Leftist Fascists Strike Yet Again

[Pliny]

It's too bad for Goldberg that the more eminenet and well-known scholars of fascism tend to think he'd dead wrong, his arguments specious and entirely politicized.

Scholarly flaws in Goldberg's thesis:

http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/scholarly-flaws-in-jonah-goldbergs-liberal-fascism

Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions:

http://hnn.us/articles/122247.html

Not Illuminating:

http://www.hnn.us/articles/122473.html

Yes. Serious mainstream scholars agree.

Do you agree?

Actually, I really have a problem with differentiating some of the points of Marx's "Communist Manifesto' and Hitler's German National Socialist Worker's Party Manifesto. Why they should be at opposite ends of the spectrum is a bit of a conundrum really. I reconcile it by the fact that Hitler thought of the Communists as being a Jewish plot and the socialists were just competing with and splitting the socialist vote with Hitler's Worker's socialist party.

Joseph Stalin, was initially impressed with Hitler but Hitler's hatred of Communism soon had Stalin positioning Hitler as far away politically as he could get. The differences in the two as outlined in the Communist Manifesto and Hitler's manifesto were not that vast. There were differences in the ownership of property and economics but comparing the two doesn't seem to warrant their extreme opposite positioning on the left/right political spectrum. Some, like Jack Weber, try to reconcile that by saying the political spectrum should be more represented by a horseshoe rather than a straight line and the polar ends of as horseshoe approach each other. I think the more simpler solution, for ease of understanding is to reassign the extremes to that of a more true dichotomy, a la Edward Griffin, so that those ideologies with totalitarian statist similarities are positioned closer together. And of course the true dichotomy, the polar opposites, on a straight line are anarchy and totalitarianism.

Nazism and fascism were totalitarian states with differences from other socialist ideologies and communism but their similarities in statism make them too close to be considered a true dichotomy or positioned as opposites.

As an advocate of limited, small government it is rather humourous to me to be called a fascist. Of course, there are those on the left that feel the State is run by corporations, and though they have deep pockets and perhaps more successfully lobby government for favour they just become a part of the good old boy establishment, simply another special interest in a democracy catering for votes to special interests. A limited government would never be catering to corporations and in a freely competitive market corporations would be the servants of consumers who could never be crossed without a severe economic backlash.

I think if anyone is politicized it is Goldberg's critics. Goldberg is merely asking some pertinent questions about fuzziness in the established political construct.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

Yes. Serious mainstream scholars agree.

Do you agree?

My knowledge is limited. Goldberg's is more limited. Further, his is an entirely politicized argument, based on the cherished tradition of left-bashing. This is old hat.

As Goldberg himself has said, he got tired of "fascist" used as pejorative of the p[olitical Right. I don't blame him.

But now he wants it to work exactly the same, but in the opposite direction.

The pieces I cite don't merely say, "Bah!"; they explain some actual problems with Goldberg's work.

Actually, I really have a problem with differentiating some of the points of Marx's "Communist Manifesto' and Hitler's German National Socialist Worker's Party Manifesto. Why they should be at opposite ends of the spectrum is a bit of a conundrum really. I reconcile it by the fact that Hitler thought of the Communists as being a Jewish plot and the socialists were just competing with and splitting the socialist vote with Hitler's Worker's socialist party.

There are some similarities...but in the same way there are similarities between sectors of the North American Right and the arch-conservative Islamists. The Nazis and Communists were both statists, certainly. That alone doesn't make them analogous.

Joseph Stalin, was initially impressed with Hitler but Hitler's hatred of Communism soon had Stalin positioning Hitler as far away politically as he could get.

Lots of ostensibly freedom-loving Westerners found Hitler quite palatable as well, early on. And Mussolini was greatly admired in the early years: one official (can't remember if it was State Department) defended him by saying "the dagoes like to be ruled dramatically." Yeah, thanks, buddy.

The differences in the two as outlined in the Communist Manifesto and Hitler's manifesto were not that vast. There were differences in the ownership of property and economics but comparing the two doesn't seem to warrant their extreme opposite positioning on the left/right political spectrum.

You're probably right, but our system is not 100% opposite and dissimilar to either one, either.

As an advocate of limited, small government it is rather humourous to me to be called a fascist.

"Humorous" is a generous way to put it.

I think if anyone is politicized it is Goldberg's critics. Goldberg is merely asking some pertinent questions about fuzziness in the established political construct.

I see him making more claims than asking questions.

Edited May 26, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

My knowledge is limited. Goldberg's is more limited. Further, his is an entirely politicized argument, based on the cherished tradition of left-bashing. This is old hat.

You know as well as I do that the left/right paradigm is irrelevant - if you follow Chomsky at all.

So why would you give such credibility to Goldberg's critics who cleave to the concept? Referring to the "cherished tradition of left-bashing" when all it is an assessment of the established interests wishing to consolidate their wealth, power and position.

Your knowledge is not as limited as you claim but you do have to learn to use it.

As Goldberg himself has said, he got tired of "fascist" used as pejorative of the p[olitical Right. I don't blame him.

But now he wants it to work exactly the same, but in the opposite direction.

Really now? I think what he is working for is to restore some of the wealth and power of the established interests back to the people. A smaller, limited federal government that doesn't decide who the winners and losers are in society you can choose for yourself.

There are some similarities...but in the same way there are similarities between sectors of the North American Right and the arch-conservative Islamists. The Nazis and Communists were both statists, certainly. That alone doesn't make them analogous.

Those sectors of the North American right and the arch-conservative(why the choice of word "conservative" instead of "fundamental" is a positioning I can understand) Islamists, the Nazi's and the communists are simply all competitors in the same game playing for the rights to your life.

Once again you argue that the left/right paradigm is a valid construct. Peel it back and it is just a presentation to keep the populace at each other's throats.

Lots of ostensibly freedom-loving Westerners found Hitler quite palatable as well, early on. And Mussolini was greatly admired in the early years: one official (can't remember if it was State Department) defended him by saying "the dagoes like to be ruled dramatically." Yeah, thanks, buddy.

Hitler and Mussolini were much admired in the thirties. Socialism or Statism was popular and Fascism offered the market a place at the table which communist and other collective socialist ideologies did not. Communism was the promise of all sharing prosperity equally and Fascism, unlike communism, never denied there would be a ruling class.

I see him making more claims than asking questions.

Are we going to continue with the left/right dialogue yelling socialist and fascist at each other then?

The fact it has continued so long serves to illustrate there is no clear understanding of either.

[bloodyminded]

You know as well as I do that the left/right paradigm is irrelevant - if you follow Chomsky at all.

So why would you give such credibility to Goldberg's critics who cleave to the concept?

It's Goldberg who cleaves to the concept. Paxton (to name one of the scholars on fascism cited) claims that fascism is its own, fairly malleable brand of ideology, which took left and right components and mashed them together.

Goldberg is the one saying "fascism is leftist" in its essence.

Really now? I think what he is working for is to restore some of the wealth and power of the established interests back to the people. A smaller, limited federal government that doesn't decide who the winners and losers are in society you can choose for yourself.

And naming his thesis "Liberal Fascism," dismissing its right-wing components and emphasizing (speciously) its supposedly inherent leftism is part of this?

And its his critics who are cleaving to the left/right dichotomy?

Those sectors of the North American right and the arch-conservative(why the choice of word "conservative" instead of "fundamental" is a positioning I can understand) Islamists,

They are social conservatives in every way. That's what they are. I don't think it reflects on conservatives who are not like them. I don't feel too much in common with Lenin (a criminal, whose crimes have been overshadowed thanks to Stalin, but which are real enough). If someone calls Castro a "leftist," I agree wholeheartedly. But it doesn't reflect on me in the slightest.

the Nazi's and the communists are simply all competitors in the same game playing for the rights to your life.

I don't think so. You and I are in some agreement about abuses of power (and how little which "ism" appears matters when you're at the wrong end of the gun), but the distinctions are historically important.

Once again you argue that the left/right paradigm is a valid construct. Peel it back and it is just a presentation to keep the populace at each other's throats.

To a degree. But there are genuine and principled disagreements between well-meaning and thoughtful people with differing philosophical worldviews.

Are we going to continue with the left/right dialogue yelling socialist and fascist at each other then?

The fact it has continued so long serves to illustrate there is no clear understanding of either.

No, I don't think we should be yelling "fascist" at one another. ("Socialist" is quite a different matter...there are far more socialists than fascists, and it is not universally deemed an insult, as fascist is.) That's part of my problem with Goldberg. Rather than wishing to put the pejorative to rest, he wishes to redirect to a new target.

Edited May 26, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

It's Goldberg who cleaves to the concept. Paxton (to name one of the scholars on fascism cited) claims that fascism is its own, fairly malleable brand of ideology, which took left and right components and mashed them together.

Goldberg is the one saying "fascism is leftist" in its essence.

The claim "fascism is leftist" is cleaving to the concept? How so? Seems a wide departure from my perspective.

A rather confusing conclusion to say the least. Paxton (a scholar on Fascism), says it took left and right components and mashed them together - so does that not mean Goldberg may be at least partially right - no one else is accusing fascism of being left wing??

And naming his thesis "Liberal Fascism," dismissing its right-wing components and emphasizing (speciously) its supposedly inherent leftism is part of this?

And its his critics who are cleaving to the left/right dichotomy?

They are maintaining he is wrong but the evidence is he is right. One need only read Hitler's manifesto and Mussolini's political origins. You don't have to take Goldberg's word for it. It's in the record.

They are social conservatives in every way. That's what they are. I don't think it reflects on conservatives who are not like them. I don't feel too much in common with Lenin (a criminal, whose crimes have been overshadowed thanks to Stalin, but which are real enough). If someone calls Castro a "leftist," I agree wholeheartedly. But it doesn't reflect on me in the slightest.

That's plain enough to see. I'm a leftist but I'm not a leftist has been the socialist refrain since the Bolshevik revolution.

I don't think so. You and I are in some agreement about abuses of power (and how little which "ism" appears matters when you're at the wrong end of the gun), but the distinctions are historically important.

Why? Only in the context of the left/right paradigm it seems, which, I think, we both agree should be made redundant.

No, I don't think we should be yelling "fascist" at one another. ("Socialist" is quite a different matter...there are far more socialists than fascists, and it is not universally deemed an insult, as fascist is.) That's part of my problem with Goldberg. Rather than wishing to put the pejorative to rest, he wishes to redirect to a new target.

And the new target is....???? How about the centralization of power in an increasingly monopolistic establishment???? Left and right be damned.

[bloodyminded]

The claim "fascism is leftist" is cleaving to the concept? How so? Seems a wide departure from my perspective.

Yeah. your perspective is that it's ridiculous and unfair for people to slander conservatives by calling them "fascists."

But to aim the pejorative at liberals instead! Why, that's just sober common sense.

A rather confusing conclusion to say the least. Paxton (a scholar on Fascism), says it took left and right components and mashed them together - so does that not mean Goldberg may be at least partially right - no one else is accusing fascism of being left wing??

No, goldberg is making precisely the same mistake. If anything, it's more inaccurate, as fascism is not a 50/50 left/right split. It's mostly a right-wing cocktail, with some leftist olives floating about in it.

They are maintaining he is wrong but the evidence is he is right. One need only read Hitler's manifesto and Mussolini's political origins. You don't have to take Goldberg's word for it. It's in the record.

The scholars on fascism don't have "a record" from which to draw conclusions?

Unlike the "historian" Goldberg.

That's plain enough to see. I'm a leftist but I'm not a leftist has been the socialist refrain since the Bolshevik revolution.

No, a person can be a leftist without being a Stalinist, or an acolyte of criminals like Lenin.

Are you refusing to admit you're an arch-conservative fanatic? Are you exactly like Peron or Pinochet, by virtue of the term "right wing"?

As you say, if you deny it, that too is suggestive that it's true, by some insidious formulation in which everyone is continually lying about their stance.

Why do you insist on holding yourself to easier standards than you demand of others?

At any rate, the original Soviets during the revolution were profoundly concerned about Lenin. They said authoritarianism is ruinous, and has no place in socialist principles.

You can disagree, obviously, but what you cannot dispute is that there is no Leftist Entity in lockstep agreement on authoritarian rule.

Why? Only in the context of the left/right paradigm it seems, which, I think, we both agree should be made redundant.

And the new target is....???? How about the centralization of power in an increasingly monopolistic establishment???? Left and right be damned.

You should really make up your mind.

Edited May 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

Yeah. your perspective is that it's ridiculous and unfair for people to slander conservatives by calling them "fascists."

But to aim the pejorative at liberals instead! Why, that's just sober common sense.

I don't need to aim it the process is there to be observed by all. It isn't so because I say it or Jonah Goldberg says it. And it isn't untrue because because you deny it or attempt to obfuscate the facts.

No, goldberg is making precisely the same mistake. If anything, it's more inaccurate, as fascism is not a 50/50 left/right split. It's mostly a right-wing cocktail, with some leftist olives floating about in it.

Back pedal! Back pedal!

No, a person can be a leftist without being a Stalinist, or an acolyte of criminals like Lenin.

You mean like Obama? Or who - Castro?

Are you refusing to admit you're an arch-conservative fanatic? Are you exactly like Peron or Pinochet, by virtue of the term "right wing"?

What is an arch-conservative fanatic? A fascist? Are you just aiming that pejorative at me?

I am a proponent of limited government. Your inability to grasp that is revealing in itself. I plan on leaving you alone to your own devices- a scary thought I know.

Or are you just interested in "conserving" the progressive ground you have already won? Are you finding yourself rigidly defending the status quo and will fight to preserve your entitlements - not selfishly for yourself of course, but for the greater good.

At any rate, the original Soviets during the revolution were profoundly concerned about Lenin. They said authoritarianism is ruinous, and has no place in socialist principles.

If that were true the Mensheviks would have remained in power and there would never have been a Bolshevik revolution. Communism is about revolution - people die in revolutions. The masses in a revolution need direction as well, a strong central authority to establish the "classless" society. The "authority" always seems to remain afterward - and more equal. The USSR, Cuba, China, Pol pot anywhere you care to look where communism tried to establish the total "socialist" state.

You can disagree, obviously, but what you cannot dispute is that there is no Leftist Entity in lockstep agreement on authoritarian rule.

I don't think I am claiming that. Every socialist has their own idea of the perfect state and will run it as they see fit. "Leftism" is a rather confusing concept because every socialist (or fascist) thinks they have the right idea and no one trusts the other guy to run things properly. Thus when one of them winds up in power they engage in a cleansing pogrom. They know they subversively and forcefully siezed power and suspect that others will be just as subversive and brutal as they are.

The facts are there. Mussolini was a leading socialist and a leading socialist is a threat to other leading socialists. Hitler's manifesto reads similarly to other socialist manifestos and his popularity split the popularity of socialist and communist parties. Socialists tend to purge their ranks of competition so, yes - there is no leftist entity in lockstep agreement when it comes to power - they all want it and they all trust no one. They all think they are heading inthe same direction and use each other in their quest for power but I agree there is no lockstep agreement on authoritarian rule.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

I don't need to aim it the process is there to be observed by all. It isn't so because I say it or Jonah Goldberg says it. And it isn't untrue because because you deny it or attempt to obfuscate the facts.

No, it is because of Jonah Goldberg that you think this way.

You believe the entire record of historical scholarship on fascism is wrong. This is a pretty large claim, and I think you should back it up.

"The lefties did it" is your mantra. A comforting simplification; and a promiscuosly oversimplified one.

Back pedal! Back pedal!

Not at all. Not at all.

What is an arch-conservative fanatic? A fascist? Are you just aiming that pejorative at me?

Follow the conversation.:

1. After your continual conflation of everyone to the left of...well, of yourself as "Stalinists," I pointed out that Castro is a Leftist...but that this does not reflect on me, personally.

2. To which you replied that all leftists commit to this "refrain," implying that you think I'm lying (which means I should properly have invited you to perform a difficult sex act upon your own person, but at the time I was feeling generous and polite.)

3. To which I replied with the question--as a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the foolishness, self-indulgence and hypocrisy of your stance, not as a serious question, as anyone with basic literacy skills would understand instantly--as to whether you were some sort of right-wing fascist.

4. And now you insist on not following our line of conversation at all, choosing instead a deflection.

I am a proponent of limited government.

No you're not. You justified, to me, Pinochet's orgy of torture and murder...oh yeah, because he was "fighting the commies."

(Most of his victims, of coure, were not "commies," a troublesome detail to be ignored.)

"Limited government" enthusiasts always falter in their "princiupled" arguments, have you noticed?

I plan on leaving you alone to your own devices- a scary thought I know when your greatest skill is in keeping people confused. You would have a hard time making a living from that.

Hmmm. You mean like "I think we should be talking from a left-right perspective"; "Wait, bloodyminded, by speaking from a left-right perspective, you're only obfuscating."

"It's not about left/right, it's about the consolidation of power"; "it is always the left who do this...even the Republicans are mostly leftwingers."

Mind you, I am not suggesting you are particularly skillful at sowing confusion. Not for lack of trying, though.

If that were true the Mensheviks would have remained in power and there would never have been a Bolshevik revolution. Communism is about revolution - people die in revolutions. The masses in a revolution need direction as well, a strong central authority to establish the "classless" society. The "authority" always seems to remain afterward - and more equal. The USSR, Cuba, China, Pol pot anywhere you care to look where communism tried to establish the total "socialist" state.

Obviously I'm not defending oppressive regimes, murderous tyrants, and failed economic policies.

Do you assume all conservatives have a logical trajectory to the radical Islamists? That's insane.

I don't think I am claiming that. Every socialist has their own idea of the perfect state and will run it as they see fit.

I don't have an idea of a "perfect state." I think the concept displays a blindness towards the very fact of humanity itself.

"Leftism" is a rather confusing concept because every socialist (or fascist)

Are you conflating socialism with the mostly right-wing fascism again?

thinks they have the right idea and no one trusts the other guy to run things properly.

Well, gee, welcome to any homo sapiens sapiens community from seventy thousand years ago, check out the early agricultural societies, think of the Romans and the French and the Pax Americana, and check out the debates on the recent Canadian election.

You think "the socialists" are behind what you'll discover?

The facts are there. Mussolini was a leading socialist

Until his sharp veering to the Right; known by historians as "fascism."

Edited May 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

The facts are there. Mussolini was a leading socialist

Until his sharp veering to the Right; known by historians as "fascism."

Which illustrates the difficulty between the strictly synchronic view of history which

would have us believe that because Mussolini was a socialist who became a fascist, there is some sort of logical progression from one to the other in a compressed timeframe. The real difficulty is in the misapplication of the view which renders any connection to basic nonsense. In the case of a career than spanned some 45 years, a diachronic view is more applicable.

It took a fairly long time for Mussolini to turn to the dark side and even then, as a practicing socialist, his were syncretic politics. Blame Nietzsche if you want, but it seems to me that Mussolini didn't become a fascist because of what socialism could offer him, he became a fascist for what socialism couldn't offer him which was the authority of a nation state to advance his vision of how society ought to be categorically organized.

To me, any direct suggestion of a socialist who turns to fascism as an extreme expression of the former is a spurious idea at best.

Hitler appears to be the same sort as well.

Sorry, just had to interject there for a moment.

Carry on...

Edited May 27, 2011 by Shwa

[bloodyminded]

Which illustrates the difficulty between the strictly synchronic view of history which

would have us believe that because Mussolini was a socialist who became a fascist, there is some sort of logical progression from one to the other in a compressed timeframe. The real difficulty is in the misapplication of the view which renders any connection to basic nonsense. In the case of a career than spanned some 45 years, a diachronic view is more applicable.

It took a fairly long time for Mussolini to turn to the dark side and even then, as a practicing socialist, his were syncretic politics. Blame Nietzsche if you want, but it seems to me that Mussolini didn't become a fascist because of what socialism could offer him, he became a fascist for what socialism couldn't offer him which was the authority of a nation state to advance his vision of how society ought to be categorically organized.

To me, any direct suggestion of a socialist who turns to fascism as an extreme expression of the former is a spurious idea at best.

Hitler appears to be the same sort as well.

Sorry, just had to interject there for a moment.

Carry on...

This is a more articulate explanation of one of my ongoing complaints with Pliny's thesis: the inevitability of "progressives" inherent move towards authoritarianism.

And if they happen to become right-wing tyrants? Well, they don't; they can't. They are leftist by definition of being tyrants. Even if they're conservatives.

(He's also informed me that libertarians "can't" abuse power once they've got it, because they don't believe in abuse of power. I could envy such wide-eyed faith, but I won't.)

It's really a pitch-perfect tautology. It's conventional to say "I almost admire the brazenness," but actually I don't.

I have had a similar (if even worse) discussion a couple of years ago on another forum, with a very friendly, well-read, hardcore Christian conservative; he informed me that, since conservatives simply don't believe in behaving as do the fundamentalist Islamists, then these fellows are, logically, liberals. QED.

I'm truly beginning to doubt that such ideas can be easily changed, as they bespeak of a kind of fanaticism.

Edited May 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

I'm truly beginning to doubt that such ideas can be easily changed, as they bespeak of a kind of fanaticism.

They do! But then again, one could likely give a good argument for a certain measure of fanaticism required as a precursor to totalitarian regimes.

Which is a disturbing bit of irony...

[Jack Weber]

Which illustrates the difficulty between the strictly synchronic view of history which

would have us believe that because Mussolini was a socialist who became a fascist, there is some sort of logical progression from one to the other in a compressed timeframe. The real difficulty is in the misapplication of the view which renders any connection to basic nonsense. In the case of a career than spanned some 45 years, a diachronic view is more applicable.

It took a fairly long time for Mussolini to turn to the dark side and even then, as a practicing socialist, his were syncretic politics. Blame Nietzsche if you want, but it seems to me that Mussolini didn't become a fascist because of what socialism could offer him, he became a fascist for what socialism couldn't offer him which was the authority of a nation state to advance his vision of how society ought to be categorically organized.

To me, any direct suggestion of a socialist who turns to fascism as an extreme expression of the former is a spurious idea at best.

Hitler appears to be the same sort as well.

Sorry, just had to interject there for a moment.

Carry on...

I could not have said that better myself!!!

Nevermind Mussolini's eschewing of the theories of public ownership throughout socialist thought for the reliance on corporate power,which is almost always a hallmark of the political right...

[Pliny]

Which illustrates the difficulty between the strictly synchronic view of history which

would have us believe that because Mussolini was a socialist who became a fascist, there is some sort of logical progression from one to the other in a compressed timeframe.

There is a logical progression because socialists, once in power, seem to feel threatened by and distrust those closest to them in achieving that power - the stakes are quite big and the paranoia bigger. The pogroms start and there is very little difference between a left or right dictator.

Even at the struggle to achieve power,it is indeed a struggle. Some are sacrificed.

I don't believe you or bloodyminded for that matter realize the actual level of deceit and horse trading that occurs in the upper echelons of power.

The real difficulty is in the misapplication of the view which renders any connection to basic nonsense. In the case of a career than spanned some 45 years, a diachronic view is more applicable.

It took a fairly long time for Mussolini to turn to the dark side and even then, as a practicing socialist, his were syncretic politics. Blame Nietzsche if you want, but it seems to me that Mussolini didn't become a fascist because of what socialism could offer him, he became a fascist for what socialism couldn't offer him which was the authority of a nation state to advance his vision of how society ought to be categorically organized.

As any true socialist with conviction, Mussolini knew - the way. He knew his way was the right way.

Of course, a diachronic view is applicable. Syncretic???? With what? Did fascism exsit before Mussolini?

He created his system of fascism out of his belief in a total governing central body. Is that a stretch?

Upon his exile from the socialist party, he declared he was a socialist and would always be a socialist.

To me, any direct suggestion of a socialist who turns to fascism as an extreme expression of the former is a spurious idea at best.

Hitler appears to be the same sort as well.

Sorry, just had to interject there for a moment.

Carry on...

It isn't spurious. One need only read the German National Socialist Worker's Party manifesto as drawn up by Hitler to see a socialist origin. Socialists will always spurn their own. Stalin, had to get rid of Trotsky, and the socialists in Italy had to discredit Mussolini. That Hitler hated other socialist parties was not a secret. It boils down to the fact that power concentrated under one person must eliminate threats to their position. A logical progression of statist ideology.

[Pliny]

I could not have said that better myself!!!

Nevermind Mussolini's eschewing of the theories of public ownership throughout socialist thought for the reliance on corporate power,which is almost always a hallmark of the political right...

Aww..Jack!! What happened to your horseshoe theory of the far left and right being so similar??

[Bonam]

(He's also informed me that libertarians "can't" abuse power once they've got it, because they don't believe in abuse of power. I could envy such wide-eyed faith, but I won't.)

More accurately, the libertarians couldn't abuse power nearly as much, even if they wanted to, because, by definition, a libertarian government is much smaller and has much more limited power. If a libertarian government has enough power to really be able to abuse it, then it's already moved away from truly being a small libertarian government. One of the main points of libertarianism is just that: limit the size and power of government so it has much less power to abuse.

[Jack Weber]

Aww..Jack!! What happened to your horseshoe theory of the far left and right being so similar??

Comprehension is not really one of your strong suits,is it?

Similar is not the same as the same...

The "Horseshoe" still applies!!!!

[Jack Weber]

More accurately, the libertarians couldn't abuse power nearly as much, even if they wanted to, because, by definition, a libertarian government is much smaller and has much more limited power. If a libertarian government has enough power to really be able to abuse it, then it's already moved away from truly being a small libertarian government. One of the main points of libertarianism is just that: limit the size and power of government so it has much less power to abuse.

I agree with this...

This applies to libertarians on the right and the left...

[Remiel]

More accurately, the libertarians couldn't abuse power nearly as much, even if they wanted to, because, by definition, a libertarian government is much smaller and has much more limited power. If a libertarian government has enough power to really be able to abuse it, then it's already moved away from truly being a small libertarian government. One of the main points of libertarianism is just that: limit the size and power of government so it has much less power to abuse.

This may be thread drift, but I think that in measuring the effects of a libertarian government (or any government, for that matter), one should also examine the indirect consequences of a certain style of government. We can imagine, in theory, the ways in which a libertarian government might work. But there are also good reasons (not proofs, but reasons) to believe that a libertarian government would lead to the abuse of private power.

[Pliny]

This may be thread drift, but I think that in measuring the effects of a libertarian government (or any government, for that matter), one should also examine the indirect consequences of a certain style of government. We can imagine, in theory, the ways in which a libertarian government might work. But there are also good reasons (not proofs, but reasons) to believe that a libertarian government would lead to the abuse of private power.

Undoubtedly, Lord Acton was not wrong when he stated, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". But absolute power is generally never attained privately, except through government perhaps in the form of a Monarchy or dictatorship. The more power one has and exercises the more force necessary to maintain it. Absolute power eliminates the necessity for reason to balance force and in the case of the total state the killing fields await any form of opposition. The use of force in any society is generally relegated to government for it's use and delegation, such as for self-defence, and that is basically what justice is about - reason and the proper use of force in society. Libertarians do not believe in the initiating of force against another and that person and property be held sacrosanct. Criminals will initiate force and cause damage to others. What is called externalities or unintended consequences that cause damage to others or their property are also the subject of justice and reason.

[Pliny]

Comprehension is not really one of your strong suits,is it?

Similar is not the same as the same...

The "Horseshoe" still applies!!!!

That's why I used the word "similar" Jack - it is what I intended to say. If I had meant the "same" I would have said the same. I don't believe the claim has ever been made that they are the "same". I think you are perhaps reading that into it yourself, Jack which has something to do with your comprehension.

The political spectrum is generally presented as a straight line. The use of a "horseshoe" is simply an attempt to reconcile what are obvious similarities to right and left wing totalitarianism. But, I believe the political spectrum was never intended to be a dichotomy only an expression of views of political ideology in their relation to each other. When it comes to power, socialists generally despise other socialists vying for total control. So we could, and we have, placed different forms of total government at polar opposites on our straight line political spectrum.

A true political dichotomy would run from anarchy to total government which would place the totalitarian extremes of the political spectrum fairly close to each other - the far left socialists would be closer to the far right as they are, as you say, "similar".

[Shwa]

There is a logical progression because socialists, once in power, seem to feel threatened by and distrust those closest to them in achieving that power - the stakes are quite big and the paranoia bigger. The pogroms start and there is very little difference between a left or right dictator.

You mean "socialist dictator" and likely didn't mean a sweeping generalization of "socialists" of which there is plenty of evidence of your generalization being patently true.

Even at the struggle to achieve power,it is indeed a struggle. Some are sacrificed.

I don't believe you or bloodyminded for that matter realize the actual level of deceit and horse trading that occurs in the upper echelons of power.

No, but then when it comes to "actual" levels, neither do you. Unless you have some first hand experience you would like to share that can be backed up with some sort of documented history showing you were there. And unless you do have this sort of documentation, then you are as much subject to popular history as anyone else.

As any true socialist with conviction, Mussolini knew - the way. He knew his way was the right way.

Yeah and he knew it wasn't socialism, hence his veering to the extreme right to obtain his power.

Of course, a diachronic view is applicable. Syncretic???? With what? Did fascism exsit before Mussolini?

No, but all the elements of fascism did exist and all he did was assemble & modify to suit his immediate purposes. Hence the devious synchretism of his politics.

He created his system of fascism out of his belief in a total governing central body. Is that a stretch?

His "system of fascism" was an evolved phenomenon. It didn't rise up one day complete and intact and neither did his views on how to achieve his vision of organizing Italian society.

Upon his exile from the socialist party, he declared he was a socialist and would always be a socialist.

A meaningless statement in the face of what he ultimatley demonstrated.

It isn't spurious. One need only read the German National Socialist Worker's Party manifesto as drawn up by Hitler to see a socialist origin. Socialists will always spurn their own. Stalin, had to get rid of Trotsky, and the socialists in Italy had to discredit Mussolini. That Hitler hated other socialist parties was not a secret. It boils down to the fact that power concentrated under one person must eliminate threats to their position. A logical progression of statist ideology.

Hitler was only as much a "socialist" as it took to feed and clothe his prized group of "workers" aka his armies, navies and air forces.

[Remiel]

Undoubtedly, Lord Acton was not wrong when he stated, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". But absolute power is generally never attained privately, except through government perhaps in the form of a Monarchy or dictatorship.

Whether it has been obtained privately is not of particular consequence when one considers the conditions in which it may yet be obtained have never never themselves been obtained.

[g_bambino]

Undoubtedly, Lord Acton was not wrong when he stated, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". But absolute power is generally never attained privately, except through government perhaps in the form of a Monarchy or dictatorship.

What's private about the way power is transferred in our monarchy?

[Pliny]

You mean "socialist dictator" and likely didn't mean a sweeping generalization of "socialists" of which there is plenty of evidence of your generalization being patently true.

Actually, politically active socialists are quite facetious. Some may naively believe in the ideology but it is my opinion the naivity is in it's followers not it's leaders or active proponents who truly think they are quite superior to the masses and should be leading them to a socio/political Nirvana, knowing far better how someone should live their life than they do themselves.

No, but then when it comes to "actual" levels, neither do you. Unless you have some first hand experience you would like to share that can be backed up with some sort of documented history showing you were there.

This being a political forum is a certain "level" of activity. I'm sure you have witnessed some of the vitriol that passes as political debate. Can you imagine when actual power is at stake at upper levels. I have participated in a more active level as well.

Check out the following inferences regarding myself:

bloodyminded: I'm truly beginning to doubt that such ideas can be easily changed, as they bespeak of a kind of fanaticism.

Shwa: They do! But then again, one could likely give a good argument for a certain measure of fanaticism required as a precursor to totalitarian regimes.

Documented History, seems to be irrelevant and ignored when referred to and is not supportive of the desired point of view. History, as we know, is written by the victors.

And unless you do have this sort of documentation, then you are as much subject to popular history as anyone else.

Have you perhaps compared the communist manifesto with the German National Socialist Workers Party manifesto. If you have read anything about socialism you may see some similarities in those documents to it.

Yeah and he knew it wasn't socialism, hence his veering to the extreme right to obtain his power.

What's the extreme right? Documented history shows it quite similar to the extreme left.

He was banished from the socialist ranks, not dissimilar to how Trotsky was banished from the communist ranks, not of his own free will. He knew a lot about them and proceeded to show them how wrong they were for their treatment of him. He was the true socialist, not them.

As for Hitler, once again his own writings reveal their socialist and statist ambitions. Jewish support of communism and socialism could easily explain his distaste for the existing German socialist parties.

No, but all the elements of fascism did exist and all he did was assemble & modify to suit his immediate purposes. Hence the devious synchretism of his politics.

To have syncretically fashioned his politics implies the elements of socialism were a part of it.

But I think you are just being pedantic and don't really mean that.

So, if we have documented history straight, he was a diehard socialist for the first twenty five years of his political career then "assembled and modified" to suit his purposes an entirely different form of totalitarian government completely and utterly divorced from socialism. One thing for certain, he sure showed those socialists a thing or two about getting trains to run on time - a miracle in itself.

His "system of fascism" was an evolved phenomenon. It didn't rise up one day complete and intact and neither did his views on how to achieve his vision of organizing Italian society.

True it couldn't have done anything but evolve. But only only after his exile from socialist ranks. In a few short years he had become Il Duce and proceeded to evolve his statist dreams.

My only claim is that socialism and fascism are not polar opposites but cousins in totalitarian statism Their similarities in such respect cannot be ignored. And it is the State that is necessary to both of their existences.

Upon his exile from the socialist party, he declared he was a socialist and would always be a socialist.

A meaningless statement in the face of what he ultimatley demonstrated.

One of those historical documentations we have to relegate to "meaningless" if we wish to maintain our point of view.

What did he accomplish? A totalitarian regime that engineered society and the economy - the dream of all socialists.

Hitler was only as much a "socialist" as it took to feed and clothe his prized group of "workers" aka his armies, navies and air forces.

And from what did he extract the means to "feed and clothe his prized group of "workers" aka his armies, navies and air forces." You will have to include "socializing" the economy, as well...oh and don't forget the youth groups that he "engineered".

Is where he got the means to do what he did the "meaningless" part?

Edited May 29, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

What's private about the way power is transferred in our monarchy?

It isn't. A monarchy itself is private. Great Britain and her territories have been a constitutional monarchy for centuries with the Monarchy being increasingly made a mere symbolic entity especially after WW I when most European monarchies became democratic republics of one kind or another - Germany, Russia, Greece, Austria, among others, eventually Spain as well.