Moldbug points out that universalist regimes such as the US government and its satellites, suppress dissent too, though by means less drastic and obvious than communist regimes, and that universalist regimes had disturbingly cozy relationships with communist regimes, were full of fellow travellers until there was no one left to travel with. He proposes, therefore, to call them all communist.
But, Vladimir points out:
If you read that Ruritania was communist until 1989 and then became Universalist, chances are you’ll have a highly correct picture of its political system both before and after — even if you know absolutely nothing about Ruritania other than this single fact. A contrast between two words that packs so much accurate information is, in my opinion, certainly worth keeping.
And you will also have a highly correct picture of its economic system before, and the ways in which that economic system is changing after.
The big difference between universalist and communist regimes is economic, with universalist regimes seeking a Nazi type economy, with extensive ad hoc intervention, command, and control, but nominally private ownership and no central plan, while communist regimes intended open state ownership and a central plan.
In the past, this (fascism) has been a more rational system than state ownership and a central plan, but with too much state intervention, the lack of a central plan produces chaos. It only works if enough capitalism remains. The financial system appears to be reaching this point, and the American health care system has clearly reached this point. The best medical system in the world is probably Singapore, which has a fully socialist system for the poor and the unfortunate, and a fully capitalist system for the vast majority. For the poor in Singapore, there are death panels and a central plan. The Singaporean middle class, however pays for their health care, and get what they pay for, with the result that genuine free market competition yields costs that are substantially lower than in other countries.
Considering that the government used to set the price for phone services and airline tickets directly I’m not sure how you can argue that these industry were not wholly owned government institutions in all but name. Hell take a look at how the government controlled TV companies for the last 60 years as well.
Universalist didn’t really catch the market bug till the 1980s when it became clear than centralized planing didn’t work at any level. But it took Regan and Thatcher to really get them to start shifting.
Although universalism has indeed caught the market bug, they still have not figured out that a market with massive state intervention does not work.
They now have a tendency to spray “market†magic sauce on things that are very far from market based, for example “carbon offsetsâ€. This, however is more an excuse to not do central planning in situations where state intervention is so extensive and disorderly that a central plan is essential, than it is an actual affection for the free market. When the market is severely and drastically unfree, you do need a central plan, or, which comes to the same thing, a monopoly like Bell telephone.
(I originally wrote “state sponsored monopoly†but that is redundant, since monopolies only happen with state sponsorship or extensive private violence, as with union sponsored and mafia sponsored monopolies.)
When the left does stuff like Moldbug is doing, I understand. Fascist means “anyone the left hates.” Hitler is a fascist by this definition. Hitler is the mostest evillest thing ever. And some of that evil gets spilled on the other things in the pseudo-category fascist. It’s a successful, if nasty and fallacious, rhetorical strategy.
But what is Moldbug doing? Communism isn’t the mostest evillest thing ever (in the public mind). None of that evil is going to get spilled on anything, because nobody much is going to notice what categories Moldbug uses. So, what’s the point?
As I said earlier, Rothbard’s law