> It's the fusion of authoritarian quasi-fascist rule with capitalism
Were the two ever separate?
Were the two ever separate?
Modern societies have never really lived without a large state. So almost every new society (or post-revolution) in history adopted that same practice. But usually with new limitations.
The problem is that once the state is instantiated and given broad power, their power continues to grow and expand out of self-interest and desire for control.
Regardless of capitalism or socialism.
As Rothbard said: "the true utopian is the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself.'".
At the same time I don't know enough about Singapore's current economic/social situation to comment. I was only stating an observation on the nature of states ability to expand in scope and power regardless of limitations enacted at initiation.
> I was only stating an observation on the nature of states ability to expand in scope and power regardless of limitations enacted at initiation.
Yes, as e.g. the USA nicely demonstrates.
"The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others" - Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Mus...
Fascism calls for state control and direction of the economy, which ultimately means Fascist Party control of the same because Fascism denies the legitimacy of any other party to ever govern the state. Capitalism calls for few to no state controls over economic activity so as to allow all businesses to operate with minimal interference.
Germany followed Italy's lead in state direction of the economy and notoriously seized the assets of Jews and sent them to "work" camps in the name of increasing the productivity of their labour. Franco banned international trade and watched his economy crash for a decade.