Too
often history profs/teachers will launch into a diatribe on how the Nazi's and
Hitler were right-wing fascists and the Soviets with Stalin were communists
(and they may actually mention 'left') and were bitter enemies because they
were on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
Hmmm...a
real student or political scientist should stop right there. Ask this question, "NAZI...what did that
basic acronym stand for? Oh yeah,
'National Socialists'." We all know
how right-wing socialists are.
Long
story short, as one becomes a greater student of history, economics, of basic
social trends, one sees a movement toward collectivization, of a greater concentration
of power, wealth, etc. to the government.
Only at pivotal times does this concentration become scattered, usually
through violent revolutions that shatter the social structures and economic
activities, resulting in death on a super-scale, of massive destruction. There are but few exceptions to this rule,
the American Revolution and the fall of the Roman Empire come first to
mind. One had few deaths or disruption,
and the other occurred over a few centuries.
The
most efficacious means to distinguish 'left' and 'right' politically, is to
determine a power/wealth concentration index.
Many scholars have in fact calculated these, each with a set of assumptions
that may differ one to the other.
However, the point remains, the more concentrated, the further to the
left.*
Ayn
Rand's objectivism, or the Founding Fathers' drive for equal opportunity, are
clearly toward the right side of the spectrum.
With the knowledge that there are no guarantees in life, that risk is
inherent but reward is possible, people accept this and try try try. They usually also fail fail fail, but once in
a while they make it big. And because
they do, society in general benefits, too.
Bill Gates became exceedingly wealthy, but his efforts resulted in many,
many others having tools to increase their own standards of living (like the
program I'm using to write this now, Microsoft Word). Steve Jobs and his Apple company became very
well-to-do, but the products they sold to willing customers enhanced the same
customers' life-styles.
Obviously
the costs likely out-weigh the benefits at the extremes. The real trick
is similar to a bell curve distribution as to the majority's wishes, and how
'majority rules' is equated to mob-rule by the Founding Fathers, hence the
republican form of gov't we have.
Have
you noticed the increases of power accrued by the Federal (should be
'National') gov't? The benchmarks: adoption of the U.S.
Constitution (recall Jefferson's adamant opposition to it as a power-grab),
Civil War and Lincoln, Roosevelt and the Progressive movement, Roosevelt and
the New Deal, LBJ and the Great Society, Reagan's failed attempt at pushing it
back to the right in his New Federalism, then the most recent efforts at
healthcare reform providing precedent for the gov't, who will become the payer
of all healthcare costs, to assume the role of nanny, to dictate reduction in
the lifestyle choices that will be more likely to incur higher healthcare costs
(already we see it with regard to smoking...and like Mayor Bloomberg in NYC on
size of beverages, the subtle change in advising the public on cancer
screenings being less necessary now...).
My
goal here is to illustrate the way major shifts occur slowly, with
an occasional quickening, but always to the side of greater gov't
control and the ratcheting effect (or slippery slope). To achieve any
type of 'reset' brings with it great socio-economic upheavals and death, with
very few exceptions, notably the American Revolution.
French
Revolution, Soviet Revolution and Russian Civil War, then the roll-back of the
early 90's, China with Mao, but then the adoption of State Capitalism which
seems to move to the right side, but doesn't, Germany in the 20s and 30s, post
WWII Great Britian over several decades, etc. Even the rise of empires of
Rome and Persia, or the Aztecs, whoa.
*Caveat,
this concentration is about public or government acquisition, NOT private
acquisition. For those of you about to
go off on a diatribe about the evils of rich capitalists, may I point out that
almost to a one the 'robber-barons' became monopolists because of
crony-capitalism wherein they lobbied the government and received special
treatment that skewed the competitive market structure, distorting it in the
favor of the rich. The 'evil rich' are
inherently motivated to maintain the status quo, and do so using the power
structure of gov't, making the fascist partnership model between big business
and gov't, or the 'simpler' model of gov't take-over as we find in communist
societies. Note that the individuals in
that power structure are in fact, the rich.
