Liberalism is closer to fascism than conservatism

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Having some control is part of a spectrum too, that's how spectrums work. They arent black or white.

Anyone who has conservative views but uses the government to control other people's decisions is no longer a conservative as conservatives based on the proper political spectrum do not want government control.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[Locke]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

So it seems there are three data points you are missing:

1. actual fascists have/had economic policies that closely resemble conservative ideologies.

2. Actual conservatives among the general population were the core fascist supporters.

3. I’ve never met a “liberal” who espouses fascist beliefs, however I hear many hard core conservatives talk with admiration about parts of the fascist ideology.

Details:
Hitler and Franco (for instance) were both strongly anti-communist and strongly pro-business. Private businesss (that had the right connections) flourished under their regimes.

Another data-point: In Germany and Spain, as well as in non-fascist countries like Britain (and USA), conservatives were the main base of pro franco or pro hitler.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada would like the world to know that he was rather fond of Fidel Castro.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/w...el-castro.html

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Yep, that chart and centuries of political thought and literature are incorrect. Much better to trust the chart with the American flag dead center that lists monarchy and Nazism as left wing political systems:

I’ve figured it out. This is how many guns are owned privately. Nothing else. Liberty for all! (just guns though.)

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Locke

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/w...el-castro.html

Cuba is not a fascist country.

All fascists are authoritarians or totalitarians (there's a difference), but not all totalitarians or authoritarians are fascists.

Fascism is by definition "a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism".

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Itse

Cuba is not a fascist country.

All fascists are authoritarians or totalitarians (there's a difference), but not all totalitarians or authoritarians are fascists.

Fascism is by definition "a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism".

Sure. Cuba may not be a Fascist country, they're considered Communist on the spectrum.

Castro himself however...I think he ticks your boxes there.

[marsplasticeraser]

I don’t get it.

Are you saying Trudeau is a fascist?

Why else link to an article about Castro that focuses on Trudeau’s comments on Castro’s death?

Trudeau may be an idiot, but he’s not a fascist.

Originally Posted by Locke

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/w...el-castro.html

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Locke

Sure. Cuba may not be a Fascist country, they're considered Communist on the spectrum.

Castro himself however...I think he ticks your boxes there.

Umm, no? That doesn't make even remotely any sense.

Fidel Castro was a Marxist-Leninist dictator. His political ideology was really obviously leftist.

How on earth do you describe him as right wing? I don't even see how "ultranationalist" would be a fitting description.

EDIT:
I take it that you refer to him being a social conservative?

Okay, that I sort of get. I would never personally call him right wing, but if that's what you mean, at least I get that

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by rubecube

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Then it's a good thing the correct political spectrum cares not about your interpretation of it, or mine, or anyone elses. Control over the people is control regardless of personal takes and opinion of it. The only real debate is about the level of control and where it lands. More control = further left.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Locke

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/w...el-castro.html

Castro is a communist, not a fascist. Although, he's not really a communist either as real communism isn't possible in large scale societies.


Right=individualism, Left= collectivism
Right=discourage change, Left= encourage change
Right= private run economy, Left= government run economy
Right= nationalism, Left= isolationism

Historically, the extreme left is communism and the extreme right is fascism however there has never been an historical example of a government that is purely communist or purely fascist because they are so extreme. The closest I've found to a pure communist society is probably an Israeli Kibutz. Nazi Germany was abut as close to pure fascism as we've seen with maybe the exception of some older monarchies.

GGG also mentioned Classical Liberalism and he is correct that many people confuse it with Liberalism. Classical Liberalism is more akin to Libertarianism while Liberalism would be closer to Democratic Socialism. Then if you mix in populism it gets even more confusing. Trump is a Populist but so is Bernie but from different sides of the spectrum.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Castro is a communist, not a fascist. Although, he's not really a communist either as real communism isn't possible in large scale societies.


Right=individualism, Left= collectivism
Right=discourage change, Left= encourage change
Right= private run economy, Left= government run economy
Right= nationalism, Left= isolationism

Historically, the extreme left is communism and the extreme right is fascism however there has never been an historical example of a government that is purely communist or purely fascist because they are so extreme. The closest I've found to a pure communist society is probably an Israeli Kibutz. Nazi Germany was abut as close to pure fascism as we've seen with maybe the exception of some older monarchies.

I personally dislike the idea of fitting ideologies on a spectrum like that, even though I get that historically it does make some sense.

Historically though, there are numerous examples of radical collectivist/equalitarian societies (that even pre-date the whole left-right dichotomy) but took a completely different path to get there. Many of them have for example had their basis in religion, which is antithetical to communism.

Anarchistic movements are also another example of an extreme you could take leftist ideas to that is fundamentally different from communism.

Another issue is that that there are massive differences between communist states. Cuba and Cambodia were both communist countries, but I don't think there's much of a debate between who was more radical, Fidel Castro or Pol Pot. Modern communists in Europe can differ massively ideologically from previous generations of communists, so again, communism is not one thing and so IMO can't really be accurately described as an end of a spectrum.

On the right I wouldn't call fascism the extreme, even historically, as I see ideologies like Nazism as going even further down the same rabbit hole.

I also think we'll see in the very near future iterations of authoritarian ultranationalist right wing governments that will be so different from previous fascists that they might as well have a completely different name.

GGG also mentioned Classical Liberalism and he is correct that many people confuse it with Liberalism. Classical Liberalism is more akin to Libertarianism while Liberalism would be closer to Democratic Socialism. Then if you mix in populism it gets even more confusing. Trump is a Populist but so is Bernie but from different sides of the spectrum.

Yup.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Then it's a good thing the correct political spectrum cares not about your interpretation of it, or mine, or anyone elses. Control over the people is control regardless of personal takes and opinion of it. The only real debate is about the level of control and where it lands. More control = further left.

So being Anti-Abortion and making homosexuality illegal are leftist political positions.

I learn something new everyday.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

I don’t get it.

Are you saying Trudeau is a fascist?

Why else link to an article about Castro that focuses on Trudeau’s comments on Castro’s death?

Trudeau may be an idiot, but he’s not a fascist.

Well, you could make that your signature and we could all save a lot of time.

[Itse]

I realize I've been posting a lot and a bit on the longer side, but I want to continue on why I think it's somewhat problematic to categorize things like communism or fascism as ends of a spectrum, and more importantly why I think it's dangerous to use fascism or communism interchangeable with authoritarianism or totalitarianism.


The danger to me is that if people think, like many people seem to think, that a dictatorship or a totalitarian society is something that only happens if you go too far into the right or the left, that gives them almost no intellectual protection against totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism can happen under any ideology. It only requires enough people that start thinking that their way of looking at the world, their "Important facts" as PhilosophyTube put it, are the only ones that matter to such an extent that it's acceptable to enforce them on everyone, violently if needed. (But mostly of course totalitarianism is not directly enforced by violence.)

It doesn't have to be left or right. It doesn't even have to be radical.

Most fascist ideas are not ones people generally consider radical ideas. "Men are natural leaders and women are natural caretakers" for example is not considered a radical idea by pretty much anyone. Even if you don't agree with that statement, you're unlikely to think it's somehow a really "out there" idea.

You can however absolutely slide into totalitarianism if you try to enforce that idea throughout the whole society.

Most rational people would agree that we should do something significant to stop global warming. If you start enforcing that through violence, you can again easily slide into totalitarianism. (There are people in the green movement who would absolutely turn into totalitarianism to stop global warming.)

In fact I would argue that it's not possible to create a totalitarian society under an ideology that most people would consider radical. What ever your ideas are that you start enforcing in a totalitarian fashion, they have to be fairly mainstream in that society at that time.

Radicalism happens on the execution level, not on the level of ideas.

That's how you can have babies in cages in the US. It's obviously an extreme action (and an extreme evil), but there is no widespread uprising against this extreme evil in the US, because the ideas behind that action have become mainstream. Even those who oppose those ideas don't see "immigration is dangerous" as a radical idea.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by GGG

So being Anti-Abortion and making homosexuality illegal are leftist political positions.

I learn something new everyday.

It is left wing as it controls free will. Could you explain how removing someones choice to have an abortion is not controlling their free will? By forcing the population to pay taxes and in turn supporting universal health care, is that not removing the choice of the individual? By making homosexuality illegal, is that not infringing on the individuals right to free will?

Control is control, whether you or me or whoever else have attributed other tags to it.

[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.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

It is left wing as it controls free will. Could you explain how removing someones choice to have an abortion is not controlling their free will? By forcing the population to pay taxes and in turn supporting universal health care, is that not removing the choice of the individual? By making homosexuality illegal, is that not infringing on the individuals right to free will?

Control is control, whether you or me or whoever else have attributed other tags to it.

The terms "left" and "right" have meanings, and you can't just arbitrarily change them to suit your own beliefs and fantasy that tyranny = left and freedom = right. No credible political theorist that I'm aware of has modeled political philosophy like this.

Your model would essentially consider Fascist Spain (little government control of economy but few personal freedoms) or Tito era Yugoslavia (little economic freedom but lots of personal freedom) as moderates, which makes absolutely no sense.

In essence, you've changed the meanings of words and have a spectrum that is so useless that it can't differentiate between fascism and communism. It doesn't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

It is left wing as it controls free will. Could you explain how removing someones choice to have an abortion is not controlling their free will? By forcing the population to pay taxes and in turn supporting universal health care, is that not removing the choice of the individual? By making homosexuality illegal, is that not infringing on the individuals right to free will?

Control is control, whether you or me or whoever else have attributed other tags to it.

So your proposal is to redefine the last 50 years of political discourse?

On what basis do you define left = state control and right = no control?

Again those sound like libertarian vs Authoritarian which does not equal left vs right.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Then it's a good thing the correct political spectrum cares not about your interpretation of it, or mine, or anyone elses. Control over the people is control regardless of personal takes and opinion of it. The only real debate is about the level of control and where it lands. More control = further left.

Where did you get this correct political spectrum from?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

It is left wing as it controls free will. Could you explain how removing someones choice to have an abortion is not controlling their free will? By forcing the population to pay taxes and in turn supporting universal health care, is that not removing the choice of the individual? By making homosexuality illegal, is that not infringing on the individuals right to free will?

Control is control, whether you or me or whoever else have attributed other tags to it.

You do realize that liberals are largely pro-choice and the more conservative someone is, the more likely they are pro-life?

Any political spectrum figure that has tyranny as conclusion of leftist ideology and liberty as the conclusion of the right, is inherently biased and nothing more that propaganda. You have to start to wonder why no one has entered the foray on your behalf on this subject.

Tyranny is the possible conclusion of both left and right ideology which is why liberals and conservatives both embrace checks and balances to stop it from getting to that point.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by opendoor

The terms "left" and "right" have meanings, and you can't just arbitrarily change them to suit your own beliefs and fantasy that tyranny = left and freedom = right. No credible political theorist that I'm aware of has modeled political philosophy like this.

Your model would essentially consider Fascist Spain (little government control of economy but few personal freedoms) or Tito era Yugoslavia (little economic freedom but lots of personal freedom) as moderates, which makes absolutely no sense.

In essence, you've changed the meanings of words and have a spectrum that is so useless that it can't differentiate between fascism and communism. It doesn't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

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.