I wanted a separate thread on this, so as not to pollute Brad's thread on wokeism, but I think it's worth a discussion about the fact that we've sort of fallen into a rut of categorizing everything as left or right, even though real history can be much more complicated.
In the other thread, @co-hoosier referred to Hitler and Stalin as "leftists," but that's not exactly the case.
Hitler's easy. He's just plain wrong on this count. Nazism encompassed both liberals and conservatives, but Hitler was not found on the left. Folks like Gregor and Otto Strasser were found on the left. And Hitler had the left purged. The more conservative version Nazism - i.e., the one that was essentially fascism in German clothes - is the one that prevailed.
Stalin's more difficult, because even the most conservative versions of communism are still undeniably leftist in the broadest global context. Still, even there, different wings of the party existed, and the radicals lost to the conservatives. That's how permanent revolution was swept away by socialism in one country. Because in the Soviet context, Stalin was not on the left. He had no patience for the left.
Political movements are more often like this, containing both left and right, both radicals and conservatives, and for some reason, we feel the need to label every member of a particular movement as only one or the other, instead of understanding that these movements can encompass multiple political leanings.
I would suggest that in the world of extreme politics, only two ideologies are clearly placed only on one end of the spectrum: fascism is clearly far-right, while anarchism is clearly far-left. Everything else is complicated and open to interpretation.
There is only right or left based on where you find yourself on the political spectrum. The spectrum is a straight line. On one end its complete government control. On the other end it is complete lack of government, or anarchist society, if you're so inclined.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
There is only right or left based on where you find yourself on the political spectrum. The spectrum is a straight line. On one end its complete government control. On the other end it is complete lack of government, or anarchist society, if you're so inclined.
While I do agree that's a valid way of categorizing things, it's not very useful for people who want to make distinctions between liberals and conservatives, since it puts guys like Stalin and Mussolini on the same end, and then guys like Grover Norquist and Sacco and Vanzetti on the (other) same end.
But for the radically libertarian minded, I could see how your categorization would be more useful.
There is only right or left based on where you find yourself on the political spectrum. The spectrum is a straight line. On one end its complete government control. On the other end it is complete lack of government, or anarchist society, if you're so inclined.
In very general terms, the article I linked in the other thread does a good job of a basic idealogical distinction b/w left and right.
I find it more useful to think of things along multiple vectors, though. Two people could have ultimate radical egalitarian goals, for example, but one believes the means to be used should be anarchist and the other strong statism.Same for someone with ultimately conservative goals. It’s useful to differentiate there.
@receipt-keeper
I don’t think the political spectrum is a straight line. It’s more like a circle. That is why Hitler and Stalin can be in the same place, except one travels clockwise and the other counterclockwise.
I wanted a separate thread on this, so as not to pollute Brad's thread on wokeism, but I think it's worth a discussion about the fact that we've sort of fallen into a rut of categorizing everything as left or right, even though real history can be much more complicated.
In the other thread, @co-hoosier referred to Hitler and Stalin as "leftists," but that's not exactly the case.
Hitler's easy. He's just plain wrong on this count. Nazism encompassed both liberals and conservatives, but Hitler was not found on the left. Folks like Gregor and Otto Strasser were found on the left. And Hitler had the left purged. The more conservative version Nazism - i.e., the one that was essentially fascism in German clothes - is the one that prevailed.
Stalin's more difficult, because even the most conservative versions of communism are still undeniably leftist in the broadest global context. Still, even there, different wings of the party existed, and the radicals lost to the conservatives. That's how permanent revolution was swept away by socialism in one country. Because in the Soviet context, Stalin was not on the left. He had no patience for the left.
Political movements are more often like this, containing both left and right, both radicals and conservatives, and for some reason, we feel the need to label every member of a particular movement as only one or the other, instead of understanding that these movements can encompass multiple political leanings.
I would suggest that in the world of extreme politics, only two ideologies are clearly placed only on one end of the spectrum: fascism is clearly far-right, while anarchism is clearly far-left. Everything else is complicated and open to interpretation.
If you insist on extreme politics is only shown by a left-right continuum, you have it backwards. Fascism would be left and anarchy would be far right.
Fascism suppresses dissent, is generally authoritarian and disregards any notion of consent of the governed. That is not conservative in any sense of the word.
I don’t think either strong statism or anarchy describes conservatism in any sense, whether or not either is extreme.
If you insist on extreme politics is only shown by a left-right continuum, you have it backwards. Fascism would be left and anarchy would be far right.
I don't insist extreme politics is only shown by a left-right continuum, and if you think I do, that only means you didn't bother to read my OP, but you read enough to disagree with my characterization of fascism vs. anarchism, and your disagreement on that point is patently ridiculous. Every single political scholar in the world would argue that fascism is far-right and anarchism is far-left. This bothers you for whatever reason I can't comprehend, so you need to disagree.
If you insist on extreme politics is only shown by a left-right continuum, you have it backwards. Fascism would be left and anarchy would be far right.
Fascism suppresses dissent, is generally authoritarian and disregards any notion of consent of the governed. That is not conservative in any sense of the word.
Fascism is hardly a left thing. And it's amusing you are trying to claim that given the fascist you just voted into the White House.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement that rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe.[1][2][3] Fascism is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
That is Trump the dictator and his followers to a tee. And no one can claim Trump isn't actively trying to squash opposition with his lawsuits, firings and any action available to him when anyone dares to say or do anything he doesn't like.
Trump just fired the head of the bureau of labor statistics for publishing a weak jobs report (like it was her fault for publishing what the data showed)
He wants people that will lie to make him look good and anyone who wants to keep their job will be pressured to comply.
Fascism ( as defined in your quote) is the polar opposite of conservatism. If you really believe conservatives are also on the right, give me your list of conservative principles fascism advances.
Fascism ( as defined in your quote) is the polar opposite of conservatism. If you really believe conservatives are also on the right, give me your list of conservative principles fascism advances.
Or it just isn't tied to a specific ideology. But conservatives tend to also be your nationalists. They are the ones draping themselves in flags...even if it is a confederate flag.
Care to explain how you think fascists is left? You haven't tied anything together other than it's more convenient for you to think those people are on the other side.
Also explain if there aren't conservatives who are also fascists, then why their support for the fascist in the White House? Hard to deny that Trump checks most of the boxes on the fascist attributes list.
As I posted before, I don’t think the political spectrum should be seen as a left/right single straight line. But if we are to use that framing I think fascism is left because it is the polar opposite of conservatism. They have nothing in common.
Calling Trump a fascist is a never-Trumper construct. I don’t necessarily agree with your fascist attribute list. That list is created with Hitler’s image firmly ensconced in the mind of who created it. One point I do agree with is a fascist regimented economy. I think the merging of business and government is dangerous. We see a lot of that these days, mostly from the democrats but also to a lesser extent from the GOP. In these terms, I think the way Hitler created the Volkswagen car and company is a great example of the application of fascism.
So many things I could respond to individually, but I will reply more generally.
Anarchy is the complete absence of government. How can fascism be the equivalent of anarchism when fascism is a form of govt control? I'd make the same argument about socialism and communism.
Communism, socialism, and fascism all have the commonality of a strong central government that seeks to control people and the economy. The only difference is the levers and knobs they use to seek that control. That's how they can all end up on the same side of my horizontal line.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
So many things I could respond to individually, but I will reply more generally.
Anarchy is the complete absence of government. How can fascism be the equivalent of anarchism when fascism is a form of govt control? I'd make the same argument about socialism and communism.
Communism, socialism, and fascism all have the commonality of a strong central government that seeks to control people and the economy. The only difference is the levers and knobs they use to seek that control. That's how they can all end up on the same side of my horizontal line.
Again, I think your line is useful in some contexts, but not in the context of this thread, which seeks to deconstruct our need to force each ideology into either left or right, when most ideologies are more complicated than that.
Again, I think your line is useful in some contexts, but not in the context of this thread, which seeks to deconstruct our need to force each ideology into either left or right, when most ideologies are more complicated than that.
That is the point of the line I posted. You can't force things into a right/left paradigm when the underlying assumption of fascism being on one side of a snippet of the line and communism on the other end of the snippet isn't correct.
It's like people arguing who the hottest chick in the world is when the range goes from Mayim Bialik to Jen Psaki, but your position is that the hottest ones are somewhere between those 2.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB