NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I always hear people claiming that fascism is extreme Conservatism. Personally I don't see the connection. Some things seem to completely contradict each other. So I wanted to see what you guys thought.

Anyway, here are my arguments:

Economically they seem to negate each other. Economically, the extreme of conservativsm is laissez-faire. In a fascist economy, the state has control over businesses.

Fascists are of course very nationalistic warhawks. It is true that today conservatives are the ones that tend to use war more as a foreign policy. That is one example people offer to show they are similar. But during WW2 (and I am talking from an American standpoint) the conservatives were against joining the war, while the liberals were the ones that wanted to join the war. The same goes for the war of 1812. The Republican Party (At the time the liberal party) wanted to keep fighting the British, while the Federalist Party was against it. They were so much against the war that some wanted to secede from the Union. Also in Vietnam, it was the left who had gone to war, and one of the reasons Nixon was elected was because he promised an end to the war. Nixon was of course a conservative.

While in the US conservatives' stance on foreign policy changes I understand it is not like that everywhere. In Israel, for example, (and I only give Israel as an example because I lived there) the right has always been more aggressive.

I don't actually know much about how Fascism is Socially. I believe that religion played a major role in Fascist countries, which is similar to the right. Other than that I don't know much, and I actually would like to know more, so please feel free to add.

Anyway, it seems to me like Fascism really can't be considered to be the extreme of conservatism. For something to be the extreme of another, it would have to take the vast majority of ideas of that one group, and then take it to the extreme. Economic policy, I think is one of the most, if not the most, important issues that distinguish the left and the right. Unlike many other issues, the left and the right never switched their policy on economy. That is also the issue Fascism disagrees the most with Conservatism.

People will denounce what I've posted as libertarian propaganda but in any case this is how I see the spectrum. Fascism would be at the bottom (Very little social or economic freedom at all). Conservatism...well...at the right (Limited social freedom, high economic freedom).

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/images/nolan.gif

I don't see how anyone could dismiss that as propaganda. It's a very informative chart.

I can understand that some people would prefer to be somewhere other than in the Libertarian section, but then they're saying they want people to have less freedom from the government.

I can understand that some people would prefer to be somewhere other than in the Libertarian section, but then they're saying they want people to have less freedom from the government.

I find that most people who disagree with Libertarianism attack it from the economic angle. They are usually the ones who doubt the fairness of capitalism. But I'm sure we'd all like the right to smoke weed once in a while. :p

I actually agree with that division. Fascism is in some ways similar to conservatism, and in some ways completely different.

franko was bouth conservative and market liberal and always claimed himself to be a fascist. why not then?

Fascism and conservatism are similar within social aspects, though differ in economic ideals. With this in mind, if you are talking on purely social aspects then fascism can be seen as extreme conservatism.

Economically they seem to negate each other. Economically, the extreme of conservativsm is laissez-faire.

Not nessecerily. That depends on the international standing of the nation. Conservatives are frequently either economically liberal or mercantilist, depending on external factors

In a fascist economy, the state has control over businesses.

No, in a fascist economy large corporation are generally allowed into government to help run the economy. This is known as corporatism and is not unique to fascism.

Fascists are of course very nationalistic warhawks. It is true that today conservatives are the ones that tend to use war more as a foreign policy. That is one example people offer to show they are similar. But during WW2 (and I am talking from an American standpoint) the conservatives were against joining the war, while the liberals were the ones that wanted to join the war. The same goes for the war of 1812. The Republican Party (At the time the liberal party) wanted to keep fighting the British, while the Federalist Party was against it. They were so much against the war that some wanted to secede from the Union. Also in Vietnam, it was the left who had gone to war, and one of the reasons Nixon was elected was because he promised an end to the war. Nixon was of course a conservative.

You seem to be defining conservatism as a distinct political theory such as communism, socialism, liberalism etc. It isn't, there are vague parameters, such as a respect for tradition, not wanting rapid change and generally to "follow the intimations."

The Nazis cannot really be described as conservative, but downright reactionary in their approach and social vision. The rapid tearing assunder of German society and constitution to create a "Third Reich" really isn't a conservative approach to government.

[quote]Economic policy, I think is one of the most, if not the most, important issues that distinguish the left and the right. Unlike many other issues, the left and the right never switched their policy on economy.QUOTE]

Really? I don't know about your coutry but historically in Britain the left and right have. With the Conservatives being economicall protectionist, then liberal.


Sorry, being rather vague, but I need to keep a close eye on the time since I have to be up early tommorrow.

People will denounce what I've posted as libertarian propaganda but in any case this is how I see the spectrum. Fascism would be at the bottom (Very little social or economic freedom at all).

You may find that many Nazis enjoyed a high degree of social and economic freedom ;)

I don't see how anyone could dismiss that as propaganda.

It is very simplistic and value loaded for a start.

You may find that many Nazis enjoyed a high degree of social and economic freedom ;)
Nazis aren't fascist, they're National Socialist. Fascism is what existed in Italy under Mussolini.

Nazis aren't fascist, they're National Socialist. Fascism is what existed in Italy under Mussolini.

While I've always seen this distinction as pure semantics (Since it has never been explained to me why Nazis aren't fascists), I'll just alter what I said slightly:


You may find that many Fascists enjoyed a high degree of social and economic freedom ;)

It is very simplistic and value loaded for a start.

It's a chart. It's value-neutral.

Nazis aren't fascist, they're National Socialist. Fascism is what existed in Italy under Mussolini.

But Nazism is considered one form of Fascism. The Peronistas of Argentina are another mutation of the basic structure.


Fascism is associated with Conservatism because they line up nicely on the left-to-right political spectrum, basically:

Fascist-Reactionary-Conservative-Centrist-Liberal-Radical-Communist

However, this style of spectrum ignores many variables. Where do you put the Libertarians? or the expanding Technocratic movement?

Personally, I find the spectrum far too pat. The relationships are much more complex than any one-line system.

Fascism actually has much more to do with communism - putting the government before the individual - restrictions of rights and freedoms, etc.

While I've always seen this distinction as pure semantics (Since it has never been explained to me why Nazis aren't fascists), I'll just alter what I said slightly:


You may find that many Fascists enjoyed a high degree of social and economic freedom ;)
I'll try and get this right:

Nazism saw both party and government as a means to achieve an ideal condition for certain chosen people, fascism was a squarely anti-socialist form of statism that existed as an end in and of itself. The Nazi movement, at least in its overt ideology, spoke of class-based society as the enemy, and wanted to unify the racial element above established classes. The Fascist movement, on the other hand, sought to preserve the class system and uphold it as the foundation of established and desirable culture [citation needed], although this is not to say that Fascists rejected the concept of social mobility. Indeed a central tenet of the Corporate State was meritocracy. However, Fascism also heavily based itself on corporatism, which was supposed to supersede class conflicts.

I have a better explanation in a text book somewhere, but I've got to try and find it...

Basically, Nazism believes in a class-less society, much like socialism (hence National Socialist) whereas Fascists want to maintain class structures and hold themselves to be the antithesis of socialism.

It's a chart. It's value-neutral.

If you look at it like that then it is also useless.

While I've always seen this distinction as pure semantics (Since it has never been explained to me why Nazis aren't fascists), I'll just alter what I said slightly:


You may find that many Fascists enjoyed a high degree of social and economic freedom ;)

Fascism-The means and the end was the state.

Nazism-The state was only a means to an end(creating an Aryan race in Europe)

So the difference between these two forms is that Nazism is a racialist form of fascism, while fascism itself does not have to be racialist.

Fascism actually has much more to do with communism - putting the government before the individual - restrictions of rights and freedoms, etc.
As stated above, fascists and communists are opposite ideals. Communism has no state and a flat social structure. Fascism is the State and has a class heirarchy as its primary tenement.

Fascism actually has much more to do with communism - putting the government before the individual - restrictions of rights and freedoms, etc.

That is statism luvvy, not communism.

(Though there are statist-communists, granted)

Fascism-The means and the end was the state.

Nazism-The state was only a means to an end(creating an Aryan race in Europe)

So the difference between these two forms is that Nazism is a racialist form of fascism, while fascism itself does not have to be racialist.

Isn't that a bit like saying France isn't a republic because they have a two round presidential election whilst the USA (1st modern republic) doesn't?

Nazism is a permutation of fascism, it is hardly surprising that each regime is different and have their own idiosyncrasies.

Not nessecerily. That depends on the international standing of the nation. Conservatives are frequently either economically liberal or mercantilist, depending on external factors



No, in a fascist economy large corporation are generally allowed into government to help run the economy. This is known as corporatism and is not unique to fascism.



You seem to be defining conservatism as a distinct political theory such as communism, socialism, liberalism etc. It isn't, there are vague parameters, such as a respect for tradition, not wanting rapid change and generally to "follow the intimations."

The Nazis cannot really be described as conservative, but downright reactionary in their approach and social vision. The rapid tearing assunder of German society and constitution to create a "Third Reich" really isn't a conservative approach to government.

Really? I don't know about your coutry but historically in Britain the left and right have. With the Conservatives being economicall protectionist, then liberal.


Sorry, being rather vague, but I need to keep a close eye on the time since I have to be up early tommorrow.

Conservaives are considered to be the right here in the US. So according to American politics at least, extreme Conservatives believe in a laissez-faire system.

In a fascist state corporations are not allowed to do whatever they want. The state can tell them what to manufacture if it is to help the nation as a whole. Check this site: http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Fascism.html

The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had "reached the end of its historical function," Mussolini wrote: "To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself.... Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual."

economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers

Banking also came under extraordinary control

Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it.

Each one of those things goes against a laissez-faire economy.

I guess its not like that everywhere, but in the US, the right has always been pro econmic diversity, and big business, while the left was always trying to help the little guy.

Economically, the extreme of conservativsm is laissez-faire.

no it isn't

no it isn't
What the hell are you talking about? Laissez-faire translates into "do as they wish", the opposite of a state-controlled economy. Fascism is belligerent, nationalistic socialism, a product of the Left. Extreme conservatism would be monarchy or empire, with no desire to change customs and order.

What the hell are you talking about?
...
Extreme conservatism would be monarchy or empire, with no desire to change customs and order.

what the hell are you, considering this doesn't exactly disagree with what i said?

Fascism is...a product of the Left.

no, it isn't.

Fascism actually has much more to do with communism - putting the government before the individual - restrictions of rights and freedoms, etc.

nonsense, communism is, in theory, about removing all state control. the stalinists just never bothered to 'wither away' the state in the way they were supposed to.

What the hell are you talking about? Laissez-faire translates into "do as they wish", the opposite of a state-controlled economy. Fascism is belligerent, nationalistic socialism, a product of the Left. Extreme conservatism would be monarchy or empire, with no desire to change customs and order.

facism is a product of the left? like those commie nazi's mcbain fights? the ignorance of that is astonishing. the left are by definition neither beligerant or nationalistic ffs

If you look at it like that then it is also useless.

No it isn't. It's descriptive. It illustrates the similarites and differences of various ideologies along two axes.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

And if you now consider the "State" merely to be a representation of "society", then you get Conservatism.

Conservatives believe in a free market, free trade, letting businesses have more control, less regulations. If you take that to the extreme it means laissez faire. No regulations, no control at all, businesses do whatever they want.

Fascism isn't really extreme conservatism. It's far too radical to be conservative. While they share a 'right-of-centre' point of view on 'moral' issues, economically and politically they are far different.

In western liberal democracies, most of the parties are really just varying degrees of liberals, with a few socialists thrown into the mix. Laissez-faire economics is a product of liberalism, whilst the hallmark of conservatism is protectionism. Throwing socialism into the mix has switched the economic side of the equation so that 'liberals', who tend to be on the left side of the equation, support labour and protectionist policies, whilst the right is the opposite. Of course, in the US, the socialism is light, and both major parties are primarily liberal economic parties with one having a heavy right-of-centre morality.

Fascism, as it originated in Italy, has its root word in 'fasces', which was the bundle of rods carried by the lictors of ancient Rome, and were a symbol of Roman power. Fascism, was in a sense industrialized imperialism for Italy, in a sense, abandoning western liberal democracies in a sense to 'return' to Imperialism which was perhaps highly romanticized by the fascists. There is no economic freedom, or at least not in comparison to western liberal democracies. Major businesses are 'in cahoots' with the administration, and the importance of the state is paramount. Whether it's Germany's National Socialism or Mussolini's Fascism, the point of the exercise was to remove the seeming 'ineffectiveness' of liberal democracies and take immediate control of the economy and the direction of society through the apparatus of the state - without resorting to communism.

Conservatives believe in a free market, free trade, letting businesses have more control, less regulations. If you take that to the extreme it means laissez faire. No regulations, no control at all, businesses do whatever they want.

what conservatives are you talking about? conservatives hate free markets, as they are one of the least conservative institution you could have.

they do approve of giving more power and control to business elites, but that has nothing to do with markets and everything to do with elite rule.

Conservatives believe in a free market, free trade, letting businesses have more control, less regulations.
No they don't. In the US, perhaps, but only because Liberals (and yes, I mean in the actual sense of the word, not the American one) founded the place.

Conservatives want things to stay whatever they consider the "natural" state of society. That generally amounts to whatever's been there before.

Conservatives in much of Europe want to save the welfare state against globalisation (unless you get a Thatcher-type person, but she was more liberal than conservative). Conservatives in China want to crack down on student protests. Conservatives in the US want a "free market" (not that they actually do, they're quite in favour of tariffs, sanctions on all sorts of other bullshit).

And they are quite happy to suppress what the individual wants to serve some sort of idealised "society". And usually, they are quite happy to use the State to do this.

Fascism is just taking this one step further, by completely denying the individual in favour of an organic unit it calls a "nation", with its own conscience, feelings and necessities of life. It's the same sort of mindset, just taken a little bit further.

Are we discussing fiscal conservativsm or moral conservatism? They are distinctly and inherently different.

Are we discussing fiscal conservativsm or moral conservatism? They are distinctly and inherently different.
Argue your point. I don't see a difference, as "fiscal conservatism" to me is nothing but a made-up word from the States people use to present Republicans as somehow more responsible.

Ok, how about we just say the Right then. Conservativism has different defenitions in different places.

Ok, how about we just say the Right then.
Hmm, that's probably even worse. Where do libertarians like me sit, who want both economic and social freedom?

Anyways, I think fascism is just continuing the thoughts of conservatives a little bit further. I think I argued my point, and I'm gonna log off now for a while.

I guess it all comes down to the definition of conservatism. Maybe Fascism fits the European definition as an extreme, but then Americans apply it to Conservatives in America. In America, Conservatives believe in a free market, free trade, limited regulations of businesses. Socially they believe in limiting personal freedoms, especially to make the public safe, like all the laws Bush passes, which intrude on privacy, or to retain traditional values, like the ban on gay marriage. They also believe in a balanced budget (though there should be a slight amount of debt. Bush obviously does not follow this policy).

Liberals believe in increasing civil rights, and freedoms. But economically Liberals are more socialist. Higher taxes, free healthcare, more regulations on businesses, etc. etc.

This confuses people in America to say that the Conservatives in America are becoming Fascist. That is not true at all, because Conservatives here believe in economic freedom, unlike Fascists.

In the US, economically, the extreme of Conservatism is anarchy, but then politically a Monarchy with a limited amount of civil rights for citizens. They are wierd, and I would say inconsistent. Economic freedom, but not civil freedoms. But Liberals do the same by favourig civil freedoms, but stripping away economic freedoms. Liberatarians seem to be more consistent, but they never win elections, and are a little too extreme.

This confuses people in America to say that the Conservatives in America are becoming Fascist. That is not true at all, because Conservatives here believe in economic freedom, unlike Fascists.
Would you care to show me a US Conservative who actually believes in economic freedom?

Because I am willing to bet that he will support mercantilist trading policies, condemn the loss of jobs when companies move operations overseas, probably be against a Dubai company buying a stake in US ports, forbid US firms from doing business in Cuba, Iran or North Korea, try to win tax money for his local voters and so on and so forth.

They like to advertise themselves as if they have something to do with economic freedom, but they don't.

As for modest budgets...that's a made-up fairy tale. It was Clinton who did most to get the budget in order, not Reagan, Bush I.* or Bush II.

And that quite beside the point that fascism cannot be defined by economic policies. They will use whatever works economically, they have no fixed agenda, other than that it benefit the nation as a whole (which fits quite a few US politicians like a button). Fascism is first and foremost a way of looking at the world, a way of thinking about society. It's a social belief system, not an economic one.

In the Western world, there is no party closer to fascist ideals than the Republicans. In the world as a whole, a few others get even closer, most notably the Chinese Communist Party.

*Well, one might be able to argue that he did something when he raised taxes. But the point is that he raised taxes, rather than reign in the spending spree Reagan went on.

In the Western world, there is no party closer to fascist ideals than the Republicans.

and the bush movement in particular, with its calls of 'treason' against any who disagree and its worship and glorification of state power and violence.

though i had been holding out a not-quite-there-yet card for them, as they hadn't gotten around to the street violence so beloved by fascists. but they recently crossed that line too, with major players in the movement adopting a tactic straight out of the neo-nazi (and other modern fascists') playbook. they recently started publishing the names, addresses, phone numbers, photographs, info on other family members, etc of individuals they have declared enemies of the nation/people on the internet in the hopes that someone will 'do something about them'.

gleen greenwald had a good post on the subject (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/thug-and-intimidation-tactics-of-far.html) just recently.

Argue your point. I don't see a difference, as "fiscal conservatism" to me is nothing but a made-up word from the States people use to present Republicans as somehow more responsible.

Easy. Fiscal Conservatism is the belief that the government should keep their hands out of their people's pockets by spending less, not spending on unnecessary grants and pandering to minprity interests, while moral conservatism means resurecting or continuing past moral standards, such as Sunday closures of stores.

Fiscal Conservatism is the belief that the government should keep their hands out of their people's pockets by spending less, not spending on unnecessary grants and pandering to minprity interests

well, i see where the 'fiscal' comes from, but where does 'conservative' enter into it? conservatives love spending money, they just have different priorities for where it goes and who it goes to. of course, people that call themselves 'fiscal conservatives' always seem to just be regular old authoritarian conservatives anyways.

Easy. Fiscal Conservatism is the belief that the government should keep their hands out of their people's pockets by spending less, not spending on unnecessary grants and pandering to minprity interests, while moral conservatism means resurecting or continuing past moral standards, such as Sunday closures of stores.Just like it is the belief that taxes exist to subsidise business, and that protectionism is the highest form of art..

Conservatives aren't free-market'ers. Hell, American conservatives sprout beliefs that mostly resemble something one'd hear corrupt old east-block commies espouse.

@ Neu L. I'm guessing Libertarians belong on the theoretical slightly-right side of anarchists.

The Hallmarks of Fascism
1) unrestrained government;

2) an absolute leader responsible to a single party;

3) a planned economy with nominal private ownership of the means of production;

4) bureaucracy and administrative "law";

5) state control of the financial sector;

6) permanent economic manipulation via deficit spending;

7) militarism,

8) imperialism;

Just like it is the belief that taxes exist to subsidise business, and that protectionism is the highest form of art..

Conservatives aren't free-market'ers. Hell, American conservatives sprout beliefs that mostly resemble something one'd hear corrupt old east-block commies espouse.

@ Neu L. I'm guessing Libertarians belong on the theoretical slightly-right side of anarchists.

That's because the particular body of "conservatives" of which you speak are moral, rather than fiscal conservatives. And can you make a statement, a single statement, that isn't a blanket statement for all American conservatives?

America was founded by puritans and if you think they were liberal yuo like extremely conservitave its kinda scary actually I mean they couldn't even dance.

And tru that there are moral and fiscal conservatives 2 different things.

I really don't know all that much about the economic policies of our most recent presidents. I'm too young, and my school seemed to not care about it too much. Of course, I do know about Bush II and Clinton. In this case, definitely it is reversed. Clinton maintained a balanced budget, and Bush isn't maintaining anything right now. But still, Clinton is considered to be rather conservative in his economic policies. Anyway, up to Reagan, at least, most conservative presidents did keep a balanced budget.

As for the free market, it depends on the issue and time period. For a long time in American history, conservatives were protectionists, and then they changed to free marketers. But now, it depends on the issue. Though, I would say that in most cases that conservatives are against a free market, liberals are as well. Aren't both parties against trade with Cuba, NK, and Iran? They are considered to be our enemies after all. It's not a limitation on free trade really to say you can't trade with our enemies, just common sense. Both parties were against letting Dubai control our ports. This was, after all, the Democrats' oppurtunity to show they are tough on terrorists (not that Dubai is even a terrorist coountry). As for companies going abroad and hiring people for lower wages, well first of all, conservatives don't actually do anything to stop it, and liberals must be against this too. This movement of businesses is hurting the Democrats' base more than the Republicans'.

But that isn't the point, the specific economic policies aren't necessarily what differentiate fascists and conservatives. There is no doubt that conservatives in the US stand for less regulation of business. They want to let businesses manage themselves, rather than the country manage businesses. Fascists in Italy, on the other hand, had great control over businesses. They controlled wages and prices, they would settle labour disputes, the banks were under their control, etc. This is the main reason why the two groups cannot be considered to be so similar, because if you take conservatism (in the United States) to the extreme, you got laissez faire in the sense that businesses can do whatever they like to. Maybe this has changed to some degree in the past 20 or 30 years, but 200 years of American history show that that is conservative economics.

America was founded by puritans and if you think they were liberal yuo like extremely conservitave its kinda scary actually I mean they couldn't even dance.


Not entirely true. While the puritans settled the northeast (which is today one of the most liberal voting areas of the country), other english and scottish groups settled the midatlantic coast and the south.

As to the topic, Fascists are 'statists', in the sense that they believe that the state knows best in both personal life and economic life. So yes, they differ from the increasingly misused "conservative" label today.

HOWEVER:

Fascists are also representative of an older, more basic level of government in which near absolute power is held by the kings/lords/priests etc. Replace king with "Presidente" or "Dictator for Life" and things start looking pretty darn similar. If you look at it from that perspective, fascists are reactionaries if they reinstitute facism after democracy has taken place, and conservatives if they have a statist government which has existed for a while.

That was probably totally confusing, but I gave it my best shot.

Not entirely true. While the puritans settled the northeast (which is today one of the most liberal voting areas of the country), other english and scottish groups settled the midatlantic coast and the south.

Hmmm, didn't the Puritans settle Virginia? Even though it isn't deep down there, it still is considered to be a Southern state.

Hmmm, didn't the Puritans settle Virginia? Even though it isn't deep down there, it still is considered to be a Southern state.

It's been a few years from American History 1, but I believe that the majority of the puritans settled in the states of New England, while the Cavaliers and the Scotch-Irish settled in the south and mid atlantic. There is one more group that I'm forgetting, maybe someone else knows it?

From what I know, it was the Puritans who settled the southern states, and English, German, and whatever else, merchants who settles the northern states. Let me go look it up.

It starts with a q I think they were in between the puritans and the scotch-irish in more ways then one.

If you are talking about the Quakers, well I don't think there were enough to settle a whole colony. But I don't really remember this. How did we get to this topic?

Yeah the quakers and there were enough of them like I said they were in between the puritans and the scotch irish in location and politics and socila things. But yeah I think reagen was a quaker one rather recent pres was so it outlasted the others kinda.

I'm a Conservative. It COULD conceivably be veiwed that way. Just as Stalin can be veiwed as extremely Liberal. Go to far Left, or Right, and you crash.

Ya, I know there were a lot of Quakers in politics. They're good people, the first ones to really believe in religious freedom in the US. And it was Nixon and Hoover who were Quaker presidents.

Fascists are of course very nationalistic warhawks. It is true that today conservatives are the ones that tend to use war more as a foreign policy. That is one example people offer to show they are similar. But during WW2 (and I am talking from an American standpoint) the conservatives were against joining the war, while the liberals were the ones that wanted to join the war. The same goes for the war of 1812. The Republican Party (At the time the liberal party) wanted to keep fighting the British, while the Federalist Party was against it. They were so much against the war that some wanted to secede from the Union. Also in Vietnam, it was the left who had gone to war, and one of the reasons Nixon was elected was because he promised an end to the war. Nixon was of course a conservative.

While in the US conservatives' stance on foreign policy changes I understand it is not like that everywhere. In Israel, for example, (and I only give Israel as an example because I lived there) the right has always been more aggressive.

You're leaving out the general feeling in Tombstone, circa 1881. Republicans "PEACE!" Democrats: "Go to war with the 'greasers' [a politically incorrect term for Mexicans]! We need their resources!"

You're leaving out the general feeling in Tombstone, circa 1881. Republicans "PEACE!" Democrats: "Go to war with the 'greasers' [a politically incorrect term for Mexicans]! We need their resources!"

To tell you the truth, I think that most violence, whether for good or bad, was started by the the Democrats or their ancestor parties. The Native Americans would be another example. While the Federalists believed in maintaining some sort of peace with the Native Americans, the Democrats wanted to push them off their lands.

It is interesting how people have a mistaken view that conservatives are more aggressive overall.

To tell you the truth, I think that most violence, whether for good or bad, was started by the the Democrats or their ancestor parties. The Native Americans would be another example. While the Federalists believed in maintaining some sort of peace with the Native Americans, the Democrats wanted to push them off their lands.

It is interesting how people have a mistaken view that the Republican party is the more aggressive one overall.
Yup, I know. They probably don't realize the anger between the parties goes back to THE war between them...
"The Republicans.... The Democrats... The Slaves... The Civil War..."
That's right ladies and gentlemen, tensions rose so much between the parties, a war broke out...a Civil War South = Democrats, North = Republicans.

They have hated each other ever since.

This, also has to do with my theory, if you go too far left, or right, you go full circle. "If a man cannot own a slave, you are taking away a man's God-Given right" - Democrat argument. Talk about being mixed-up. :p

That's because the particular body of "conservatives" of which you speak are moral, rather than fiscal conservatives.

i deny the existence of 'fiscal conservatives', both on the grounds that the idea is nonsense and that all of them act exactly like regular old authoritarian conservatives when given the chance.

i deny the existence of 'fiscal conservatives', both on the grounds that the idea is nonsense and that all of them act exactly like regular old authoritarian conservatives when given the chance.
STEROTYPE ALERT! "Scotty, we've got a dangerous ignorant sterotyper, approching at warp 2!"

Just don't forget they have switched.

Just don't forget they have switched.
Whom?

STEROTYPE ALERT! "Scotty, we've got a dangerous ignorant sterotyper, approching at warp 2!"

steroetype? more like an empirical claim. care to dispute it on factual grounds?

steroetype? more like an empirical claim. care to dispute it on factual grounds?
Well, I'm Conservative. And you're wrong. So, tell me what YOU think conservative means, and I may find that YOUR definition, defers from my own.

dems and the republicans

Well, I'm Conservative.

did i deny the existence of conservatives?

Fascism and socialism are simply different flavors of the same ideology - a way of life determined by fiat rather than by individual's free initiative and association.

Thus, functionally, the Democratic party has much more in common with the ideologies of the 1930s than the Republicans do.

But still, Clinton is considered to be rather conservative in his economic policies.
Well, he was one of the "3rd Way" politicians of the Nineties, like Tony Blair and maybe Gerhard Schröder.

As for the free market, it depends on the issue and time period. For a long time in American history, conservatives were protectionists, and then they changed to free marketers. But now, it depends on the issue.
Which is my point. You can't be a free marketer, "depending on the issue". Either you accept the foundations (philosophical, economical and otherwise) on which the concept is based, or not. But if you do accept them you can't violate them.
I maintain that conservatives sometimes are in favour of the free market for all the wrong reasons. And that's why they cause all the problems that lefties like to associate with it.

Though, I would say that in most cases that conservatives are against a free market, liberals are as well.
Assuming you mean "liberal" in the American sense (which is the incorrect use of the word)...well, hadn't we established that lefties are usually not the biggest fans of the free market?
My point is that conservatives aren't either.

Aren't both parties against trade with Cuba, NK, and Iran? They are considered to be our enemies after all. It's not a limitation on free trade really to say you can't trade with our enemies, just common sense.
See, that's why I meant. You pretend you like the free market, but you don't seem to have thought about it at all.
They are not "our" enemies. They are enemies of some abstract rich people who run your country. They aren't the enemy of Joe Smith who runs a business that sells widgets, and who'd like to make a deal with José from Cuba who'd like some widgets.
If you really "get" the free market, you would realise that the only thing that matters is what people want for themselves. The "nation" doesn't matter, "society" doesn't matter, the State doesn't matter.

But that isn't the point, the specific economic policies aren't necessarily what differentiate fascists and conservatives. There is no doubt that conservatives in the US stand for less regulation of business. They want to let businesses manage themselves, rather than the country manage businesses.
Well, not necessarily. They are in favour of regulations sometimes, and against them at other times. The reason vary from campaign donations to local voters. There is no ideological basis here, other than this pervasive patriotism that tells people that America must come first.

Fascists in Italy, on the other hand, had great control over businesses. They controlled wages and prices, they would settle labour disputes, the banks were under their control, etc.
Fascism is complicated. It can't be explained this easily. There wasn't an ideological reason for doing these things, they aren't fascist things to do.
Fascism in economics is first and foremost pragmatism. They'll do whatever works to help the organic whole, the State representing society.
All the things you mentioned were done with that goal in mind (to harmonise society and direct everyone towards it), not because they were written somewhere in fascist literature.
You tell me your average Bushevik or Reaganite wouldn't agree with these things if I explained them without telling them where they came from.

This is the main reason why the two groups cannot be considered to be so similar, because if you take conservatism (in the United States) to the extreme, you got laissez faire in the sense that businesses can do whatever they like to.
No, what you'd get is an authoritarian, ultra-patriotic, moralistic quasi-democracy. There is a German word for that sort of process, "Gleichschaltung". And that's what the modern Republicans stand for.
And besides, laissez faire isn't defined by business running amok, it's defined by the government letting everyone go freely. Republicans aren't even remotely close to that sort of policy.

Maybe this has changed to some degree in the past 20 or 30 years, but 200 years of American history show that that is conservative economics.
There was no American conservativism for most of those years. It was started by liberals, and for most of the early American history, laissez faire was what people got. The government largely kept out of people's lives.
I seem to recall that the Republicans only really started to take off with Abe Lincoln. And what did he do? He reunified the country under one central government, he got heavily involved in fighting slavery (which was of course morally wrong, but still - it's the government fiddling in economic issues for moral reasons) and he suspended a whole set of civil rights to do it. Not to forget that I believe it was under him that income taxes were established in the US.

Well, I always hear people claiming that fascism is extreme Conservatism. Personally I don't see the connection. Some things seem to completely contradict each other. So I wanted to see what you guys thought.

Anyway, here are my arguments:


Your arguments are based on the idea that conservative is a point on a spectrum, but your thesis is based on the idea of a direction on a spectrum.

Look at it this way. If you're in Manhattan you can go "extremely uptown" and end up in the Bronx. You can go "extremely downtown" and end up at the Statue of Liberty (and completly soaked.) 4th street and Broadway may be downtown, Battery Park (south end of Manhattan) isn't "extremely 4th and Broadway." But it is extremely downtown.

Assuming that, relative to liberals, conservatives favor the following agenda:
Codified and state encouragement of traditional social values.
State sponsership of particular cultural identity.
Military strength, even in peacetime.
Promotion of interests of merchants over laborers.
Concern for national security over protection civil rights.

Then if you start at where the Liberals are, travel right until you get to where the Conservatives are and then keep going you'll eventually get to where the Nazi's were.

e.g. Immigration. Start where the liberals are (for sake of simplicity lets assume the incorrect position that all liberals favor open borders.)

"None of us are 'native' to this country so why should we think we have the right to keep anyone else out.'

then, "if we let everyone in then our economy will be as bad as Mexico's. It's ok that we have a system to limit the people who come in."

"I'm not against people coming in, I'm against them coming in illegally!"

"Deproting illegals isn't enough to discourage them, we need to arrest them and put them in prison."

"Why should our economy pay to feed and shelter these people? It's protection of our economy that has us locking them up in the first place?"

Boom! Conservatism has led you to Nazism. We already have self-proclaimed conservatives on this forum who think that illegal aliens should be sent to American prisons. It's not that big a leap.

While Nazi's did control the economy, they did it to benifit the business owners. They outlawed labor unions. Reagan did a lot to destroy unions. They take tax money and give it to corporations. Did you see Bush Junior's "energy bill?" Rick Santorum believes that it is government's job to promote "christian values." As do a lot of other conservatives. Hitler thought that it was the government's job to promote "the Glory of the German people." And then there's the concentration camp at Gitmo. Whatever Dubya says about the inmates having been "picked up on a battlefield" is bullshit. They spread the word that they wanted to arrest terrorists and then warlords went around picking up people that they didn't like to turn them in for reward money. Nazis had similar informants. A lot of people ended up in concentration camps because petty neighbors turned them in over personal grudges that had nothing to do with "enemies of the German people."

Fascism and socialism are simply different flavors of the same ideology - a way of life determined by fiat rather than by individual's free initiative and association.

Thus, functionally, the Democratic party has much more in common with the ideologies of the 1930s than the Republicans do.

Well conservatives like you have more in common with the Green Party than the Democrats do. Proof? With all the bullshit contained in your post you could fertilize the section of rain forest that got razed today.

Okay, I gotta admit, I'm starting to like this Neu Leonstein person more and more.

Not that I necessarily agree with (him?) all the time or anything.

But...interesting. I'm going to have to dig out my Civics and Econ books to follow along with what (he?)'s talking about.

By the way, I was thrown briefly...you mentioned the term "Third Way". Where I was at in the 80's, that term was popularized to refer to WAR political aims. It was euphemistic code for a racialist/White Nationalist agenda that attempted to incorporate commonly "leftist" appeals to environmental conservation and other things.

Am I just a functional idiot? Is "Third Way" a political term with, like, real humans? How long has this been so?

Ah, but I blather.

Fascism actually has much more to do with communism - putting the government before the individual - restrictions of rights and freedoms, etc.


i would agree with that statement.

and ironically...fascism is more in line with american liberalism then conservatism.

true american conservatives (bush hole aside) believe in small government,a free market,and should be constitutionalists(like libertarians)and individual rights/freedom

american liberals on the other hand..believe in a large central gov.,state control of the market,state control of freedom(nanny state)and is basically a form of socialism...the state will provide you with welfare,insurance etc...but at a price..your freedom...cause the state knows better.

never thought about it this way,interesting post,but if you really think about it..the american left has much alike with nazi germany and stalin..at the very least economically..and even more so..in that the state knows whats best for the individual...remind anyone of a country of past?

i did not intend to turn this into a political thing..lol..but real conservatives are for free markets,and individual freedom...the religous right aside(dimwits)however,if honestly looked at,the left or liberals if you will...are almost the political doctrine of fascists/liberals/communists..the state will provide for you...but you have to copitulate to their dogma or pogram.

while i realize it is in the best interest of some to be provided for by the state,and dont mind being told how to live,or their economic freedom is curtailed...others like the freedom to acheive on their own hook.

what was that monty python skit.."i am your king...show me respect...answer...i didn't vote for you"
the mud farmers..that skit had me spit beer..lol

great topic..thanks

Boom! Conservatism has led you to Nazism. We already have self-proclaimed conservatives on this forum who think that illegal aliens should be sent to American prisons. It's not that big a leap.
While Nazi's did control the economy, they did it to benifit the business owners. They outlawed labor unions. Reagan did a lot to destroy unions. They take tax money and give it to corporations. Did you see Bush Junior's "energy bill?" Rick Santorum believes that it is government's job to promote "christian values." As do a lot of other conservatives. Hitler thought that it was the government's job to promote "the Glory of the German people." And then there's the concentration camp at Gitmo. Whatever Dubya says about the inmates having been "picked up on a battlefield" is bullshit. They spread the word that they wanted to arrest terrorists and then warlords went around picking up people that they didn't like to turn them in for reward money. Nazis had similar informants. A lot of people ended up in concentration camps because petty neighbors turned them in over personal grudges that had nothing to do with "enemies of the German people."

Remember we have a very, very strong difference between us and the Nazis.

You mention "concentration camps". These were NOT particular to the Nazis.

The British used them in the Boer Wars. And I think they got the idea directly from the Portugese (...?)

What the Nazis had that single them out as singular was a system made specifically for killing masses of humans at once, in machinelike (or at least factory-like) ways.

Not "masses of armed opponents on the field". But unarmed, utterly physically harmless prisoners.

They had "death camps". That's what differentiates us from them. They had plans for it, they had laws enacting their use that were, to a certain extent, made known throughout the society (at least the Party, who had influence over policy), the methods were refined and agreed upon over time, and they were enacted with oversight.

That's one difference. But it is not a small one.

PS-Despite my not feeling that we are "close to being Nazis", I happen to find our current foreign policy, and our immigration rhetoric, pretty horrifying. Especially in how they mesh with overall domestic policy in the States, and erode our interest and faith in the Social Contract.
I fear we are not going towards being a police state, so much as an Informer State, where we feel no need to look kindly upon strangers, and default to suspicion of them instead, almost as a matter of public policy.

Is "Third Way" a political term with, like, real humans? How long has this been so?
Well, when the Commies gave up their experiment and the USSR collapsed (but also in the years leading up to that), it seemed like the question between a free market and a collectivist state was settled. But a number of politicians came out, thinking there might be a feasible third way in between the two extremes (in the US, perhaps as reaction to Reagan, in Britain as a reaction to Thatcher).

Sort of like a mixed economy, just newer, more flexible. An entirely new approach...these guys like to bring up Scandinavia as examples, just without the relatively high taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_way_%28centrism%29

Interestingly, Mussolini also liked to call fascism the "third way", but that was a different era...

Interestingly, Mussolini also liked to call fascism the "third way", but that was a different era...

Thank you for the summary, Neu. I should have known this term already.

As for the Mussolini thing, that explains a lot. I'd wager that's where Tom Metzger stole it from to use for WAR.

As for the Mussolini thing, that explains a lot. I'd wager that's where Tom Metzger stole it from to use for WAR.
Yeah, racists tend to be the sort of people who wouldn't be able to tell the difference between fascism (the nation as an organic whole) and nazism (the race as an organic whole). Jews actually had a pretty normal life under Mussolini, until Hitler took over Italy.

nonsense, communism is, in theory, about removing all state control. the stalinists just never bothered to 'wither away' the state in the way they were supposed to.


Nope - communism - in theory - cannot work without an overbearing intrusive government which controls the economy in every way.

true american conservatives (bush hole aside) believe in small government,a free market,and should be constitutionalists(like libertarians)and individual rights/freedom

so the fact that essentially everyone that self identifies as a 'conservative' immediately falls into line behind the first available authoritarian leader with a rightward slant should merely be taken to be evidence that essentially everyone that self identifies as a 'conservative' is a liar?

the fact that polls show that the only people who support bush at this point (and have been his base of support during his entire run of it) are those that identify as 'conservtives' should be taken as evidence that polls lie?

what was that monty python skit.."i am your king...show me respect...answer...i didn't vote for you"
the mud farmers..that skit had me spit beer..lol

what do anarcho-syndicalist peasants have to do with anything?

Remember we have a very, very strong difference between us and the Nazis.

You mention "concentration camps". These were NOT particular to the Nazis.

The British used them in the Boer Wars. And I think they got the idea directly from the Portugese (...?)

What the Nazis had that single them out as singular was a system made specifically for killing masses of humans at once, in machinelike (or at least factory-like) ways.

True, but remember. He didn't start out with the death camps. He built up to them. It started with convincing the people that national security interests were served by locking up huge numbers of people with no due process even though the nation was not under threat of invasion.

Not "masses of armed opponents on the field". But unarmed, utterly physically harmless prisoners.

I pointed out earlier that the majority of Gitmo prisoners weren't picked up from a battlefield. When Bush says that they were he is lying. They were rounded up by warlords who were trying to purge their political enemies and make a quick buck at the same time. We offered cash rewards and no questions for "terrorists."

They had "death camps". That's what differentiates us from them. They had plans for it, they had laws enacting their use that were, to a certain extent, made known throughout the society (at least the Party, who had influence over policy), the methods were refined and agreed upon over time, and they were enacted with oversight.

The eventually had death camps. It started with something even more inoccuous than Gitmo. Ghettos.

That's one difference. But it is not a small one.

But it's too small a difference between the nation that prides itself on being a beacon of liberty for the world and a nation that is pointed to as the incarnation of evil for modern times.

PS-Despite my not feeling that we are "close to being Nazis", I happen to find our current foreign policy, and our immigration rhetoric, pretty horrifying. Especially in how they mesh with overall domestic policy in the States, and erode our interest and faith in the Social Contract.
I fear we are not going towards being a police state, so much as an Informer State, where we feel no need to look kindly upon strangers, and default to suspicion of them instead, almost as a matter of public policy.

The thing is, an informer state can only exist in a police state. I believe I mentioned that a lot of the people who were caught and sent to concentration camps were caught because people who were kind enough to take these people in and hide them got ratted out by neighbors who got into arguments with them. Let's say you've got a tree that blocks your neighbors view. It's your tree, you can prune it as you like. You like shade. Will you cut it down? Well, if the informer can make a phone call and have your entire family arrested your neighbor can come over the next day with a chainsaw and chop it down.

That's what Hitler did to capture hidden Jews and it's what Dubya did to get "terrorists" in Afghanistan. Again, not exactly the same, but not different enough. You can't claim virtue because you're "not as bad as Hitler." When Hitler got started he wasn't "as bad as Hitler," either.

Nope - communism - in theory - cannot work without an overbearing intrusive government which controls the economy in every way.

No, it can also work in a small farming village that produces its own tools and food.

Problem is, such villages tend to get taken over by their feudalist neighbors.

to the original poster:

You're just thinking of the American conservatives. What about Europe? Consider that.

to the original poster:

You're just thinking of the American conservatives.

and not even them, really