Liberalism is closer to fascism than conservatism

[Itse]

If you look at
what Mussolini actually did:

-"advanced economic liberalism, along with minor privatization"

- "simplified the tax code, cut taxes, curbed spending, liberalized trade restrictions and abolished rent controls"

- "The government moved toward resolving class conflicts in favour of corporatism. In the short term, the government worked to reform the widely abused tax system, dispose of inefficient state-owned industry, cut government costs and introduce tariffs to protect the new industries"

- "Referring to the economics of John Maynard Keynes as "useful introduction to fascist economics", Mussolini spent Italy into a structural deficit that grew exponentially."

- "A former school teacher, Mussolini’s spending on the public sector, schools and infrastructure was considered extravagant.

- "Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools, railway stations and orphanages; swamps were drained and land reclaimed, forests were planted and universities were endowed".

- "embarked upon an elaborate program" that included food supplementary assistance, infant care, maternity assistance, general healthcare, wage supplements, paid vacations, unemployment benefits, illness insurance, occupational disease insurance, general family assistance, public housing and old age and disability insurance."


Mussolini wasn't a progressive or a conservative by todays standards. He was both.

And none of that means absolutely anything. Just because someone agrees with something that Mussolini did does not say anything about their proximity to fascism. It's just bad logic.

That's like saying anybody who likes schools is likely to be a fascist, because Mussolini really liked schools.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I think the biggest problem with this debate is that we're using the "wrong" definition of Liberal. Most modern day Conservatives are Liberals (i.e. freedom to do what they want with minimal intervention) in the true meaning of the word, while most progressives are in favor of more regulation and government involvement in life.

Feel like the debate we're having here is socially conservative vs. progressive.

I agree that the OP used Liberal as a synonym for Progressive which is incorrect. However, Social Liberals and Conservatives are both liberal groups. However, even if we present it as:

"Be it resolved, National Socialism is closer to modern progressivism than modern social conservatism", we are left with the same conclusion.

National Socialism markets itself more closely to modern progressivism, but in practice is closer to social conservatism (doubly so since many social conservatives are not fiscal conservatives). Also, social conservatives tend to use a lot of the same techniques and methods as progressives. Both make extensive use of identity politics, both sides have people claiming discrimination (religious persecution, sexism, racism, etc) both try to control the language used to describe certain things (infanticide being used for abortion, preborn child vs fetus, etc), but there is a subset of social conservatives that would very much like to see dubious religious doctrines applied as law, including banning abortion, supporting the subjugation of women (or at least support enforcing the traditional gender roles), and more, something progressives would never support, but national socialism historically supported despite the marketing.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by nik-

This depends on the country. In a US centric viewpoint, this is absolutely false.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? All the evidence I'm aware of suggests that from a US centric viewpoint, Ducay's statement is correct.

Remember, right wing and conservative are not synonyms. Neither are republican and conservative. Further, conservative and social conservative are different things too.

Classical liberalism divided into the modern social liberalism and conservatism in the early 20th century and the primary focus of the two groups over that time has remained mostly the same.

Social conservatives are an entirely different thing, and they may or may not be conservatives the usual sense.

[FlamesAddiction]

Fascism is only closer to progressives if you cherry pick only certain aspects, but ignore the anti-egalitarianism, militarism, xenophobia, prison system, etc... components that make it closer to modern day far right conservatives.

Applying principles associated with modern day progressives, but limiting it to only certain segments of society, is not progressive at all. It's like forcing someone at gun point in a dictatorship to vote for the party that wants democracy, and calling the election democratic or the people "liberated". If it is not a free choice, then it is not democracy. Similarly, without egalitarianism as the root, it's not progressive.

This is where words just become semantics. You can have a country that has a long history of liberal practices and is the principle governing tenet for a thousand years, and if a group came to power that wanted to move the country to the right, any group that resisted that change and wanted to keep their long leftist traditions, would literally be a "conservative" even though they were ideologically on the left.

Or another example are politicians that believe in corporate bailouts and comparing that welfare to welfare of the poor, and calling it a leftist ideal.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? All the evidence I'm aware of suggests that from a US centric viewpoint, Ducay's statement is correct.

Remember, right wing and conservative are not synonyms. Neither are republican and conservative. Further, conservative and social conservative are different things too.

Classical liberalism divided into the modern social liberalism and conservatism in the early 20th century and the primary focus of the two groups over that time has remained mostly the same.

Social conservatives are an entirely different thing, and they may or may not be conservatives the usual sense.

How about a pillar of their platform being anti abortion? There's only one "conservative" option in the US and it is nothing except controlling.

Definitions don't matter when the forms in practice don't adhere to them.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by nik-

How about a pillar of their platform being anti abortion? There's only one "conservative" option in the US and it is nothing except controlling.

Definitions don't matter when the forms in practice don't adhere to them.

Agree the right to life is a non-Liberal view from the mother's perspective, I'll for sure give you that one policy given it restricts her liberty & choice - (I won't even get into the counterpoint about the unborn child's rights/liberty that some push) but if you compare their platforms as a whole, Conservatives are far and above more "Liberal" from a strickly "muh freedom, small government" perspective.

Heck, its not even close (gun control, environmental regulation, health care, economic regulation, social programs, etc) are all very progressive, but not liberal. I'm not going to argue the merits or pitfalls of any policies since I think most of their policies suck on both sides and we really don't need another US politics thread. But I think we can agree "US Conservatives" would be considered more liberal for the debate on definition of the word.

[nik-]

Yeah, but hardcore hands off government doesn't work and is just some delusional Ayn Rand wet dream. 75% of the people who long for it would be eaten up and exploited so fast that they'd be running and crying for a nanny state. They're losers now and somehow think that with no one to look after them they'd be winners? Laughable.

Also it's not a black and white scorecard of policy points because different controlling policies have different weight. Not being able to buy semi automatic weapons is not the same and being prevented from getting an abortion that might save your life.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by nik-

Yeah, but hardcore hands off government doesn't work and is just some delusional Ayn Rand wet dream. 75% of the people who long for it would be eaten up and exploited so fast that they'd be running and crying for a nanny state. They're losers now and somehow think that with no one to look after them they'd be winners? Laughable.

Also it's not a black and white scorecard of policy points because different controlling policies have different weight. Not being able to buy semi automatic weapons is not the same and being prevented from getting an abortion that might save your life.

Ya I'm not gonna debate merits of any US policy either way, but I think we both at least agree on my point re:Conservatives being more Liberal in the "technical" sense of the word.


In unrelated news, I was googling "National Socialism" that someone else referenced (since I assumed there would be Nazi type influence in the modern version of it), BUT, I learned that Canada had a Nazi party! Who woulda thunk!

Parti National Social Chrétien
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation..._Party_(Canada)

(English: National Social Christian Party) was a Canadian political party formed by Adrien Arcand in February 1934.[1] The party identified with antisemitism, and German leader Adolf Hitler's Nazism. The party was later known, in English, as the Canadian National Socialist Unity Party or National Unity Party.

Craziest part? Leader got 30% of the vote in his riding in Quebec AFTER the war (of which he was jailed during)

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Itse

And no, liberalism is not closer to fascism than conservatism.

Fascism is at it's core a conservative movement. You could even say it's conservatism taken to it's logical conclusion.

Conservatives openly long for a patriarchal society, strong leaders, strong police forces controlled by the government, and a society where they don't have to put up with women, ethnic minorities, young people or queers acting out. They also consider socialism as a fundamentally delegitimate ideology. (For example, for a conservative saying "that's socialism" is in itself an adequate rebuttal for anything, not needing further explanation.)

The logical conclusion of this is a society where you have a ideologically motivated police force that starts to violently oppress minorities, where voting for socialism or any progressive movement is made if not technically impossible, at least irrelevant in terms of who has the power, and where flat out killing political opponents is acceptable. Oh, and where women stay home or in jobs "suited to them", mostly meaning "in jobs where they are in service of men or each other".

That's what fascist societies are like. (Franco's Spain is a more useful example of a fascist society than Nazi Germany. Nazism is a rather specific subcategory of fascism, with rather unique features like the extreme preoccupation with purity and it's obsession about jews.)

The difference between liberals and conservatives is really mostly that liberals generally like to think they oppose violently silencing minorities or political opposition, where conservatives usually fully embrace violence as a way to uphold the society they believe in.

Of course only a small (but vocal) minority of liberals ever let it actually bother them if police brutality disproportionately targets minorities or political radicals. They will even quietly vote for parties and politicians who support "law and order", fully knowing that it really means more police violence and curbing of civil liberties of those who can't afford a good lawyer.

(Liberals also almost never support actions to make the legal or political systems more fair to poor people in practice. Liberals love to create systems where everything is theoretically fair, but in practice fully dependent on how much money or other resources you have to throw at a problem. When you start worrying about the practical side, that's when you start becoming a leftist and get labeled a socialist in the US.)

Even with those criticism, liberals don't create fascist societies. They can very easily quietly accept the creation of such a society, but they will not, for the most part, be active participants. Where as conservatives, if they get a lot of power, almost without fail tend to move a country at least somewhat closer to fascism.

Your characterization of what defines conservatives is so hyperbolic and off base. I’m not going to address each gross exaggerations but do you think conservatives are only white? You do realize many minority and immigrants groups share similar values to conservatives, and what makes you think every conservative is racist? This is funny to me because the only side that loves to use identity politics and re-hashing the “us vs them” arguments are the progressives.

Would you rather live in a capitalist society or a socialist one? I will wait...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aarongavey]

I would say anytime the state wants to interfere with what is going on in your uterus that is government control, which is a conservative thing. So one giant checkmate for government control on the conservative side.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Ya I'm not gonna debate merits of any US policy either way, but I think we both at least agree on my point re:Conservatives being more Liberal in the "technical" sense of the word.

But no, I don't agree with that. Conservatives consistently demonstrate a deference to authority. You're equating conservative with libertarian and putting too high a value on the property rights aspect of conservatism. Modern Conservative ideology literally wants to regulate the sexual habits of people. That just doesn't compare to wanting you to use government health care instead of a private insurance company.

A social safety net isn't government control, it's a backstop.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by nik-

But no, I don't agree with that. Conservatives consistently demonstrate a deference to authority. You're equating conservative with libertarian and putting too high a value on the property rights aspect of conservatism. Modern Conservative ideology literally wants to regulate the sexual habits of people. That just doesn't compare to wanting you to use government health care instead of a private insurance company.

A social safety net isn't government control, it's a backstop.

Actually, your confusing conservatism with social conservatism.

While it's true that conservatives are more likely to prefer hierarchy and to defer to authority, this doesn't make them authoritarian. For that to be true, they would need to also try to pass laws to make other people defer to the same authorities, which they usually don't do. It's more of a, leave me alone and let me defer to the authorities I trust, and I'll let you do the same.

Now social conservatives are a different story, and yes, they are strongly anti-abortion because they believe abortion is murder. Basically everyone, libertarian, progressive, liberal, conservative, and social conservative all agree that the government should prosecute murderers. As a result, this is an extremely weak evident that conservatives, even social conservatives, are authoritarian. There is definitely evidence that some social conservatives are authoritarian though.

You'll also find that most conservatives support a social safety net. You'll also find that there is a lot of disagreement among conservatives regarding what this social safety net should look like and who should provide it.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Actually, your confusing conservatism with social conservatism.

No, it's just that they're dangerously intertwined at this point.

[Cole436]

With incredible timing, this popped up on my feed today.

Why Nazi’s are not socialists, also called things I never thought I’d have to explain in 2019.
http://po.st/KPhbxf

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Cole436

With incredible timing, this popped up on my feed today.

Why Nazi’s are not socialists, also called things I never thought I’d have to explain in 2019.
http://po.st/KPhbxf

The word "socialist" and "socialism" used to be stylish. Right wing groups using is no different that how Congo and North Korea use "democratic" in their official names.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Beninho

Your characterization of what defines conservatives is so hyperbolic and off base. I’m not going to address each gross exaggerations but do you think conservatives are only white? You do realize many minority and immigrants groups share similar values to conservatives, and what makes you think every conservative is racist? This is funny to me because the only side that loves to use identity politics and re-hashing the “us vs them” arguments are the progressives.

Would you rather live in a capitalist society or a socialist one? I will wait...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm mostly amused that a its a conservative that would be upset about my description.

I'm especially a amused by your "would you rather live in a capitalist or socialist society" question.

What the he'll does that have to do with anything? I didn't even mention either of those things!

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm mostly amused that a its a conservative that would be upset about my description.

I'm especially a amused by your "would you rather live in a capitalist or socialist society" question.

What the he'll does that have to do with anything? I didn't even mention either of those things!

Why wouldn’t any conservative be annoyed at what you said? I don’t care at all for discussing which ideology is closer to fascism, I was more annoyed by you claiming that conservatives only want to live in societies where women are marginalized and minorities are silenced, while I myself am a “minority” by probably your definition. Do you actually believe that garbage? If you do you should actually listen to rationale conservatives speakers and not right-wing nut jobs. You spoke as if being against Socialism is something that is a negative. So I asked you what society would you like to live in, a capitalist one or a socialist one? I think that’s a fair question given your clear favouriting of socialism over anything conservative (the two aren’t at all comparable) Which to me is downright laughable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Beninho

Your characterization of what defines conservatives is so hyperbolic and off base. I’m not going to address each gross exaggerations but do you think conservatives are only white? You do realize many minority and immigrants groups share similar values to conservatives, and what makes you think every conservative is racist? This is funny to me because the only side that loves to use identity politics and re-hashing the “us vs them” arguments are the progressives.

Is it? Look at it point by point, and then think about those points in context. Itse said:

"Conservatives openly long for a patriarchal society, strong leaders, strong police forces controlled by the government, and a society where they don't have to put up with women, ethnic minorities, young people or queers acting out. They also consider socialism as a fundamentally delegitimate ideology. (For example, for a conservative saying "that's socialism" is in itself an adequate rebuttal for anything, not needing further explanation.)"

Conservatives are patriarchal in nature. This has been long agreed to and there is really no discussion here.

Conservatives like strong leaders. Again, no doubt. Can you name the last great conservative leader that wasn't "strong" and relied on the machinations of the state to support his authority?

Conservatives like strong police forces/military. There is a reason why both follow a strong chain-of-command model, which is very patriarchal in structure. There is also a reason why the service is filled with a lot of hard core conservatives - they are drawn to jobs which leverage the same ideals they themselves embrace. The professional police model, employed by most services around the world, is very authoritarian and follows the patriarchal ideals. The community oriented model, not so popular, follows a more matriarchal ideal, which does not work well in a top down form of governance.

The "put up with women" comment was a bit harsh, but somewhat accurate as well. In conservative countries and systems, women know their place and it is in service of their husband and family.

The ethnic minorities comment also needs some context to fully get it. Just look at countries with strong conservative leadership and the make up of their ruling party. Is it pretty homogeneous or heterogeneous? What are the behaviors of that leadership? Do they blame the problems of the society on foreigners or minorities? Look at the US, Britain, the Philippines, etc. Lots of examples of xenophobia at work. The ironic part is that minorities are traditionally conservative themselves, because of the patriarchal nature of their culture, yet conservative collectives tend to stay extremely homogeneous in make up.

Conservatives do have a strong belief that experience matters and that the youth just don't have that experience to be trusted. Children are to be seen and not heard. Would you not agree with that?

I don't think there is any argument on the "queer" issue. Conservatives are very much anti-gay.

Would you rather live in a capitalist society or a socialist one? I will wait...

I can't answer that because we don't have either. What we have is a very blended system that steals a little from each. In Canada the system borrows a little more form the socialist perspective and provides more for the common man. In the United States the same borrowings are made, but the equity is given to the rich and corporations. In the US we have socialism in action, but it is all focused on transferring wealth to the rich and the corporations. Personally I liked the Canadian system much better, as it offered much more mobility than the American system.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Beninho

Would you rather live in a capitalist society or a socialist one? I will wait...

That's a false choice and a simplistic way to look at it, presuming you're referring specifically to economic systems. All 'first world' countries are capitalist with socialist programs. The difference between these countries is where they find themselves on the spectrum of amount of government control.

There is no pure capitalist society on the planet. Somalia, circa 2006, would probably come closest. Conversely, there is no purely socialist country either but I would guess Cuba or Venezuela would be close. So, if you're asking me if I'd rather live in Somalia or Cuba I guess I'd pick Cuba.

[Resolute 14]

That thought process is right up there with believing that all liberals are socialists. Or that all feminists are militant man-haters.