A Confusion of Isms
A Confusion of Isms
We would mostly agree, save a crazed few, that some form of governance is necessary in this busy and confused world,
and we are mostly aware of those that have been experienced: monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, socialism, communism,
democracy. And by now we all realize they are different ways of distributing and pursuing power We love to discuss, debate
and argue about them individually and collectively. But they are beginning to blur, and a couple of new isms that have been
thrown in are populism, statism, paternalism, capitalism. Oh, I forgot tribalism, and anarchy doesn’t count.
But what is it we are talking about anyway? In all of them there is an elite and other, right? The elite are those that wield
power and other are the ones who are wielded; they merely represent ways in which we reach an agreement, however it might
be imposed, on which is which. In a sense there is only one form of government, and that is oligarchy: the rule of the few over
the many. Let’s face it, even kings, emperors and dictators don’t do it alone, so they also are the few, even if one among them
is where the buck stops – or the axe drops, however may be the case. It all comes down in the end to how the elite or chosen
and with what degree of power and control they exercise, and it really does get blurred.
We have been brought up to believe that democracy is best, and Winston Churchill convinced us that even though it is far
from perfect it is far and away the best of the lot because it emphasizes liberty and rights for those who are other. There is also
an attendant myth about the wisdom of the masses, but few really believe that. Instead the reality is that there is a certain
balance, if not necessarily wisdom, provided by something that we refer to as the middle class. Middle of what? Income
mostly, which equates to how much skin they have in the game, or how much they stand to lose. The republican version of
democracy, which is the only one practical, also has the theoretical advantage that through periodic voting the elite can be
replaced by another elite which are selected to replace them. I say theoretically because in many democracies different elites
are somewhat of an oxymoron as they tend to collude; if they don’t collude they perform a kind of kabuki where they pretend to
periodically change positions in order to keep us content. That works pretty well unless – or until – one or the other decides to
achieve a permanence of power that permits it to start changing the way in which us others are governed.
So what does that mean, the way in which we are governed? Well, that’s where the forms of oligarchies begin to
differentiate themselves, and where much confusion and disagreement arises. What differences are we talking about? First,
and most discussed, is what we refer to as freedom or liberty; the words have similar meanings but deal with how we are
controlled by government, or what we are allowed to do and what we are not allowed to do. Second, and ultimately most
important in the minds of the citizenry, refers to how that applies in the economic sense, particularly as it is associated with
property ownership: what can be owned, under what circumstances, and under what sets of controls, and how much does it
cost. The natural extension of that is as it pertains to businesses owned solely or in part. Socialism, for example, and
communism which theoretically only begins with socialism, connotes state ownership of the means of production
(businesses) and communism connotes state ownership of everything. But two notable socialist governments, 20th century
Germany and Italy, didn’t own the means of production, but merely controlled them, and both of them became known as fascist
due to the level of control they ultimately came to exert. Clearly then, form of governments can change even as they allegedly
remain theoretically the same: Germany and Italy were during their life-times socialist, oligarchic and dictatorship, morphing
over time as government exerted more centralized control – or power over the citizenry, and in the process limiting citizen liberty.
It all comes back to human nature and a lust for power among some and a lust to be taken care of among others. The
“perfect” balance might be if all the power lusters became the elite and all the others were lusters to be taken care of. But there
is this pesky middle class that neither lusts to be of the ruling elite (just lesser elite) nor is content to sit back and let the
government take care of them at the level that such governments can muster. No matter which way we jump the key is the
middle class, and elitist governments, however formed, are aware of that, knowing that control of them is their key to success.
Control, however, comes in many forms, takeover (socialism) being only one, and the least successful at that. And the
middle class can be bribed – up to a point. And that point is where there are not enough resources to keep them content, or all
of them content. And at that point other means of controls must be implemented, almost always lapsing into some form of
fascism. Ernest Gellner (Nations and Nationalism) puts it this way:
Fascism):
controlled, to what extent, and for how long by whatever policies when they are subjected to the forces of conflicting ideological
opinions, resource competition, ambition for power and controls, conceit, ego and manipulation? The American model has
survived in part due to the fear of the founders of totalitarian rule; and creation of checks and balances, separation of powers,
Constitutional law, property rights and popular sovereignty to preclude it; believed by some today who consider that to be
anachronistic. It has also been aided by the security of two oceans, vast resources and even vaster lands, and the ability to
start it all from scratch. Those advantages have been parlayed into incredible wealth and awesome but deteriorating individual
liberty. The model, however, has proven to be non-exportable in its unique form, and unlimited expectation at home is
approaching questionable limits of reality, while at the same time the model is morphing into something other than originally
intended, and the isms of the world bump up against each other with increasing confusion.
Democracy in its pure form is not realistic for massive nation states, which are actually democratically elected republics.
Socialism is rare. Capitalism, having been tamed by taxation and regulation, is tempered by statism, thanks in the United
States to amending the Constitution to empower the federal government powers in interstate commerce previously not
available to them, greatly expanding their reach, and partially emasculating federalism. What’s left in the world among
republics is a broad region of various degrees of populist oligarchic social statist paternal capitalism held together through
regulation and propaganda – and increasingly threatened (deficit spending) Dangegeld. We may call it democracy, and I see it
as being closer to republican oligarchy, but we really don’t know what it is any more. Robert D. Kaplan (The Coming Anarchy)
even sees an anarchical trend, which is interesting to contemplate.
We are being tested, and where there are some who see clearly, there are more whose field of vision is restricted by self
interest colored by that same old lust for power and control. In between stands the ubiquitous middle class; strained, buffeted,
propagandized, wooed and manipulated. All – elite, middle class and other – are human, and involved in the millenniums-old
struggle for power, security and survival, as empires have waxed and waned. The struggle is not new; it is just bigger and
more complex. It has also been blurred by a confusion of isms.
We would mostly agree, save a crazed few, that some form of governance is necessary in this busy and confused world,
and we are mostly aware of those that have been experienced: monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, socialism, communism,
democracy. And by now we all realize they are different ways of distributing and pursuing power We love to discuss, debate
and argue about them individually and collectively. But they are beginning to blur, and a couple of new isms that have been
thrown in are populism, statism, paternalism, capitalism. Oh, I forgot tribalism, and anarchy doesn’t count.
But what is it we are talking about anyway? In all of them there is an elite and other, right? The elite are those that wield
power and other are the ones who are wielded; they merely represent ways in which we reach an agreement, however it might
be imposed, on which is which. In a sense there is only one form of government, and that is oligarchy: the rule of the few over
the many. Let’s face it, even kings, emperors and dictators don’t do it alone, so they also are the few, even if one among them
is where the buck stops – or the axe drops, however may be the case. It all comes down in the end to how the elite or chosen
and with what degree of power and control they exercise, and it really does get blurred.
We have been brought up to believe that democracy is best, and Winston Churchill convinced us that even though it is far
from perfect it is far and away the best of the lot because it emphasizes liberty and rights for those who are other. There is also
an attendant myth about the wisdom of the masses, but few really believe that. Instead the reality is that there is a certain
balance, if not necessarily wisdom, provided by something that we refer to as the middle class. Middle of what? Income
mostly, which equates to how much skin they have in the game, or how much they stand to lose. The republican version of
democracy, which is the only one practical, also has the theoretical advantage that through periodic voting the elite can be
replaced by another elite which are selected to replace them. I say theoretically because in many democracies different elites
are somewhat of an oxymoron as they tend to collude; if they don’t collude they perform a kind of kabuki where they pretend to
periodically change positions in order to keep us content. That works pretty well unless – or until – one or the other decides to
achieve a permanence of power that permits it to start changing the way in which us others are governed.
So what does that mean, the way in which we are governed? Well, that’s where the forms of oligarchies begin to
differentiate themselves, and where much confusion and disagreement arises. What differences are we talking about? First,
and most discussed, is what we refer to as freedom or liberty; the words have similar meanings but deal with how we are
controlled by government, or what we are allowed to do and what we are not allowed to do. Second, and ultimately most
important in the minds of the citizenry, refers to how that applies in the economic sense, particularly as it is associated with
property ownership: what can be owned, under what circumstances, and under what sets of controls, and how much does it
cost. The natural extension of that is as it pertains to businesses owned solely or in part. Socialism, for example, and
communism which theoretically only begins with socialism, connotes state ownership of the means of production
(businesses) and communism connotes state ownership of everything. But two notable socialist governments, 20th century
Germany and Italy, didn’t own the means of production, but merely controlled them, and both of them became known as fascist
due to the level of control they ultimately came to exert. Clearly then, form of governments can change even as they allegedly
remain theoretically the same: Germany and Italy were during their life-times socialist, oligarchic and dictatorship, morphing
over time as government exerted more centralized control – or power over the citizenry, and in the process limiting citizen liberty.
It all comes back to human nature and a lust for power among some and a lust to be taken care of among others. The
“perfect” balance might be if all the power lusters became the elite and all the others were lusters to be taken care of. But there
is this pesky middle class that neither lusts to be of the ruling elite (just lesser elite) nor is content to sit back and let the
government take care of them at the level that such governments can muster. No matter which way we jump the key is the
middle class, and elitist governments, however formed, are aware of that, knowing that control of them is their key to success.
Control, however, comes in many forms, takeover (socialism) being only one, and the least successful at that. And the
middle class can be bribed – up to a point. And that point is where there are not enough resources to keep them content, or all
of them content. And at that point other means of controls must be implemented, almost always lapsing into some form of
fascism. Ernest Gellner (Nations and Nationalism) puts it this way:
- Industrial society is the only society ever to live by and rely on sustained and perpetual growth, on an expected
and continuous improvement. Not surprisingly, it was the first society to invent the concept and ideal of
progress, of continuous improvement. Its favored mode of social control is universal Danegeld, buying off
social aggression with material enhancement; its greatest weakness is its inability to survive any temporary
reduction of the social bribery fund, and to weather the loss of legitimacy which befalls it if the cornucopia
becomes temporarily jammed and the flow falters.
Fascism):
- The “middle way” (between capitalism and socialism) sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it
sounds unideological and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is
utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is
about trade-offs. The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices – “I refuse to accept that X should come
at the expense of Y.” The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and
absolute unity. Fascist movements are implicitly utopian because they – like communist and heretical Christian
movements – assume that with just the right arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be rectified. This is
a political siren song; life can never be made perfect, because man is imperfect. This is why the Third Way is
also authoritarian. It assumes that the right man – or, in the case of Leninists, the right party – can resolve all of
these contradictions through sheer will. The populist demagogue takes on the role of the parent telling the
childlike masses that he can make everything “all better” if they just trust him.
controlled, to what extent, and for how long by whatever policies when they are subjected to the forces of conflicting ideological
opinions, resource competition, ambition for power and controls, conceit, ego and manipulation? The American model has
survived in part due to the fear of the founders of totalitarian rule; and creation of checks and balances, separation of powers,
Constitutional law, property rights and popular sovereignty to preclude it; believed by some today who consider that to be
anachronistic. It has also been aided by the security of two oceans, vast resources and even vaster lands, and the ability to
start it all from scratch. Those advantages have been parlayed into incredible wealth and awesome but deteriorating individual
liberty. The model, however, has proven to be non-exportable in its unique form, and unlimited expectation at home is
approaching questionable limits of reality, while at the same time the model is morphing into something other than originally
intended, and the isms of the world bump up against each other with increasing confusion.
Democracy in its pure form is not realistic for massive nation states, which are actually democratically elected republics.
Socialism is rare. Capitalism, having been tamed by taxation and regulation, is tempered by statism, thanks in the United
States to amending the Constitution to empower the federal government powers in interstate commerce previously not
available to them, greatly expanding their reach, and partially emasculating federalism. What’s left in the world among
republics is a broad region of various degrees of populist oligarchic social statist paternal capitalism held together through
regulation and propaganda – and increasingly threatened (deficit spending) Dangegeld. We may call it democracy, and I see it
as being closer to republican oligarchy, but we really don’t know what it is any more. Robert D. Kaplan (The Coming Anarchy)
even sees an anarchical trend, which is interesting to contemplate.
We are being tested, and where there are some who see clearly, there are more whose field of vision is restricted by self
interest colored by that same old lust for power and control. In between stands the ubiquitous middle class; strained, buffeted,
propagandized, wooed and manipulated. All – elite, middle class and other – are human, and involved in the millenniums-old
struggle for power, security and survival, as empires have waxed and waned. The struggle is not new; it is just bigger and
more complex. It has also been blurred by a confusion of isms.