NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been thinking, being a 'conservative' generally entails supporting the 'status-quo' and 'conserving' existing social relations, but when does this cross the line into being reactionary? Many conservative politicians and political figures (especially in America) generally don't talk about 'preserving' but instead restoring some real or perceived conditions in the past. I know 'conservative', 'liberal' and other terms have become somewhat of buzzwords, but don't you think it's necessary for the sake of clarity to define the two?

I think trying to define labels for everyone's political position it detrimental to clarity, not helpful to it.

Most people's views are a pick-and-mix of different opinions; the best you can sensibly hope to do is get an understanding of how a person (or politician, or party leadership) sees a given issue. Just look at some of the unexpected opinions the US presidential nominees have, for example, that are unexpected given which party they belong to.

Trying to categorise people based on something like "well, she's 37% conservative and 63% liberal" is pointless and unhelpful.

I have been thinking, being a 'conservative' generally entails supporting the 'status-quo' and 'conserving' existing social relations, but when does this cross the line into being reactionary? Many conservative politicians and political figures (especially in America) generally don't talk about 'preserving' but instead restoring some real or perceived conditions in the past. I know 'conservative', 'liberal' and other terms have become somewhat of buzzwords, but don't you think it's necessary for the sake of clarity to define the two?

Differences between conservatives and reactionaries? Not too many, except reactionary carries a far more negative and radical connotation.

Interestingly, a new book called Liberal Fascism has just come out - here's a review.

Liberal Fascism
A conservative slur no longer.

By Rich Lowry

The f-bomb of American politics is the word “fascist,” routinely hurled by the left at conservatives. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater were smeared as incipient fascists, and George W. Bush now receives the honor, along with practically anyone to the right of Rosie O’Donnell on a college campus.

The operational meaning of the word “fascism” for most liberals who invoke it is usually “shut up.” It’s meant to bludgeon conservatives into silence. But many on the left also genuinely believe that there is something fascistic in the DNA of contemporary conservatism, as if Republican Party conventions would get their rightful treatment only if they were worshipfully filmed by Leni Riefenstahl.

In his brilliant new book Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg (a colleague of mine) demonstrates how the opposite is the case, that fascism was a movement of the left and that liberal heroes like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were products of what Goldberg calls “the fascist moment” in America early in the 20th century. How we think of the ideological spectrum — socialism to the left, fascism to the right — should be forever changed.

Benito Mussolini was a socialist and earned the title “Il Duce” as the leader of the socialists in Italy. When he founded the fascist party, its program called for implementing a minimum wage, expropriating property from landowners, repealing titles of nobility, creating state-run secular schools and imposing a progressive tax rate. Mussolini took socialism and turned it in a more populist and militaristic direction, but remained a modernizing, secular man of the left.

The Nazis too were socialists, “enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system,” in the words of the party’s ideologist Gregor Strasser. The party’s platform sounded a lot like that of the Italian fascists. The Nazis wanted to chase conventional Christianity from public life and overturn tradition, replacing them with an all-powerful state. Both Hitler and Mussolini were revolutionaries, bitterly opposed to “reactionary” forces in their societies.

By what standard, then, are they considered conservatives who took things to extremes? The left points to their anti-Semitism and militarism. But anti-Semitism isn’t an inherently right-wing phenomenon — Stalin’s Russia was anti-Semitic. As for militarism, these regimes looked to it as a way to mobilize and organize society, something deeply anathema to the anti-statist tradition of postwar American conservatism.

On the other hand, the progressive movement of the early 20th century looked to Mussolini as an inspiration and shared intellectual roots with European fascism, including an appreciation of the “top-down socialism” of Otto von Bismarck. Goldberg eviscerates Woodrow Wilson as the closest we have ever had to a fascist president. Wilson and his supporters welcomed World War I as an opportunity to expand the state, instituting “war socialism” and a far-reaching crackdown on dissent.

FDR picked up where Wilson left off. The crisis of the Great Depression was the occasion for reviving “war socialism.” The man who ran the National Recovery Administration was an open admirer of Mussolini, and the alphabet soup of New Deal agencies had their roots in World War I and the classic fascist impulse to mobilize society and put it on a war footing.

Goldberg sees the fascist exaltation of youth, glorification of violence, hatred of tradition and romance of “the street” in the New Left of the 1960s, still the subject of the fond memories for the liberal establishment in this country. Goldberg argues that “liberal fascism” — the phrase was coined by H. G. Wells, and he meant it positively — is a distant heir to European fascism. The liberal version is pacifist rather than militaristic and feminine rather than masculine in its orientation, but it also seeks to increase the power of the state and overcome tradition in sweeping crusades pursued with the moral fervor of war.

Goldberg’s keen intellectual history is, at bottom, a profound cautionary tale about the perils of state aggrandizement and of revolutionary movements. If nothing else, it should convince liberals that it’s time to find a new insult.

Link (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjBiYzdhODQwNmE0MTc5Y2M0NmM2ZGY4MWRhMTkxYjA=#more)

Interestingly, a new book called Liberal Fascism has just come out - here's a review.

Liberal Fascism
A conservative slur no longer.

By Rich Lowry



Link (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjBiYzdhODQwNmE0MTc5Y2M0NmM2ZGY4MWRhMTkxYjA=#more)

I saw the guy interviewed by Jon Stewart. It was one of the few interviews where I can't really remember anything that Jon said. Just the whole bunch of incredibly stupid and intellectually incoherent things that the author said. If how he speaks of his thesis is any indication of how he writes about it, the whole book is based on an intellectual three card monte.

The guy has no idea what he's talking about.

I saw the guy interviewed by Jon Stewart. It was one of the few interviews where I can't really remember anything that Jon said. Just the whole bunch of incredibly stupid and intellectually incoherent things that the author said. If how he speaks of his thesis is any indication of how he writes about it, the whole book is based on an intellectual three card monte.

The guy has no idea what he's talking about.

Meh, rightwingers prove that fascism isn't right-wing, while leftists that Stalin wasn't a leftist. Y'know, failure is an orphan.

Well, it's hard to divide conservatism and reactionary actions sometimes. Really old-school conservatism might say that society needs to evolve naturally and hence any planned big experiments to change it should be avoided because much like we can't predict the results of interventions in complex ecosystems, we'd be likely to screw things up in society. Sorta like how the French Revolution turned into a bloodbath and maniacal dictatorship.

But reactionaries then tend to blame things I would consider quite natural changes to society on various groups and individuals. That's when you get people accusing gays of undermining marriage, or talking about some sort of "pc conspiracy".

But how do we know what changes are natural and which are just someone's experiment? One option is to just go by whether or not it's initiated by government - but in a democracy that might itself just be a response to voters' wishes.

So really, I don't see how you can clearly, academically separate the two. And you don't gain a whole lot by doing it either, so I probably wouldn't bother.

Conservative is basically often used to mean reactionary even by the people themselves. It is probably best to just find out which specific policies they support rather than giving them a label.

What a shit book and review. I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with the dude or not but I'll comment on it anyway.
Interestingly, a new book called Liberal Fascism has just come out - here's a review.

[I]Liberal Fascism
A conservative slur no longer.

By Rich Lowry

The f-bomb of American politics is the word “fascist,” routinely hurled by the left at conservatives. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater were smeared as incipient fascists, and George W. Bush now receives the honor, along with practically anyone to the right of Rosie O’Donnell on a college campus.
Now that's exaggeration. Besides, not every 'liberal' does that.

The operational meaning of the word “fascism” for most liberals who invoke it is usually “shut up.” It’s meant to bludgeon conservatives into silence. But many on the left also genuinely believe that there is something fascistic in the DNA of contemporary conservatism, as if Republican Party conventions would get their rightful treatment only if they were worshipfully filmed by Leni Riefenstahl.

In his brilliant new book Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg (a colleague of mine) demonstrates how the opposite is the case, that fascism was a movement of the left and that liberal heroes like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were products of what Goldberg calls “the fascist moment” in America early in the 20th century. How we think of the ideological spectrum — socialism to the left, fascism to the right — should be forever changed.
it more just shows how useless the left-right spectrum is in politics.

Benito Mussolini was a socialist and earned the title “Il Duce” as the leader of the socialists in Italy. When he founded the fascist party, its program called for implementing a minimum wage, expropriating property from landowners, repealing titles of nobility, creating state-run secular schools and imposing a progressive tax rate. Mussolini took socialism and turned it in a more populist and militaristic direction, but remained a modernizing, secular man of the left.

The Nazis too were socialists, “enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system,” in the words of the party’s ideologist Gregor Strasser.
Strasser was soon murdered by other Nazis in the night of the Long Knives due to his disagreement with Hitler over precisely these ideals. Thus, after 1934, the socialist wing of the Nazi party had no significance any more.

The party’s platform sounded a lot like that of the Italian fascists. The Nazis wanted to chase conventional Christianity from public life and overturn tradition, replacing them with an all-powerful state. Both Hitler and Mussolini were revolutionaries, bitterly opposed to “reactionary” forces in their societies.

By what standard, then, are they considered conservatives who took things to extremes? The left points to their anti-Semitism and militarism. But anti-Semitism isn’t an inherently right-wing phenomenon — Stalin’s Russia was anti-Semitic. It was also common in practically every European country in the Middle Ages; Scotland, the Ottoman Empire and Poland were some of the few countries which did not bar Jews from major areas of public life. These countries such as England and France were not fascist or communist but they were still anti-semitic. They were still neither fascist nor communist during but they still didn't let the Jews into their countries when they tried to. Barely anyone in Christian (and modern) Europe has liked the Jews prior to WW2. The difference is the change from religious to ethnic division between Jew and non-Jew thanks to the ideas of the 1800's.

As for militarism, these regimes looked to it as a way to mobilize and organize society, something deeply anathema to the anti-statist tradition of postwar American conservatism.Which 'conservatives' is he thinking of here?

On the other hand, the progressive movement of the early 20th century looked to Mussolini as an inspiration and shared intellectual roots with European fascism, including an appreciation of the “top-down socialism” of Otto von Bismarck. The reviewer take Bismark as his idea of socialism? Well, he should realise that Mussolini is only citing Bismark not other socialists which are more associated with it such as Rosa Luxembourg, Leon Trotsky and Karl Marx. Mind you, citing something as an influence is very different from actually being similar to it. For example, Mao cited the the Paris Commune as an influence but sure didn't act it. It's better to judge by what people are actually like.

Goldberg sees the fascist exaltation of youth, glorification of violence, hatred of tradition and romance of “the street” in the New Left of the 1960sThe only 1 of these which is actually to do with fascism is its use of violence. The Nazis supported tradition at least to a certain extent by the showing off of culture as part of the nationalism. Members of the Lew Left were often anti-war and anti-statist whereas Nazism was totalitarian and militaristic.

Meh, rightwingers prove that fascism isn't right-wing, while leftists that Stalin wasn't a leftist. Y'know, failure is an orphan.

No. Right wingers usually argue that Hitler wasn't a right-winger because Hitler was a member of a party called the National Socialists. They've never before argued, in any significant way, that fascism (a movement much larger than Hitler) was left wing. It's almost meaningless to argue such a thing. Fascism always rises as a reaction to communism as the very rich try to solidify their power over an increasingly resentful working class trying to push for redistribution of wealth.

And I'll admit that if George W. Bush is a conservative, then Stalin was a communist.

This guy (the author) argues that the movement, against which fascism arises to destroy, is itself fascism. It's like calling the sky the over-ocean and arguing "well, water falls out of it, so clearly it's full of water, like the ocean. It's blue, like the ocean. And if you read the Bible you'll see that the revealed word of God proclaims it to be an ocean. That's why liberals don't want you to read the Bible, because you'll find out that the sky is just an ocean over our heads."

Fascism always rises as a reaction to communism as the very rich try to solidify their power over an increasingly resentful working class trying to push for redistribution of wealth.
That's no more meaningful than this author's argument. Fascism is a well-defined argument with its roots both in the left and in the right. There is no point in arguing that it belongs in either camp because of who happened to support it.

It's a corporatist, collectivist, nationalist and anti-rational ideology. So it's neither liberal (and thus capitalist) nor class-warfare based (and thus socialist).

It really doesn't belong on a simplistic compass. Neither this author nor you can make a good argument that it does.

In his brilliant new book Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg (a colleague of mine) demonstrates how the opposite is the case, that fascism was a movement of the left and that liberal heroes like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were products of what Goldberg calls “the fascist moment” in America early in the 20th century. How we think of the ideological spectrum — socialism to the left, fascism to the right — should be forever changed.


it more just shows how useless the left-right spectrum is in politics.

No, it shows how useless lies are in understanding history.

Not every use of political influence is Fascism. Even if it's by people you don't like. FDR was not a fascist. Yes, there was a powerful fascist movement in the US at the time, but it was opposed to him. It plotted to overthrow him.

Just like in Germany when Socialism was on the rise, the rich got behind Hitler because like rich classes everywhere at the time they were hoping to use fascism to protect them, and their status, from socialism. Here the rich, seeing social security and the New Deal as socialism, fascists tried to get Roosevelt overthrown, but they did it in the hamfisted fashion of Mussolini. The fashion which failed for Hitler and was something of an anomaly.

If you really want to read about fascism, liberalism and history, pick up a copy of "War is a Racket," by Smedley Butler.

That's no more meaningful than this author's argument. Fascism is a well-defined argument with its roots both in the left and in the right. There is no point in arguing that it belongs in either camp because of who happened to support it.

It's a corporatist, collectivist, nationalist and anti-rational ideology. So it's neither liberal (and thus capitalist) nor class-warfare based (and thus socialist).

It really doesn't belong on a simplistic compass. Neither this author nor you can make a good argument that it does.

Left and Right isn't digital. It's analogue. The principle focus of socialism is getting power and influence into the hands of the working class by way of labor unions. The principle focus of fascism is getting power into the upper class by way of the military. Every goal of fascism is the opposite of, and in opposition to, socialism. By weight of its methods and purpose it falls mostly on the right.

The principle focus of socialism is getting power and influence into the hands of the working class by way of labor unions. The principle focus of fascism is getting power into the upper class by way of the military.
No, it's not. On both counts.

I don't think I have to go into the details of what socialism is and isn't, and the sheer scope of socialist ideas.

But I think by reducing fascism to something that has to do with the military, or talking about fascism and class in the same sentence just further devalues the word and uses it precisely as this author points out - as an insult meant to shut someone up.

In truth fascism is a very fascinating, very complex and very...different ideological system that is well worth looking into properly. And here's a start: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

No. Right wingers usually argue that Hitler wasn't a right-winger because Hitler was a member of a party called the National Socialists. They've never before argued, in any significant way, that fascism (a movement much larger than Hitler) was left wing. It's almost meaningless to argue such a thing. Fascism always rises as a reaction to communism as the very rich try to solidify their power over an increasingly resentful working class trying to push for redistribution of wealth.

And I'll admit that if George W. Bush is a conservative, then Stalin was a communist.

This guy (the author) argues that the movement, against which fascism arises to destroy, is itself fascism. It's like calling the sky the over-ocean and arguing "well, water falls out of it, so clearly it's full of water, like the ocean. It's blue, like the ocean. And if you read the Bible you'll see that the revealed word of God proclaims it to be an ocean. That's why liberals don't want you to read the Bible, because you'll find out that the sky is just an ocean over our heads."

Not quite. Hitler's regime was rather popular largely because of hist tendency to ignore social boundaries and admit people to high positions regardless of social origins. Except if you were a Jew, of course. And the name National Socialist was a name given by a rival party that was intended as an insult. The name itself doesn't make the Nazis socialist anymore than the name "Democratic Republic of the Congo" makes that poor, blighted nation democratic.

Interestingly, a new book called Liberal Fascism has just come out - here's a review.

[I]Liberal Fascism
A conservative slur no longer.
*snip*
Link (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjBiYzdhODQwNmE0MTc5Y2M0NmM2ZGY4MWRhMTkxYjA=#more)
For anybody who would like to see Liberal Fascism completely and utterly destroyed, and its author revealed as the clueless hack he is, please visit David Neiwert's blog, Orcinus.

Here's a link to point you in the right direction.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/liberal-fascism-response.html

I have been thinking, being a 'conservative' generally entails supporting the 'status-quo' and 'conserving' existing social relations, but when does this cross the line into being reactionary? Many conservative politicians and political figures (especially in America) generally don't talk about 'preserving' but instead restoring some real or perceived conditions in the past.

Very good point.

I know 'conservative', 'liberal' and other terms have become somewhat of buzzwords, but don't you think it's necessary for the sake of clarity to define the two?

No. Let's conserve our amorphous definitions of controversial terms. :cool:

What a shit book and review. I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with the dude or not...

I was merely raising the book because I'd read an article on it in the IHT - that article was more about the fact that you can apply any label to anyone if you really try.

I don't really have an opinion on the book nor the review, aside from not trusting any review where it annouces from the start that the author is a friend, although I would say the term 'fascist' is bandied around much like the term flip-flopper - the very word is more important when used than any thought behind its meaning.

Of course Fascism and Communism are linked.

It is a circle, not a line. Go far enough to either side, Left or Right, and you start into that creepy area where you are so sure of your visions for the perfect society that you begin to justify authoritarian controls to enforce them. This is where the two ends of the line bend around to meet, and form a circle. There is no difference between suppression of speech from the far left or far right. And both sides will happily intrude into people's personal lives- each in their own favorite ways, which is of course absolutely essential, and completely different from the abusive way in which the other side does it.

Once, in college, I was asked if I was pro-choice. I said yes, to a much greater degree than most others. What did I mean, she said. Are you pro-choice, too, I asked. Yes, she said. And if I choose to own a firearm, I asked?
At that moment, that person understood that her view of "pro-choice" actually meant "choices of which I approve".

Both the far left and far right are like this: pro-choice, as far as choices they approve. Neither trust the general population to make other choices. And when a government does not trust the population, inevitably, bad things follow. Authoritarianism. Controls.

I asked an anarchist once, if we all lived in your utopian commune, would there be authoritarianism? No, he said. Private property, I asked. No, he said. If I made myself some nice private property, could I keep it for myself? No, he said. Would it be taken from me by force? Yes, he said. And he saw where this was going, and tried to block the train of thought. "But it would be different... it wouldn't be like a government using force."

Of course not. Never. It would be Good authoritarianism. Which is totally and completely different in every way from the Bad authoritarianism, because it would be for a Good Cause.

Hard left, hard right, same outcome.

Of course Fascism and Communism are linked.

It is a circle, not a line. Go far enough to either side, Left or Right, and you start into that creepy area where you are so sure of your visions for the perfect society that you begin to justify authoritarian controls to enforce them. This is where the two ends of the line bend around to meet, and form a circle. There is no difference between suppression of speech from the far left or far right. And both sides will happily intrude into people's personal lives- each in their own favorite ways, which is of course absolutely essential, and completely different from the abusive way in which the other side does it.

Once, in college, I was asked if I was pro-choice. I said yes, to a much greater degree than most others. What did I mean, she said. Are you pro-choice, too, I asked. Yes, she said. And if I choose to own a firearm, I asked?
At that moment, that person understood that her view of "pro-choice" actually meant "choices of which I approve".

Both the far left and far right are like this: pro-choice, as far as choices they approve. Neither trust the general population to make other choices. And when a government does not trust the population, inevitably, bad things follow. Authoritarianism. Controls.

I asked an anarchist once, if we all lived in your utopian commune, would there be authoritarianism? No, he said. Private property, I asked. No, he said. If I made myself some nice private property, could I keep it for myself? No, he said. Would it be taken from me by force? Yes, he said. And he saw where this was going, and tried to block the train of thought. "But it would be different... it wouldn't be like a government using force."

Of course not. Never. It would be Good authoritarianism. Which is totally and completely different in every way from the Bad authoritarianism, because it would be for a Good Cause.

Hard left, hard right, same outcome.

That was beautifully expressed.

Interestingly, a new book called Liberal Fascism has just come out - here's a synopsis (http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/06/jonah-goldbergs-shining.html):

http://bp1.blogger.com/_7gV4Wr6Pczs/RoaTVS78a1I/AAAAAAAAAHk/UrxzT3vIJf0/s320/lolcat_jonah_goldberg.bmp

Blurb:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_7gV4Wr6Pczs/RogkOi78bDI/AAAAAAAAAJU/Gg9VTyVdDMs/s200/blurb.jpg
im in ur pornography knowin it when I seez it. o book is fine kthxbye

If I made myself some nice private property

impossible. its not the sort of thing one can make for themselves.

But don't you see? He mixed his labor with that which is unowned. Because he's a self-aggrandizing prick, he now owns it!

and not only owns it, but has single-handedly created an entire system of social rules governing his 'ownership' and societal enforcement mechanisms to protect that 'ownership'. all hail the great man!

impossible. its not the sort of thing one can make for themselves.

But don't you see? He mixed his labor with that which is unowned. Because he's a self-aggrandizing prick, he now owns it!

All of these political labels are merely tools for the various political machines to terrify their followers into being more obedient.

then how come labels are adopted by groups without any political machine at all?

All of these political labels are merely tools for the various political machines to terrify their followers into being more obedient. And, as the law of self-interest tells us, all political machines want greater power for themselves through the state. In the end, the only material distinction is whether one is pro-state or anti.

and not only owns it, but has single-handedly created an entire system of social rules governing his 'ownership' and societal enforcement mechanisms to protect that 'ownership'. all hail the great man!

Let us toast his excellence before he chases us off his property! *raises glass*

then how come labels are adopted by groups without any political machine at all?

By political labels I mean labels such as 'liberalism' and 'conservatism', and do not include all ideological labels, seeing as how some are dependent on an internal methodology while others are dependent on external emotive manipulation. (Hence 'all of these' and not 'all'.)

I saw the guy interviewed by Jon Stewart. It was one of the few interviews where I can't really remember anything that Jon said. Just the whole bunch of incredibly stupid and intellectually incoherent things that the author said. If how he speaks of his thesis is any indication of how he writes about it, the whole book is based on an intellectual three card monte.

The guy has no idea what he's talking about.
Yeah, but Stewart cut an 18 minute long interview down to 6 minutes to catch all the funny bits.

The author was doing a lousy job of defending himself, but his premise was sound. Hillary's book about child-rearing DOES have a scary fascist angle. Modern socialist policies do support fascist ends.

I think we'd all be better off if socialists actually listened to what Karl Marx had to say, because he was all about empowering people. I don't think his ideas would lead to the outcomes he thought they would, but we need to keep the ideal in mind. Otherwise you end up with these "socialist" policies that oppress individuals.

His premise was sound.
No, it wasn't.

Hillary's book about child-rearing DOES have a scary fascist angle.
Hillary isn't a socialist, for God's sake. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a socialist believes that workers should have democratic control of the means of production. By definition, she is not a socialist.

A fascist believes that individuals should be totally and absolutely subservient to the state and the community they live in. Hillary does not believe this, therefore she is not a fascist.

Modern socialist policies do support fascist ends.
Look, if you don't explain your position, then all I have to do is deny it. They don't.

The author was doing a lousy job of defending himself, but his premise was sound.

no, it really really isn't. his whole book is that dangerous sort of nonsense, too ridiculous for most people who know anything about the subject to bother dealing with for fear of giving it unjust respectability, and too inline with the stupid shit a certain segment of the population is primed to believe to be safely ignored.

It is a circle, not a line.

No, it isn't. I'm pretty far to the left, yet I am not getting any closer to (say) Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Go far enough to either side, Left or Right, and you start into that creepy area where you are so sure of your visions for the perfect society that you begin to justify authoritarian controls to enforce them.

Okay, to start, it's not clear "authoritarian controls" in any meaningful sense equate to radicalism.

On the Left, for instance, the core principle of equality rejects authoritarian control... and those leftists who have engaged in authoritarian policies (Lenin, for instance) have been criticized not only by the moderates to their right but by the radicals to their left, because of their betrayal of the radical expression of leftist ideals.

Furthermore, what if a person is radically opposed to authoritarianism? Where do you classify them?

There is no difference between suppression of speech from the far left or far right.

Sure there is. The arguments are fundamentally different. There is no inconsistency in accepting one variety and rejecting the other--they are not the same, they do not "meet."

Absolutist defenses of free speech are extreme in their own way, and have the misfortune of also (and more importantly) being very weak.

And both sides will happily intrude into people's personal lives- each in their own favorite ways, which is of course absolutely essential, and completely different from the abusive way in which the other side does it.

Everyone believes in "intrud into people's personal lives", if you define "personal" broadly enough. But as a whole the Left (including the extreme left) is definitely more sympathetic to the "victimless crimes" argument than the Right is.

At that moment, that person understood that her view of "pro-choice" actually meant "choices of which I approve".

Nonsense. Her view of "pro-choice" extended to the issue that it actually conventionally refers to, that is, abortion.

Nobody is "pro-choice" in general. Unless you are "pro-choice" when it comes to, say, choosing to murder and rape.

Both the far left and far right are like this: pro-choice, as far as choices they approve.

What does "approve" mean? Does it mean "think should be permissible"? Then your observation reduces to tautology. Does it mean "would personally do oneself"? Then your observation is obviously false. Does it mean "think moral"? Then your observation has at least some truth and substance to it, but you run into two problems. First, the classification of "moral" is itself a matter of intense dispute between right and left, so you cannot say that it is a "circle." Second, state enforcement of morality--[I]if the moral system is itself justified--makes a good deal of sense (though not necessarily always.)

Neither trust the general population to make other choices.

So? Surely if the "other choices" are of a certain character--say, if they harm others unjustifiably--it makes perfect sense not to "trust" people to make them?

And when a government does not trust the population, inevitably, bad things follow. Authoritarianism. Controls.

Prohibitions? Yes. That's part of living in society. Everybody has them, though some of the more romantic anarchists want to pretend otherwise.

And he saw where this was going, and tried to block the train of thought. "But it would be different... it wouldn't be like a government using force."

And he's exactly right. It would be different. Private property--at least certain kinds of private property--are tools of domination. It is not "authoritarian" to resist challenges to freedom. Quite the opposite.

It would be Good authoritarianism.

No. It wouldn't be authoritarianism at all.

Hard left, hard right, same outcome.

Nonsense.

impossible. its not the sort of thing one can make for themselves.

Sure it is, if you have the necessary weaponry. Of course, it won't last very long if you're all alone, but I suppose other people resisting the crazy gunman and his claims of entitlement counts as "authoritarianism" in some frameworks.

Sure it is, if you have the necessary weaponry.

i suppose, but i don't think that is exactly what they had in mind.

I have been thinking, being a 'conservative' generally entails supporting the 'status-quo' and 'conserving' existing social relations, but when does this cross the line into being reactionary? Many conservative politicians and political figures (especially in America) generally don't talk about 'preserving' but instead restoring some real or perceived conditions in the past. I know 'conservative', 'liberal' and other terms have become somewhat of buzzwords, but don't you think it's necessary for the sake of clarity to define the two?

I have posted about 20 times on this issue at the least. Conservativism and Liberalism are centrist mainstream democratic approaches that both recognize as an ideal the importance of liberty and equality. However, sometimes these ideals come into conflict and a Conservative is more likely to choose liberty over conflicts with equality and a Liberal will do the reverse. Liberty goals do not tend to make the government bigger although there are exceptions. Equality goals tend to lead to bigger and more expensive roles and power of the government.

I fail to see how Conservatism seeks to support a status quo or existing social relations. A conservative seeks to defend and enlarge liberty and resist the expansion of the role, power, and cost of government. The Republican Party is not conservative on all issues. The Democratic Party is not liberal on all issues. For example, the Republican Party has perhaps a liberal view on abortion as it seeks to give equal rights to the unborn as to the already born. Also it seeks to expand the size of the government's role at the expense of personal liberty.

The Democrats are likewise sometimes conservative in such areas as the rights of gays to marry.

Differences between conservatives and reactionaries? Not too many, except reactionary carries a far more negative and radical connotation.

YeI think a political reactionary is someone who wants to dramatically change the present policy by going back to how something was done long ago. I guess I am a little bit reactionary on recreatioanl drug policy because I want us to go back to a fairly deregulated and laissez faire recreational drug policy but at the same time I am not a reactionary extremist because I do not want to go back to the days before the Pure Food and Drug Act where food and drugs were not regulated for purity and safety. I do not want to go back to the days when people could sell tainted beer for example without being exposed to legal penalties.

Reactionaries do not need to be political. Technological Luddites are reactionaries too.

No, it wasn't.


Hillary isn't a socialist, for God's sake. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a socialist believes that workers should have democratic control of the means of production. By definition, she is not a socialist.
Didn't I argue that. Marxist socialism is as you decribe it (and it has issues, but at least I understand why people want it to work).

But that's not Hillary. Hillary is a big-government, authoritarian, wealth-redistibutionist (like most western politicians). The wealth-redistribution is the modern socialist angle. It's not really socialism, but it's popularly referred to as socialism.
A fascist believes that individuals should be totally and absolutely subservient to the state and the community they live in. Hillary does not believe this, therefore she is not a fascist.
Hillary does believe that. Have you read "It Takes a Village"?

This is actually a popular opinion among US politicians. America is more important than the people in it.

Spiro Agnew totally saw this coming.
Look, if you don't explain your position, then all I have to do is deny it. They don't.
We're having the same problem Jon Stewart and the author did. We're disagreeing about the meanings of words, not the message the other is trying to get across.

Hillary does believe that. Have you read "It Takes a Village"?

got any relevant quotes?

I have been thinking, being a 'conservative' generally entails supporting the 'status-quo' and 'conserving' existing social relations, but when does this cross the line into being reactionary? Many conservative politicians and political figures (especially in America) generally don't talk about 'preserving' but instead restoring some real or perceived conditions in the past. I know 'conservative', 'liberal' and other terms have become somewhat of buzzwords, but don't you think it's necessary for the sake of clarity to define the two?

A conservative is someone who is okay with progress, but does not think we should go running "Headlong" into a situation. They generally prefer the old methods, because a conservative knows that they work. However, this does not preclude a Conservative from suggesting something new if they think it is needed. Conservatives are generally small government.

A reactionary on the other hand, doesn't want any change. In fact, many want to go back to the way things where. This is not the same as Restoring an Institution. Reactionaries are generally big government.

I have been thinking, being a 'conservative' generally entails supporting the 'status-quo' and 'conserving' existing social relations, but when does this cross the line into being reactionary?
When it wishes to reverse decisions already made rather than merely oppose changes to the present state. Basic definitions.

When it wishes to reverse decisions already made rather than merely oppose changes to the present state. Basic definitions.

Yup.

On a further note: what's wrong with reactionaries?

When he founded the fascist party, its program called for implementing a minimum wage, expropriating property from landowners, repealing titles of nobility, creating state-run secular schools and imposing a progressive tax rate.


So doing a few good things, makes him a liberal and since he was also a facist...TA-DA! Liberal-Facism. The author of this book is an idiot. Schools and minimum wage are universal to all government. Schools edecate people and ennsure future rulers. Secular schools ensure stability. Minimum wage is an incentive for prople to work and keeps the poor to a low and helps more people work causing your country to prosper. Repealing titles of nobility. So we had kings and the liberals took tem away? A progressive tax rate. OVertaxing creates povertty and makes people want to revolt.

I saw the guy interviewed by Jon Stewart. It was one of the few interviews where I can't really remember anything that Jon said. Just the whole bunch of incredibly stupid and intellectually incoherent things that the author said. If how he speaks of his thesis is any indication of how he writes about it, the whole book is based on an intellectual three card monte.

The guy has no idea what he's talking about.

I remember Jon pretty much owned him by pointing out flaws and inconsistencies with his position, and the utter nonsensical nature of it. Eventually the author was basically doing the verbal equivalent of flailing.

A fascist believes that individuals should be totally and absolutely subservient to the state and the community they live in. Hillary does not believe this, therefore she is not a fascist.
Not necessarily. A fascist believes that individuals have no meaning and no value seperate from the community, and the state is the proper representation of the community. It's not a matter of being subservient, it's a matter of basically being one and the same thing. Sorta like cells and the human body.

And as such I've been wondering recently whether there is such a thing as anti-authoritarian totalitarianism...and whether left libertarians who consider virtually any action a political one (since it affects others and the community as a whole) and therefore want to democratise all these actions might be properly described with that label.

Of course, it's still a label and as such little more than a intellectual wankery with basically no meaningful implications, but still...

Not necessarily. A fascist believes that individuals have no meaning and no value seperate from the community, and the state is the proper representation of the community. It's not a matter of being subservient, it's a matter of basically being one and the same thing.

Thanks for that, New Leonstein :) In my defense, many men and women wiser than myself have said that fascism is quite hard to define.

Anyway, moving on...

Marxist socialism is as you decribe it
Not just Marxist socialism, but moderate democratic socialism as well.


wealth-redistibutionist
For Jimminy's sake, this does NOT make one a socialist, BY DEFINITION. Only the extremist fringe of the Republican party (Ron Paul) don't support some degree of wealth redistribution.

popularly referred to as socialism.
Among reactionary talk radio hosts, maybe.

Hillary does believe that. Have you read "It Takes a Village"?
No, but unless you provide some choice quotes in context, I'll refuse to believe that she will suspend liberal democracy in favour of national unity.


He was Nixon's corrupt crony, wasn't he?
Speaking of Nixon, didn't he help found the EPA? I guess he's a wackjob leftie ecofascist, right? Whoops.

[QUOTE]We're having the same problem Jon Stewart and the author did. We're disagreeing about the meanings of words, not the message the other is trying to get across.
No credible definitions of "liberalism", "socialism" and "fascism" equate the three. They are completely different ideologies with completely different philosophies behind them. Trying to define them so as to equate them with nothing but superficial similarities is pure sophistry for the sake of scare-mongering or reactionary wankery.

If you're going to engage in debate, get your definitions right.

Yup.

On a further note: what's wrong with reactionaries?
I would assert that if one thinks reactionaries are necessarily bad, one must therefore also hold that all possible decisions are necessarily good decisions.

I remember Jon pretty much owned him by pointing out flaws and inconsistencies with his position, and the utter nonsensical nature of it. Eventually the author was basically doing the verbal equivalent of flailing.
Jon made a bunch of fiddly points about the imprecise language the author was using to explain his position.

Given 10 pages to write it down he might have done better. I wonder where he might find that sort of lengthy written medium to help him organise his thoughts. Let's see...

Oh, I know! A BOOK!

wealth-redistibutionist
Oh please, all the candidates support redistribution to some degree (aside from Ron Paul)

Hillary does believe that. Have you read "It Takes a Village"?
You're expecting me to believe that she will suspend individual rights wholesale? Please. At least have the intellectual virtue to quote the damn work.


We're having the same problem Jon Stewart and the author did. We're disagreeing about the meanings of words, not the message the other is trying to get across.

For Jimminy's sake, this sophist is trying to redefine the word to fit into his ideological framework. Why should any thinking person accomodate this foolishness? Liberalism IS NOT EQUAL Socialism, which in turn IS NOT EQUAL to Facism. They're completely separate ideologies which completely different philosophies. Superficial similarites don't count, I'm afraid.

All of these political labels are merely tools for the various political machines to terrify their followers into being more obedient. And, as the law of self-interest tells us, all political machines want greater power for themselves through the state. In the end, the only material distinction is whether one is pro-state or anti.

No. Political labels are an example of the universal human impulse to categorize and name things in an effort to break the world down into understandable chunks and to assist in communication of ideas. Today "Royalist" and "Cardinalist" might not mean much, but once, somewhere, they indicated a political loyalty. And it was at a time when pro or anti state were meaningless distinctions.

Top marks for ironic conclusions though.

A conservative is someone who is okay with progress, but does not think we should go running "Headlong" into a situation. They generally prefer the old methods, because a conservative knows that they work. However, this does not preclude a Conservative from suggesting something new if they think it is needed. Conservatives are generally small government.

A reactionary on the other hand, doesn't want any change. In fact, many want to go back to the way things where. This is not the same as Restoring an Institution. Reactionaries are generally big government.

So Ron Paul is a Reactionary. Can you name a single conservative in American politics today?

Interestingly, a new book called Liberal Fascism has just come out - here's a synopsis (http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/06/jonah-goldbergs-shining.html):

That was genuinely funny - it gives me the idea of starting a website where a whole series of books are broken down by lolcats.

War & Peace - the lolcat edition.

Jon made a bunch of fiddly points about the imprecise language the author was using to explain his position.

Given 10 pages to write it down he might have done better. I wonder where he might find that sort of lengthy written medium to help him organise his thoughts. Let's see...

Oh, I know! A BOOK!

You're just butthurt.

No. Political labels are an example of the universal human impulse to categorize and name things in an effort to break the world down into understandable chunks and to assist in communication of ideas. Today "Royalist" and "Cardinalist" might not mean much, but once, somewhere, they indicated a political loyalty. And it was at a time when pro or anti state were meaningless distinctions.

Top marks for ironic conclusions though.

Again, I did not include all ideological labels under political labels, I was referencing vacuous terms such as 'liberal' and 'conservative' (which are defined not by their methodology but by emotive manipulations, hence why their focus is upon leaders instead of philosophers.) They are just covers for the particular interests that support political machines. And one could be anti-state even in the days of Richeliu and Mazarin, such as by supporting the elimination of the taille for example.

Yup.

On a further note: what's wrong with reactionaries?

If you have to ask the question, you wouldn't understand the answer.

That was genuinely funny - it gives me the idea of starting a website where a whole series of books are broken down by lolcats.

War & Peace - the lolcat edition.

CHALLENGE!

WARS AN PEECE, bai Tolstoi

dis book faymus for bee long and complecaited. serius cat warnin (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1402/822327651_1efebd248a.jpg).

Book Wun

I, July 1805

at parti in St petrsburg teh principel caracturz r introdooced. teh books is about teh bourgeois hu tax teh pesantz (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/128289054028715000bourgeoisiecat.jpg). altho latr wun of teh mane d00ds kalld Rostov taxs pesantz less. but neyways, book opun wiv parti in St petrsburg teh capitol citi uf vry cold naytion Russia WHERE CHEEZBURGER EATS YOU. dere we meets all teh bourgeois cats hu r main caracturz. some of dese r a d00d namd Pierre hu is all liek 'LOL WUT?' amonst teh uther bourgeoiz d00ds. Dere is also hiz frend teh prince Andrei hu is smrt an also is al liek 'srsly lol'. Andrei wuz also marriedz to Lise an everywun wuz liek 'NO WAI!!!' but andrei is liek 'meh'. Also dere is andreis fathr hu is old an hates teh Ceiling Cat (http://www.kilala.nl/Images/Blog/WhereIsYourGod.jpg), but andreis sister luvs teh Ceiling Cat.

II, October 1805

So latr a d00d calld Napoleon hu leedz teh french (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/je-voudrais-une-royale-avec-frommage.jpg) ppl is in ur austria an killin ur austrians. Austria wuz liek 'HALP (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/2003599389021379622_rs.jpg)' and den russia decidez to helpz dem so russiaz solderz march to fite teh french ppls. Andrei sez 'I can haz commission?' an den he goed to war to fite french ppls. anothr wun of teh caracturz is introdooced, hiz name Denisov an he speek liek elmr fudd (in teh english trnslationz). teh othr d00d menshuned b4 cald rostov (hiz 1st naem is nikolai) also joinz to fite teh french. he becomed a soldur ridin on horsez.

III, November 1805

In dis chaptr teh war against french ppls still continuez. We r bak in Muscow were pierre bezuhov is al alones as lots uf hiz frendz hav gon to fite. He goeded to anuthr parti at teh sam place as b4, wen he meetz Helene. altho ppl lolz at pierre a lots, everywun is all liek 'I'd hit it!' to Helene. pierre also thinkz dis wai. pierre sez 'I can has marriage?' but den is liek 'oh noes!!!' but he stil getz marriedz. Bak in austria at teh war teh tzar comes to say hai to teh solderz. everywun espeshaly nikolai rostov is all liek 'OMG ITS CEILING CAT' an all luv teh tzar. Ther is preparayshuns fur big fite wit teh french to happun soons. teh austrian genrals show deir planz but den teh russias r all liek 'LOL WUT?'. Andrei watches dis an is confuzd. Latr evrywun begins 2 fite. Dere ar not many solderz on teh french rite an so teh austrianz try to exploitz dat. But den dey fin out IT'S A TRAP by teh napoleon d00d. al teh french attak teh hill in teh midl of teh batlefeeld. everywun is liek 'OH NOES' but den prince andrei take teh russia flag an sez to teh solderz aroun him to attak. teh solderz charg teh hill to stop teh french frum splittin dere army. but dey get pwned an andrei is unconsheous. meenwile rostov is told to taek orderz to teh tzar but teh tzar is invisiblez. He lookz for teh tzar an fine out tzar is in villige. As he goed to villige teh french shut at him wid canons, but dey fails. houevr rostov stil think teh tzar is Ceiling Cat an deosnt giv him teh orderz cuz he is afread teh tzar wil be angri wid him (as teh orderz ar bad) so he ridez awai on teh hors. latr napoleon haz basicly wun teh batle an goed up on teh hill were he fine andrei on teh groun. he tel his pplz to taek andrei to hospitle.

Book Too

I, 1806

ohgod i can't stop

No, it shows how useless lies are in understanding history.

Not every use of political influence is Fascism. Even if it's by people you don't like. FDR was not a fascist. Yes, there was a powerful fascist movement in the US at the time, but it was opposed to him. It plotted to overthrow him.

Just like in Germany when Socialism was on the rise, the rich got behind Hitler because like rich classes everywhere at the time they were hoping to use fascism to protect them, and their status, from socialism. Here the rich, seeing social security and the New Deal as socialism, fascists tried to get Roosevelt overthrown, but they did it in the hamfisted fashion of Mussolini. The fashion which failed for Hitler and was something of an anomaly.

If you really want to read about fascism, liberalism and history, pick up a copy of "War is a Racket," by Smedley Butler.That too but the left/right spectrum is still an extremely over simplistic false dichotomy.

I would assert that if one thinks reactionaries are necessarily bad, one must therefore also hold that all possible decisions are necessarily good decisions.

opposing some changes does not constitute being a reactionary.

That was genuinely funny - it gives me the idea of starting a website where a whole series of books are broken down by lolcats.

War & Peace - the lolcat edition.

we've got to finish the bible first
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

I have a political science degree and I do not know what fascism is. It does not seem like it is either liberal or conservative but totalitarian. Since it is impossible to have a totalitarian conservative political system (small government is the opposite of totalitarianism which is super huge government) I would imagine that it would be more liberal than conservative. Yet, liberalism, although it seems to seek bigger government does not seem to support elimination of human rights. Although I do not know what fascism is I suspect that human rights are not very important to the fascist. Therefore, although I would suspect that liberalism is closer to fasism than conservatism, I think that fascism exists outside of the liberal and conservative spectrum.

Fascism is the highest stage of capitalism, when the rise of socialist movements brought about by economic decline can only be contained by the bourgeois capitalists utilizes every tool of the state apparatus to maintain their class rule. Belligerent nationalism and foreign wars to distract attention from the domestic failures of capitalism, a repressive police apparatus to destroy progressive movements. Fascism is also widely associated with welfare states because welfare capitalism is generally a tool of the capitalists to placate the masses. Fascist Italy was basically a set up from New Deal America, and Nazi Germany was probably the most reactionary state ever because of the threat of a socialist revolution, and the need for big business and the political right to make an alliance of necessity.

The NSDAP actually had a nominally left-wing faction led by Strasser, and although still quite reactionary it was eventually purged by Hitler because it's street violence was threatening his alliance with big business.

To understand fascism you have to understand national syndicalism and autarkic-styled nationalism.

If you have to ask the question, you wouldn't understand the answer.

pfft

I'd disagree with it is a more likely scenario.

If you have to ask the question, you wouldn't understand the answer.
If you have to dodge the question, you probably don't have an answer.