Liberalism is closer to fascism than conservatism

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

How did you come to the decision that governments which control high levels of either personal freedoms or economic freedoms are moderate? I dont think I have said governments with high levels of control in any aspect fall in the middle, in fact it has been the opposite the entire time.

More control = further left.

As GGG pointed out, control is not a left or right thing. You can have authoritarianism on either side of the political spectrum.

[FlamesAddiction]

Wikipedia has an informative write-up about fascism and right-wing authoritarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-...thoritarianism

It's a very well referenced wikipedia entry, so if you don't like wikipedia, at least check out the referenced web pages.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Liberalism is not closer to fascism than conservatism is to fascism.

Already posted in the other thread:



This chart is correct. End thread.

There are no "correct" political charts like this. The whole idea is fundamentally flawed, attractive as it is as a simplification.

The whole point of differing ideologies is that they have different relevant issues and different world views, which creates different spectrums with different endpoints between which they try to strike a balance.

What ever spectrum someone draws, they will generally place themselves somewhere a bit off the center, towards which ever way they think the society should be moving right now.

A socialist could draw a spectrum based on the distribution of wealth, where on one end you have communism (radical redistribution of all wealth) and on the other libertarianism or neoliberalism (radical economic freedom with all the inequality it creates), and place socialists a bit left of the middle trying to balance individual and common interests.

A nationalist might draw a spectrum of national interests, where on one end you have protectionism and on the other end globalism, and place themselves somewhere a bit on the protectionist side of middle trying to balance just how much global co-operation is beneficial to their country.

A conservative might draw a spectrum of individual liberties with anarchy on one end ("too much liberty will make the society collapse") and totalitarianism on the other end ("too much government rule will destroy individual freedom"), and place themselves either to the right if they currently think there's too much marginal nonsense like non-gendered bathrooms in the world, or a bit to the left if they're currently worried someone is going to take away their freedom to say ni***r, f*g, b*tch and re***d.

Etc.

And a liberal might draw a chart like you quoted.

But really, mostly it's liberals who like drawing charts like you quoted, because as mentioned in the video I linked, liberals are somewhat unique in how they think of themselves as not-ideological, and thus have a somewhat unique need to draw charts where they can place themselves in-the-middle-but-on-the-good-side.

Liberals also just generally love declaring they know the objective (non-ideological) truth about politics, especially in a way which places them as the only people who really care about democracy, like it says in that honestly a bit ridiculous chart

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by icecube

What the hell is paperbagger even rambling on about? A University prof on either side of the political spectrum would give him a failing grade on this topic. It's all over the map and we are all dumber for trying to wrap our heads around his logic.

It makes perfect sense, as long as you’re one of the individuals brainwashed by the likes of Fox News, Breitbart, or their bargain-bin Canadian equivalents in Postmedia and The Rebel. These organizations exist to spread the message that the left is the root of all evil - as a result, their followers believe that anything bad in the world has to be left-wing.

[FlamesAddiction]

Many psychologists believe that authoritarianism is distinctly a right wing trait.

Keep in mind that authoritarianism is not the same as totalitarianism. Authoritarianism is the ideology that promotes national obedience, centralization and consolidation of power in a few, limited pluralism and economically diverse social tiers/hierarchy. All of these are against left-leaning ideology. The definition clearly overlaps with fascism though.

Totalitarianism, on the other hand, ignores the political spectrum and is simply the act of dictatorship to enforce any ideology.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Dogbert

It makes perfect sense, as long as you’re one of the individuals brainwashed by the likes of Fox News, Breitbart, or their bargain-bin Canadian equivalents in Postmedia and The Rebel. These organizations exist to spread the message that the left is the root of all evil - as a result, their followers believe that anything bad in the world has to be left-wing.

I dont believe the left is bad at all so I'm not really sure where that assumption was made. The Rebel is completely unreadable trash meant to incite and polarize people as enemies.

As far as I go, I do believe society needs regulations and controls, I love having universal healthcare and knowing that even though I put in more than I take out, it's going a long ways for someone else. I love having roads that are well taken care of, garbage removal, and many of the luxuries that government control allows us to have. All in all it's pretty good here.

The balance of freedoms vs controls placed on us isn't perfect IMO, but it could be a lot worse.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Many psychologists believe that authoritarianism is distinctly a right wing trait.

Keep in mind that authoritarianism is not the same as totalitarianism. Authoritarianism is the ideology that promotes national obedience, centralization and consolidation of power in a few, limited pluralism and economically diverse social tiers/hierarchy. All of these are against left-leaning ideology. The definition clearly overlaps with fascism though.

Totalitarianism, on the other hand, ignores the political spectrum and is simply the act of dictatorship to enforce any ideology.

Since when has Authoritarianism been an ideology. It's no more an ideology than Theism is. An ideology can be Authoritarian, or Theistic, but neither are on their own ideologies. Further, many people hold some ideologies that are authoritarian, and some that are very much not. So a poltical libertarian might be a member of an authoritarian religion for example.

but if you are correct that Authoritarian ideologies are right wing, then we have to assert that many of the progressive left are in fact farther to the right than a very large portion of conservatives are because today (in north america) conservatives with authoritarian tendencies want the authoritarians to be local (and thereby oppose centralization and consolidation of power in the few on a wider basis) and progressives are pushing for national, sweeping regulations and rule by experts (necessarily the few).

[GGG]

I think what paperbagger is meaning to say is classic liberalism (Adam Smith, Mills, Locke) is closer to libertarianism then the modern day left.

He is just completely mistating the classic liberal position

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think what paperbagger is meaning to say is classic liberalism (Adam Smith, Mills, Locke) is closer to libertarianism then the modern day left.

He is just completely mistating the classic liberal position

Libertarianism, modern conservatism, and modern liberalism are all founded on classical liberalism, but have a more narrow focus, or a different ideas in terms of what it means to achieve and maintain individual liberty.

Conservatives tend to focus on economic liberty, opposing high taxes, regulation, etc, but also generally support rules that support access and fairness in the market (You don't often hear conservatives complain about rules preventing misleading advertising for example). Most conservatives are just as opposed to crony capitalism as people to the left of them so it's not surprising to hear many of them supporting the breakup of tech companies like Elisabeth Warren has proposed and Donald Trump has suggested. Fairness is the primary focus among conservatives.

Liberals focus on making sure that people can take advantage of the liberty they have (hence policies that focus on enhancing access to education, healthcare, etc) Equality of opportunity is the driving concern here.

Libertarians, believe that social and economic liberty is best achieved in the absence of a central authority, but often forget the a central authority is required to establish and enforce the market rules that allow the free exchange of goods and services. Freedom is the overriding concern here.

All 3 of the above driving concerns are in many ways compatible with each other, but the focus results in substantially different policies being advocated for despite all 3 working withing the same classically liberal framework with their primary concern being ideals that are hard to define, never mint achieve.

So we have the vast majority of the political spectrum today grounded in classical liberalism. You can say that conservatives, liberals, and libertarians are all closer to classical liberalism than the progressive left and the religious right (by which I mean christian dominionists, islamists, and other such groups who believe that their religious rules should be the rules the whole country operates under, as opposed to conservatives who are religious).

[Itse]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Many psychologists believe that authoritarianism is distinctly a right wing trait.

True.

Keep in mind that authoritarianism is not the same as totalitarianism. Authoritarianism is the ideology that promotes national obedience, centralization and consolidation of power in a few, limited pluralism and economically diverse social tiers/hierarchy. All of these are against left-leaning ideology. The definition clearly overlaps with fascism though.

Totalitarianism, on the other hand, ignores the political spectrum and is simply the act of dictatorship to enforce any ideology.

Not exactly.

In authoritarianism there is someone who holds authority without question, for example without elections. Individual freedoms are seen as subordinate to the authority, and the authorities are in practice above the law. (Even though they might not technically be.)

An authoritarian system however typically holds on to the veneer of legality and normality. For example Putin is a dictator and thus an authoritarian, but not a totalitarian. A quick glance of Russia does not immediately scream "dictatorship" at you. If you're not queer or of the political opposition, you can live your life pretty much like you would in any normal western society. You might run into things like travel restrictions, or be forced to submit your strategically important company to someone more friendly to the authority, but most people can live most of the time pretty much the same. You can even to some extent criticize Putin without punishment, and run against him an (unfair) election.

Totalitarianism on the other hand is when government tries to assert total control over the society. This is where you get your Nazis, Khmer Rouge, North Korea and ISIS. Typically economy is restructured to please those in power. Membership in the right party or religion might be required, or at least without that membership you are clearly a second class citizen. The government puts clear sanctions on acceptable social behavior. You go from "government sanctioned thugs occasionally beat up or kill queer people, ethnic/religious minorities and political oppositions" to "government forces actively hunt and kill queer people, ethnic/religious minorities and political opposition". You go from "you might get in trouble for teaching the wrong things in the university" to "the government will actively tell you what you have to teach". You start to get mandatory pledges of allegiance to the authority, a ban of all opposition parties etc.

The right is more prone to authoritarianism, but the left is more prone to totalitarianism when it gets to authoritarianism.

One reason why the right doesn't as often go into full totalitarianism is because the hard right is typically very elitist/classist. Whether it's the rich, the military, or a certain ethnic group, a part of the ideology is typically that some people are more important than others, and so the everyday lives of the less important people just doesn't matter enough to need strict controls. As long as the rabble doesn't threaten the rule of the authority, they don't really matter.

Another reason is that the status quo in most of the countries that fall into authoritarianism is right wing to begin with, so there's not that much need to change for a right wing dictator. A right wing dictator is typically someone who already had a lot of power, and only needed a coup to seize ultimate power, while a left wing dictator usually needs a full revolution and to wipe out the whole previous (right wing) ruling class.

The second is that the hard left is typically very collectivist and egalitarian, and so it makes sense that all the rules need to apply to everyone equally everywhere and at all times.

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Since when has Authoritarianism been an ideology. It's no more an ideology than Theism is. An ideology can be Authoritarian, or Theistic, but neither are on their own ideologies. Further, many people hold some ideologies that are authoritarian, and some that are very much not. So a political libertarian might be a member of an authoritarian religion for example.

but if you are correct that Authoritarian ideologies are right wing, then we have to assert that many of the progressive left are in fact farther to the right than a very large portion of conservatives are because today (in north america) conservatives with authoritarian tendencies want the authoritarians to be local (and thereby oppose centralization and consolidation of power in the few on a wider basis) and progressives are pushing for national, sweeping regulations and rule by experts (necessarily the few).

Except when the progressive left specifically demands more direct, local democracy and the authoritarian right wants to pass sweeping federal laws granting more rights to law enforcement, or ban abortions, or anti-union laws, or a federal law banning the use of the term "global warming", or a federal law saying there are two genders.

Also, nothing about authoritarianism says anything about how local it is. Granting the states rights which allows them to act in an authoritarian way is still authoritarianism.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by icecube

What the hell is paperbagger even rambling on about? A University prof on either side of the political spectrum would give him a failing grade on this topic. It's all over the map and we are all dumber for trying to wrap our heads around his logic.

I was wondering when you’d see your Bat signal.

Quick! Everyone get snarky and insult each other as fast as possible for thinking differently than you!

[Resolute 14]

I dunno, Mr. Coffee. Anyone stupid enough to think fascism and communism are on the same side of the spectrum doesn't really deserve anything more than that.

[afc wimbledon]

Couple of quick points for all of you, just because someone claims to be a liberal or is accused of being a liberal, or any other political philosophy, neither makes them a liberal or in anyway effects the definition of what a liberal is.

Adolf Hitler could claim to be a liberal, that would neither make him a liberal nor would it make liberalism anti semetic and nationalistic.

Trudeau can admit to liking Castro, he can even praise Cuba's record on healthcare and education, the statements don't make Trudeau a fascist, or even state he likes Cuba's political system, nor does it mean that all liberals like Castro or admire Cuba's education or healthcare system (excellent though they were)

When people claim to be liberal or conservative but are argueing for non liberal or conservative policies then they are not liberals or conservatives and their position only reflects on their ignorance, not the philosophy they claim to espouse.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Itse

Except when the progressive left specifically demands more direct, local democracy

If this direct, local democracy is used to do the following:

pass sweeping federal laws granting more rights to law enforcement, or ban abortions, or anti-union laws, or a federal law banning the use of the term "global warming", or a federal law saying there are two genders.

Is it authoritarian, or not?

Also, nothing about authoritarianism says anything about how local it is. Granting the states rights which allows them to act in an authoritarian way is still authoritarianism.

True, but the consequences and ability to change the authorities that are making the rules does change substantially. Municipal and community authoritarianism is relatively easy to avoid, state authoritarianism harder, and federal authoritarianism nearly impossible to escape. As such, supporting local authoritarianism but not state or federal authoritarianism is arguably less authoritarian than supporting federal authoritarianism.

[jammies]

Fascism = bad.
Liberalism = bad.
Therefore, fascism = liberalism.

Solid logic there, a derivative of the time-honoured "I know you are, but what am I?!?!" argument first propounded by Bafflegabides of Corinth in 242 BC.

[sworkhard]

Anyhow, go get back to the original topic. According to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascis...ifesto_of_1919

The fascist manifesto sounds distinctly progressive:

In 1919, Alceste De Ambris and Futurist movement leader Filippo Tommaso Marinetti created The Manifesto of the Italian Fasci of Combat (the Fascist Manifesto).[119] The Manifesto was presented on 6 June 1919 in the Fascist newspaper Il Popolo d'Italia. The Manifesto supported the creation of universal suffrage for both men and women (the latter being realized only partly in late 1925, with all opposition parties banned or disbanded);[120] proportional representation on a regional basis; government representation through a corporatist system of "National Councils" of experts, selected from professionals and tradespeople, elected to represent and hold legislative power over their respective areas, including labour, industry, transportation, public health, communications, etc.; and the abolition of the Italian Senate.[121] The Manifesto supported the creation of an eight-hour work day for all workers, a minimum wage, worker representation in industrial management, equal confidence in labour unions as in industrial executives and public servants, reorganization of the transportation sector, revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55, a strong progressive tax on capital, confiscation of the property of religious institutions and abolishment of bishoprics, and revision of military contracts to allow the government to seize 85% of profits.[122]

A good majority of the things in this list would be strongly opposed by conservatives (and a good many liberals) but only a few of them would be opposed by progressives. The distinction is mainly in the remaining sentences that I excluded:

It also called for the fulfillment of expansionist aims in the Balkans and other parts of the Mediterranean,[123] the creation of a short-service national militia to serve defensive duties, nationalization of the armaments industry and a foreign policy designed to be peaceful but also competitive.[124]

Which is clearly something that modern progressives would be opposed to.

Basically, if you took modern progressives and made them ultra-nationalists, you would end up with something very similar to fascism. So it seems that progressives are in fact closer to fascism than conservatives in terms of published policy. However, progressives aren't ultra-nationalist (it's kind of a defining characteristic of modern progressives to be anything but), and neither are modern liberals or conservatives. As such, it's completely fair to say that while progressives might be 'closer' to fascism than conservatives, it is not at all close to fascism.

Either way, it's kind of a useless comparison. The fear with progressive thinking taken to it's logical conclusion is that it excludes people on the basis of conformity to an ideology, not on the basis of race, while the fear with nationalist thinking is that it excludes people on the basis of nationality or race. The difference between Stalinist Communism and the Fascism is that one killed people for having the wrong genes and the other for thinking the wrong way. Both are equally worthy of condemnation, but there's a huge difference in the motivations for their respective policies.

Further, while fascism markets itself as a progressive movement, in reality, once implemented, it's policies would look more like something the religious right would enact than any progressive would even consider. A gold medal for having 8 children? Financial incentives to have large families? Encouraging women to leave the workforce? Not exactly progressive policies.

As such, I think it's fair to say that while Fascism is marketing itself closer to progressivism than conservatism, in practice it is much closer to the religious right and ultra-nationalist right than it is to the left, despite policies that at face value seem left wing.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Anyhow, go get back to the original topic. According to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascis...ifesto_of_1919

The fascist manifesto sounds distinctly progressive:

.

Progressive only if you were a right leaning, non-gay, non-Jew, ethnic Italian. That's the thing about "national socialism". It is only socialism for those deemed as elite, but not for minorities or undesirables. It opposed to liberalism for that exact reason.

Italian fascists would imprison or kill you if they thought you were on the left.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Progressive only if you were a right leaning, non-gay, non-Jew, ethnic Italian. That's the thing about "national socialism". It is only socialism for those deemed as elite, but not for minorities or undesirables. It opposed to liberalism for that exact reason.

Italian fascists would imprison or kill you if they thought you were on the left.

Indeed, the difference between marketing and reality is just that for national socialism, as I said farther down in my comment.

[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.

[nik-]

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.

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