LETTER: The many versions of Socialism lead to poverty
Editor, Register-Mail: I’ve often pointed out that Communism, Fascism and Nazism were all forms of Socialism. Others insisted that they were not and that there were major differences. I’ve also heard the popular reference to Fascism and Nazism as being “right-wing.” That reference is Josef Stalin’s view that Hitler and Mussolini were not “left enough.”
Another letter:LETTER: Concerned about Knoxville not enforcing fireworks laws
I’ve stated that the major difference between all those “isms” is spelling. That of course was facetious. I know that there are minor differences in economics and that Communism, Fascism and Nazism are all nationalized versions of Socialism. The nationalist differences are mainly in how much illusion the government gives to let you believe that you are free and in control of your own life.
In fact they all lead to the same end: government control of everything. In each of these “isms” some important things are in common with all of the others. They employ central planning, they have complete control of the economy, censorship is imposed because they cannot tolerate any form of descent and they have all led to dictatorship /tyranny.
Central planning has usually been a remarkable failure. It was purported to be a form of “scientific governance” wherein “experts” would run things more efficiently than the democratic legislative process. It initiated things like the city manager form of municipal government. I remember listening to the radio in the early 1950s. Every year there was a report of the new five-year plan coming out of Russia/Soviet Union. The reason for the new plan was because last-year’s version had already failed. Each of these items has a story.
In high school in the late 1950s we were so frightened because the Soviet youth were being so much better educated than we were. I was enrolled in several “advanced” programs. Years later, working for a large insurance company, I worked with a woman who came here from the Soviet Union. Her husband had been a highly respected physician there. Here, in the United States, he wasn’t qualified. He couldn’t pass any of the tests, even in his own language. He was qualified to drive a cab until he could complete his schooling to become a chiropractor. That’s how well the superior Soviet educational system worked!
The level of poverty in the Soviet Union was a direct result of central/governmental economic control of the economy or the lack of innovation caused by censorship. — Charlie Gruner
This article originally appeared on Galesburg Register-Mail: The many versions of Socialism lead to poverty
