cont'd ...

My apologies - another typo -
I mistyped the link I gave -
it should be:

http://sustainablehuman.com/capitalism-and-communism-two-vehicles-to-the-same-destination/

David F,
Fascism and Hitlerian Socialism were not capitalist systems, the Soviets had their bureaus, the NS had their state approved monopolies, both states organised and distributed labour and resources to their bureaus and official suppliers, told them what they could make, when and at what price. NS Germany had limited privatisation in some sectors, the Soviets allowed some bureaus similar levels of autonomy.
Only your more thuggish, beetle browed Commie cretins like those found in the Scottish Nationalist Party still claim that Fascism was a capitalist system, or they did until the internet laughed so hard that they were forced to shut up.

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

The defining characteristic of capitalism is that the means of production are in private hands. The defining characteristic of socialism is that the means of production are in public or government hands. Fascism did not touch the property of landowners or corporations as long as those owners were not Jewish.

To say that only the Scottish nationalists considered Fascism capitalist is laughable.

The Fascists opposed liberal capitalism,but they were quite happy with authoritarian capitalism. Landowners and corporate interests financed the rise to power of both Hitler and Mussolini, and the alliance continued through their rule.

runner wrote: "the idiotic communist/socialist dogma ignored the very easy observation that man (and woman's) hearts are corrupt."

Dear runner,

I haven't observed that, and I doubt that you have observed it. I cannot observe what it is someone's heart, and I doubt that you can either. It is more of the religious dogma of original sin - not something one observes. Speak for yourself. Maybe your heart is corrupt, and you assume other people's heart must also be corrupt.

Please cite when and under what circumstances you have observed that someone's heart is corrupt. I wish you weren't so inordinately fond of making statements that cannot be backed up. Religious belief is not a substitute for proof or facts.

.

Dear david f,

.

« The defining characteristic of capitalism is that the means of production are in private hands. The defining characteristic of socialism is that the means of production are in public or government hands »
.

That’s correct, David, in the economic sense of the word. In the financial sense, this is what the Online Etymology Dictionary has to say:

« The financial sense is from 1610s (Middle English had chief money "principal fund," mid-14c.), from Medieval Latin capitale "stock, property" »

Those primeval human tribes that headed north from their early beginnings in Africa and migrated to Europe found themselves in a much less idyllic environment than those which migrated to Australia. The cold winter climate obliged them to wear animal skins to stay warm and they were constantly exposed to attack from competing tribes for access to available natural resources.

The struggle for survival in these more difficult conditions became the motor for evolution away from the traditional nomadic, hunter-gatherer way of life to the sedentary activities of agriculture and animal husbandry. It enabled the accumulation and storage of food (an instinctive form of capitalism practiced by many animal species) in order to survive the long winter months which, in turn, stimulated the development of science and industry.

This was a major turning point in the development of mankind. It occurred some 10,000 years ago, during what is known as the Neolithic era or “new stone age”.

Many animal species practice “private capitalism” (individual accumulation and storage of food) but some rare species practice a form of “state capitalism” (sharing of resources among the community). Ants, bees and wasps are typical examples of the latter.

Both systems, “private capitalism” and “state capitalism” (socialism) seem to co-exist quite harmoniously in nature. Both appear to be equally efficient and give satisfaction to the particular species which practices either one or the other.

These two natural phenomena obviously find an echo in Adam Smith’s free market economic theory on the one hand and Karl Marx’s theory of communism on the other.

.

Banjo Paterson: Your account of the raise of civilisation and complex social structures (eg: structured society, pulic works and government) is very wrong. Europe was not a "cradle of civilisation". The break from hunter-gathering to permanent agriculture occurred in a number of places at different times and mostly independently and sometimes completely independently. The most common regions recognised as cradles are: The Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia and Levant), Lower Nile of Egypt, Indus River in modern day Pakistan, Yellow River of China and the Norte Chico civilization in present day Peru and the Mesoamerican cultures from current central Mexico to Belize.

Nor have the colder European cultures been a dominating global force for long. In fact if you remove the Mediterranean based powers/societies of Greece, Rome and later Spain then Europe has only been home of the largest economic and military powers for a very, very short time when compared to the whole of civilisation (just a few centuries upto the late 1800's/early 1900's when USA took the title). Eg: did you know that the Meso american societies have had cities which dwarfed anything that Europe had at the time?

I once read that the region which holds the title of the greatest economic production for the longest time is China-- it held the title continuously for millenia. (Of course the politics, culture and ethnicity of this region has change a lot during this time). According to some, China has just recently regained this title.

When viewed over the entirety of civilisation, economically and militarily, Europe excluding the Roman empire, doesn't have much claim to fame. The thing that they did contribute, something which has had more effect on humanity than any other in history, is its developments in rational thinking and empirical investigation of reality: ie, its developments in math and the philosophy and practice of modern science.