Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

[palerider]

I was recently in a discussion with a member of this forum who presented a study from Stanford that supposedly represented a psychological profile of conservatives. Aside from the fact that no conservatives were spoken to as a part of this “study”, some of the prime examples the “study” held up as examples of conservative thought were among the most notorious leftist tyrants of the 20th century. Joseph Stalin, Lenin, chairman Mao, and Pol Pot were apparently studies in conservativism.

When I challenged this member on the leftist authoritarians the study held up as examples of conservativism, he replied “

"Authoritarian" views are certainly not liberal views, they are a trait of conservative ideology.”

I challenged the member to a philosophical discussion on the merits of that statement but apparently he wasn’t up to it. With, or without him, however, I believe that it is an important topic. Far too few modern liberals (and modern conservatives) expend any appreciable intellectual wattage considering their respective philosophies and what life would be like if they were allowed to proceed to their logical end. I am going to discuss the totalitarian nature of modern liberalism but if any of you “liberal philosophers” cares to offer up a thoughtful discussion of conservativism, by all means, do so.

Consider modern liberalism. It is a political philosophy that claims equality and equal freedom as its ultimate goal. Ask any liberal to describe their philosophy and without fail, you will get some variation of “live and let live. In an effort to achieve this goal, however, liberalism requires supervision of everything. Its multicultural ideal excludes and stigmatizes regular people and in order to enforce its equality, it uses quotas, speech codes, and mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions. Clearly, there is little connection between those things and “live and let live”.

Liberals prize tolerance, but what they call tolerance is not tolerance at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but tolerance means letting people do what they want. Modern liberals, however have redefined tolerance (redefinition – a nasty habit of modern liberals) to mean a requirement of equal respect across the social spectrum. True tolerance requires live and let live, but the tolerance of the modern liberal requires an ever more invasive bureaucratic control of every aspect of our social lives. An ideology that “requires” equal respect across the social spectrum must, by definition be intolerant because it must try to control the attitudes that people have towards one another and any real attempt to that end will require means that are both inflexible and tyrannical.

Lets compare two states. One is the conservative ideal and the other is the modern liberal ideal. In the conservative state, you can say and do pretty much whatever you like so long as you do not violate certain established rights. The conservative state doesn’t care whether you are tolerant or intolerant so long as you don’t physically attack others or damage their property. The conservative state, as a result may be very critical of certain social failures, as it would have a very limited social welfare system. In the conservative sate, you would be free to succeed or fail with interference from the state being limited to enforcing those clearly defined rights that were spoken of earlier.

In the homogenous welfare state that modern liberals favor, however, things would be quite different. In its effort to promote equal respect and tolerance across the social spectrum, the modern liberal state will find that it must necessarily be very intolerant of ways of life that it defines as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. By establishing quotas, the state will force people to associate with others against their will, literally denying them the right to choose what sorts of people they will live near and work with.

The liberal state will necessarily be uable to accept that ethnic loyalties, and religious and sexual distinctions form the structures by which all people organize their lives and as a result will find that it must, in fact, be intolerant of all real ways of life and must, by force of law, reconstruct them. This new tolerance as found in the modern liberal state means that no one, with the exception of a few elite ideologues gets to carry out his or her life by their own design.

The ideology of modern liberalism with regard to tolerance seems to be based on the idea that each person is as good as every other person and whatever a person likes is good for him. In order to believe this, however, one must accept that one way of living is as good as all other ways of living because to suggest that one way was better or worse than another would by definition be an act of intolerance. This is a very peculiar, and very specific moral theory. One must view each person impartially as valuable, but everything else as valuable only as defined by the individual. A society that holds such a moral theory must therefore define anyone who holds a moral code that recognizes any sort of absolute good or bad as intolerant.

Since modern liberalism holds such a narrow and dubious moral theory that very few people indeed actually hold, how then, is it any different from old “theocratic” systems that it labels as intolerant? Is it better, somehow, to be indoctrinated in the dogma and delusion of all inclusiveness than that of one church or another? A panel of civil rights lawyers, after all, is certainly no more forgiving than a panel of robed priests and in all likelihood, less forgiving.

Upon close examination it is evident that modern liberalism does indeed hold all of the elements necessary to become authoritarian and totalitarian and in practice has already exhibited a streak of tyranny ranging from mandatory sensitivity training to the “thought police” mentality of actually punishing criminals more harshly based on what they may have been thinking when they committed their particular crime. In the name of equal freedom and equality for all, modern liberalism is willing to empower government bureaucracy to make us all, by force if necessary, into its image.

I don't believe it is possible to defend the member's statement that "authoritarian views are certainly not liberal views" It may be true that liberals don't see themselves and their philosophy as authoritarian but that, in and of itself, is sad in that it is evidence that they have not invested much thought into thier philosophy and carried it to its logical end. The great leftist tyrants of the 20th century weren't expressing conservative ideals, they were simply men who were able to carry liberal theory to its logical end.

[Popeye]

I was recently in a discussion with a member of this forum who presented a study from Stanford that supposedly represented a psychological profile of conservatives. Aside from the fact that no conservatives were spoken to as a part of this “study”, some of the prime examples the “study” held up as examples of conservative thought were among the most notorious leftist tyrants of the 20th century. Joseph Stalin, Lenin, chairman Mao, and Pol Pot were apparently studies in conservativism.

When I challenged this member on the leftist authoritarians the study held up as examples of conservativism, he replied “

"Authoritarian" views are certainly not liberal views, they are a trait of conservative ideology.”

I challenged the member to a philosophical discussion on the merits of that statement but apparently he wasn’t up to it. With, or without him, however, I believe that it is an important topic. Far too few modern liberals (and modern conservatives) expend any appreciable intellectual wattage considering their respective philosophies and what life would be like if they were allowed to proceed to their logical end. I am going to discuss the totalitarian nature of modern liberalism but if any of you “liberal philosophers” cares to offer up a thoughtful discussion of conservativism, by all means, do so.

Consider modern liberalism. It is a political philosophy that claims equality and equal freedom as its ultimate goal. Ask any liberal to describe their philosophy and without fail, you will get some variation of “live and let live. In an effort to achieve this goal, however, liberalism requires supervision of everything. Its multicultural ideal excludes and stigmatizes regular people and in order to enforce its equality, it uses quotas, speech codes, and mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions. Clearly, there is little connection between those things and “live and let live”.

Liberals prize tolerance, but what they call tolerance is not tolerance at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but tolerance means letting people do what they want. Modern liberals, however have redefined tolerance (redefinition – a nasty habit of modern liberals) to mean a requirement of equal respect across the social spectrum. True tolerance requires live and let live, but the tolerance of the modern liberal requires an ever more invasive bureaucratic control of every aspect of our social lives. An ideology that “requires” equal respect across the social spectrum must, by definition be intolerant because it must try to control the attitudes that people have towards one another and any real attempt to that end will require means that are both inflexible and tyrannical.

Lets compare two states. One is the conservative ideal and the other is the modern liberal ideal. In the conservative state, you can say and do pretty much whatever you like so long as you do not violate certain established rights. The conservative state doesn’t care whether you are tolerant or intolerant so long as you don’t physically attack others or damage their property. The conservative state, as a result may be very critical of certain social failures, as it would have a very limited social welfare system. In the conservative sate, you would be free to succeed or fail with interference from the state being limited to enforcing those clearly defined rights that were spoken of earlier.

In the homogenous welfare state that modern liberals favor, however, things would be quite different. In its effort to promote equal respect and tolerance across the social spectrum, the modern liberal state will find that it must necessarily be very intolerant of ways of life that it defines as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. By establishing quotas, the state will force people to associate with others against their will, literally denying them the right to choose what sorts of people they will live near and work with.

The liberal state will necessarily be uable to accept that ethnic loyalties, and religious and sexual distinctions form the structures by which all people organize their lives and as a result will find that it must, in fact, be intolerant of all real ways of life and must, by force of law, reconstruct them. This new tolerance as found in the modern liberal state means that no one, with the exception of a few elite ideologues gets to carry out his or her life by their own design.

The ideology of modern liberalism with regard to tolerance seems to be based on the idea that each person is as good as every other person and whatever a person likes is good for him. In order to believe this, however, one must accept that one way of living is as good as all other ways of living because to suggest that one way was better or worse than another would by definition be an act of intolerance. This is a very peculiar, and very specific moral theory. One must view each person impartially as valuable, but everything else as valuable only as defined by the individual. A society that holds such a moral theory must therefore define anyone who holds a moral code that recognizes any sort of absolute good or bad as intolerant.

Since modern liberalism holds such a narrow and dubious moral theory that very few people indeed actually hold, how then, is it any different from old “theocratic” systems that it labels as intolerant? Is it better, somehow, to be indoctrinated in the dogma and delusion of all inclusiveness than that of one church or another? A panel of civil rights lawyers, after all, is certainly no more forgiving than a panel of robed priests and in all likelihood, less forgiving.

Upon close examination it is evident that modern liberalism does indeed hold all of the elements necessary to become authoritarian and totalitarian and in practice has already exhibited a streak of tyranny ranging from mandatory sensitivity training to the “thought police” mentality of actually punishing criminals more harshly based on what they may have been thinking when they committed their particular crime. In the name of equal freedom and equality for all, modern liberalism is willing to empower government bureaucracy to make us all, by force if necessary, into its image.

I don't believe it is possible to defend the member's statement that "authoritarian views are certainly not liberal views" It may be true that liberals don't see themselves and their philosophy as authoritarian but that, in and of itself, is sad in that it is evidence that they have not invested much thought into thier philosophy and carried it to its logical end. The great leftist tyrants of the 20th century weren't expressing conservative ideals, they were simply men who were able to carry liberal theory to its logical end.

The "member of this forum" you are speaking of, correct me if I'm wrong, was Reliant. To attack someone who can no longer defend himself is a bit underhanded, don't you think? Typically Republican though, attacking the defenseless, both literally and figuratively. By the way, in your rant, you forgot to mention Gen. Pinochet, a right-wing paragon of virtue, put into power by the U.S. so that he could slaughter millions of his own people.

[palerider]

The "member of this forum" you are speaking of, correct me if I'm wrong, was Reliant. To attack someone who can no longer defend himself is a bit underhanded, don't you think? Typically Republican though, attacking the defenseless, both literally and figuratively. By the way, in your rant, you forgot to mention Gen. Pinochet, a right-wing paragon of virtue, put into power by the U.S. so that he could slaughter millions of his own people.

I didn't name the poster, you did. I was content to leave the person out of it and explore the idea. If a breech of any sort of decency has been perpetrated here, it is by you for bringing reliant's name into the issue.

By the way "smart guy" pinochet killed 3,000. Terrible as it is, he isn't qualified to even tie the shoes of the major leage leftist tyrants who have killed hundreds of millions between them.

Now, do you have any intellectual argument against any of the points I put forward, or is this all you have?

[Popeye]

By the way "smart guy" pinochet killed 3,000. Terrible as it is, he isn't qualified to even tie the shoes of the major leage leftist tyrants who have killed hundreds of millions between them.



You are correct, I looked up Pinochet in Wikipedia and it says he killed only 3,000, he was just guilty of torturing thousands more. However, I don't see how this somehow justifies the U.S. helping to overthrow Allende and inserting Pinochet in his place.

[palerider]

You are correct, I looked up Pinochet in Wikipedia and it says he killed only 3,000, he was just guilty of torturing thousands more. However, I don't see how this somehow justifies the U.S. helping to overthrow Allende and inserting Pinochet in his place.

That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the inherenty authoritarian nature of modern liberalism. If you want to talk about pinochet, feel free to start a thread.

[Popeye]

That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the inherenty authoritarian nature of modern liberalism. If you want to talk about pinochet, feel free to start a thread.

Well thank you Mr. Moderator, I didn't know you had become one. I guess congratulations are in order. Meanwhile, it's quite a stretch to equate someone like Pol Pot with modern day liberalism within the U.S., I guess, it's the old liberals are commies approach. Maybe you haven't heard, it no longer works, as the results of the last election will attest.

[palerider]

Well thank you Mr. Moderator, I didn't know you had become one. I guess congratulations are in order. Meanwhile, it's quite a stretch to equate someone like Pol Pot with modern day liberalism within the U.S., I guess, it's the old liberals are commies approach. Maybe you haven't heard, it no longer works, as the results of the last election will attest.


Is it? Modern liberalism has actually crossed the boundry into the realm of the thought police. How much more authoritarian can you get? Communism and soviet style socialism are nothing more and nothing less than modern liberalism taken to its logical end.

[vyo476]

I challenged the member to a philosophical discussion on the merits of that statement but apparently he wasn’t up to it. With, or without him, however, I believe that it is an important topic. Far too few modern liberals (and modern conservatives) expend any appreciable intellectual wattage considering their respective philosophies and what life would be like if they were allowed to proceed to their logical end. I am going to discuss the totalitarian nature of modern liberalism but if any of you “liberal philosophers” cares to offer up a thoughtful discussion of conservativism, by all means, do so.

Hit me with your best shot.

Consider modern liberalism. It is a political philosophy that claims equality and equal freedom as its ultimate goal. Ask any liberal to describe their philosophy and without fail, you will get some variation of “live and let live.

I suppose that's fair.

In an effort to achieve this goal, however, liberalism requires supervision of everything.

I wouldn't propose over-supervision as a means towards freedom. You make us sound like we want an Orwellian "Big Brother" state and that's not the case.

Its multicultural ideal excludes and stigmatizes regular people and in order to enforce its equality,

Actually, we don't recognize this concept of "regular people." All people are unique, whether they're white, black, gay, straight, Christian, or Muslim. Perhaps "pancultural" would be a better term than "multicultural," which you've taken to mean "xenocultural," which isn't the case.

it uses quotas, speech codes, and mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions.

Quotas to help bring balance to an unbalanced system. I don't like it much but if we didn't do anything now to help fix the imbalance it'd still be there twenty, fifty, one hundred years down the road.

By "speech codes" you're probably referring to "PC." In most cases these speech codes - like laws against hate speech, for instance - are in place to prevent people from getting all riled up into hate crimes. Think of it as "Inciting a Riot" or "Inciting Violence," only against minorities.

And as for "mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions," I have no idea what you're talking about. There's plenty of "training" in PC out there, but if any of it is "mandatory" I'd like to know about it.

Clearly, there is little connection between those things and “live and let live”.

Ask the black man who didn't get into a decent college because the quotas were gone about "live and let live."

Ask the Muslim shopkeeper whose never hurt a person in his life but just got beaten up by an angry mob driven by some lunatic hatemonger about "live and let live."

Perhaps, as "multiculturalism" is a liberal ideal (as you've stated above), their opinions won't matter as much to you as your vaunted "normal people."

Liberals prize tolerance, but what they call tolerance is not tolerance at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but tolerance means letting people do what they want. Modern liberals, however have redefined tolerance (redefinition – a nasty habit of modern liberals) to mean a requirement of equal respect across the social spectrum. True tolerance requires live and let live, but the tolerance of the modern liberal requires an ever more invasive bureaucratic control of every aspect of our social lives. An ideology that “requires” equal respect across the social spectrum must, by definition be intolerant because it must try to control the attitudes that people have towards one another and any real attempt to that end will require means that are both inflexible and tyrannical.

Liberals are just as in favor of allowing Fred Phelps say what he wants. He says awful things, sure - but so long as he's not telling people to hurt others, he's covered under freedom of speech. I don't like it, but I'll let it go.

Yes, we believe in "equal respect across the social spectrum." Perhaps we come across as intolerant towards those who are intolerant towards minorities, and I'd bet that a lot of us like that we do. However, if you wish to be intolerant towards a minority and you're not hurting anyone, I won't stop you. I'll dislike you for it. But I won't stop you.

Still, if you handed me a choice between "respect a man who is just trying to practice his religion" and "respect a man who hates people simply for trying to practice their religion," it wouldn't be much of a choice.

Lets compare two states. One is the conservative ideal and the other is the modern liberal ideal. In the conservative state, you can say and do pretty much whatever you like so long as you do not violate certain established rights. The conservative state doesn’t care whether you are tolerant or intolerant so long as you don’t physically attack others or damage their property. The conservative state, as a result may be very critical of certain social failures, as it would have a very limited social welfare system. In the conservative sate, you would be free to succeed or fail with interference from the state being limited to enforcing those clearly defined rights that were spoken of earlier.

You're mixing the social and economic sides of things. But whatever, you want it this way, you can have it.

In your blanket conservative state, I'm assuming that the government adheres to the three main schools of conservative thought: cultural/social, religious, and fiscal. If any of these is not the case, don't blame me for your failure to specify.

In the conservative state, you can say and do pretty much whatever you want...and you'll probably have someone jump down your throat immediately if what you are saying doesn't adhere to the rigorous social norms the state adheres to. After all, God says homosexuality is a sin. The state doesn't care if you're tolerant or intolerant so long as you don't physically attack anyone or damage their property. It's perfectly fine to stand outside their Mosque and shout ethnic slurs at them; in fact, it's preferable, because these heathens do not adhere to the state-sanctioned religion. In the conservative sate, you would be free to succeed or fail with interference from the state being limited to enforcing those clearly defined rights that were spoken of earlier - but don't expect to get hired if you're black, because here in the conservative state being black isn't the norm, and encouraging propagation is the only way to do business. In fact, all the black people can just sit around in squalor while we stick our noses up at them and blame them for not getting a job when we're the ones who refuse to hire them. Good thing we do, too - here in the conservative state, we adhere to traditional norms, and the idea of black people getting decent jobs, owning decent things, and living in decent homes would be anti-traditional.

[vyo476]

In the homogenous welfare state that modern liberals favor, however, things would be quite different. In its effort to promote equal respect and tolerance across the social spectrum, the modern liberal state will find that it must necessarily be very intolerant of ways of life that it defines as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. By establishing quotas, the state will force people to associate with others against their will, literally denying them the right to choose what sorts of people they will live near and work with.

In the liberal state, we will not allow sexism, racism, or homophobia to keep minorities from being included in society. We can do this a number of ways - by passing laws that keep people from inciting the masses to violence against minorities, by offering tax incentives to companies with fair hiring practices, and by sponsoring public awareness campaigns on how and why it is wrong to mistreat minorities. Note that all these measures our temporary; as society begins to change and become more accepting, these measures will gradually be phased out as they become less useful.

The liberal state will necessarily be uable to accept that ethnic loyalties, and religious and sexual distinctions form the structures by which all people organize their lives and as a result will find that it must, in fact, be intolerant of all real ways of life and must, by force of law, reconstruct them. This new tolerance as found in the modern liberal state means that no one, with the exception of a few elite ideologues gets to carry out his or her life by their own design.

Wow. I see what you mean.

As for my rebuttal, put it this way: we plan to take things one step at a time. First, we want to get everyone on an equal footing. Encouraging integration can come later - if it's even necessary. As economic distinctions become less and less pronounced between social groups, who really knows how social integration will change? As we begin to educate people on how the differences between them make them no more or less human than people who are different than they are...who knows how, over the course of a few generations, things will change?

The ideology of modern liberalism with regard to tolerance seems to be based on the idea that each person is as good as every other person and whatever a person likes is good for him. In order to believe this, however, one must accept that one way of living is as good as all other ways of living because to suggest that one way was better or worse than another would by definition be an act of intolerance. This is a very peculiar, and very specific moral theory. One must view each person impartially as valuable, but everything else as valuable only as defined by the individual. A society that holds such a moral theory must therefore define anyone who holds a moral code that recognizes any sort of absolute good or bad as intolerant.

We don't believe in moral absolutes.

What would the conservative version of "every person is as good as every other person and whatever a person likes is good for him" be?

The way we look at it is, "every person is as good as every other person and people should be allowed to be what they are unimpeded."

It appears to me as though we have similar ideas here. It boils down to, "every person ought to be able to do what they like unimpeded." Our major difference lies in whose likes and dislikes we favor. We favor protecting minorities, by allowing them to be what they are without having to deal with hatred and bigotry, which naturally disfavors the opinions of the bigots; you favor protecting the bigots, who are admittedly human beings who deserve to have an opinion, which naturally disfavors the minorities because suddenly they have to deal with totally unrestrained hate.

Just don't pretend that the conservative way is the one hundred percent egalitarian way. I prefer our way and you prefer yours and so long as we're both honest about that, we can move forward towards reaching an understanding.


Upon close examination it is evident that modern liberalism does indeed hold all of the elements necessary to become authoritarian and totalitarian and in practice has already exhibited a streak of tyranny ranging from mandatory sensitivity training to the “thought police” mentality of actually punishing criminals more harshly based on what they may have been thinking when they committed their particular crime. In the name of equal freedom and equality for all, modern liberalism is willing to empower government bureaucracy to make us all, by force if necessary, into its image.

Once again, I'd like to know more about this "mandatory" sensitivity training.

Punishing criminals more harshly for hate crimes is akin to punishing criminals more harshly for premeditating the murder rather than just sticking some poor bastard in the throat with a knife on a whim. It has to do with motivation. It is easy to be afraid of people who are different, and that fear can translate into violence; as a result, there is a motivation for violence that would not exist otherwise. This motivation could, if left unchecked, be much more prevalent than, say, crimes of passion, as people are much more likely to be fearful of someone they don't understand than they are to get into a committed relationship and then be dramatically betrayed or whatever. The point isn't that a hate crime is worse; the point is that we need to discourage hate crimes more because they're an easier reason for crime.

I don't believe it is possible to defend the member's statement that "authoritarian views are certainly not liberal views" It may be true that liberals don't see themselves and their philosophy as authoritarian but that, in and of itself, is sad in that it is evidence that they have not invested much thought into thier philosophy and carried it to its logical end. The great leftist tyrants of the 20th century weren't expressing conservative ideals, they were simply men who were able to carry liberal theory to its logical end.

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't believe that "carrying liberal theory to its logical end" holds much merit. We have a goal, certainly, but the means towards that goal - and the repercussions of those means that you fear so much - change as society changes. If we locked ourselves into one set of means and stayed that way until the goal is met, then yes, all of this would be perfectly justified. However, that is not the case.

[Popeye]

Is it? Modern liberalism has actually crossed the boundry into the realm of the thought police. How much more authoritarian can you get? Communism and soviet style socialism are nothing more and nothing less than modern liberalism taken to its logical end.

In some ways, you are correct. I think political correctness has gone way, way too far. However, both sides are guilty of it. The right takes patriotism to the extreme, so that it is politically incorrect to criticize the military or any foreign mission it undertakes, look at the uproar over the moveOn ad. As to your other point, from my point of view, fascism is "nothing more and nothing less" than modern conservatism "taken to its logical end". It all depends upon your point of view.

[palerider]

As to your other point, from my point of view, fascism is "nothing more and nothing less" than modern conservatism "taken to its logical end". It all depends upon your point of view.

Clearly, you don't know anything about fascism. I keep challenging you to draw accurate parallels between conservativism and fascism. I do this, knowing that you simply won't be able to do it. I have spent a large amount of my life learning political philosophies in both theory and practice. Fascism bears no resemblence to conservativism.

The essence of fascism is government control of the means of production. Fascism was, and is, no more and no less than a nationalistic socialism. Fascists believe that by socializing the means of production, and therefore the way people earn a living, the people will socialize themselves. There are no valid parallels to be drawn between conservative philosophy in theory or practice and fascism in theory or practice.

Do a bit of research into hitler's or musollini's fascist governments. You will find socialism. Massive public works projects, government subsidized vacations lasting 3 to 5 weeks at government owned resorts for even the poorest citizens. Government funded pensions, unions, government funded higher education and on and on. The only drawback was that you couldn't be a jew. The modern left views Christians in very much the same way as hitler viewed jews. There are restraints that modern liberals in the US must deal with that hidler didn't, but I have heard liberals on this very board suggest that they would happily see religion banned from public life. One can't help but wonder, how far those liberals would go, legislatively speaking, to see religion removed from the public sphere.

[Popeye]

Clearly, you don't know anything about fascism. I keep challenging you to draw accurate parallels between conservativism and fascism. I do this, knowing that you simply won't be able to do it. I have spent a large amount of my life learning political philosophies in both theory and practice. Fascism bears no resemblence to conservativism.

The essence of fascism is government control of the means of production. Fascism was, and is, no more and no less than a nationalistic socialism. Fascists believe that by socializing the means of production, and therefore the way people earn a living, the people will socialize themselves. There are no valid parallels to be drawn between conservative philosophy in theory or practice and fascism in theory or practice.

Do a bit of research into hitler's or musollini's fascist governments. You will find socialism. Massive public works projects, government subsidized vacations lasting 3 to 5 weeks at government owned resorts for even the poorest citizens. Government funded pensions, unions, government funded higher education and on and on. The only drawback was that you couldn't be a jew. The modern left views Christians in very much the same way as hitler viewed jews. There are restraints that modern liberals in the US must deal with that hidler didn't, but I have heard liberals on this very board suggest that they would happily see religion banned from public life. One can't help but wonder, how far those liberals would go, legislatively speaking, to see religion removed from the public sphere.
Read it and weep:http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

[palerider]

I wouldn't propose over-supervision as a means towards freedom. You make us sound like we want an Orwellian "Big Brother" state and that's not the case.

I don't believe that most liberals want a "big brother" state, but it is already present and becoming more pervasive all the time. Perhaps it isn't what you want, but it is what is necessary in order to achieve the stated goal.

By "speech codes" you're probably referring to "PC." In most cases these speech codes - like laws against hate speech, for instance - are in place to prevent people from getting all riled up into hate crimes. Think of it as "Inciting a Riot" or "Inciting Violence," only against minorities.

Speech codes exist, and are enforced most vigorously in the most liberal institutions. Universities. It has nothing to do with inciting riots, but instead, everything to do with squashing public debate. It is easy to dismiss an idea as racist, homophobic, etc., without ever having to actually defeat the idea intellectually.

And as for "mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions," I have no idea what you're talking about. There's plenty of "training" in PC out there, but if any of it is "mandatory" I'd like to know about it.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/022700/Perspective/Sensitivity_training_.shtml

http://www.citybelt.org/citybelt/2007/05/we_need_mandato.html

http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/len/2003/02.14/

I can provide much more if you like, but this shoud get the point across.

Quotas to help bring balance to an unbalanced system. I don't like it much but if we didn't do anything now to help fix the imbalance it'd still be there twenty, fifty, one hundred years down the road.

Ask the black man who didn't get into a decent college because the quotas were gone about "live and let live."

Ask the Muslim shopkeeper whose never hurt a person in his life but just got beaten up by an angry mob driven by some lunatic hatemonger about "live and let live."

In the liberal state, we will not allow sexism, racism, or homophobia to keep minorities from being included in society. We can do this a number of ways - by passing laws that keep people from inciting the masses to violence against minorities, by offering tax incentives to companies with fair hiring practices, and by sponsoring public awareness campaigns on how and why it is wrong to mistreat minorities. Note that all these measures our temporary; as society begins to change and become more accepting, these measures will gradually be phased out as they become less useful.

Punishing criminals more harshly for hate crimes is akin to punishing criminals more harshly for premeditating the murder rather than just sticking some poor bastard in the throat with a knife on a whim. It has to do with motivation. It is easy to be afraid of people who are different, and that fear can translate into violence; as a result, there is a motivation for violence that would not exist otherwise. This motivation could, if left unchecked, be much more prevalent than, say, crimes of passion, as people are much more likely to be fearful of someone they don't understand than they are to get into a committed relationship and then be dramatically betrayed or whatever. The point isn't that a hate crime is worse; the point is that we need to discourage hate crimes more because they're an easier reason for crime.

I believe the above quotes all accurately fall under the heading of what justification shall be given to principles already settled in advance, and how those principles shall be realized without regard to whether or not they are pie in the sky idealism that will require an iron fist on the part of government to achieve.

However, if you wish to be intolerant towards a minority and you're not hurting anyone, I won't stop you. I'll dislike you for it. But I won't stop you.

Perhaps you won't, but the state will. Totalitarianism doesn't exist with the individual, it is a product of the state.


Wow. I see what you mean.

As for my rebuttal, put it this way: we plan to take things one step at a time. First, we want to get everyone on an equal footing. Encouraging integration can come later - if it's even necessary. As economic distinctions become less and less pronounced between social groups, who really knows how social integration will change? As we begin to educate people on how the differences between them make them no more or less human than people who are different than they are...who knows how, over the course of a few generations, things will change?

Interesting. That statement cut to the very heart of the totalitarian nature of modern liberalism. The light came on and you saw clearly what I was getting and and then by force of will, you turned the light off and set off on your multi step plan to totalitarianism. Exactly how do you justify that internally?

[palerider]

Read it and weep:http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

Interesting that you are unable to look at those 14 points and see that the great leftist tyrants carried them out across the board in the most brutal ways imaginable while great mental gyrations have been made and reason has been streched to the breaking point in an effort to unsuccessfully draw parallels between the US and fascism.

Point one for example, any nationalism on the part of bush or the US in general is the faintest possible reflection of the military parades of lenin, stalin, and mao or hitler. Mile after mile of military hardware and high stepping soldiers punctuated by military marching bands. When a comparison is made of the two, any suggestion of attempted nationalism on the part of the US must logically be dismissed.

Point two. Confusing the treatment of illegal combattants with the general treatment of all citizens of the leftist regimes is a standard liberal tactic and simply doesn't wash. You are not in danger of having soldiers break down your door and cart you away in the night if you speak out publicly against your government.

Point three. Isn't it interesting how the left in this country is constantly attempting to make scapegoats out of the right? For every concievable thing.

Point four. Refer to point 1.

I will finish tearing down the rest of that drivel which, by the way is as much the result of democrat legislation as republican tomorrow. I get up early and go to bed early.

[Popeye]

Interesting that you are unable to look at those 14 points and see that the great leftist tyrants carried them out across the board in the most brutal ways imaginable while great mental gyrations have been made and reason has been streched to the breaking point in an effort to unsuccessfully draw parallels between the US and fascism.

Point one for example, any nationalism on the part of bush or the US in general is the faintest possible reflection of the military parades of lenin, stalin, and mao or hitler. Mile after mile of military hardware and high stepping soldiers punctuated by military marching bands. When a comparison is made of the two, any suggestion of attempted nationalism on the part of the US must logically be dismissed.

Point two. Confusing the treatment of illegal combattants with the general treatment of all citizens of the leftist regimes is a standard liberal tactic and simply doesn't wash. You are not in danger of having soldiers break down your door and cart you away in the night if you speak out publicly against your government.

Point three. Isn't it interesting how the left in this country is constantly attempting to make scapegoats out of the right? For every concievable thing.

Point four. Refer to point 1.

I will finish tearing down the rest of that drivel which, by the way is as much the result of democrat legislation as republican tomorrow. I get up early and go to bed early.

Excellent, I look forward to it, I started a thread on it in U.S. Politics.

[palerider]

Point 5. One look at the number of women operating within government from the highest appointed position down to the local level puts this sad little nugget to bed. Take a look at the fascist governments, or any of the governments of the great leftist despots and see how many women you find in leadership positions within government, if you can find any at all.

Point 6. The only government funded media that I am aware of in this country are NPR and PBS which lean decidedly to the left. As to government trying to control media via legislation, consider the attack on talk radio by the left via the fairness doctrine.

Point 7. We have an enemy that has attacked us multiple times on our own soil and has been attacking us, and our interests abroad for 3 decades. Our enemy has cells working within our own borders and has promised more and worse attacks in the futurre. Radical islam is not an enemy fabricated from nothing in an attempt to scare the population. When one has a stated and determined enemy, only the most irresponsible government imaginable would not make said enemy a national security issue.

Point 8. Which religion is it that the government supports and uses at the local level to influence and direct the people? Campaign and political speaking in churches is illegal and the only examples of such that I can recall have been democrats. Al gore gave lots of political speeches in church. Which church is it that the government recommends that you attend and how often do they tell you to go?

Point 9. Facism was all about controlling the means of production. Under fascist governments, only "party" men could own and manage business or industry. If they were not party men, they would lose thier business. Those "party" owners and managers were encouraged by the party to only hire and retain "party" workers. So tell me, when was the last time you lost your job or didn't get a job because of the political party you belonged to?

Point 10. Can you name for me a union or two that has been outlawed by government? Union membership has been dwindling for several decades and is presently at its lowest numbers ever, but that is due to poor leadership, involvement in other than labor politics, and general ineffectiveness rather than any direct or overt action by government.

Point 11. So now, professors and teachers can only get jobs if they are "party" men and women and teach the party line? Is the only work artists can find painting huge heroic murals of the fearless leaders?

Point 12. Which national police force are you under the impression is working here? Are you and your family in danger of being picked up if you speak out against the government?

Point 13. You aren't really going to inject cronyism into the conversation after the clintons are you? Two words. Billy Dale.

Point 14. You are aware, aren't you, that if you do any research you will find that democrats have been charged and convicted at a ratio of about 4 to 1 when compared to republicans. Stuffed ballot boxes, dead people voting, handing out cigarettes to homeless to get them to vote democrat, puncturing tires of busses slated to pick up retirees who lived in predominantly republican areas, etc., etc., etc.

I have read your post and IF I were going to weep, it would be over the fact that you read this crap and believe that you have any real knowledge of fascism either as a politcal theory or in practice. These pathetic points required exactly no effort to brush aside.

You really should study the political philosophy and theory of fascism before you get into the nuts and bolts of fascism in practice, but here, let me give you some of the the planks of the political platforms that the fascist parties ran on and governed by;

*We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

*All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

*We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

*We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

*We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

*We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

*The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

*The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

[Truth-Bringer]

Modern neoconservatism also equals authoritarianism.

[palerider]

Modern neoconservatism also equals authoritarianism.

That is probably due to the fact that neo conservatives, by definition are liberals that have crossed the aisle and have most certainly brought some of their liberal leanings and tendencies with them.

[Popeye]

That is probably due to the fact that neo conservatives, by definition are liberals that have crossed the aisle and have most certainly brought some of their liberal leanings and tendencies with them.

I have seen one such liberal turned neocon, David Horowitz, interviewed on several occassions. I see no "liberal leanings and tendencies" in him whatsoever. I'm sure though you know of others, enlighten me.

[palerider]

I have seen one such liberal turned neocon, David Horowitz, interviewed on several occassions. I see no "liberal leanings and tendencies" in him whatsoever. I'm sure though you know of others, enlighten me.

It isn't difficult popeye. Look for any republican who has voted for, or supported legislation that expands government power or increases government spending on the welfare state.

Perhaps you are under the impression that neocons are a new thing that just popped up with the bush administration? You couldn't be more wrong. The neocon movement started decades ago and is largely responsible for the drift to the left that the republican party has been experiencing for the past 25 or 30 years.

[Popeye]

It isn't difficult popeye. Look for any republican who has voted for, or supported legislation that expands government power or increases government spending on the welfare state.

Perhaps you are under the impression that neocons are a new thing that just popped up with the bush administration? You couldn't be more wrong. The neocon movement started decades ago and is largely responsible for the drift to the left that the republican party has been experiencing for the past 25 or 30 years.

By your definition, commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the like are really neocons. Same goes for the majority of Republicans in Congress, not to mention Bush himself. Why then do they persist in calling themselves conservatives if they are really neocons? Could it be they find the term demeaning?

[vyo476]

By your definition, commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the like are really neocons. Same goes for the majority of Republicans in Congress, not to mention Bush himself. Why then do they persist in calling themselves conservatives if they are really neocons? Could it be they find the term demeaning?

White supremacists prefer to call themselves "white nationalists." This doesn't change what they are.

You know, "A rose, by any other name..." and all that.

[palerider]

By your definition, commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the like are really neocons. Same goes for the majority of Republicans in Congress, not to mention Bush himself. Why then do they persist in calling themselves conservatives if they are really neocons? Could it be they find the term demeaning?

A few of the people you mention could be considered neocons, some couldn't. The radio guys often call bush and the republican party on actions that deviate from conservativism.

And I suppose few people want to be identified as neocons for the same reason that very few will admit to being liberal which is one of the most demeaning terms of all. Barely 25%, and in some polls even less are comfortable identifying themselves as liberal these days.

[palerider]

White supremacists prefer to call themselves "white nationalists." This doesn't change what they are.

You know, "A rose, by any other name..." and all that.

Care to describe how neoconservatives and conservatives are no more than the same thing with different names? If you have a point to make, then make it. Don't hint that you have a point, or suggest that you may have a point. Be bold and articulate .your argument

I started this thread with the idea of illustrating the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism. To date, no one has effectively challenged a single idea, example or deduction that I put forward. Articulate your own position and see if it stands as well.

[vyo476]

Care to describe how neoconservatives and conservatives are no more than the same thing with different names? If you have a point to make, then make it. Don't hint that you have a point, or suggest that you may have a point. Be bold and articulate .your argument

I started this thread with the idea of illustrating the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism. To date, no one has effectively challenged a single idea, example or deduction that I put forward. Articulate your own position and see if it stands as well.

Actually, my statement was intended as a rebuttal for Popeye, not you. I don't know about Limbaugh or Hannity, but George Bush is most certainly a neocon, and he claims conservatism quite constantly (try saying that five times fast).

I do believe there is a difference between conservatives and neoconservatives; I just see that many neoconservatives wish to pass themselves off as conservatives.

And I did articulate my rebuttal to your view of modern liberalism. Perhaps I'll try to articulate it better later.

[vyo476]

Interesting. That statement cut to the very heart of the totalitarian nature of modern liberalism. The light came on and you saw clearly what I was getting and and then by force of will, you turned the light off and set off on your multi step plan to totalitarianism. Exactly how do you justify that internally?

You misunderstand. When I said that I understood where you were coming from, it was because I understood the logic that underpins your arguments, and why that logic is not applicable.

You're viewing liberalism as a static ideology, which it is not. It is an ideology that embraces innovation and new ideas; as such, it cannot be "logically" mapped out beyond a few months down the line because we never know what new ideas will help reshape liberalism in the future.

Basically, we know the ends we wish to achieve: equality of outcome and full respect for all aspects of a multicultural society. We have yet to fully discover the means we will use to reach that goal because, frankly, they don't exist yet. We move towards those ends as best we can and encourage open-minded thought in order to help produce the next generation of ideas that will again help us progress towards our ultimate goals.

If you were to take liberalism as it stands now and assume that it will move unchangingly towards its goals, then yes, it will result in authoritarianism. If you take that a step further and assume that the present means used by liberals will always exist then the argument becomes stronger. Since neither is true, neither is the assertion that liberalism will logically result in authoritarianism.

[palerider]

You misunderstand. When I said that I understood where you were coming from, it was because I understood the logic that underpins your arguments, and why that logic is not applicable.

You're viewing liberalism as a static ideology, which it is not. It is an ideology that embraces innovation and new ideas; as such, it cannot be "logically" mapped out beyond a few months down the line because we never know what new ideas will help reshape liberalism in the future.

No, I don't see liberalism as staic. Liberalism is always embracing the newest this or the newest that and as a result, liberals are the very kings of unintended consequences. Rarely does the newest this or the newest that fail to have more negative conotations for society than good.

Basically, we know the ends we wish to achieve: equality of outcome and full respect for all aspects of a multicultural society. We have yet to fully discover the means we will use to reach that goal because, frankly, they don't exist yet. We move towards those ends as best we can and encourage open-minded thought in order to help produce the next generation of ideas that will again help us progress towards our ultimate goals.

Like I said, the only question liberals ever ask themselves seriously is what justification shall be given to principles already settled in advance, and how those principles shall be realized without regard to whether or not they are pie in the sky idealism that will require an iron fist on the part of government to achieve.

The idea of equality rather than freedom is at the heart of the inevetable failure of modern liberalism. Equality of outcome is not possible because equality of effort or equality of purpose does not exist. The founders understood that we are all born equal, but from that time on, all bets are off.

Modern liberalism is necessarily authoritarian in nature because equality is your goal rather than freedom. Equality only exists at the lowest common denominator and an iron fist is required to force people to that level. Look at the failed socialist states. The populations, with the exception of a few elites, were pretty much equal but they were equal in their misery. No liberal state lifts up its citizens, because that is not where equality lies.

If you were to take liberalism as it stands now and assume that it will move unchangingly towards its goals, then yes, it will result in authoritarianism. If you take that a step further and assume that the present means used by liberals will always exist then the argument becomes stronger. Since neither is true, neither is the assertion that liberalism will logically result in authoritarianism.

Liberalism's ultimate goal, euality of outcome, REQUIRES an authoritarian nature. You can not allow people to be free and expect equality of outcome or equality of anything. Equality is not compatible with freedom so freedom must be quashed if liberalism is to achieve its ultimate goal. And the ultimate goal has already been settled.

[Popeye]

Liberalism's ultimate goal, euality of outcome, REQUIRES an authoritarian nature. You can not allow people to be free and expect equality of outcome or equality of anything. Equality is not compatible with freedom so freedom must be quashed if liberalism is to achieve its ultimate goal. And the ultimate goal has already been settled.

Here's a definition of liberalism I found, "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties". Not only does it state quite clearly as to why I consider myself a liberal, but I don't see one thing in that definition that "REQUIRES an authoritarian nature".

[palerider]

Here's a definition of liberalism I found, "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties". Not only does it state quite clearly as to why I consider myself a liberal, but I don't see one thing in that definition that "REQUIRES an authoritarian nature".

Authoritarianism doesn't exist in the definition. Authoritarianism exist in the execution. Describe how you achieve the stated goals in that definition without becoming exactly the thing you claim to be against.

And progress towards what? Towards euality of outcome? Equality only exists at the lowest common denominator. Only a very authoritarian government can keep people at the lowes common denominator.

[USMC the Almighty]

Here's a definition of liberalism I found, "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties". Not only does it state quite clearly as to why I consider myself a liberal, but I don't see one thing in that definition that "REQUIRES an authoritarian nature".

Autonomy of the individual? It is impossible to have this while also trying to enforce government-run healthcare, social security, medicaid, welfare, etc. Taking half of what people earn is hardly conducive to the "autonomy of the individual".

And I believe that palerider asked a very good question: progress towards what? What is the ultimate goal?

[Popeye]

Authoritarianism doesn't exist in the definition. Authoritarianism exist in the execution. Describe how you achieve the stated goals in that definition without becoming exactly the thing you claim to be against.



If I didn't know better, it almost sounds as if you agree with the objectives of liberalism contained in the definition. You, in your pessimism, just don't believe they can be implemented without authoritarianism.

[palerider]

If I didn't know better, it almost sounds as if you agree with the objectives of liberalism contained in the definition. You, in your pessimism, just don't believe they can be implemented without authoritarianism.

I asked a question, you answered with a dodge. Answer the question.

Your definition describes classical liberalism as described by the founders of this nation. If you look at the government as they designed it, you get the goals they stated.

Modern liberalism, however, is not concerned with freedom which is what your definition is describing. Modern liberalism is concerned with equality of outcome which is as incompatible with freedom as oil is with water.

A strict constitutionalist government would achieve the goals your definition stated. Would you like to live in a nation in which the constitution was strictly adhered to? I would, but my bet is that you wouldn't like it at all.

[vyo476]

Equality is not compatible with freedom so freedom must be quashed if liberalism is to achieve its ultimate goal. And the ultimate goal has already been settled.

You must be a fan of Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. Your views on the eventual outcome of modern liberalism are a rather stark representation of Mr. Vonnegut's story.

I think we view "equality of outcome" differently. You look at as the Marxists do: it means "everyone is totally and completely equal with absolutely no differences at all." Here, the "lowest common denominator" theory is in full application: so long as we're making sure that everyone exists in exact similarity the only way to do so is to make sure that everyone exists as low as possible (the Khmer Rouge is, in my mind, the best example of an attempt at this kind of society, and look where it got them).

I view "equality of outcome" more as a different version of "equality of opportunity" that exists at the highest common denominator. While most of the conservatives I know believe that equality of opportunity can be achieved simply by removing the societal inhibitions that held people back (for instance, slavery), I believe that the only way to achieve real equality of opportunity, is to give every person the same blank-slate chance to do as well as they can.

The "equality of opportunity" argument from conservatives is, in my view, flawed, because there isn't an equality of opportunity in existence between a rich kid born into affluence and a poor kid born into poverty, or a black kid as opposed to a white kid, or a homosexual opposed to a heterosexual. There are more opportunities out there if you're white, male, heterosexual, coming from a reasonably wealthy family, as opposed to anyone who doesn't meet some part of that criteria. Yes, it is possible for a black man to rise up through the system, or for a homosexual to do so, etc. Saying that "all people can make it" while simultaneously ignoring that society makes it more difficult for certain groups to do so is not, in my mind, any form of equality.

[palerider]

You must be a fan of Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. Your views on the eventual outcome of modern liberalism are a rather stark representation of Mr. Vonnegut's story.

Never read it. My thoughts on liberalism are the result of long study of modern liberalism as a political philosophy and as a political theory in practice. My conclusions are evident in the real world.

I think we view "equality of outcome" differently. You look at as the Marxists do: it means "everyone is totally and completely equal with absolutely no differences at all." Here, the "lowest common denominator" theory is in full application: so long as we're making sure that everyone exists in exact similarity the only way to do so is to make sure that everyone exists as low as possible (the Khmer Rouge is, in my mind, the best example of an attempt at this kind of society, and look where it got them).

Perhaps "you" view equality of outcome differently, but modern liberalism views it exactly as I described. If you don't agree, or see the inevetablility associated with such a political agenda, then perhaps you should consider very carefully who you pull the lever for at election time.

I view "equality of outcome" more as a different version of "equality of opportunity" that exists at the highest common denominator. While most of the conservatives I know believe that equality of opportunity can be achieved simply by removing the societal inhibitions that held people back (for instance, slavery), I believe that the only way to achieve real equality of opportunity, is to give every person the same blank-slate chance to do as well as they can.

And how do you do that without becoming authoritarian? In order to achieve that goal, you must literally re engineer society.

The "equality of opportunity" argument from conservatives is, in my view, flawed, because there isn't an equality of opportunity in existence between a rich kid born into affluence and a poor kid born into poverty, or a black kid as opposed to a white kid, or a homosexual opposed to a heterosexual. There are more opportunities out there if you're white, male, heterosexual, coming from a reasonably wealthy family, as opposed to anyone who doesn't meet some part of that criteria. Yes, it is possible for a black man to rise up through the system, or for a homosexual to do so, etc. Saying that "all people can make it" while simultaneously ignoring that society makes it more difficult for certain groups to do so is not, in my mind, any form of equality.

No there isn't. You are making my argument for me. I stated clearly that eqality and freedom aren't compatible. You are agreeing with me. You state that one has more opportunity than another as a result of their parentage, etc. I wouldn't dissagree with that entirely, but the only way to get everyone into a region of equality is to move those who might more readily recognize and take advantage of the opportunities in this nation down to the level of those who don't because government certainly can't raise those up from the lower level.

Freedom is superior to equality and modern liberalism just doesn't and never will get this and for that precise reason, modern liberalism, in order to achieve its stated goals must exercise the authoritarianism that it claims to hate.

[palerider]

So does this pathetic debate by the liberals mean that you realize that your philosophy is authoritarian at its heart or does it mean that you just aren't up to a philosophical debate? Or both?

[vyo476]

Never read it. My thoughts on liberalism are the result of long study of modern liberalism as a political philosophy and as a political theory in practice. My conclusions are evident in the real world.

You should pick up a copy. You might like it.

Perhaps "you" view equality of outcome differently, but modern liberalism views it exactly as I described. If you don't agree, or see the inevetablility associated with such a political agenda, then perhaps you should consider very carefully who you pull the lever for at election time.

I always "consider very carefully who (I) pull the lever for at election time." And if you really think that modern liberalism is about achieving a Marxist state then I'd have to say I don't agree with you.

And how do you do that without becoming authoritarian? In order to achieve that goal, you must literally re engineer society.

By finding ways of procuring more opportunities for those who are without them right now. Or do you believe that stepping on the backs of the disenfranchised in the only way for those with opportunities to keep them?

And by the way, society is, by it's nature, in a state of constant change. Any attempt to keep it the same is also an attempt to "re-engineer" it.

No there isn't. You are making my argument for me. I stated clearly that eqality and freedom aren't compatible. You are agreeing with me. You state that one has more opportunity than another as a result of their parentage, etc. I wouldn't dissagree with that entirely, but the only way to get everyone into a region of equality is to move those who might more readily recognize and take advantage of the opportunities in this nation down to the level of those who don't because government certainly can't raise those up from the lower level.

Why can't we raise people up to a higher level?

Spending a bit more on education in impoverished areas is just one of several ways I can think of to get people who are without the opportunities of their more affluent peers out of the "ghetto."

I can agree with you on this: There will always be people who are smarter than other people. Intelligence is a naturally occurring trait and I wouldn't want to have any part of quashing that. However, there are plenty of very intelligent people who could do amazing things if they had the chance; however, it takes either incredible luck or incredible genius to get one out of some of the really bad circumstances that exist in this country.

Basically, if you have the personal tools to do great things I think you ought to have the same chance to put those tools to use as everyone else. Maybe that's just my own personal philosophy talking.

Freedom is superior to equality and modern liberalism just doesn't and never will get this and for that precise reason, modern liberalism, in order to achieve its stated goals must exercise the authoritarianism that it claims to hate.

Without equality many people don't experience freedom. If you're comfortable with "We Value Freedom So Long As It's Ours" then more's the pity. Things like that push otherwise peaceful people towards extremism.

[Coyote]

I find that both conservativism and liberalism can be taken to authoritarian extremes.

There's an interesting site called www.politicalcompass.org that offers a "test" with the following description:

The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?

On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.

It shows Stalin as authoritarian-left and Hitler as authoritarian-right.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif

[palerider]

It shows Stalin as authoritarian-left and Hitler as authoritarian-right.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif


Find a new scale, or better yet, take the time to actually learn the political philosophies as theory and in practice so you don't find yourself dependent upon a scale at all. The one you have is terrribly flawed.

It places neo liberalism and libertarianism on the right. In case you haven't noticed, I am squarely on the right and most definately don't see eye to eye with libertarians like roker and truthbringer. Their political philosophies certainly aren't right. And neo liberalism certainly doesn't belong right. Neo liberalism most definiately isn't right. Neo liberalism is socialism lite, that is, it is the early stages of authoritarian socialism.

Further, it attempts to separate socialism from authoritarianism which just isn't possible. Even socialism lite as exists in the US is authoritarian in nature and expresses its totalitarian nature in every venue in which it is allowed to flourish.

People who rely on charts and lines for any sort of understanding of a given political philosophy either in theory or practice generally have very little actual understanding of either.

Tell me, what exactly makes hitler right and stalin left?

[palerider]

I always "consider very carefully who (I) pull the lever for at election time." And if you really think that modern liberalism is about achieving a Marxist state then I'd have to say I don't agree with you.

None of the socialist movements set out to be what they became. You argue that socialism isn't authoritarian in nature, but even here in the US, the socialism lite as practiced by the left in this country is decidedly authoritarian.

By finding ways of procuring more opportunities for those who are without them right now. Or do you believe that stepping on the backs of the disenfranchised in the only way for those with opportunities to keep them?

As I have said before, the authoritarianism of modern liberalism doesn't exist in the words, it exists in the practice. It is easy to say "finding ways of procuring more opportunities...." but actually bringing those opportunities to reality is where the authoritarianism raises its ugly head.

And by the way, society is, by it's nature, in a state of constant change. Any attempt to keep it the same is also an attempt to "re-engineer" it.

Attempting to "make" society anything is authoritarian. Conservativism isn't about keeping society from changing, but rather, letting it change on its own, in its own time; a far cry from the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism.

Why can't we raise people up to a higher level?

Why haven't we? God knows that if government could do such a thing, the trillions spent would be enough. No attempt has worked. No attempt has even come close. Government intercession invariably results in leaving more people more thoroughly entrenched at the lower levels than before the interference.

Spending a bit more on education in impoverished areas is just one of several ways I can think of to get people who are without the opportunities of their more affluent peers out of the "ghetto."

You really think so? We have been spending more and more and more for the past half a century and the state of our educational system just gets worse and worse. A thinking person can't help but think that more money is not the solution and in fact, more money and the ever increasing liberalism within the system might possibly be major contributing factors to the decline in quality.

Basically, if you have the personal tools to do great things I think you ought to have the same chance to put those tools to use as everyone else. Maybe that's just my own personal philosophy talking.

The "classes" if you want to call them classes in this country are fluid. Being born to wealth doesn't promise that you will remain wealthy any more than being born poor is a sentence to poverty. There are plenty of fortunes lost in this country. One isn't promised a station in society by virtue of simply being born to X parents. 80% of the millionaires in this country are first generation rich. People are moving up the ladder and falling off the ladder all the time. Government intervention is not necessary. You just don't like the rate at which it happens and are perfectly willing to flex your authoritarian muscles in order to attempt to make it happen at a rate that suits you. The only problem is that authoritarianism only results in holding people down, never lifting them up. Government intervention always, Always, ALWAYS results in dependence. People often rise out of poverty, but few ever rise out of dependence.

Without equality many people don't experience freedom. If you're comfortable with "We Value Freedom So Long As It's Ours" then more's the pity. Things like that push otherwise peaceful people towards extremism.

With imposed equality, no one experiences freedom, ergo, the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism.

[Coyote]

Find a new scale, or better yet, take the time to actually learn the political philosophies as theory and in practice so you don't find yourself dependent upon a scale at all. The one you have is terrribly flawed.


I don't think it's flawed - I think it's more accurate then a simple bipolar scale of left/right. Both extreme right and left ideologies lend themselves to authoritarian modes.


It places neo liberalism and libertarianism on the right. In case you haven't noticed, I am squarely on the right and most definately don't see eye to eye with libertarians like roker and truthbringer. Their political philosophies certainly aren't right.


The libertarian axis is straight down the center with social libertarianism towards the left and fiscal and other libertarian views towards the right - is how I see it. For example libertarian views on small government and taxation are far more in line with you then with liberals.

And neo liberalism certainly doesn't belong right. Neo liberalism most definiately isn't right. Neo liberalism is socialism lite, that is, it is the early stages of authoritarian socialism.

According to Wikipedia, neo-liberalism is defined as:

Neoliberalism refers to a political movement that espouses economic liberalism as a means of promoting economic development and securing political liberty. The movement is sometimes described as an effort to revert to the economic policies of the 18th and 19th centuries classical liberalism.[1] Strictly in the context of English-language usage the term is an abbreviation of "neoclassical liberalism", since in other languages liberalism has more or less retained its classical meaning.

Neoliberalism refers to a historically-specific reemergence of economic liberalism's influence among economic scholars and policy-makers during the 1970s and through at least the late-1990s, and possibly into the present (its continuity is a matter of dispute). In many respects, the term is used to denote a group of neoclassical-influenced economic theories, right-wing libertarian political philosophies, and political rhetoric that portrayed government control over the economy as inefficient, corrupt or otherwise undesirable. Neoliberalism is not a unified economic theory or political philosophy — it is a label denoting an apparent shift in social-scientific and political sentiments that manifested themselves in theories and political platforms supporting a reform of largely centralized postwar economic institutions in favor of decentralized ones — and few supporters of neoliberal policies use the word itself.


Further, it attempts to separate socialism from authoritarianism which just isn't possible. Even socialism lite as exists in the US is authoritarian in nature and expresses its totalitarian nature in every venue in which it is allowed to flourish.

I disagree. For example, they explain it as follows:

If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.


People who rely on charts and lines for any sort of understanding of a given political philosophy either in theory or practice generally have very little actual understanding of either.

Why? A chart is simply another way of describing something.


Tell me, what exactly makes hitler right and stalin left?

I think it is pretty clear that Stalin was authoritarian left - he totally squashed the private sector and collectivised everything.

For Hitler, looking at economics - I found the following information (from the same source - Political Compass, paraphrased):

Following the end of WW2, a substantial amount of information surfaced concerning the relationship between the Third Reich and German corportions.
Once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending, actively discouraging demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. In addition, Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. In 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners - all of them deeply hostile to socialism - were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism (this was detailed in a Congressional Report).

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.

Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name.

[palerider]

I think it is pretty clear that Stalin was authoritarian left - he totally squashed the private sector and collectivised everything.

We won't agree on the charts. As one who has taken the time to study political philosophies in theory and practice I see flaws throughout any set of charts or lines.

For Hitler, looking at economics - I found the following information (from the same source - Political Compass, paraphrased):

Following the end of WW2, a substantial amount of information surfaced concerning the relationship between the Third Reich and German corportions.
Once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending, actively discouraging demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. In addition, Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. In 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners - all of them deeply hostile to socialism - were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism (this was detailed in a Congressional Report).

Tell me. If you own a shoe factory that makes ladies shoes and I tell you that you may retain ownership of that factory if you sign a declaration of loyalty to my government and that loyalty will be assured by people that I will place in your factory to keep me posted and you will no longer be making shoes, but will instead be making army backpacks, and you will hire people that are acceptable to us and fire those who are not and, by the way, I am going to need the bulk of the money the factory makes, and if you deviate from my directives by even a small amount, you will find yourself on a cattle car destined for a very unpleasant place and I will place a new "owner" in your place, do you really believe that I have not squashed the private sector as effectively as stalin did?

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.

Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name.

I keep hearing that. Do you know who first directed the media to characterize fascism as extreme right wing? None other than one joseph stalin.

So fascism is right because it is headed by a dictator and the dictator, through his government controls the means of production, and is belligerant in his nationalism?

Exactly how is that different from stalin who was decidedly left? The soviet union and china were excessively belligerant in thier nationalism, they were headed by a dictator and through government controlled the means of production.

The only difference that I can name is that the names of people were written IN PENCIL on the deeds to the property. If they were not loyal members of the party, and did not follow directives to the letter, a new name, decided by the state, would be placed on the deed.

Now feel free to try and describe a substantial difference between fascism and socialism if you like, but let me warn you that you will just keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.

By the way, you may want to get away from dictionary definitions of political philosophies and look at the theory as put into practice. That is where the realities lie. Face it. Fascism was, and still is socialism.

[Coyote]

By the way, you may want to get away from dictionary definitions of political philosophies and look at the theory as put into practice. That is where the realities lie. Face it. Fascism was, and still is socialism.

The problem is - when you look at political philosophies in practice they are seldom as clean cut as they are in theory and they usually end up being a mixture. For example communism can be voluntary (the Kibbutz's in Israel) or involuntary (USSR) the difference being whether they are also authoratarian dictatorships.

Fascism can be both rightwing and leftwing - it can be socialism or it can be something else. For example Stalin's communism included many elements of fascism.

One example of a facist government that was not socialist might be Portugal's Estado Novo:

The Estado Novo was a dictatorial regime with an integralist orientation (where political and economic power resides with civic assemblies or business cartels). It incorporated many principles from Mussolini including its military set up. It's head, Salazar, was a Catholic traditionalist who believed in the necessity of controling the forces of economic modernisation in order to defend the religious and rural values of the country, which he perceived as being threatened. Is state control over economy an indicator of socialism only? I don't think so. It's one marker of socialism but it is also a marker of other ideologies including most authoritarian regimes.

Other aspects of the Estado Nova (which are common to authoritarian regimes) were a powerful secret police and strict state censorship was in place.

The Estado Novo also enforced Nationalist and Catholic values on the Portuguese population. The whole education system was focused toward the exaltation of the Portuguese Nation. That would be facism in practice but not necessarily socialism though some socialist authoritarian regimes have used these.

In addition I found the following:

The Estado Novo accepted the idea of corporatism as an economic model. This policy was pursued in order to protect the elites and defend oligarchic capitalism as the economic system, under state paternalist supervision. Although Salazar refused to sign the Anti-Comintern Pact in 1938, the Portuguese Communist Party was intensely persecuted. So were Anarchists, Liberals, Republicans and anyone opposed to the regime. The only allowed party was the União Nacional (National Union), which encompassed a wide range of right-wing politics, passing through monarchism, corporatism, fascism, nationalism and capitalism.

[Coyote]

Socialism generally refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. You can see elements of socialism in facism but does that make facism socialism?

On the other hand, Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state. Facist regimes are usually built around a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes and they usually contain many of the following elements: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, collectivism, corporatism, populism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism. When you look at that, you can see that despite the socialist aspects there are many non-socialist traits, and many which are commenly labeled "right wing".

Your statement that Stalin was the first label facism "right wing" is disengenius. Just because Stalin labeled it so does not mean it isn't so nor does it mean that is the reason why we now commonly refer to it as a right wing ideology.

Rightwing politics are typically associated with any of several strains of conservatism, monarchism, right-libertarianism, reactionism, traditionalism, some forms of populism, nationalism, militarism, producerism, or nativism. When you look at facism and you look at right wing politics, you can see multiple points of similarity where facism is rightwing taken to an extreme.

[palerider]

The problem is - when you look at political philosophies in practice they are seldom as clean cut as they are in theory and they usually end up being a mixture. For example communism can be voluntary (the Kibbutz's in Israel) or involuntary (USSR) the difference being whether they are also authoratarian dictatorships.

If you want to learn about a political philosophy, you must look at it in practice. Theoretical politics is a pointless exercise because no one can predeict how it will look in reality. That is the point of my whole argument. Modern liberalism looks great on paper, but in order to put it into practice, it must be decidedly authoritarian. You defeat your own position when you cut and paste dictionary definitions of political philosophies when you know (or mayby you don't) that in practice, they bear little, if any resemblence to the dictionary definition.

By the way, re-examine the kibbutz movement in Israel. They have become shrines to capitalism, not communism.

Fascism can be both rightwing and leftwing - it can be socialism or it can be something else. For example Stalin's communism included many elements of fascism.

One example of a facist government that was not socialist might be Portugal's Estado Novo:

Re-examine corporatism in practice. It is socialism and socialism can not be construed as right wing.

On the other hand, Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state

Are you going to tell me that this doesn't also describe the soviet union and china, and cambodia, etc, etc or are you going to tell me that they got it wrong and the soviet union, china, and all the rest of the great socialist tyranies were actually fascists? Come on coyote, you are better than this. At least try to make the debate challenging if you are going to engage in it. Fascism is socialism. In practice, all nazis were fascists, but not all fascists were nazis and all fascist were socialist while not all socialists were fascists and all communists were socialists while not all socialists are communists.

You should have been able to look at that definition and see that it also describes the soviet union and china, and any other socialist regime and disregard it as inaccurate.

I notice that you didn't describe any substantial differences between german or italian fascism in practice and stalin's socialism. Is that because you see that they are essentially the same in practice?

[Coyote]

If you want to learn about a political philosophy, you must look at it in practice. Theoretical politics is a pointless exercise because no one can predeict how it will look in reality. That is the point of my whole argument. Modern liberalism looks great on paper, but in order to put it into practice, it must be decidedly authoritarian. You defeat your own position when you cut and paste dictionary definitions of political philosophies when you know (or mayby you don't) that in practice, they bear little, if any resemblence to the dictionary definition.

By the way, re-examine the kibbutz movement in Israel. They have become shrines to capitalism, not communism.


I agree that you in that you have to look at them in practice to understand them - but, there are several big BUT's here...

You are using labels that are only defined in theory and trying to pin those labels on real world political systems. But you can't really do that because they don't really match. Pure capitalism, socialism, libertarianism, communism etc. don't really exist except in usually small-scale situations. What exists is a mix of systems.

People frequently tout capitalism as the best form of economics - which I tend to agree with, however - not pure capitalism. Pure capitalism - in my mind - is represented by the pre-union abuses of workers in the garment industries and the mines. It has no moral compass or social responsibility. It is no more workable in the long run then is pure communism. Today's countries that have the highest standards of living also have a degree of socialism.

The kibbutz movement is not unique in small scale voluntary communism - I think there have been religious communities through out history that have practiced that. The fact that it is having problems maintaining it's communism may have more to do with changing times and economic conditions then with the fact that it is socialist or communist. Look at it's history. The Kibbutz movement combined socialism and Zionism and was founded at a time when independent farming was not practical. This neccesity is what drove the creation of a purely communal life that was also heavily inspired by their ideology. They were quite successful in their heyday attracted interest and membership from the entire world. Most lasted for several generations as utopian communities. The problem is - this kind of living isn't workable for all people (most people prefer the reward system of capitalism) and conditions changed - individual farming became more practicable, Zionism diminished over all and Israel developed a strong capitalist economy.

Does that mean that Kibbutz's were not successful as a voluntary communist model? No. They were quite successful in their time but like most pure ideologies they are limited in real life workability.

You state: "Modern liberalism looks great on paper, but in order to put it into practice, it must be decidedly authoritarian."

I think I agree, but I am not sure here and the reason goes back to definitions. What is modern liberalism? Socialism has a clear definition, as does fascism - but "modern liberalism"? What is it? I think that in order to impose any pure ideology into practice on a large scale - and I think these qualifiers are important - you need a certain degree of authoritarianism. In fact that is what most extreme ideologies (whether left or right) have in common.

[Coyote]

Re-examine corporatism in practice. It is socialism and socialism can not be construed as right wing.


Is it? Or does it simply have some socialist aspects?

In the example of Portugal - while corporatism might have still been a form of socialism other aspects of it's governing ideology were distinctly "rightwing". You can't use socialism alone to define whether something is left or rightwing. This is also why I have a real problem with the simplicity of defining things based solely on a single left-right access.

In real life practice I would wonder: is American capitalism a form of corporatism? With the government giving out corporate subsidies and with political elections heavily influenced through the donations of large corporate entities and interest groups? Is that socialism? I don't think so.


Are you going to tell me that this doesn't also describe the soviet union and china, and cambodia, etc, etc or are you going to tell me that they got it wrong and the soviet union, china, and all the rest of the great socialist tyranies were actually fascists?

Are you saying that the Kibbutz movement, then, in practice was fascist?

Socialist tyrannies - look at that term. The emphasis is not on socialist, but on tyranny. Again - some of the countries today with the greatest standard of living and of civil and political liberties are also heavily socialist. Are they also tyrannies? Are they authoritarian?

I don't know much about Cambodia's government other than it was a reign of extreme brutality that had less to do with the ideology of socialism and more to do with it's authoritarian abuses committed by Pol Pot.

I also wonder about something else here - and that is the frequent blurring of socialism and communism. In practice they are both quite different.

Communism establishes a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production and is directly associated with Karl Marx. The only weight it can do that in practice is via an authoritarian state. I think my example of Kibbutz's are more one of socialism then communism.

Socialism advocates that property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community in order to increase social and economic equality and cooperation.

So you can say - all communism is a form of socialism but not all socialism is communism.

I agree that there are elements in common with communism and fascism in those governments along with communism and - most important - authoritarianism. But there are defining elements of facism that you don't find in former USSR for example:
national unity, usually based on ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes
anti-communism
corporatism

You can also say that all communist states in practice are authoritarian, that doesn't necessarily mean that all authoritarian states are communist. Facism in practice takes the wealth of the people but does not re-distribute it in any way - it belongs to a dictator or a small group of people whereas in communism, in practice it is redistributed in the form of the lowest common denominator.



Come on coyote, you are better than this. At least try to make the debate challenging if you are going to engage in it. Fascism is socialism. In practice, all nazis were fascists, but not all fascists were nazis and all fascist were socialist while not all socialists were fascists and all communists were socialists while not all socialists are communists.


In practice fascism contains elements of socialism - but it also contains elements that are also not socialist and are associated with rightwing ideologies. You are deliberately ignoring those unless you are going to apply only economic definitions and not political ones.



You should have been able to look at that definition and see that it also describes the soviet union and china, and any other socialist regime and disregard it as inaccurate.

I notice that you didn't describe any substantial differences between german or italian fascism in practice and stalin's socialism. Is that because you see that they are essentially the same in practice?

No, it's because I don't know enough about them.

[Coyote]

I will agree that fascism is rooted in socialism but - that does not make it a leftwing ideology because it also has distinct elements associated with rightwing ideologies that seperate it from the left.

Alright...I did some more looking around...

Fascism appears to be authoritarian capitalism to the extent that property may be privately owned but subject to the authoritarianism of the state or a dictator.

What I see is this: fascists are still basically capitalists. I notice the right likes to deny it in much the same way as the left will say that the USSR wasn't really communist. Fascism does have some socialism (like social security) but it isn't much more socialist than the US.

I did some more reading. Looking at Germany, Italy and Spain - fascists come to power in each nation when communists were about to take over. If the Nazis hadn't taken over, the Communists would have - fascism appears to be a reaction to communism. They are basically people who oppose communism using the same ruthless tactics that the communists use.

In practice then- fascism looks like a free enterprise system where you still have a free market but without any political freedom.

I suppose...looking at all this...it would in the end be a leftwing ideology if you define them as:

Left=more government control with the extreme being communism
Right=less government control with the extreme being anarchy/warlords etc

[Coyote]

Man...I sure rambled a lot. Not a good idea to think aloud.

[Coyote]

First – Palerider, let me apologize for jumping in to this debate without reading the beginning post – a bad habit of mine (because I am admittedly intellectually lazy). What I have contributed to this dialogue is garbage because of that. So I’m going to start again by answering your initial post which is very well written by the way. You can bash me because I do deserve it (this time).



"Authoritarian" views are certainly not liberal views, they are a trait of conservative ideology.”


I’m going to address this particular point, made by your protagonist. I agree with you actually on this: authoritarian views are the end result of leftist ideology carried to it’s extreme.

I am unsure though if it is solely a characteristic of the leftist ideology. For example one person described leftwing/liberal as increased government role while rightwing/conservative is a decreased government role. But this only addresses a narrow spectrum of characteristics that tend to define those ideologies. Going with that definition, the end result of liberalism carried to it’s extreme is a totalitarian communist state. Likewise, carrying rightwing ideology to it’s extreme brings us to anarchy.


Consider modern liberalism. It is a political philosophy that claims equality and equal freedom as its ultimate goal. Ask any liberal to describe their philosophy and without fail, you will get some variation of “live and let live. In an effort to achieve this goal, however, liberalism requires supervision of everything. Its multicultural ideal excludes and stigmatizes regular people and in order to enforce its equality, it uses quotas, speech codes, and mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions. Clearly, there is little connection between those things and “live and let live”.


I agree. However, I’m a liberal. I’m proud of it. I believe in tolerance and social equality, and equality in justice and opportunities for ALL. I do not agree with quota’s for example, mandatory sensitivity training etc. – these things should not be mandated from the top, but rise up from the bottom. No one should be rejected from employment or education soley on the basis of race, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation. The courts are there for that.


Liberals prize tolerance, but what they call tolerance is not tolerance at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but tolerance means letting people do what they want. Modern liberals, however have redefined tolerance (redefinition – a nasty habit of modern liberals) to mean a requirement of equal respect across the social spectrum. True tolerance requires live and let live, but the tolerance of the modern liberal requires an ever more invasive bureaucratic control of every aspect of our social lives. An ideology that “requires” equal respect across the social spectrum must, by definition be intolerant because it must try to control the attitudes that people have towards one another and any real attempt to that end will require means that are both inflexible and tyrannical.

Tolerance does not mean “letting people do what they want”. That would be anarchy. Tolerance stops when another person’s behavior effects your well being or safety or that of the greater society. Tolerance cannot be mandated by the government without becoming increasingly authoritarian in nature. Yet you must have laws in place to protect vulnerable populations from the effects of intolerance or you end up with the law of the jungle.


Lets compare two states. One is the conservative ideal and the other is the modern liberal ideal. In the conservative state, you can say and do pretty much whatever you like so long as you do not violate certain established rights. The conservative state doesn’t care whether you are tolerant or intolerant so long as you don’t physically attack others or damage their property. The conservative state, as a result may be very critical of certain social failures, as it would have a very limited social welfare system. In the conservative sate, you would be free to succeed or fail with interference from the state being limited to enforcing those clearly defined rights that were spoken of earlier.

Except this doesn’t work in like this in practice. A conservative state DOES care about whether you are tolerant or intolerant. A conservative state does not believe in tolerance in relation to an individual’s sexual behavior for example. A conservative state also does not particularly care for the rights of workers to safe working conditions either (because that would require increased government involvement in the regulation of business’). You would be free to succeed or fail without government interference except – you really wouldn’t if you didn’t fit the acceptable social norms.

[Coyote]

In the homogenous welfare state that modern liberals favor, however, things would be quite different. In its effort to promote equal respect and tolerance across the social spectrum, the modern liberal state will find that it must necessarily be very intolerant of ways of life that it defines as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. By establishing quotas, the state will force people to associate with others against their will, literally denying them the right to choose what sorts of people they will live near and work with.

Not really. In your description of the “ideal” conservative state you listed the “ideal”. In your description of the “ideal” liberal state, you listed instead, how it is in practice. Not so ideal.

The ideal liberal state would not be a homogenous welfare state.

I think Bertrand Russel said it best, when he described how liberalism aims for a golden mean between despotism and anarchy:
Every community is faced with two dangers, anarchy and despotism. The Puritans, especially the Independents, were most impressed by the danger of despotism. Hobbes, on the contrary, was obsessed by the fear of anarchy. The liberal philosophers who arose after the Restoration and acquire control after 1688, realized both dangers; they disliked both Strafford and the Anabaptists. This led Locke to the doctrine of division of powers and of checks and balances.

I would say that an ideal liberal state would be one where tolerance exists because respect and tolerance are taught and rewarded, not mandated (whatever happened to manners?). Welfare would not be a multi-generational way of life but rather the short-term helping hand it was intended to be. In a liberal society the government has an obligation to provide a safety net to it’s most vulnerable: the disabled, the elderly, the poor . This does not have to be controlled by the federal government in a “one size fits all” manner but rather, can be given to the states to use in the matter that best works for their communities. There would be no quotas because quota’s are also a form of discrimination and intolerance. Hiring and firing should be based on merit and performance: not race, gender, sexual orientation or disability.


The liberal state will necessarily be unable to accept that ethnic loyalties, and religious and sexual distinctions form the structures by which all people organize their lives and as a result will find that it must, in fact, be intolerant of all real ways of life and must, by force of law, reconstruct them. This new tolerance as found in the modern liberal state means that no one, with the exception of a few elite ideologues gets to carry out his or her life by their own design.


You are not describing the “ideal” but rather what happens when liberalism is carried to an extreme – an extreme you most certainly don’t portray in your “ideal” conservative society.


The ideology of modern liberalism with regard to tolerance seems to be based on the idea that each person is as good as every other person and whatever a person likes is good for him. In order to believe this, however, one must accept that one way of living is as good as all other ways of living because to suggest that one way was better or worse than another would by definition be an act of intolerance. This is a very peculiar, and very specific moral theory. One must view each person impartially as valuable, but everything else as valuable only as defined by the individual. A society that holds such a moral theory must therefore define anyone who holds a moral code that recognizes any sort of absolute good or bad as intolerant.

If carried to it’s extreme yes…but I think you’ll find very few liberals who would extend tolerance say to pedophiles. The problem is balance and moral absolutes. Most liberals don’t advocate the most extreme extensions of the ideology.

But let’s look at a society ruled by moral absolutes. You don’t have to look far: Iran, Saudi Arabia come to mind.

Liberals advocate expanding the envelope of “tolerance”. Conservatives advocate preserving the status quo. The abolishment of slavery and giving women the right to vote were too examples of “liberalism” that at the time were radical and violently opposed. Now both are part of the “status quo”.

Since modern liberalism holds such a narrow and dubious moral theory that very few people indeed actually hold, how then, is it any different from old “theocratic” systems that it labels as intolerant? Is it better, somehow, to be indoctrinated in the dogma and delusion of all inclusiveness than that of one church or another? A panel of civil rights lawyers, after all, is certainly no more forgiving than a panel of robed priests and in all likelihood, less forgiving.

It is no different then the “theocratic” system in terms of “tolerance” but it is rather different in actual application. On the one hand – you have a system that will condemn a person for homosexuality as vigerously as it will for murder, and all this based on “moral absolutes” that don’t appear to have much relationship to reality or the good of society.


Upon close examination it is evident that modern liberalism does indeed hold all of the elements necessary to become authoritarian and totalitarian and in practice has already exhibited a streak of tyranny ranging from mandatory sensitivity training to the “thought police” mentality of actually punishing criminals more harshly based on what they may have been thinking when