The "Fascist" fallacy

[Black Dog]

LOL. Bob somehow figures his opinion on fascism trumps that of Musolini who described it as a right-wing authoritarian reaction against liberalism, leftist and communism. What a waste of time both this thread, and Bobs moronic rambling have turned into.

Bob's definition of fascism betrays a near total ignorance of both fascism and liberalism. It'd be funny if his stubborn insistence that he and he alone possesses the knowledge of the true definition of fascism, not those namby pamby historians who have spent their lives studying the subject (and who, by dint of trying to situate fascism on the extreme right of the political spectrum, are themselves fascists). It reinforces my suspicion that our boy Bob may in fact be 15.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Black Dog

[Bob]

I'm not redefining fascism, I'm simply explaining its methods (which nobody has disagreed with in here, thank God), and then showing how it has many more parallels with today's left than with today's right. Given that, why is it that fascism is always misleadingly described as a "extreme right-wing ideology"? If it has much more in common with the left-wing, how is placed on the fringe of the right-wing? Academia have lied, and continue to lie, about the political spectrum, as if it's some sort of circular continuum in order to misrepresent the left - which stands for more and more government intervention masquerading as a benefit for the "great good" or for "the people".

The fact remains, fascism is about great government control, which puts the ideology clearly on the left-wing of the political spectrum.

[Black Dog]

I'm not redefining fascism, I'm simply explaining its methods (which nobody has disagreed with in here, thank God), and then showing how it has many more parallels with today's left than with today's right. Given that, why is it that fascism is always misleadingly described as a "extreme right-wing ideology"? If it has much more in common with the left-wing, how is placed on the fringe of the right-wing? Academia have lied, and continue to lie, about the political spectrum, as if it's some sort of circular continuum in order to misrepresent the left - which stands for more and more government intervention masquerading as a benefit for the "great good" or for "the people".

The fact remains, fascism is about great government control, which puts the ideology clearly on the left-wing of the political spectrum.

Defining fascism as being about great government control excludes everything that makes fascism a distinct political ideology. It's like describing Ulysses as a story about a man walking around Dublin.

[Bob]

Defining fascism as being about great government control excludes everything that makes fascism a distinct political ideology. It's like describing Ulysses as a story about a man walking around Dublin.

I went into greater detail in earlier posts in this thread. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over, so I'm simplifying in the interests of brevity.

[Black Dog]

I went into greater detail in earlier posts in this thread. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over, so I'm simplifying in the interests of brevity.

I've read the thread. All you've done is repeat, over and over, the claim that defining trait of fascism is government control over all aspects of society.

It's not.

The kind of broad government control you describe is characteristic of totalitarian systems, but that common feature must be weighed beside what sets fascism apart from Stalinism, Marxism or any other authoritarian -ism. Because it's once you get down to the details of the defining traits of fascist societies - particularly nationalism, militarism, the glorification of violence/war, anti-intellectualism, traditionalism/nostalgia- that you see why fascism is situated on the right of the spectrum. Not that it's hard to figure out why you'd like to gloss over these particular traits and ignore uncomfortable realities like the historical enmity between fascists and communists.

[eyeball]

Because it's once you get down to the details of the defining traits of fascist societies - particularly nationalism, militarism, the glorification of violence/war, anti-intellectualism, traditionalism/nostalgia- that you see why fascism is situated on the right of the spectrum.

Funnily enough these details accurately describe Islamist and western social conservatives.

[Pliny]

I'm not redefining fascism, I'm simply explaining its methods (which nobody has disagreed with in here, thank God), and then showing how it has many more parallels with today's left than with today's right.

I have had this running argument on this forum for quite awhile. The far right, or Nazism/Fascism, appeared on the far right during the thirties. If you read the manifesto of the NSDAP you would have trouble differentiaiting it from any left wing socialist manifesto.

Nevertheless, they are all about a central authority and big government.

It really is hard to hear people calling the tea party a far right wing group. Nazism/Fascism was never about limited government and lower taxes. The left's confusion, perhaps intentional, is in the fact that it is more a regressive movement attempting to turn back some of the progressive social engineering gains of the left over the last century, a horrible and radical prospect, and reducing the size of governemnt. They are not about installing a totalitarian form of government. Loss of, or a threat of loss, of benefits that some receive under left wing social progressive programs, make the tea party a right wing threat but it is not a fascist threat. It is about returning government to an economically sustainable level and,horror of horrors, returning responsiblity back to society and the individual for defining themselves instead of the most popular and winning identity being "victim".

[eyeball]

I have had this running argument on this forum for quite awhile. The far right, or Nazism/Fascism, appeared on the far right during the thirties. If you read the manifesto of the NSDAP you would have trouble differentiaiting it from any left wing socialist manifesto.

Nevertheless, they are all about a central authority and big government.

Every political movement ends up in this place it seems.

It really is hard to hear people calling the tea party a far right wing group. Nazism/Fascism was never about limited government and lower taxes....They are not about installing a totalitarian form of government. It is about returning government to an economically sustainable level and,horror of horrors, returning responsiblity back to society and the individual...

This might have been possible in a world with only half a billion people and a planet still for the easy taking but not now. There are simply far far too many people who for whatever reason will never be able to meet the unrealistic expectations of the Tea Party. If the Tea Party insists on having it's way they too will have no choice but to impose a strong central authority with a big government to achieve their aims.

The biggest problem I see is that too much of the natural capital of the world has been concentrated into the hands of the wealthiest most powerful people. These will naturally gravitate towards the Tea Party if it actually rises to power the same way industrialists and capitalists gravitated towards the Nazis.

[wyly]

I've read the thread. All you've done is repeat, over and over, the claim that defining trait of fascism is government control over all aspects of society.

It's not.

The kind of broad government control you describe is characteristic of totalitarian systems, but that common feature must be weighed beside what sets fascism apart from Stalinism, Marxism or any other authoritarian -ism. Because it's once you get down to the details of the defining traits of fascist societies - particularly nationalism, militarism, the glorification of violence/war, anti-intellectualism, traditionalism/nostalgia- that you see why fascism is situated on the right of the spectrum. Not that it's hard to figure out why you'd like to gloss over these particular traits and ignore uncomfortable realities like the historical enmity between fascists and communists.

bob is trying to cope/justify the morality of zionism sharing it's approach to the "palestinian" problem with that of Nazisim's approach to the "jewish "problem"...

[Jack Weber]

bob is trying to cope/justify the morality of zionism sharing it's approach to the "palestinian" problem with that of Nazisim's approach to the "jewish "problem"...

Well...

Bob is an admitted Fascis...er...Far right wing ultra nationalist extremist...

This seems to align nicely with the likes of Francisco Franco,Benito Mussolini,Oliviera Salazar,Genral Augusto Pinochet,and,some guy named Schickelgruber...

Bob has become the "Il Duce","El Caudillo" of the board...

I wonder if he gets splinters in his hands after bundling the axe with sticks?

Edited September 21, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Bonam]

Recap of this thread:

Everyone thinks fascism is bad.

Left wingers think fascism is right wing.

Right wingers think fascism is left wing.

What a surprise!

[Jack Weber]

Recap of this thread:

Everyone thinks fascism is bad.

Left wingers think fascism is right wing.

Right wingers think fascism is left wing.

What a surprise!

Well...

One Far Right Wing Ultra Nationalist Extremist thinks Fascism is "Left" wing totalitarianism....

OK...Pliny still has'nt got it,as well...

Edited September 21, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Bob]

I have had this running argument on this forum for quite awhile. The far right, or Nazism/Fascism, appeared on the far right during the thirties. If you read the manifesto of the NSDAP you would have trouble differentiaiting it from any left wing socialist manifesto.

Nevertheless, they are all about a central authority and big government.

It really is hard to hear people calling the tea party a far right wing group. Nazism/Fascism was never about limited government and lower taxes. The left's confusion, perhaps intentional, is in the fact that it is more a regressive movement attempting to turn back some of the progressive social engineering gains of the left over the last century, a horrible and radical prospect, and reducing the size of governemnt. They are not about installing a totalitarian form of government. Loss of, or a threat of loss, of benefits that some receive under left wing social progressive programs, make the tea party a right wing threat but it is not a fascist threat. It is about returning government to an economically sustainable level and,horror of horrors, returning responsiblity back to society and the individual for defining themselves instead of the most popular and winning identity being "victim".

The left has successfully hoodwinked the mainstream discourse via misrepresenting fascism as an "extreme right-wing ideology" through their dominance of academia on these matters (political science). I've explained it in moderate detail in this thread, and of course the usual gang of leftists parrot the same lies and refuse to acknowledge the simple facts - fascism has much more in common with the contemporary left than the contemporary right. So far, I don't think anyone in here has disputed that basic fact. So since fascism shares many more parallels with today left than with today's right, how is it that fascism continues to be described as an "extreme right-wing ideology"?

All the attacks against my position have been non-arguments: "most scholars/academics disagree with you" (so?), "your self-description is 'extreme right-wing ultra-nationalist extremist'" (they have no sense of humour as I'm mocking them with my own self-description), and "prominent historical fascists said things contrary to you when describing fascism" (Lenin and Stalin glorified communism, are their proclamations dependable sources of information on what communism really is?).

Basically, nobody has provided any real argumentation disputing my basic premise, and I know nobody will. Instead we'll just run in circles with the leftists throwing red herring after stinking red herring, successfully destroying any probability of any sensible discourse.

[eyeball]

Basically, nobody has provided any real argumentation disputing my basic premise, and I know nobody will.

You must be so ronery.

Edited September 21, 2011 by eyeball

[Black Dog]

The left has successfully hoodwinked the mainstream discourse via misrepresenting fascism as an "extreme right-wing ideology" through their dominance of academia on these matters (political science). I've explained it in moderate detail in this thread, and of course the usual gang of leftists parrot the same lies and refuse to acknowledge the simple facts - fascism has much more in common with the contemporary left than the contemporary right. So far, I don't think anyone in here has disputed that basic fact.

Honest question here: are you retarded? This entire thread has consisted of people taking issue with your theory on the relationship between fascism and the left. No surprise that you don't grasp that since you're really only here to hear yourself talk.

So since fascism shares many more parallels with today left than with today's right, how is it that fascism continues to be described as an "extreme right-wing ideology"?

Because it's an extreme right wing ideology. In theory and practice.

All the attacks against my position have been non-arguments: "most scholars/academics disagree with you" (so?), "your self-description is 'extreme right-wing ultra-nationalist extremist'" (they have no sense of humour as I'm mocking them with my own self-description), and "prominent historical fascists said things contrary to you when describing fascism" (Lenin and Stalin glorified communism, are their proclamations dependable sources of information on what communism really is?).

Basically, nobody has provided any real argumentation disputing my basic premise, and I know nobody will.

Asked and answered. Pay attention.

Instead we'll just run in circles with the leftists throwing red herring after stinking red herring, successfully destroying any probability of any sensible discourse.

That ship sailed the moment you made your fatuous, specious and risible claim about fascism being a leftist ideology and then subsequently failed to advance any substantive argument beyond "they both like big government".

[guyser]

..... and then subsequently failed to advance any substantive argument beyond "they both like big government".

You forgot 'because I said so'

[Black Dog]

Just in case it hasn't been said, yet - the lie of fascism being on the far-end of the right side of the political spectrum needs to be undone. Fascism is essentially a leftist ideology, and it has a lot more in common with ordinary run-of-the-mill leftists that it does with those of us on the right. Fascism is almost virtually indistinguishable from communism, aside from capital being privately-owned (although completely regulated by the government, essentially resulting in the major parallels with communism), and that fascism is nationally-oriented whereas communism has an international focus.

Fascism believes in mega-government control over all aspects of society - both business/economics and social/cultural behaviours. That is in-line with leftism, NOT those on the right. As we can see, you also subscribe to this lie about fascism being a "far-right" or "extreme right" ideology when in fact fascism is identical to communism aside from not being internationally-driven and allowing a symbolic form of private ownership of property, albeit under strict government regulation.

The fact remains that fascism has much more in-line with real-world leftists and very little in common with real-word people on the right. We believe in freedom from government control/coercion, whereas the left believes in grand ideas and social engineering (via government control).

I'm not advancing an original idea, here. I'm simply repeating the reality that is the lie of fascism being an "extreme right-wing" ideology. At the end of the day, it is the left that supports greater government control over the economy and culture, which is much more in-line with fascism than the contemporary right-wing. My position is not my own, but one from honest scholars and intellectuals. As I've already said, off the top of my head I remember this same idea being advanced by Thomas Sowell, who certainly has "intellectual" credentials.

Fascism is a leftist ideology, despite the stupid spectrum you may or may not have studied in your Poli-Sci 101 class during your first year at university.

Fascism is a leftist ideology and describing it as "extreme right" is just a lie that has been propagated by many, including many "scholars" and "intellectuals". Fascism is a leftist ideology, period. It has FAR more in common with the contemporary left than with the contemporary right. This idea that "extreme right-wing" politics provide an equally despicable political iteration to communism is just another widely-perpetuated lie that you, bloodyminded, and others subscribe to.

Good luck explaining how fascism has anything in common with contemporary conservatism - which advocates for less government control across the board (economically and through social engineering). At the end of the day, inconvenient truth is that fascism has many more parallels to contemporary politics on the left than the right - which makes the lie of fascism being a form of the "extreme right wing" (when it is completely counterintuitive to contemporary conservatism) that much more absurd.

I've already addressed all of those issues. That fascism permits private ownership (with extreme government control), isn't a meaningful distinction in practise. Lastly, communism does indeed have an international focus whereas fascism is nationally-oriented... yes, that's true, but at the end of the day it's not a meaningful distinction separating fascism from contemporary leftist politics.

What I'm saying is clear, that fascism is not an extreme right-wing idelogy, but rather an extreme left-wing ideology. Most importantly, fascism has MUCH more in common with the contemporary left-wing in Western politics than with those of us on the right.

It is the left-wing that wants more regulation and centralized control of all things economic and cultural. It is the left-wing that promotes hollow departments such as ministries for culture and minorities (like Aboriginals). It is the left-wing that wants to censor media and entertainment such as movies and video games. It is the left-wing that seeks to control speech via institutions such as the HRTs. It is the left-wing that engages in social engineering through, for example, indoctrination into "multiculturalism". And that's just the social side. I am certain there will be no debate that it is the left-wing that seeks greater and greater economic intervention from the government to promote "equality" (in other words, theft masquerading as "redistribution of wealth" or "spreading the wealth around"). It is also the left that promotes empty ideas such as positive "rights", where the obligation for the provision and protection of these "rights" lies on the shoulders of others who never consented to the burden.

I don't care what this or that scholar says. I am more than intelligent enough to come to my own conclusions. Just because I was lied to in university and high school when fascism was placed on the far right end of the political spectrum doesn't make it so. At the end of the day, and I've said this several times already, fascism has many more parallels with the contemporary left than the contemporary right.

It is the right-wing that most aggressively promotes freedom and liberty from government control, in both economic and social dimensions. There's really no point in even debating this as it should be self-evident, and this is true in both Canada and the USA.

I've taken the liberty of compiling most of Bob's posts on this above. I quit after a while because, as you can see, there's a basic pattern at work:

1. Claim fascism and leftism are the same thing.

2. Offer up no evidence to support the position beyond a shared belief in big government (while ignoring or dismissing arbitrarily the multiplicity of differences that actually set leftism and communism apart from fascism).

3. Whine about how no one understands him and appreciates his genius.

4. Repeat.

[Pliny]

I've taken the liberty of compiling most of Bob's posts on this above. I quit after a while because, as you can see, there's a basic pattern at work:

1. Claim fascism and leftism are the same thing.

I don't think he is saying that. He is asking to compare similarities something the left seems unwilling to do. Why only compare differences and declare them opposites. Stalin could be and is often said not to be a communist. Is he a right wing dictator then?

2. Offer up no evidence to support the position beyond a shared belief in big government (while ignoring or dismissing arbitrarily the multiplicity of differences that actually set leftism and communism apart from fascism).

No evidence? Well, if you would like some I can give you some but generally it is ignored. Like the similarities in the NSDAP manifesto and other socialist ideals. I have an idea you would prefer to just parrot the academic view than actually think about it.

If you really want an understanding of the relationship of fascism and what is termed left-wing socialism start with arranging the political spectrum from anarchy to total government. They will appear alot closer to each other than to limited government.

3. Whine about how no one understands him and appreciates his genius.

I haven't seen any whining. I have seen a rather reasoned response to those who hold the prevailing view.

4. Repeat.

Well left-wing socialism is progressivism. It is a progression of growth in the State. Once it has enough power centralized any despot of whatever political persuasion can seize power especially when there is a threat from someone else to seize power. During the 1920's the communists in Germany seized power in several German cities attempting to ignite the revolution. They were put down by the extant political establishment with the aid of the NSDAP - who indeed despised communism, if only for the reason Hitler beleived Communism was a Jewish conspiracy. The fact Hitler despised communism doesn't make him any less of a central planner, social engineer or dictator than Stalin was.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think he is saying that. He is asking to compare similarities something the left seems unwilling to do.

I think it's because the deeds of that era of German government are viewed with reprehension, but not because it started out as a socialist movement. They are viewed as so because of their jingoistic pro-white philosophy, and how it was put into practice.

[Black Dog]

I don't think he is saying that. He is asking to compare similarities something the left seems unwilling to do. [/b]

If only. His whole contribution could simply have been shortened too "Facsicm: I know you are but what am I?"

Why only compare differences and declare them opposites. Stalin could be and is often said not to be a communist. Is he a right wing dictator then?

We're not talking about declaring opposites. We're talking about acknowledging the traits that make them distinct political systems. At least some of us are.

No evidence? Well, if you would like some I can give you some but generally it is ignored. Like the similarities in the NSDAP manifesto and other socialist ideals. I have an idea you would prefer to just parrot the academic view than actually think about it.

Obviously you didn't read Bob's post in which the philosophical foundations of these systems are irrelevant: we need only look at their deeds. Well, some of them. The ones we care to look at at least and not those that might undermine our pet theories.

If you really want an understanding of the relationship of fascism and what is termed left-wing socialism start with arranging the political spectrum from anarchy to total government. They will appear alot closer to each other than to limited government.

Obviously. But the intent here is to foster guilt-by-association to damn the left, not have a meaningful discussion about the nuances of fascism qua fascism.

I haven't seen any whining. I have seen a rather reasoned response to those who hold the prevailing view.

It's a giant strawman argument strapped to an reductio ad absurdum fallacy coupled to an inflated sense of self importance.

Well left-wing socialism is progressivism. It is a progression of growth in the State.

That's not what progressivism means.

Once it has enough power centralized any despot of whatever political persuasion can seize power especially when there is a threat from someone else to seize power. During the 1920's the communists in Germany seized power in several German cities attempting to ignite the revolution. They were put down by the extant political establishment with the aid of the NSDAP - who indeed despised communism, if only for the reason Hitler beleived Communism was a Jewish conspiracy. The fact Hitler despised communism doesn't make him any less of a central planner, social engineer or dictator than Stalin was.

That doesn't make him a modern day leftist either. The thing is you can draw Nazi parallels from every segment of the modern political spectrum: as I mentioned before, the militarism, appeals to traditional values, fear and loathing of the "other" and such are straight from the right-wing playbook. Doesn't make them fascists.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Black Dog

[Pliny]

I've read the thread. All you've done is repeat, over and over, the claim that defining trait of fascism is government control over all aspects of society.

It's not.

The kind of broad government control you describe is characteristic of totalitarian systems, but that common feature must be weighed beside what sets fascism apart from Stalinism, Marxism or any other authoritarian -ism. Because it's once you get down to the details of the defining traits of fascist societies - particularly nationalism, militarism, the glorification of violence/war, anti-intellectualism, traditionalism/nostalgia- that you see why fascism is situated on the right of the spectrum. Not that it's hard to figure out why you'd like to gloss over these particular traits and ignore uncomfortable realities like the historical enmity between fascists and communists.

They do have differences indeed. Perhaps the biggest difference is that fascism attempts to spread nationalism as a dominant force while communism attempts to spread internationalism.

I don't see the USSR being less militaristic than Germany was. Communists after all are about the glorification of revolution and the State. Something I see as similar to Nazi militarism not an opposing stand. Communists actually look upon socialists as wimps. The communist Bolsheviks overthrew the ruling socialist Mensheviks and that is the danger of a powerful central authority. It can be overthrown by any dictator of any political persuasion. Of course, Fascism/Nazism, having a sole dictator would oppose any threat to it's authority. Democracy is not positioned opposite Nazism but it would be opposed just as vehemently as communism because it is a threat to the monopolization of power, something, more in common with Stalin and Castro.

As for anti-intellectualism - the Communists had their share of intellectuals in the Gulag and I don't think Hitler tolerated any intellectual opposition either. This is not a difference but a similarity.

So the big difference is nationalism and internationalism; implying the destruction of nationalism.

It is the single diametrically opposed concept. Let me ask, which, between Trotsky and Stalin was the right-wing dictator. I guess it was Stalin since he doesn't seem to be recognized, in hindsight, as a true communist. So maybe communism should be on the right side of the spectrum as well. Maybe they are both right wing extremes and there is no extreme on the left.

The whole idea is that the confusion of left and right extremism, something perhaps you feel doesn't exist with your vast knowledge of political philosophy but any citizen should without having to do reams of research have an understanding, needs to be clarified. Frankly, what would be different between living in the USSR and in Germany in the thirties. The USSR had their holocaust with the Ukrainians and the Germans had theirs with the Jews. Was one less anti-intellectual, less militaristic, one glorifying the revolution and the other glorifying the State, both with dictators, both filled with propaganda and subterfuge....and, of course you see them as total opposites.

Forget what your schooling told you, get off your high horse and think about how the average citizen can make proper democratic political choices without extensive research and wading through the political morass that is government. The people don't need lectures that leave them with blank stares they need to understand. The whole subject of politics has been elevated to a science which is a detriment to science itself, complete with the erudition and complexity necessary to earn itself a place in the hallowed halls of academia and intellectualism. It's acceptance at the table is also a detriment to academia and intellectualism. Both of which will suffer the pains of tyranny, whether they support left or right exrtremism, or just the slow, warm and fuzzy encroachment of progressive government growth.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

If only. His whole contribution could simply have been shortened too "Facsicm: I know you are but what am I?

No, that's your contribution.

We're not talking about declaring opposites. We're talking about acknowledging the traits that make them distinct political systems. At least some of us are.

Slippy, slidy - one is deemed extreme left and the other extreme right. sort of opposites, don't you think.

Obviously you didn't read Bob's post in which the philosophical foundations of these systems are irrelevant: we need only look at their deeds. Well, some of them. The ones we care to look at at least and not those that might undermine our pet theories.

We can look at their philosophical foundations read the manifesto of the NSDAP and tell me it deserves to be positioned as an extreme far right movement. Or Mussolini's 25 year association with socialist activism has no bearing on his formulation of a dictatorial State.

Obviously. But the intent here is to foster guilt-by-association to damn the left, not have a meaningful discussion about the nuances of fascism qua fascism.

Well, you view it that way because you are a leftist that feels threatened by the concept. Someone actually thinking you are something more than a progressivist liberal is not a tolerable concept to you. Just remember you don't want tyranny any more than anyone else.

Now I will get the argument that you are not a left winger but a centrist. Well, progressivism, the progressive growth of government, creeping socialism, tends to drag the centre along with it.

It's a giant strawman argument strapped to an reductio ad absurdum fallacy coupled to an inflated sense of self importance.

Your complete inability to look at it and dismiss it as an ad absurdum fallacy reveals a rather inflated sense of self-importance.

That's not what progressivism means.

No, I'm sorry. It means that society adopts the necessary advancements of knowledge, both technical and social, that creates a compassionate and caring environment for the individual and anyone who disagrees is some kind of right wing extremist or idiotic conservative who deserves to be shipped to the

Gulag, and as soon as we have enough numbers we're going to do put our efforts behind the politcal will to see it done.

That doesn't make him a modern day leftist either. The thing is you can draw Nazi parallels from every segment of the modern political spectrum: as I mentioned before, the militarism, appeals to traditional values, fear and loathing of the "other" and such are straight from the right-wing playbook. Doesn't make them fascists.

Of course, let's draw some parallels to other segments of the political spectrum. Um...central planning...ha..our democracy is centrally planned...Stephen Harper...he is a dictator...um...propaganda and lies...that goes across the whole spectrum....um...

You know, we can further confuse the issue or we can attempt to clarify things. Totalitariainism, is about tyranny. Who living under tyranny, gives a crap if it is of the left or right variety. Someone may prefer one over the other depending on how it benefits them but really tyranny can only exist with centralized power.

I want a dialogue that forwards an understanding of tyranny not an argument that there are different types of tyranny and which one is worse. Tyranny is what is essntially important to the citizen, not whether one is nationalistic or internationalistic, debating whether your preference is to support the State on the front lines of a nationalist or an internationalist war.

it is the similarity of the totalitarian aspect that must take precedence over any other perceived differences. Arguing they are not the same because they empahsize different importances socially and/or economically is a lesser consideration. If you want to discuss differences in the degree of tyranny between the extreme left and the extreme right I think we can agree there are none. Dead Ukrainians and dead Jews will attest to that.

[Black Dog]

No, that's your contribution.

Nope, it's a reasonable interpretation.

Slippy, slidy - one is deemed extreme left and the other extreme right. sort of opposites, don't you think.

Deemed by whom?

We can look at their philosophical foundations read the manifesto of the NSDAP and tell me it deserves to be positioned as an extreme far right movement. Or Mussolini's 25 year association with socialist activism has no bearing on his formulation of a dictatorial State.

And you can also look at their actions. Fer fuck's sake, Bob's examples of left wing fascism don't even jive with the reality of historical fascism. As I said earlier: were minority rights a big cause of Hitler et al?

Well, you view it that way because you are a leftist that feels threatened by the concept. Someone actually thinking you are something more than a progressivist liberal is not a tolerable concept to you. Just remember you don't want tyranny any more than anyone else.

No, I have an issue with people being so aggressively stupid.

Now I will get the argument that you are not a left winger but a centrist. Well, progressivism, the progressive growth of government, creeping socialism, tends to drag the centre along with it.

Actually it doesn't.

Your complete inability to look at it and dismiss it as an ad absurdum fallacy reveals a rather inflated sense of self-importance.

As opposed to referring constantly to your intimate knowledge of the NSDAP manifesto etc. Pompous twattery like that.

No, I'm sorry. It means that society adopts the necessary advancements of knowledge, both technical and social, that creates a compassionate and caring environment for the individual and anyone who disagrees is some kind of right wing extremist or idiotic conservative who deserves to be shipped to the Gulag, and as soon as we have enough numbers we're going to do put our efforts behind the politcal will to see it done.

Oh look, another strawman.

Of course, let's draw some parallels to other segments of the political spectrum. Um...central planning...ha..our democracy is centrally planned...Stephen Harper...he is a dictator...um...propaganda and lies...that goes across the whole spectrum....um...

Playing the fool helps how?

You know, we can further confuse the issue or we can attempt to clarify things. Totalitariainism, is about tyranny. Who living under tyranny, gives a crap if it is of the left or right variety. Someone may prefer one over the other depending on how it benefits them but really tyranny can only exist with centralized power.

I want a dialogue that forwards an understanding of tyranny not an argument that there are different types of tyranny and which one is worse. Tyranny is what is essntially important to the citizen, not whether one is nationalistic or internationalistic, debating whether your preference is to support the State on the front lines of a nationalist or an internationalist war.

it is the similarity of the totalitarian aspect that must take precedence over any other perceived differences. Arguing they are not the same because they empahsize different importances socially and/or economically is a lesser consideration. If you want to discuss differences in the degree of tyranny between the extreme left and the extreme right I think we can agree there are none. Dead Ukrainians and dead Jews will attest to that.

Great but that's nowt to do with the discussion, which is the similarity between fascism and the contemporary left (the real one, not the boogeyman that lives under your bed and Bob's).

[Black Dog]

The whole idea is that the confusion of left and right extremism, something perhaps you feel doesn't exist with your vast knowledge of political philosophy but any citizen should without having to do reams of research have an understanding, needs to be clarified. Frankly, what would be different between living in the USSR and in Germany in the thirties. The USSR had their holocaust with the Ukrainians and the Germans had theirs with the Jews. Was one less anti-intellectual, less militaristic, one glorifying the revolution and the other glorifying the State, both with dictators, both filled with propaganda and subterfuge....and, of course you see them as total opposites.

It's pretty clear you don't actually understand my position here. Oh well.

Forget what your schooling told you, get off your high horse and think about how the average citizen can make proper democratic political choices without extensive research and wading through the political morass that is government. The people don't need lectures that leave them with blank stares they need to understand. The whole subject of politics has been elevated to a science which is a detriment to science itself, complete with the erudition and complexity necessary to earn itself a place in the hallowed halls of academia and intellectualism. It's acceptance at the table is also a detriment to academia and intellectualism. Both of which will suffer the pains of tyranny, whether they support left or right exrtremism, or just the slow, warm and fuzzy encroachment of progressive government growth.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Edited September 21, 2011 by Black Dog

[Bob]

Pliny, as you can see, this is a total waste of time. The argument of the left boils down, "because I said so!". Fascism is much more in-line with the contemporary left-wing than with the contemporary right-wing, so why is it defined as a "far-right extreme ideology"? I was the first person in this thread to state the primary difference between fascism and communism, that being the nationalistic orientation of fascists and the international orientation of communists. Secondarily, I was also the first person in this thread to indicate the other main difference between these two systems, the permission of the ownership of private property in fascism (albeit under extreme government control) and the nationalization of all means of production under communism.

Fascism, in practise, has many commonalities with the mainstream left, albeit to a slightly lower degree. Both fascism and the left want centralized control of education. Both fascism and the left want tight reigns on business operations. Both fascism and the left want great control over the culture and society (i.e. the CRTC and "Canadian content" and "Canadian ownership", "Ministry of Canadian Heritage", etc) through censorship and restriction of speech and expression ("Human Rights Tribunals"), indoctrination into "multiculturalism", and on and on and on.

The left is never the advocate of freedom, but always trying to manufacture new "rights" for people, which are of course always required to be provided for and/or enforced by other third-parties who never consented to such obligations. Indeed, the left is always the source of advocacy for greater and greater involvement from the government in order to coerce others into manufacturing cultural/social change and "progressivism".

I'm going to stop there, as it's clear there is no possibility of a serious discussion with the likes of the left in this thread, who endlessly defer to arguments no more sophisticated than, "scholars and professors say you're wrong!". Well then, I guess the argument is over!