Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

[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.

 

[palerider]

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

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.