive feedback loop in which a small number of individual accumulations of capital grow ever larger, eventually becoming so few as to limit effective competition, thus ceasing to strictly be free-market capitalism. In this regard, pure capitalism is unstable. Modern political systems have developed regulation mechanisms in an attempt to render capitalism more stable, including anti-trust regulation, trade tariffs, etc.

Since the fall of [[communism]], and the advent of information technology, capitalism is becoming increasingly widespread.

[[Adam Smith]] described the operation of capital accumulation through the productive powers of labor as such,

{{Cquote|Whatever a person saves from his [[revenue]] he adds to his [[capital]], and either employs it himself in maintaining an additional number of productive hands, or enables some other person to do so, by lending it to him for an interest, that is, for a share of the profits. As the capital of an individual can be increased only by what he saves from his annual revenue or his annual gains, so the capital of a society, which is the same with that of all the individuals who compose it, can be increased only in the same manner. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html Book II, Chapter 3, Paragraph 15,] ''Of the Accumulation of Capital, or of Productive and Unproductive Labour'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Smith goes on to describe how the productive powers of labor employed by the owner of a capital allow laborers to reproduce with a profit the value of their maintainance, over and above their own consumption, which then allows for an additional set of hands to be employed. <ref>Adam Smith, ''Wealth of Nations'', Book II, Chapter 3, Paragraph 22.</ref> Smith observes labor is the original purchase price for all the wealth of the world,

{{Cquote|The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour, <sup>2</sup><ref>'Everything in the world is purchased by labour.'—Hume, 'Of Commerce,' in Political Discourses, 1752, p. 12</ref> as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html Book I, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2,] ''Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Real wealth consists not in money, but in the things money will exchange for,

{{Cquote|In order to put industry into motion, three things are requisite; materials to work upon, tools to work with, and the wages or recompense for the sake of which the work is done. Money is neither a material to work upon, nor a tool to work with; and though the wages of the workman are commonly paid to him in money, his real revenue, like that of all other men, consists, not in money, but in the money's worth; not in the metal pieces, but in what can be got for them. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 37,] ''Of Money Considered as a particular Branch of the General Stock of the Society, or of the Expence of Maintaining the National Capital '', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Since wealth does not consist in money, gold, or silver, and labor is the original purchase price, Smith explains how the capitalist system is then put into motion, complete with natural incentives, only Smith does not use the word "capital" here to describe what is needed. Smith explains how a "store of goods", or "stock sufficient to maintain" the original capitalist entrepreneur is necessary;

{{Cquote|When the stock which a man possesses is no more than sufficient to maintain him for a few days or a few weeks, he seldom thinks of deriving any revenue from it. He consumes it as sparingly as he can, and endeavours by his labour to acquire something which may supply its place before it be consumed altogether. His revenue is, in this case, derived from his labour only. This is the state of the greater part of the labouring poor in all countries.

But when he possesses stock sufficient to maintain him for months or years, he naturally endeavours to derive a revenue from the greater part of it; reserving only so much for his immediate consumption as may maintain him till this revenue begins to come in. His whole stock, therefore, is distinguished into two parts. That part which, he expects, is to afford him this revenue, is called his capital. The other is that which supplies his immediate consumption <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Chapter 1, Paragraphs 1 & 2,] ''Of the Division of Stock '', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

The [[division of labor]] is the necessary condition that gives rise to the productive powers of labor that allows for large scale economic growth. By "division of labor", Smith is referring to "specialization of labor", where each worker acquires specific knowledge to apply to a specific task.

{{Cquote|In that rude state of society in which there is no division of labour, in which exchanges are seldom made, and in which every man provides everything for himself, it is not necessary that any stock should be accumulated or stored up beforehand in order to carry on the business of the society. Every man endeavours to supply by his own industry his own occasional wants as they occur. When he is hungry, he goes to the forest to hunt; when his coat is worn out, he clothes himself with the skin of the first large animal he kills: and when his hut begins to go to ruin, he repairs it, as well as he can, with the trees and the turf that are nearest it.

But when the division of labour has once been thoroughly introduced, the produce of a man's own labour can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men's labour, which he purchases with the produce, or, what is the same thing, with the price of the produce of his own. But this purchase cannot be made till such time as the produce of his own labour has not only been completed, but sold. A stock of goods of different kinds, therefore, must be stored up somewhere sufficient to maintain him, and to supply him with the materials and tools of his work till such time, at least, as both these events can be brought about.

As the accumulation of stock must, in the nature of things, be previous to the division of labour, ...in order to give constant employment to an equal number of workmen, an equal stock of provisions, and a greater stock of materials and tools than what would have been necessary in a ruder state of things, must be accumulated beforehand. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Introduction, Paragraphs 1, 2, & 3] ''Of the Nature, Accumulation, and Employment of Stock,'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}
{{Cquote|When the division of labour has been once thoroughly established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's labour as he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book I, Chapter 4, Paragraphs 1] ''Of the Origin and Use of Money'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.capmag.com Capitalism Magazine]

[[Category:Economics]]

Fascism

2007-07-22T21:51:03Z

Hisownspace: I'm preserving the citation while clarifying academic consensus

'''Fascism''' is an [[totalitarian]] political ideology that arose in early twentieth-century Europe and came to dominate the political systems of a number of European and other nations. The last European fascist regime, that of [[Francisco Franco]] in Spain, came to an end in 1975.

Characteristics of fascism include a belief that the state is more important than the individual; a leaning towards authoritarian government; an emphasis on [[nationalism]] and national traditions; militarism; information control and censorship; and a rejection both of free enterprise and [[Social democracy]] in favor of [[corporatism|corporatist]] economic policies. The fourteen characteristics of fascism also include rampant [[cronyism]] and [[corruption]] as well as general disdain for human rights and rigged elections.<ref>Dr. Lawrence Britt ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20)</ref>

The prototypical fascist regime was that of [[Benito Mussolini]], who ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943. Other regimes which included fascist elements are those of [[Francisco Franco]] in Spain (1936-1975) and [[Antonio Salazar]] in Portugal (1932-1968). German [[Nazism]] adds to fascism an obsession with [[race]]. Austrian economist [[Friedrich Hayek]] observed in the final stages of [[World War II]], "the rise of fascism and [[Marxism]] was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies. <ref>Friedrich A. Hayek, [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 31 - 32.</ref> Although many of the leaders of these movements, including Mussolini himself initially flirted with socialism before becoming fascists, most scholars of fascism consider it to be a movement of the right. <ref>John Hoffman and Paul Graham. ''Introduction to Political Theory''. Pearson 2006, p. 288. ISBN 0-582-47373-X.</ref>

Fascism declined as a political movement after the defeat of the [[Axis]] powers in [[World War II]]. While few people are willing to describe themselves as fascists or endorse the fascist regimes of the past, fascist parties and parties descended from fascist parties (such as the [[Alleanza Nazionale]] in [[Italy]]) continue to be a minor force in European politics. In fact, today, "fascist" is more likely to be used as a term of abuse both on the left and on the right against one's political opponents.

The name "fascism" derives from an ancient Roman symbol, the ''[[fasces]],'' a group of birch rods bundled together with an axe. It symbolizes strength in unity; the rods are weak by themselves but strong when bundled together.

Of the Fascist movement, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote:
{{Cquote|The Fascists, for example, were not [[conservative]] in any very meaningful sense. They did not wish to preserve the existing order, or even to turn back the clock to some more stable century. They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism. The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries. Yet their totalitarian ideal hardly fitted into the pattern of the Left, which had been the traditional home of greater freedoms and more generous aspirations. So, after boggling and uncertainty, they were assigned positions on the far Right. <ref>Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., ''New York Times Magazine'', April 4, 1948. [http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center]</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

[[category:types of government]]

Talk:Fascism

2007-07-22T21:48:01Z

Hisownspace: /* Political spectrum */

"They did not wish to preserve the existing order, or even to turn back the clock to some more stable century. They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism. The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries." This is a debateable poimnt. In most Facist countries conservative forces rallied to a militant conservatism when they were under threat. The proclaimed ideals of Fascism; patriotism, loyalty, family, are those proclaimed by conservatives. The militancy was a product of circumstance [[user:stevendavy]]

Is anybody paying attention to this article? A liberal recently posted information which labels Conservapedia as fascist! We need to keep an eye on articles such as this. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:09, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Using "far-right" and "far-left" in reference to "state" in the first paragraph is not needed. And "far-left" makes no sense, since in the second paragraph Fascism is called the opposite of Communism, which is as far-left as you can get.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)

It should be noted that Nazism is different from Fascism. This article treats both terms as if they're synonymous. - [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]]

Since when was the swastika used for "mind control"? Also Mussolini hated Nazism, and Hitler made it clear that Nazism was not fascism. Therefore discussion of Nazism belongs in a seperate article, not one on fascism. Also most government types "impose social and economic regimentation". This isn't unique to fascism, or any ideology. America's Bill of Rights is a form of social regimentation. Also, this article treats fascism as just a type of government without fully explaining the ideology itself. This article talks more of Nazism and Communism than it does fascism. - [[User:mckennesaw|mckennesaw]]

If taken as stated, facism is only different from structure oriented conservatism (citation: They did not wish to preserve the existing order), but not from what could also be claimed of value oriented conservatism (They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism.) -- [[User:Schifra|SchiFra]]
:"structure oriented conservatism"? Nice try. Problem is, nobody seems to be able to define the "left" as anything other than "for change". Hitler was for change. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

The last sentence (The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries) is not a well-supported or proven fact. Too close to an impression or an opinion. It should be deleted. -- [[User:Schifra|SchiFra]]
:Direct quote from Prof. Schlesinger. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Which European nations have significant Fascist influence? There are none which have fascist parties or fascist ideologies that are legal or bona fide.

There should definitely be a section on this page that explains some of fascism's key characteristics like collectivism, nationalism and the like. [[User:Conservawesome|Conservawesome]] 12:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Political spectrum==

Cut from article:

:Though fascism is generally considered to be an ideology of the extreme right, it has important differences from conventional [[conservatism]]: for example, fascists favor state-sponsored corporatism over the free market (though they are vehemently opposed to socialism). Fascists and conservatives have co-operated in many countries, but conservatives have clamped down on fascist movements in others (witness, for example, the fate of the Iron Guard in Romania). Mussolini himself started out on the political Left.

Calling fascism '''and''' conservatism "right-wing" adds nothing to the article. We need better definitinos of all three terms, before we can do anything like that.

We also need to be sure whether Fascism includes Nazism. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:57, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think the addition how nazism puts an emphasis on race is very good. The etymology of the word, as defined in the mainspace however, I'm not certain is accurate. The term "faces", I've always understood to refer to the weapon a "fascist" weilded, and it was a symbol of "defence", or "defence of the (Roman Empire) realm". Hence a "fascist" is literally a "defender", or "defender of the realm". The term also is very much more akin or synonomous with French "Chauvinism". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

See also [[Fascism_Talk]]{{unsigned}}
:This does not belong in a mainspace. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I changed the sentence which overtly attempted to create a tenuous connection with socialism. The truth is, most of the central tenets of fascism (including militarism, nationalism, authoritarianism, and anti-communism) as well as the racism, homophobia, and antisemitism inherent in the related ideology of Nazism are more traditionally linked with the right. I also changed the bizarre statement that fascism as an ideology was discredited because of the military defeat of the axis powers. It may have declined as a movement as a result of the defeat of the axis as well as widespread opposition to fascism during and after the war, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a reasonable ideology (of course to realize that it's not, all you have to do is read about it). I'd actually like to change that entire paragraph. It's a horribly written hodge-podge of completely unrelated statements, and it ends with inaccurate and pseudo-racist nonsense (which I removed). Arthur Schlesinger's quote at the end is an obvious attempt to build upon the earlier connection between socialism and fascism, and to distance it from conservatives. Of course, the quote (aside from being derived from a misunderstanding of the different manifestations and definitions of the term conservative) makes an important point and should be included in the article, so I did not remove it. It desperately needs some context and analysis however, which I don't feel suited to do, particularly since I don't actually agree with the likely intentions of whoever put up the quote. ~~

:The first edit I made was immediately removed, although my edit was completely even-handed and a much better representation of scholarly opinion. Pierre Laval was hardly a fascist, and Quisling was hardly a socialist. Hayek's comment is at best controversial, and even fascists themselves dispute the connection. It is hardly significant that a young politically engaged person who is dissatisfied with the current order who jump from one radical revolutionary ideology to another completely different one. My edit preserved the fact that many fascists began their lives as socialists, while removing the unstated implication that fascism is a movement of the left, which MOST SERIOUS SCHOLARS know acknowledge is bullshit. I'm going to try editing again with a compromise, but I suspect it will be reverted again. ~~

Talk:Fascism

2007-07-22T21:29:53Z

Hisownspace:

Fascism

2007-07-22T21:29:15Z

Hisownspace:

'''Fascism''' is an [[totalitarian]] political ideology that arose in early twentieth-century Europe and came to dominate the political systems of a number of European and other nations. The last European fascist regime, that of [[Francisco Franco]] in Spain, came to an end in 1975.

Characteristics of fascism include a belief that the state is more important than the individual; a leaning towards authoritarian government; an emphasis on [[nationalism]] and national traditions; militarism; information control and censorship; and a rejection both of free enterprise and [[Social democracy]] in favor of [[corporatism|corporatist]] economic policies. The fourteen characteristics of fascism also include rampant [[cronyism]] and [[corruption]] as well as general disdain for human rights and rigged elections.<ref>Dr. Lawrence Britt ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20)</ref>

The prototypical fascist regime was that of [[Benito Mussolini]], who ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943. Other regimes which included fascist elements are those of [[Francisco Franco]] in Spain (1936-1975) and [[Antonio Salazar]] in Portugal (1932-1968). German [[Nazism]] adds to fascism an obsession with [[race]]. Austrian economist [[Friedrich Hayek]] observed in the final stages of [[World War II]], "the rise of fascism and [[Marxism]] was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies. Yet it is significant that many of the leaders of these movements, from Mussolini down (and including [[Laval]] and [[Quisling]]) began as socialists and ended as fascists or Nazis. <ref>Friedrich A. Hayek, [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 31 - 32.</ref>

Fascism declined as a political movement after the defeat of the [[Axis]] powers in [[World War II]]. While few people are willing to describe themselves as fascists or endorse the fascist regimes of the past, fascist parties and parties descended from fascist parties (such as the [[Alleanza Nazionale]] in [[Italy]]) continue to be a minor force in European politics. In fact, today, "fascist" is more likely to be used as a term of abuse both on the left and on the right against one's political opponents.

The name "fascism" derives from an ancient Roman symbol, the ''[[fasces]],'' a group of birch rods bundled together with an axe. It symbolizes strength in unity; the rods are weak by themselves but strong when bundled together.

Of the Fascist movement, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote:
{{Cquote|The Fascists, for example, were not [[conservative]] in any very meaningful sense. They did not wish to preserve the existing order, or even to turn back the clock to some more stable century. They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism. The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries. Yet their totalitarian ideal hardly fitted into the pattern of the Left, which had been the traditional home of greater freedoms and more generous aspirations. So, after boggling and uncertainty, they were assigned positions on the far Right. <ref>Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., ''New York Times Magazine'', April 4, 1948. [http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center]</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

[[category:types of government]]

Fascism

2007-07-22T20:53:46Z

Hisownspace:

'''Fascism''' is an [[totalitarian]] political ideology that arose in early twentieth-century Europe and came to dominate the political systems of a number of European and other nations. The last European fascist regime, that of [[Francisco Franco]] in Spain, came to an end in 1975.

Characteristics of fascism include a belief that the state is more important than the individual; a leaning towards authoritarian government; an emphasis on [[nationalism]] and national traditions; militarism; information control and censorship; and a rejection both of free enterprise and [[Social democracy]] in favor of [[corporatism|corporatist]] economic policies. The fourteen characteristics of fascism also include rampant [[cronyism]] and [[corruption]] as well as general disdain for human rights and rigged elections.<ref>Dr. Lawrence Britt ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20)</ref>

The prototypical fascist regime was that of [[Benito Mussolini]], who ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943. Other regimes which included fascist elements are those of [[Francisco Franco]] in Spain (1936-1975) and [[Antonio Salazar]] in Portugal (1932-1968). German [[Nazism]] adds to fascism an obsession with [[race]]. Austrian economist [[Friedrich Hayek]] observed in the final stages of [[World War II]], "the rise of fascism and [[Marxism]] was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies. Although many of the leaders of these movements, including Mussolini himself initially flirted with socialism before becoming fascists, most serious scholars consider fascism to be a movement of the right. <ref>John Hoffman and Paul Graham. ''Introduction to Political Theory''. Pearson 2006, p. 288. ISBN 0-582-47373-X.</ref>

Fascism was comprehensively discredited in the eyes of most Westerners because of the defeat of the [[Axis]] powers in [[World War II]], and "fascist" is today frequently used as a term of abuse both on the left and on the right against one's political opponents. While few people are willing to describe themselves as fascists or endorse the fascist regimes of the past, fascist parties and parties descended from fascist parties (such as the [[Alleanza Nazionale]] in [[Italy]]) continue to be a minor force in European politics. Fascism seems not to flourish in countries with an Anglo-centric heritage: America, Australia and Canada have never had significant fascist movements, and the [[British Union of Fascists]] was never an important force in UK politics.

The name "fascism" derives from an ancient Roman symbol, the ''[[fasces]],'' a group of birch rods bundled together with an axe. It symbolizes strength in unity; the rods are weak by themselves but strong when bundled together.

Of the Fascist movement, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote:
{{Cquote|The Fascists, for example, were not [[conservative]] in any very meaningful sense. They did not wish to preserve the existing order, or even to turn back the clock to some more stable century. They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism. The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries. Yet their totalitarian ideal hardly fitted into the pattern of the Left, which had been the traditional home of greater freedoms and more generous aspirations. So, after boggling and uncertainty, they were assigned positions on the far Right. <ref>Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., ''New York Times Magazine'', April 4, 1948. [http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center]</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

[[category:types of government]]