Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

I can agree with that, but – what you are describing is an extreme. It would be as if I were to say that conservatism is characterized by anti-sodemy laws and “separate but equal” segregation.

Now there, I disagree. For example there is nothing left of “liberalism” in those regimes only totalitarianism. Would you likewise then agree then that conservative theory carried to it’s logical end would be anarchy? Using the same argument, it would.

Modern liberalism is socialism lite. Socialism in its infancy. No more, no less.

If you believe that the US, in any way, is practicing corporatism, then you need to devote more time to learning what corporatism is. Corporatism is socialism and socialism is always left. In any form it it takes, it is left.

Of course they are tyrannies and of course they are authoritarian when compared even to the US today. As to civil and political liberties, you better check again. Go and try to voice conservative viewpoints in those "free" socialist countries and see how well it goes for you. People in all the authoritarian socialist states said that they liked the system because they couldn't imagine not being taken care of. They wore their yoke meekly because they can't imagine being free.

Which elements are right wing? Keep in mind that conservative ideology calls for small non intrusive government. Any large intrusive government is, by definition, left.

And you actually believe that is ownership? Come on.

No because the right recognizes the need for constitutional protection of certain rights and recognize government's responsibility to protect them. The right's ideal state has been done and it was not authoritarian. See the US right after the revolution. It did not begin to become authoritarian until modern liberalism began to worm its way into the government.

Again, see the constitution if you are interested in what right wing carried to its extreme looks like.

Not to insult you, but on this issue, you are conservative, not liberal.

We have a problem here and the problem is definitions. You've berated me for depending on definitions yet you are using definitions to make your point.

You are also berating me for not looking at ideologies in practice but - you seem to be doing the same thing.

For example you define conservative as minimal government. That's it. No more - no less.

Now let's look at how you define liberal. Wow - that's a whole book chapter!


Now...let's look at your ideal "conservative society" with some historical accuracy and what do we see?

No government regulation of course which means you buy a pound of flour and ... well...it might be flour or....it might a mixture of flour and plaster of paris.

You hopefully have a job and what is that job? Maybe, you work in a shirt factory a bastion of capitalistic success. But to keep you all in there working at whatever minimum wage they choose to give you for however many hours they want you to work they might lock all the doors until closing time. No legally mandated safety standards. Too bad if there is a fire.

One common defining characteristic of conservatives is "exclusive" and of liberals "inclusive". That meant that whomever was not then defined as "us" was excluded: blacks, women....

Conservative thinking values traditional ways of life. Slavery was one such tradition. Liberals changed it. Now abolition is the status quo. Wasn't always.

Hope you caught lots of good fish!

Untrue. I defined modern liberalism as no more and no less than the quest for equality of outcome. That is it. The means to achieve that goal, however, must be authoritarian in nature.

Now you have that exactly backwards coyote. It is modern liberalism that excludes all ways of life that aren't liberal. Conservativism, on the other hand just doesn't care. You may be included, and you may be excluded based on the local society, but government (which is the topic here) just doesn't care.

Actually, you have that wrong as well. Would you argue that europe in the time of slavery here was more conservative than the new US with its radical ideas of individual freedom? Slavery had gone the way of the dinosaurs, in most cases, a couple of centuries earlier in the more conservative europe.

Also, lets not forget that at the time of the founding of the country, blacks were not considered to be human beings. And it was not liberals who fought to end slavery. It was constitutionalists who fought to end slavery. Constitutionalist would be best described as classical liberals and lets not confuse classical liberals with modern liberals. Unless you are conservative, you bear no resemblence to the classical liberals who ended slavery.

Always. Where are you? If you are not too far, maybe we can get together some bright summer day and go out and catch some.

Ah, I'm in West Virginia but I travel to Chapel Hill NC to visit my mother regularly. Too far but I admit - you are one person I'd enjoy talking to over a beer or fishing!

On the rest of this post - I must think some before replying in depth (a habit I don't always engage in) - but let me add this thought. You throw around these different versions of "liberalism". In this issue - I have a very simple world outlook and philosophy. My view of liberal and conservative is pretty much aligned to what is described in the "fundamentalist agenda" article. I see liberal and conservative on a much broader spectrum then simple political ideologies - really as part of human nature.

Modern liberalism is, as Palerider says, a step on the road to socialism, which is in turn a step on the road to communism.

Liberalism requires massive amounts of governemnt interference in citizen's and requires a huge bureaucracy to enforce the basic tenets of liberalism.

One thing liberals do not argue is the terrible inefficiency of government. It just costs the gov'ment way more to do anything than it does for private citizens to do a similar thing. Out of every dollar the gov'ment confiscates from you for welfare, only 29 cents reaches the needy recipient. The gov'ment's overhead factor is 71%. According to Charity Watch, most established and well known charities have an overhead factor of 25% or less. If you give the Red Cross a dollar, they will see that over 80 cents reaches the needy recipient.

The less government you have, the more efficiently our economy functions and the more goodies we all have.

Socialism/communism failed in the USSR. It has produced societies in N Korea and Cuba that can barely feed themselves. And liberals say they hate the military but the military is the only healthy area of these 2 scoieties.

Western Europe has embraced modern liberalism and socialism and is now paying the price. Europe was run by kings and petty monarchs for close to 100 generations and Europeans appear to be comfortable with "Big Brother" running their lives. At least 2 European socialist states are nearing the breaking point financially, where there is no amount of tax they can collect that will pay the social obligations made. Look for more to be written about this in the near future and for possible collapse in the 2010-2012 window.

The most efficient economic system ever devised by man is free enterprise and socialism/liberalism requires less and less free enterprise and more and more govenrment interference.

The current liberal/socialist scheme is universal heath care. This has been a miserable failure in Canada and liberals, in their tunnel vision, want the same system for us.

Liberals are OK with people being miserable, so long as everyone is equally miserable.

The whole premise of the thread you started is theoretical.

"to it's logical end..."

I also noticed in this thread that you suggested that the liberals participating in the debate should think twice about "who they pull the lever for". I've also noticed that you have referred to the modern republican party as moving to the left and that Bush is a leftist. So if the guy you voted for is a leftist, and the party you affiliate is moving to the left, what does that make you?

I'm glad I found this thread. the debate is excellent.

While I did vote for bush, I was voting for the lesser of two evils. That is what we, as conservatives, are left with. I won't argue that the US is headed for socialism, and ultimately an uncomfortably authoritarian state followed by years of misery in the guise of equality followed by an economic collapse because socialism destroys the drive to create the very wealth that it is dependent upon. The best conservatives can do is vote for the lesser of the evils and hopefully slow the process.

By the way, we have seen modern liberal theory taken to its logical end a number of times now and are seeing it move towards its logical end in europe now so my position is not theoretical at all.

If Bush, as you put it, has continued the republican move to the left, then how does voting for him slow the process? How does a "true conservative" vote for a leftist anyway?

If conservatism at the federal level is no longer in practice in today's America, there must be a reason. You've stated many times that modern republicans are moving left. why is that? If conservatism is the true political philosophy of our constitutional republic then why is it disappearing from the politics in America. Maybe it's because conservatism "taken to it's logical end" is Anarchism. and no governing body wants that.

I would have thought that would be obvious. While bush is pretty far left of me, he is no where near as far left as the two other choices I had. gore and kerry are both true believers and in addition to thinking they know what is best for the country, also believe that they know what is best for me, personally, and would have no compunction in legislating it.

Of course there is a reason. Too many people have become dependent. Modern liberalism since the 1950's has been very successful at creating dependence and remarkably successful at creating generational dependence in some areas. Couple that with a nearly 60 year campaign of class envy, fanatically supported by the mass media and you have a quite large percentage of those who are not dependent either being embarrassed by their success or holding an elitist attitude towards it. Folks like john edwards, for example, who came from very humble beginnings and gaining great success but talking as if he were one of the "lucky" ones. He made his but the rest of those poor schlubs don't have a prayer.

And conservativism taken to its logical end is a strictly constitutional government. No more, no less. Self reliance is not as easy as being taken care of and the media has fostered a societal attitude of instant gratification and class envy. It isn't difficult to see why so many woud opt for the easy route of the nanny state.

The route to getting elected has become a contest to see who can give the most of other people's money away rather than a contest to show who can give you the most freedom to do for yourself.