The "Fascist" fallacy

[Bob]

wrong thread.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Bob

[Black Dog]

Pliny, as you can see, this is a total waste of time. The argument of the left boils down, "because I said so!".

How original.

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"?

The fact you continue to blather about the contemporary left-wing and the contemporary right-wing without providing a meaningful definition of either shows the intellectually dishonesty of this whole shtick of yours. After all, we've already seen you reject examples from the self-described modern right on the basis of idealogical impurity ("no true Scotsman" etc.) so I'm left wondering: who exactly are these people?

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.

You also dismissed both these differences as being largely immaterial.

Fascism, in practise, has many commonalities with the mainstream left, albeit to a slightly lower degree.

Slightly?

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.

As I said the first time you posted this: one can find numerous counter examples of these behaviours and others from the right-wing that would fit the bill just as well. Of course faced with that uncomfortable fact, you simply resort to the old trick of declaring those right wingers aren't really right wingers at all.

The fact of the matter is, these are all superficial things, akin to saying oranges and basketballs are the same colour and therefore both a form of fruit. It completely ignores the ideological differences between fascism and socialism that underpin the actions above. Even if you can find superficial similarities in the methodology (and I weep for anyone who can draw a serious comparison between Human Rights Tribunals and Nazi show trials), the foundations remain poles apart.

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.

And we know fascists were always great champions of rights.

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".

The left is also the source for advocating for less government involvement in individual affairs. for example: it's the right that supports military intervention overseas, it's the right that supports the law and order agenda which inevitably gives police and the state more power over the individual, it's the right that wants to dictate what a person can smoke or whether or not they can have an abortion. And so on and so forth

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!

As oppossed to endlessly copying and pasting the same dreck over and over again as you do?

[Pliny]

Pliny, as you can see, this is a total waste of time. The argument of the left boils down, "because I said so!".

Yes. A very conservative apporach.

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.

I agree, these are the two main differences.

As for your question of how fascism is defined as a far-right wing ideology, the answer lies in the fact that conservatism is about maintaining and preserving a status quo. The enforcement and protection of culture and the society is what is paramount. This can take on the color of being "nationalistic" and thus is confused with the totalitarian state or fascism.

The only claim is that Fasicsm has it's roots in the left. And I am in agreement with that because once the State goes that far it is no longer about "conservatism", i.e., maintaining a status quo, it becomes about a progressive growth of government until, if not checked, it becomes totalitarianism. And I use the word "progressive" because it is a progressive centralization of power. I am not talking about a progressive, liberal society.

Once government reaches a certain size, such as in our social democracy, and has widened it's mandate, left and right, liberal and conservative, are not much different. They both promote progressive growth of the State. One is not likely to repeal the "gains" made by the other as it may alienate some of the electorate.

The problem, in a social democracy, with the idea of liberal and conservative, democrat and republican is that, each side believes that more power is necessary to quash the other side and the electorate becomes increasingly divided and willing to give each side more power when they are in government.

The solution to these problems lies in the Constitution of the country and how government is defined.

The US Constitution is about limiting government. The world today is so full of government and it has justified itself so well that the Constitution seems idiotic to an increasing amount of "liberals" and progressives and socialists, and the entitlement class of the public. The fight in the US today is to restore the concepts of the founding documents - limit government. Those individuals supporting that believe it is what made America great in the first place.

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.

I agree completely.

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".

Classical liberalism was an advocate for freedom before the 1930's. Unfortunately, the left was taken over by socialists and advocates of big government, so classical liberals and libertarians migrated to conservatism in a natural move to limit the socialists in an attempt to "conserve" the status of limited government that existed in the US. FDR was a "liberal" that believed in big government - those "liberals" wishing to maintain small government were forced to migrate to the right and oppose government growth.

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!

They are fairly closed-minded about it. I have had this conversation before with them.

Really, what it boils down to is how the public is being left in a permanent confusion. And it is obvious with people calling each other fascists and communists/socialists, and being unclear on what the left and the right are. The left here believe they have a handle on it all and they aren't willing to be progressive but insist upon holding the erudite conservative position. They know that not too many people have a clue about politics and they feel they can impress some and poo poo any challenges to their conservative view of politics. they have the backing of academia - after all.

[Black Dog]

As for your question of how fascism is defined as a far-right wing ideology, the answer lies in the fact that conservatism is about maintaining and preserving a status quo. The enforcement and protection of culture and the society is what is paramount. This can take on the color of being "nationalistic" and thus is confused with the totalitarian state or fascism.

Not just the enforcement and protection of culture and the society. Hostility to change, to outsiders, an obsessive preoccupation with the decline of society and civilization: these are fascist traits and conservative ones.

Let's not forget too, fascism's implacable hatred for the concept of equality and human rights, which are two pillars of modern leftist thought.

Once government reaches a certain size, such as in our social democracy, and has widened it's mandate, left and right, liberal and conservative, are not much different. They both promote progressive growth of the State. One is not likely to repeal the "gains" made by the other as it may alienate some of the electorate.

So, when you and Bob talk of the "right" you refer exclusively to a certain subset of free-market libertarians.

Really, what it boils down to is how the public is being left in a permanent confusion. And it is obvious with people calling each other fascists and communists/socialists, and being unclear on what the left and the right are.

These terms are fungible. Definitions change over time, which is why bitching about 1930s fascism being considered right-wing when it allegedly parallels 21st Century left-wing thought is so laughable. Fascism is considered a right-wing philosophy because, at the time, that's exactly what it was.

Quite frankly, reducing the definition of fascism to mere big government run amok is taking a giant shit on the historical record.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Black Dog

[Bob]

Black Dog continues to use fascist and leftist record as a method of analyses of the two ideologies, while ignoring how they actually are implemented in practise. We are living in the real world, by you are living in the fantasy world of rhetoric.

Take for example you statement that universal equality and human rights are a "pillar of liberal thought". If that was true, and it certainly is not, why is the left obsessed with passing racist/prejudiced/sexist affirmative-action policies and establishing quotas for hiring and admission to schools for groups they label as "disadvantaged"? The left, of course, claims to care about equality, but does exactly the opposite. The right, in practise, is the only side advocating for real equality (opposing racist/prejudiced/sexist government interventions to give benefits to certain groups).

If you want to continually pretend that rhetoric is the way which we will examine these ideologies, then communism will end up being a utopia. Nobody in here is saying that leftism is the same as fascism. What is being said, and it's certainly true, is that leftism and fascism have much more in common than the contemporary right and fascism in practise. So why is fascism described as an "extreme right-wing ideology"? Well, we know the answer to that... just another myth passed around as "common knowledge" by the left.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog continues to use fascist and leftist record as a method of analyses of the two ideologies, while ignoring how they actually are implemented in practise.

And you do precisely the reverse.

We are living in the real world, by you are living in the fantasy world of rhetoric.

In the real world, why people do what they do matters.

Take for example you statement that universal equality and human rights are a "pillar of liberal thought". If that was true, and it certainly is not, why is the left obsessed with passing racist/prejudiced/sexist affirmative-action policies and establishing quotas for hiring and admission to schools for groups they label as "disadvantaged"? The left, of course, claims to care about equality, but does exactly the opposite. The right, in practise, is the only side advocating for real equality (opposing racist/prejudiced/sexist government interventions to give benefits to certain groups).

Again: who is the left? Who is the right? You won't say. I suspect you don't know except so far as they are synonyms for you for "bad" and "good".

If you want to continually pretend that rhetoric is the way which we will examine these ideologies, then communism will end up being a utopia.

If I were doing that, you may have a point. But I 'm not and you don't. Again.

Nobody in here is saying that leftism is the same as fascism. What is being said, and it's certainly true, is that leftism and fascism have much more in common than the contemporary right and fascism in practise.

It's completely clear by now, if it wasn't already, that you don't really know or care to know what socialism or leftism really mean. Good show.

So why is fascism described as an "extreme right-wing ideology"? Well, we know the answer to that... just another myth passed around as "common knowledge" by the left.

Asked and answered. This is over.

[Pliny]

Not just the enforcement and protection of culture and the society. Hostility to change, to outsiders, an obsessive preoccupation with the decline of society and civilization: these are fascist traits and conservative ones.

People can feel that way as individuals. It only becomes a problem when government makes laws that favour those feelings. These traits are nothing if they are not institutionalized by the State. An act of aggression against any citizen applied equally to all citizens is a proper application of equality under the law.

A person can feel patriotic and have a love of country but institutionalized it becomes a movement which is better defined by nationalism. There is an excellent thread discussing the difference between patriotism and nationalism. George Orwell wrote a very definitive essay on them.

Let's not forget too, fascism's implacable hatred for the concept of equality and human rights, which are two pillars of modern leftist thought.

Actually, it is a pillar of classical liberal and libertarian thought, modern leftist thought is riddled with socialism which is why, classical liberals and libertarians are now more associated with the right - they aren't about big government and the welfare/warfare state.

When liberalism returns to it's classical roots it can then return to the left.

So, when you and Bob talk of the "right" you refer exclusively to a certain subset of free-market libertarians.

I can't speak for, Bob but I do. My argument with conservatives would be the same as with the left. They want too much government. Personally, I have more in common with conservatism. I hold conservative values but I wouldn't want to turn what I hold to be morally right into a law. In other words, my personal level of mores and ethics has nothing to do with government. Both conservatives and liberals feel that what they think should be enacted in law. Laws do set and preserve a status quo. You will find yourself being a conservative if there is a call to repeal certain laws or a move towards regression. That is why we will see no real change in our health care system - There is nothing more conservative than a liberal institution.

These terms are fungible. Definitions change over time, which is why bitching about 1930s fascism being considered right-wing when it allegedly parallels 21st Century left-wing thought is so laughable.

No one says it parallels it. Each socialist leader has their view of how society should run they may or may not have parallels but they do have the the common objective of growth of the State and the centralization of power to a central authority.

Fascism is considered a right-wing philosophy because, at the time, that's exactly what it was.

Well, you should read that NSDAP (National Socialist Germany Workers Party)manifesto.

Nazism was the enemy of the Communists, most certainly. We can agree on that. The communists in Germany and the USSR attempted to discredit the Nazi party. It is they who started that propaganda that Nazism had nothing to do with socialism. And certainly there were ideological differences but all socialist parties have differences.

Quite frankly, reducing the definition of fascism to mere big government run amok is taking a giant shit on the historical record.

It's a totalitarian state where society and the economy is centrally engineered. You are reducing it to big government. In order to simplify an understanding lets just lay the political spectrum out on a real dichotomy - anarchy to totalitarianism. No government at one end, and totalitarianism at the other.

As govermment grows in size, mandate and cost, it approaches totalitarianism. As it shrinks it apporoaches anarchy. We can see quite easily that libertarianism and limited governments, such as was the US government for it's first fifty years or so, are closer to the anarchy side.

Totalitarian governments would be at the other end and the differences would place them, fairly close to each other. Fascism, allowing for some individual ownership of property would be slightly to the left of communism. Stalinist communism and Maoist communism, would probably be only a few hairs apart.

Moving down toward anarchy we could plot Monarchies, different dictatorships, theocracies, social democracies, republics, conservatism and liberalism. Some monarchies might be quite far apart depending on the amount of socio/economic control it exercized. Can you think with that or is it too simple?

Edited September 23, 2011 by Pliny