More political than purely economical...

Political left or right...  Is it true that communism is 'leftist' and fascism is 'right-wing'?

 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.