Time to Think

Terminology #307

By Hank Silverberg

Communist, Fascist, Socialist--you have heard those words bandied about in this election cycle much more often than in the past. But it's clear listening to the rhetoric and the public's reaction to it that most people really don't know much about those political ideologies of any of those labels.

Anyone who has taken an introductory political science course understands the traditional political spectrum.

You can't be a Fascist and a Communist at the same time. Fascism is on the extereme right of the poltical spectrum. Communism is on the extreme left, and Socialism is just to the right of Communism.

Yes, you can have authoritarian leaders in all three of these systems, but the ideology is far from the same.

So let's take a close look at each one.

Fascism was invented in 1921 by Bonito Mussolini. General Francisco Franco in Spain perfected Faschism--a strong-man type of government where leadership was centralized, the government puts tight reigns on essential industry, opposition parties are banned and the press is government run. It is based on loyalty to the leader--who has absolute power. Franco who took power in Spain in 1939 after his victory in brutal civil war. He then isolated the country and remained Dictator until his death in 1975.

Mussolini, an Italian journalist, maneuvered himself into power in 1932 and then took his country into World War Two, allied with the Nazis. He died at the hands of his own people in 1945.

Hitler admired Fascism, and modeled the Nazi Party after it. But he added a more hideious element to it, antisemitism because he knew many Germans would flock to that practice as they had used in the past.

Some elements of Facism remain in the world today, but none in the Franco-Mussolini model.

Communisim grew out of Marxism, the 19th Century egalitarian philsophy of Carl Marx. It was an economic system at its base, focusing on taking the means of production away from rich landowners and large corporations and putting it in the hands of the "proletariat"--the people. In practice, it too produced authortarian leadership. First Lenin, who consolidated Communism in Russia, then Stalin, who murderously supressed any opposition and with World War Two as a backdrop, expanded his control and influence over all of Eastern Europe. The USSR remained communist until 1991, when it failed because its economic system was not sustainable in a world economy. China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea remain commnist today, each with a slightly different version.

In China, Laos and Vietnam, loyalty to the State, rather than the one particular leader is their focus, while in Cuba and North Korea, loyalty to the leader is the mandate.

Socialism also grew out of the Maxist ideology. But unlike Communism, Socialism does not include a dictator or authoritarian leader and can include free elections of leaders. It does not advocate total takeover of private business. There has never been a pure socialist country. Right now there are a large number of countries which have adopted some aspects of Socialism. They include strong regulation or control of essential services and major businesses while allowing small business to flourish. It also includes more rights for the working man, free medical care and a more equitable distribution of wealth.

Here is the traditional political spectrum. Some things can be added. For example, to the right of the Conservatives are the Libertarians and the Alt-Right, but this is the classic spectrum.

LEFT ← CENTRE → RIGHT

(Egalitarianism) (Inegalitarianism)

Communism

Authoritarian-communism

Socialism

Social democracy, democratic socialism

Progressives

Reform liberalism

Liberals
Classical liberalism

Moderates

Conservative

Uncontrolled-capitalism

Fascism
(loyalty to the leader)

The United States has never fit any of these ideologies.And fits right in the middle of this spectrum. It is our tradition to reject the strongman or authoritarian leader and focus on representative government. The USA, because of The Bill of Rights, has placed more protection on the rights of individuals, with many limits on government power. But we have also added some regulation of business to protect those individual rights and the public as a whole from unrestrained capitalists seeking nothing but profit.

So here's the commentary part of my blog this week. I'm tired of all the political rhetoric which bastardizes political terms for political gain, or to keep the public confused. Name calling in person, online or in political ads by those who seek to represent us is bad public policy, and a poor way to govern. The harsher and more deceptive the rhetoric, the worse it is. The public is tired of it.

What The Polls Say!

The lastest polls as of Sunday indicate the race for president is closer than ever. But you have to take these polls lightly, because EVERYTHING about this election points to TURNOUT as the deciding factor more than in the past. And you have to narrow that down to turnout in the swing states. The election four years ago produced the most votes EVER in a presidential election, and it's likely it could be the same this year. So which candidate gets her or his voters out--wins.

A group called 538 does a compilation of all the current polls from October 12 to 27, and a look at those polls averaged shows this:

In the popular vote, Harris is leading 48.0% to 46.7% for Trump.

But in the seven key swing states, the ones that will decide the Electoral College and therefore the election, it is extremely close. Wisconson, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Michigan are EVEN.

Trump is up by just one point in North Carolina (48.5% to 47.7%), and just under two points in Georgia (48.7% to 47%), and up two points in Arizona (48.8 to 46.7).

There is one factor to consider when reading these polls. As of Friday, more than 36.6 million people have already voted early, and more than nine million of those have come from the seven swing states which are seeing a surge in Republican votes.

Huge turnouts on election day, considering the early votes already, could make a big difference in the results.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/

A Change In Work Habits

The Covid-19 pandemic has changed the way we work and how we feel about our jobs. I did a story for the Fredericksburg Advance this past week about ridership on Virginia Railway Express, the commuter line here in Northern Virginia. Ridership was just over one-third of what it was in the month before the pandemic, down to 6,666 in the past 12 months compared to 18,275 in the 12 months prior to the pandemic.

Why? Well, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments says that most federal agency employees are no longer working four or five days a week in their office as they did pre-pandemic. They are telecommuting often. And about 70% of VRE's riders were federal workers, so that's why ridership plummeted. Some members of Congress haven't been too happy about the increase in teleworking and have been putting pressure on government departments to get these folks back to their desks.

That is already a steady trend in the private sector. But it may not be good for the career "well being" of younger workers.

A report released last month by Johns Hopkins Carey Business School https://carey.jhu.edu/ says workplace "well being" nationwide has been dwindling since work flexibility has been scaled back.

(Arlington Research, Upsplash)

Those in the healthcare and retail/hospitality industries had the poorest well-being scores out of the 2,500 businesses in the survey, while older, White male employees fared much better than Black, female, and younger workers.

Previous research had predicted that "work well- being" declines with age, but that trend has now been reversed with those 35-44 showing more stability in their well-being over time. Those over 55 had the best workplace "well-being," while those 25 and younger had the worst.

In other words, the post-pandemic trend back to the office apears to have a bigger impact on the career "well-being"of younger workers rather than those who had been on the job more than two years.

Included in the findings: firms in which 75% or more employees could work remotely part-time had the highest "well-being" (4.41), and those in which less than 25% of employees could do the same had the lowest score (4.2).

Simply put, it appears the younger folks do not like to be tied to a desk, while the older workers appear happier to be back in the office.

https://fortune.com/well/article/workplace-well-being-covid-return-to-office-hybrid-remote/

https://open.substack.com/pub/fxbgadvance/p/vre-ridership-has-yet-to-recover?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Dumbest Quote of The Week!

A double entry this week for the dumbest quote.

The dishonor goes to both Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who issued their dumb comment in a joint statement to the media, which criticized Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. They called her comments "dangerous". And they want Harris to:

"..abandon the base and irresponsible rhetoric that endangers both American lives and institutions."

The statement went on:

"Labeing a political opponent a 'fascist' risks inviting yet another would-be assassin to try robbing voters of their choice before Election Day."

The hypocrisy in the statement from Johnson and McConnell goes beyond normal party nonsense.

Donald Trump has called Harris "dumb, stupid, a lunitic", suggested she has a "substance abuse problem" and has called her "fascist," "Communist," "Socialist," and even more incendiary words in practically every speech he makes.

Add to that, Harris didn't actually call Trump a "fascist". Trump's former Chief of Staff, John Kelly, used the label to describe Trump. Harris was asked if she thinks Kelly is right, and she said, "Yes I do."

Johnson and McConnell just can't seem to shake the idea that their party leader has no scruples and uses scurrilous words to describe everything but himself.

(Your comments and suggestions are welcome)

My recent book "The Campaign" can be purchased at the links below. Or you can buy a copy by emailing me at: HankSilverberg@gmail.com for instructions on how to get a copy at a reduced price and with my signature)