Communism, Fascism, and Democracy [antikvár]

INTRODUCTION "If all communities aim at some good," Aristotle wrote, "the state, or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good." More than two thousand years have elapsed since this was written, yet no single type of political organization, no set of fundamental principles has won universal acceptance. The proper goals of states, the best methods for the attainment of such goals, and the ideal constitution of political communities in general have been and remain the subjects of profound philosophical dispute. The resolution of these disputes is of the highest importance. For although theoretical conflicts often bear on everyday life, none do so more far-reachingly and urgently than conflicts in the realm of politics. Political decisions may vitally affect almost every aspect of a society's life—from its level of economic welfare to its very existence as a community. And the basic ingredients of important public policies are the political philosophies subscribed to by the people concerned. Of course, the day-to-day decisions of individuals and governments are not normally made with sole or even prime reference to the largest principles of politics. But the most vital decisions, those which deeply affect the tenor of daily life and which give long-range direction to program and policy, are made with deliberate or unconscious regard for theory—for prior philosophical commitments concerning the nature of the person and the state. In this century, these philosophical commitments have crystallized chiefly into three well-developed theories of community organization. We have witnessed, and continue to witness, the contrasts and conflicts of these political philosophies: communism, fascism, democracy—their