Define "Left".

[Crezth]

*grumbles about misuse of the term "corporatism"*

 

[Cutlass]

Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were leftists. Clearly they were true champions of personal choice.

Hitler, Mussolini. Franco, and the majority of kings and nobels were rightists. Clearly they were true champions of personal choice.


The 'right', if you want to go to the earliest uses of that for a political term, was monarchists and aristocrats. People specifically who opposed any personal freedom for the greater mass of individual people. But if you follow it through more modern uses, you find it always attached to people who oppose personal freedom for most of the populace. And that is not in any way different now. The 'right' in American politics over the past century and a half, to the extent the term can be used, has done everything in its power to prevent personal freedom, right up to this present day.

So if you want to make the claim that the 'right' is for more personal freedom, then neither historically nor currently are there any examples of this. So you are using the term in ways far outside the normal usage of the terms.

 

[Core Imposter]

A person on the 'left' is someone who has their heart and ideals in the right place but does not understand how this world works, nor how it should work.

This doesn't quite work for me because some of them understand all too well. They know how to get a ride on that Free Pony.

But, really, this thread is useless. At the end of the day those of us on each end of the political spectrum believe that those on the other end are either stupid or crooked, or some combination of both.

That is never going to change.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

But, really, this thread is useless. At the end of the day those of us on each end of the political spectrum believe that those on the other end are either stupid or crooked, or some combination of both.

Actually, I'd say that this thread was very effective and useful at demonstrating just that.

 

[Ailedhoo]

This doesn't quite work for me because some of them understand all too well. They know how to get a ride on that Free Pony.

But, really, this thread is useless. At the end of the day those of us on each end of the political spectrum believe that those on the other end are either stupid or crooked, or some combination of both.

That is never going to change.

Only the fanaticals take that. It is a spectrum. People are not set to one exstream end or another. It is not a blue or red contest.

O and what is your obbessions with ponies? You bring them up... alot.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

inb4 BronyCooper

 

[Crezth]

But, really, this thread is useless. At the end of the day those of us on each end of the political spectrum believe that those on the other end are either stupid or crooked, or some combination of both.

Speak for yourself, champ.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This doesn't quite work for me because some of them understand all too well. They know how to get a ride on that Free Pony.

But, really, this thread is useless. At the end of the day those of us on each end of the political spectrum believe that those on the other end are either stupid or crooked, or some combination of both.

That is never going to change.

Stop projecting.

 

[Traitorfish]

I need to validate an opinion?

...Yes? Obviously?

I would disagree with him.

I would still make the argument that anarchism is an extreme right-wing policy, while authoritarianism is an extreme left-wing ideology.

So, according to you, the Spanish Civil War was a conflict in which the left-wing Popular Front allied itself with the far-right CNT-FAI to fight the far-left Nationalists?

SEEMS LEGIT

As you were so willing to point out when I brought up National Socialism, people can call themselves whatever they want to.

Yes, but why would they want to? The Nazis called themselves "socialists" because in that period the term had strong resonance on the populist right, and served to distance themselves from a industrial and political elite which the working and lower middle class population of Germany regarded with suspicion. What would it benefit the CNT-FIA to claim to be far-left?

It's definitely not as simple as people are making out. Kaiser definitely has a point.
I read a bit of a hacky political book, entiltled "liberal fascism" and the first chapter basically points out there is no consensus on the correct definition of fascism and you should be extremely careful using it.

That's not actually true, though. Among political scientists and historians of political ideology, "Fascism" is actually quite well-defined. The big points of debate are how it relates to other ideological strains such as Nazism and Peronism. The best you can say is that most people don't know what "fascism" means and should stop using it until they could, and the good Mr. Goldberg is not exactly a sterling example of tactful trap-shutting.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Fact of the matter is, Hitler can be as right-wing as Reagan, and he'd still not reflect on those who are right-wing today. He can be as left-wing as Obama (*straight face*) and he still would not reflect on those who are left-wing today.

All this association nonsense is just arsegravy.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Ecomonically Hitler was around the centre.

Structurally and politically he was among the most exstream of authoriterians.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Fact of the matter is, Hitler can be as right-wing as Reagan, and he'd still not reflect on those who are right-wing today. He can be as left-wing as Obama (*straight face*) and he still would not reflect on those who are left-wing today.

All this association nonsense is just arsegravy.

"Fact of the matter is" that most conservatives are extremely authoritarian, and many have much in common with the fascists of the past:

 

[Dachs]

Actually, it can be very accurately described on a political scale - it is authoritarian, anti-individualist, nationalist, and third way - the only place it doesn't fit in is into your frankly idiosyncratic left-right dichotomy that somehow can't accommodate for historical accounts of the rightiness of fascism.

*grumbles about misuse of the term "corporatism"*

 

[Ailedhoo]

Err as much as I dislike the American Republican Party... they are not fascists.

 

[Dachs]

Err as much as I dislike the American Republican Party... they are not fascists.

Yes, the inaccurate use of Fascist as a term to smear one's political opponents really ought to stop. One can make the Republican Party look plenty bad without resorting to bad terminology.

 

[Quackers]

"Fact of the matter is" that most conservatives are extremely authoritarian, and many have much in common with the fascists of the past:

If you take away "corporate power is projected" and "religion and government are interwined" - you end up with the pertinent features of the Soviet Union in many decades of its existence. Not very helpful IMO.

 

[WindFish]

Err as much as I dislike the American Republican Party... they are not fascists.

Ofc not because they love L-F too much.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If you take away "corporate power is projected" and "religion and government are interwined" - you end up with the pertinent features of the Soviet Union. Not very helpful IMO.

It is actually very helpful. The Soviet Union was also quite authoritarian for exactly the same reasons with the exception of using religion to accomplish their goals.

 

[Quackers]

..Yet that would mean the Soviet Union was basically fascist and I don't think anybody believes that.

That's not actually true, though. Among political scientists and historians of political ideology, "Fascism" is actually quite well-defined. The big points of debate are how it relates to other ideological strains such as Nazism and Peronism. The best you can say is that most people don't know what "fascism" means and should stop using it until they could, and the good Mr. Goldberg is not exactly a sterling example of tactful trap-shutting.

Did you see my Wikipedia link? Academia is confused. It doesn't have a clue.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Fact of the matter is" that most conservatives are extremely authoritarian, and many have much in common with the fascists of the past:

None of those are particularly indicative of fascism. The only one which stands out from run of the mill authoritarian-nationalist capitalism is "supremacy of the military", and that would actually tend to contradict the claim that a given regime was fascistic.