Quote:
Originally Posted by Thymeclock
The distinction is one of the state directly running the means of production (as in Soviet style communism) as opposed to doing it through privately controlled organizations (corporations) as in Fascist Italy. Granted, when coupled to a totalitarian regime it has the same effect in the end, except that technically it retains a capitalist format. NAZI Germany similarly allowed private property, but it was under direct domination by the state. However, The Third Reich was overtly socialist in its stated ideology. (The schizophrenic nature of it was typical of the NAZI mentality.)
|
Nazi Germany's approach was kind of strange anyway - partly because they had little or no foreign exchange (and therefore restricted money going outside the state) but provided private business with loads of government money to stimulate the economy. A lot of the Nazi's early supporters were rich industrialists who wanted an effective opposition to the communists - for a long time post WW1 Germany was 50:50 Communist vs not - and this was in some way a kind of payback. The state was 'nationalised' but large private 'german' monopolies were funded to provide the stuff required.
Some foreign companies (a classic example is IBM, but there were loads of others from all over the world) were happy to invest in German owned subsidiaries in return for lucrative government contracts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thymeclock
.... In itself, the disparity between "rich" and "poor" is not an inherent problem or even a cause for social unrest, as most capitalist countries have not succumbed to violence or bloody revolution. It's only a problem when the middle class is scant or non-existent.
|
The imbalance between rich and poor becomes a problem when there is no social mobility, those at the bottom see nothing to lose in upsetting the system and wanting an alternative - communism or some other state "distribution of wealth" scheme. And they will use violence as a path to this kind of change if the situation becomes too entrenched.
The problem is that in any society those at the top want to see their position remain and so protect it in some way. And if this is allowed to dominate (e.g. pre-civil war Spain) then it can become top-heavy and unstable. In the future the US may face this problem as the majority of it's population becomes Hispanic, here in the UK the majority of the population will become muslim by 2100.
The middle-east 'freedom' movement is directly related to this - a minority elite profiting from private enterprise whilst a majority underclass has no opportunity to better themselves.