Posted by
B.N. Sharpe on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 11:58:52 PM
This one is simple, as it's based in the simplicity of politics itself. Break out the subsets and varying theoretical types, such as mercantilism, theocracy, communism, et al., within the theories of socio-economic political application, and there's only three considerations. In our presently remaining major presidential candidates, we have perfect personifications of these three political sciences. Well, not perfect, as John McCain is, at best, as the Repulsicans as a whole are, a corrupted capitalist, while Hitlary is a power mad, mentally disordered, illiberal, full blown fascist, and Obama is a mentally disordered, most liberal of the liberals illiberal who is an absolute socialist.
Others more learned than I might portend that such simplistic labeling belies the complexities of political/socio-economic 'sciences'. I portend that the only complexities are these social scientists' incongruous inconsistencies. Simply stated, there are three basic choices of socio-economic political structures. Capitalism, whether entrepreneurial or monopolistic, is a system in which the means of production and distribution are privately and/or corporately owned and controlled, in an openly competitive free market. Fascism is a system in which the means of production and distribution may be privately owned, but all socio-economic activity is stringently controlled by a strong central government. Socialism is a conundrum in that is sounds wonderful and looks great on paper, and is perhaps the best of all possible political constructs in theory. But in practical application, it can not work in a group larger than, maybe three very good friends. It's defined as a utopian system in which the producers possess the political power because they possess the means of production and distribution. That creates the question that begs for a truism as answer. Who are the producers? And of course, there's the matter of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Considering the state of the proletariat of this country, I don't want them dictating. Of course, they are individually incapable of dictating so much as their own private, personal, paltry affairs, so that the function of dictating affairs of state becomes function of the government, which, in the name of the people (the proletariat), of course, will take possession of the means of production and distribution. And it won't take long before nothing is being produced or distributed.
There's your choices. An old, sold-out corrupted capitalist, a bich of a full fledged fascist, or an utter socialist, perhaps with ulterior motives relative to his Muslimness. Yeah, yeah, yeah; I know that that's not really a word. But you know what it means.