But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
The Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence
Enlightenment thinker and of the most "state-of-the-art" philosophers in History Thomas Jefferson definitely imposed one of the very first "laissez-faire" directions of how the society as a whole should function. Thomas Jefferson, purusingly impressed by 16-century French philosopher Jean Bodin and his Contractual theory that viably reflected the very first democratically-driven community of Carinthia. There's in fact a certain degree of wisdom that is manually maintained to applicable for the "lessons of every day". Thomas Jefferson's first inaugural speech is a clearly shown evidence, that this man had a vision to go forward and promote "laissez faire" Capitalism. Let me thus turn to the point why Capitalism is, due to basic Jeffersonian principles, the very best hope for man on earth in order to enable anyone to move from the bottom to the top to pursue his or her happiness.
The very first fact that we have to know is that Free Market as a way to pursue personal happiness was not invented as Marxist doctrine has been trying to impose in its program. Eventually, when people from the very beginning were feeling an emerging need to produce and exchange goods, then at the same spot free market appeared. During the French Revolution there was a popular parole that said: "Majority may take up the whole thing, but it never has a power to abolish the laws of the Nature". Entrepreneurial activity that brought wealth and prosperity to the people can never be shaped within the foundation of growth-machine of Capitalism. Entrepreneurial leadership in fact acquires detailed knowledge of production. That's how free market will attain a never-ending path of growth of business. It is clearly adequate to say that mismanagement of entrepreneurial investment was conducted where social nature of the law didn't allow prosperously thoughtful individuals to guide the entrepreneurial production. Such a case method was instituted by totalitarian regimes. In fact the empires of evil in the 20th century (Nazism, Communism) implied the most destructive type of society that fell inevitably. The reason for their downfall is entailed within their way of thinking and theoretical underpinning. Both totalitarian applications devised ideological paradigm that should once destroy the individually-free initiative. Both ideologies were typically driven "mafia-gangs". It's true that they differed in certain aspects. But they had one basic think in common and that thing was socialism. Hitler succeeded to impose a synthesis of nationalism and socialism and that's how National Socialism was devised. Lenin's version of socialism was indeed the very destructive project, as destructive as was the theory of Marx-Engles version of scientific socialism.
An economist Warren Nutter once went directly to the point when he perfectly described the Leninist version of socialism, added with some of the "democratic elements": "If people want the Constitution, give it them, and even basic human rights can be entailed within it. And why not - give them also the legal system of the courts. If they desire a federally-driven system, no problem just give it them and create a myth at last. Let them go to elections, because people tend to connect elections with Democracy. Actually, give people everything what they want, but before you impose such aspects, make sure that they make no effect."
Governments are freely instituted among men whose power derives from the consent of the governed. As to that subject, its irresponsible and furthermore morally illegitimate to talk about Marxist-Leninist "scientific socialism" as a way of how "justly molded society" should work.
In the 20th century there was a downfall of both applications of socialist doctrine. So what were the most viable similarities between National Socialism and Marxism-Leninism? Both comparatively fearful ideologies were illegitimately instituted as a mafia, battling to take the position to stir around the globe. Both criminal implications never fulfilled their ideas. Hitler's socialism ended up with the end of the WW2, while Marxism-Leninism collapsed within its destructive framework. Both, national socialists and communists affirmed their common objectives upon two similar conceptual premises, derived from the socialism exclusively. Thus, both fearful ideologies agreed to support "collective" (command-driven) economy. Both applications succeeded to occupy individuals for achieving governmental objectives. Both dismissed applications were truly unfavorable of instituting private property. Both paralleled projects of communism and National Socialism prefered to institute collective society that should once plague the world and become a "boundless conception" of highly active state. But even though those fearful applications had been varying among, they had one thing in common. Besides punishing of the ideas, they were disprovable of "entrepreneurial thinking". Both of the cited ideologies systematically and structurally rejected the concept of private property rights that are central to Economic Growth and Prosperity. It's like I wrote, two different ideologies, but only one common thing in mind. That thing was a fortified road to serfdom of despotism and never-ending era of thousand years of darkness, where both - national socialism and communism - unpreserved the better hope for children, whose destiny was perished within the devastatingly long period of slavery, destituted innovation and imprisoned talent, that was unfortunately applied to fortify the idea of statism, where within it, communism and national socialism didn't seemed to be an ideology, but most certainly the way of life.
Reference
Steve Pejovich: EU med nacizmom in komunizmom (EU between nazism and communism), Finance, 2005
Richard Pipes, Communism, Weinfeld & Nicholson, 2001
Edward Radzinski, Stalin, the first biography based on the explosive new documents from Russia's secret archives, Anchor Books, 1997
Stephane Courtoise, Nicholas Werth, The Black Book of Communism, Harvard University Press, 1998
Ljubo Sirc, Communism 2000, Projusticia
Ljubo Sirc, Communists favor World's Disorder
Ljubo Sirc, Communist Ideas and Influences after 1989
No comments:
Post a Comment