Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

G.I. Joe said:

I personally believe that the far left is much more dangerous to America, simply because it seems that they don't see America as something worth defending.

In the words of Bill Clinton "I would rather be strong and wrong than weak and right".

Click to expand...

I hadn't heard that Slick Willy said that...:lol: That would explain his "Marriage" to Hillary all these years. :doh

Anarchism is a left-wing ideology, as it effectively involves "no-government socialism," as put by Kropotkin. Fascism is a right-wing ideology due to the preservation of private property rights integral to the collusion between state and corporate power that's typically a feature of fascist economic policy.

Agnapostate said:

Anarchism is a left-wing ideology, as it effectively involves "no-government socialism," as put by Kropotkin. Fascism is a right-wing ideology due to the preservation of private property rights integral to the collusion between state and corporate power that's typically a feature of fascist economic policy.

Click to expand...

Not that I know much about the exact definitions of those two systems, but it seems to me that you could have a left-wing Fascistic setup. What specifically about Fascism prevents such?

Who said anything about a left-right scale?

Click to expand...

Um...the poll? I think that was kinda obvious :2razz:

Anarchism can be both left and right.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism]Anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
I don't think it is far right at all, its not really right or left. The world isn't two dimensional...right and left aren't the only directions.

Fascism is definately not far right.

Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement...Fascism is much defined by what it opposes, what scholars call the fascist negations - its opposition to individualism,[10] rationalism, liberalism, conservatism and communism. [11]

Click to expand...

It may not be far left either.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism]Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The Mark said:

Not that I know much about the exact definitions of those two systems, but it seems to me that you could have a left-wing Fascistic setup. What specifically about Fascism prevents such?

Click to expand...

It's a matter of legitimately "left-wing" ideology being either explicitly socialist in nature or bearing an identifiable family resemblance to socialism. So I'll again mention something I've spoken of before, namely, the contradictions between fascism and socialism. I usually draw from Umberto Eco's conception of "Eternal Fascism" and Zanden's Pareto and Fascism Reconsidered to do this.

Firstly, as Zanden puts it, "[O]bedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along creative lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism." This is not consistent with the socialist principle of elimination of alienation as defined by Marx's The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Such elimination necessitates revolutionary class consciousness, which obviously conflicts with "obedience, discipline, faith, etc." Revolutionary class consciousness is also rather inconsistent with the "cult of tradition" identified by Eco as an integral tenet of Eternal Fascism. "[T]here can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."

From an insistence on revolutionary class consciousness comes opposition to class itself on the part of the socialist. This is egregiously contradictory to the elitism that constitutes a core tenet of fascism. As Eco writes, "[e]litism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism."

Fascism also has a necessarily anti-democratic nature. As Zanden notes, "the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions." Similarly, Eco writes that "the Leader, knowing his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler." This strongly conflicts with the participatory elements of socialism, as it necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. For instance, the anarchist Noam Chomsky notes that libertarian socialism is "based on free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control and with limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all." Other forms of socialism are of course necessarily democratic at the very least, if not libertarian in nature.

Lakryte said:

Anarchism can be both left and right.

Click to expand...

Anarchism was developed as a pre-Marxist form of socialism, and modern anarchists maintain an opposition to the state and capitalism as facets of their general opposition to hierarchical social, political, and economic arrangements. There are of course capitalists who claim to be anarchists, but they're generally regarded as phonies by the more traditional anarchists, who maintain that anarchism requires socialism.

Lakryte said:

Fascism is definately not far right.

Click to expand...

I'll have to disagree with that on the basis of the collusion between state and corporate power and the financial success enjoyed by private corporations in Nazi Germany, for example, who chose to collaborate extensively with the Third Reich. No brand of economic "leftism," whatever your description of it, could tolerate such broad sustainment of private property rights.

Tough question. I think Social Conservatives and Fiscal Liberals are the dangerous in America, but there's no option for that.

Which extreme is more dangerous to America? Both, that's why they are called extremes. :mrgreen:

Little quote from a radio commercial, " Nobody wants to hear the ultra conservative side, but nobody needs to ultra liberal side."

I'll have to disagree with that on the basis of the collusion between state and corporate power and the financial success enjoyed by private corporations in Nazi Germany, for example, who chose to collaborate extensively with the Third Reich. No brand of economic "leftism," whatever your description of it, could tolerate such broad sustainment of private property rights.

Click to expand...

Corporations benefiting is not the only aspect of fascism. Fascist governments forbid opposition, which is not at all in line with ideals the right advocates. It opposes individualism, which is also a "right" philosophy (in contrast with collectivism) Fascists want government control over business and labor. They are pro big-government.

It is not far right or far left. It is a combination and exaggeration of the worst aspects of both.

Lakryte said:

Corporations benefiting is not the only aspect of fascism. Fascist governments forbid opposition, which is not at all in line with ideals the right advocates. It opposes individualism, which is also a "right" philosophy (in contrast with collectivism) Fascists want government control over business and labor. They are pro big-government.

Click to expand...

That's not been an observable facet of traditional fascist regimes. For example, consider Buchheim and Scherner's The Role of Private Property In The Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry:

Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.

Click to expand...

There's no widespread behavior of "forbidding opposition" in an arrangement wherein "freedom of contract was generally respected." Incidentally, collectivism requires voluntary entry in order to be legitimately collective in nature, else it typically constitutes an oligarchical state of affairs.

That's not been an observable facet of traditional fascist regimes. For example, consider Buchheim and Scherner's

Click to expand...

Once again, the private property issue is not the only thing fascists believe. They are oppressive, and the government is large. The right is usually associated with less government, not more.

Lakryte said:

Once again, the private property issue is not the only thing fascists believe. They are oppressive, and the government is large. The right is usually associated with less government, not more.

Click to expand...

Actually, this point weakens your argument further, which is a common deficiency of the lineal political scale. The specifically oppressive functions of the fascist government lie in the direction of maintaining expected cultural conventions and mores that are typically of a socially conservative character, which is consistent with rightist authoritarianism. This is obviously inconsistent with the "rightism" advocated by such figures as Milton Friedman, but well in line with that advocated by Augusto Pinochet. So portions of the right are associated with less government, just as portions of the left are associated with less government (anarchists would be an illustrative example, obviously). But even the greater "government" advocated by portions of the left (such as Leninists, if you want to include them with the "left") is not directed toward the sustainment of social conservatism but economic authoritarianism through dictatorial central planning. This is directly at odds with the economic libertarianism advocated by others on the left (anarchists, again) and distinct from the economic rightism common to both Friedman and Pinochet.

Actually, this point weakens your argument further, which is a common deficiency of the lineal political scale. The specifically oppressive functions of the fascist government lie in the direction of maintaining expected cultural conventions and mores that are typically of a socially conservative character, which is consistent with rightist authoritarianism. This is obviously inconsistent with the "rightism" advocated by such figures as Milton Friedman, but well in line with that advocated by Augusto Pinochet. So portions of the right are associated with less government, just as portions of the left are associated with less government (anarchists would be an illustrative example, obviously). But even the greater "government" advocated by portions of the left (such as Leninists, if you want to include them with the "left") is not directed toward the sustainment of social conservatism but economic authoritarianism through dictatorial central planning. This is directly at odds with the economic libertarianism advocated by others on the left (anarchists, again) and distinct from the economic rightism common to both Friedman and Pinochet.

Click to expand...

Not really. How is the government banning criticism a far right ideology? That is an aspect of fascism. I see your point, but the problem is fascism has plenty of leftist qualities as well. It isn't left or right.

What do you see as far right/left? (don't name something like communism etc. name the beliefs and values.)

Lakryte said:

Not really. How is the government banning criticism a far right ideology? That is an aspect of fascism. I see your point, but the problem is fascism has plenty of leftist qualities as well. It isn't left or right.

Click to expand...

I didn't merely refer to a ban on criticism. There are other aspects of fascists' social agenda that diverge quite significantly from social leftists' preferred policies.

Lakryte said:

What do you see as far right/left? (don't name something like communism etc. name the beliefs and values.)

Click to expand...

Far rightism involves a desire for preservation of traditional social mores and conventions and the willingness to use military force to uphold law and order. Far leftism involves radical progressivism (typically civil libertarianism) and economic egalitarianism or the professed desire to implement it.

Agnapostate said:

It's a matter of legitimately "left-wing" ideology being either explicitly socialist in nature or bearing an identifiable family resemblance to socialism. So I'll again mention something I've spoken of before, namely, the contradictions between fascism and socialism. I usually draw from Umberto Eco's conception of "Eternal Fascism" and Zanden's Pareto and Fascism Reconsidered to do this.

Firstly, as Zanden puts it, "[O]bedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along creative lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism." This is not consistent with the socialist principle of elimination of alienation as defined by Marx's The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Such elimination necessitates revolutionary class consciousness, which obviously conflicts with "obedience, discipline, faith, etc." Revolutionary class consciousness is also rather inconsistent with the "cult of tradition" identified by Eco as an integral tenet of Eternal Fascism. "[T]here can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."

From an insistence on revolutionary class consciousness comes opposition to class itself on the part of the socialist. This is egregiously contradictory to the elitism that constitutes a core tenet of fascism. As Eco writes, "[e]litism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism."

Fascism also has a necessarily anti-democratic nature. As Zanden notes, "the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions." Similarly, Eco writes that "the Leader, knowing his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler." This strongly conflicts with the participatory elements of socialism, as it necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. For instance, the anarchist Noam Chomsky notes that libertarian socialism is "based on free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control and with limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all." Other forms of socialism are of course necessarily democratic at the very least, if not libertarian in nature.

Click to expand...

From this, I would be led to believe that the USSR was Fascist, at least in some respects. Am I incorrect in this conclusion, in your opinion?

Agnapostate said:

Anarchism was developed as a pre-Marxist form of socialism, and modern anarchists maintain an opposition to the state and capitalism as facets of their general opposition to hierarchical social, political, and economic arrangements. There are of course capitalists who claim to be anarchists, but they're generally regarded as phonies by the more traditional anarchists, who maintain that anarchism requires socialism.

Click to expand...

I have heard this definition of Anarchism from you in another thread. It may be correct. I have not checked into it.

However, would you not agree that a currently popular view of the meaning of the word "Anarchism" is "the complete lack of any government structure whatsoever"?

Not that such a state could exist for any length of time, as most people (I like to think) automatically start banding together for mutual protection.

Agnapostate said:

I'll have to disagree with that on the basis of the collusion between state and corporate power and the financial success enjoyed by private corporations in Nazi Germany, for example, who chose to collaborate extensively with the Third Reich. No brand of economic "leftism," whatever your description of it, could tolerate such broad sustainment of private property rights.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I was, perhaps, thinking of a situation wherein some "leftist" ideals were forced upon people by a fascistic system.

I understand that, in your opinion, the methods of fascism are contrary to the ideology of a leftist, but could the above not occur? This, of course, might not mean that the fascism itself was left, but that the system it was a part of was.

Far right hands down, since they use religion as tool to further their political aspirations. The "far left" died out during the cold war and has not recovered in anyway in the US... everyone is pretty much conservative in their views.

PeteEU said:

Far right hands down, since they use religion as tool to further their political aspirations. The "far left" died out during the cold war and has not recovered in anyway in the US... everyone is pretty much conservative in their views.

Click to expand...

Were you around for the last election? Are you taking LSD?

Why are we arguing about what extreme is the worst? We can all agree on one thing, and that is how good it feels to take a dookie. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, we're all the same. We all like it when dookie comes out of our butthole. And plus we all look at our dookie after it comes out.

G.I. Joe said:

Why are we arguing about what extreme is the worst? We can all agree on one thing, and that is how good it feels to take a dookie. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, we're all the same. We all like it when dookie comes out of our butthole. And plus we all look at our dookie after it comes out.

Click to expand...

Not if you can't get near it without passing out.

Just say'in

The ‘far left’ will say the ‘far right’ and the ‘far right’ will say the ‘far left.’
BLAH! I say, all types of fundamentalisms are dangerous.

The Mark said:

From this, I would be led to believe that the USSR was Fascist, at least in some respects. Am I incorrect in this conclusion, in your opinion?

Click to expand...

Yes. The USSR was likely closer to fascism than legitimate socialism (on account of its authoritarian statism), but the ideological principles professed by its ruling class as well as the lack of significant private property in the standard sense separated it from fascism.

The Mark said:

I have heard this definition of Anarchism from you in another thread. It may be correct. I have not checked into it.

However, would you not agree that a currently popular view of the meaning of the word "Anarchism" is "the complete lack of any government structure whatsoever"?

Click to expand...

Yes, though it would be preferable if you replaced "government structure" with "social structure." The popular meaning of the term cannot corrupt 160 years of the development of that political philosophy, though, just as misidentification of the term "socialism" cannot corrupt the legitimate meaning of that term as a whole.

The Mark said:

Not that such a state could exist for any length of time, as most people (I like to think) automatically start banding together for mutual protection.

Click to expand...

Undoubtedly. But I don't know of anyone (though I'm sure they exist) who actually advocates pure chaotic disorder or how they could expect to maintain such lack of structure without some form of enforcement, which would itself constitute structure.

The Mark said:

I understand that, in your opinion, the methods of fascism are contrary to the ideology of a leftist, but could the above not occur? This, of course, might not mean that the fascism itself was left, but that the system it was a part of was.

Click to expand...

No, both the methods and actual principles of fascism were anti-left. The collusion between state and corporate power that was an actually existing element of fascist power should illustrate that.

Agnapostate said:

Yes. The USSR was likely closer to fascism than legitimate socialism (on account of its authoritarian statism), but the ideological principles professed by its ruling class as well as the lack of significant private property in the standard sense separated it from fascism.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that. Although I think the ideological principles it's ruling class claimed to embrace were not the principles that they truly embraced...or at least not all of them.

Agnapostate said:

Yes, though it would be preferable if you replaced "government structure" with "social structure." The popular meaning of the term cannot corrupt 160 years of the development of that political philosophy, though, just as misidentification of the term "socialism" cannot corrupt the legitimate meaning of that term as a whole.

Click to expand...

I would have to disagree, at least in part. While I agree that, if one uses your definition, the current popular definition is incorrect...

The very fact that the current popular definition is "popular", causes it, in my mind to corrupt the viewpoint of people who do not go to the trouble of digging deeper. This may, over time (as such people are in the majority), corrupt the usage of those terms in some areas of the world, thus corrupting the meanings of those terms. While admittedly, this would only be a popular corruption, most persons will not try to dredge up the older, less popular, "proper" meaning of terms. I suppose what I am trying to say is that, over time, the popular definition of a word may become the de facto proper definition of a word. After all, that would seem to be the way languages evolve.

Agnapostate said:

Undoubtedly. But I don't know of anyone (though I'm sure they exist) who actually advocates pure chaotic disorder or how they could expect to maintain such lack of structure without some form of enforcement, which would itself constitute structure.

Click to expand...

Well, no, which is why for anyone (I would hope) who actually considers "anarchism" to mean "total lack of any structure whatsoever", the word has negative connotations, and is a state of being to be avoided. Another "popular" corruption, if we use the definition you espouse.

Agnapostate said:

No, both the methods and actual principles of fascism were anti-left. The collusion between state and corporate power that was an actually existing element of fascist power should illustrate that.

Click to expand...

I suppose that makes sense. I think many people these days (at least in the area I live), tie the term "left" with large state controlled systems providing services to the masses. In many cases, these systems are closely tied to private entities.

This, obviously, contradicts your preferred (and perhaps correct) meaning for the terms "left" and "right". For that matter, I tend towards agreement with you. But, for some reason, and perhaps it is only in my mind, I tie the terms "libertarian", and "Conservative" to the ideas of small, efficient, governing bodies which interfere with their citizens as little as possible, and attempt to apply their citizen’s wishes in the best possible way (I’m not sure there is such a thing, as perspectives vary so widely). Now, this may be an unattainable ideal, but...

I’m an idealist.

I KNOW that such is extremely unlikely…but I still think it should be that way.

The Mark said:

I can agree with that. Although I think the ideological principles it's ruling class claimed to embrace were not the principles that they truly embraced...or at least not all of them.

Click to expand...

They weren't. The smooth transition of many ruling officials from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation should illustrate that.

The Mark said:

I would have to disagree, at least in part. While I agree that, if one uses your definition, the current popular definition is incorrect...

The very fact that the current popular definition is "popular", causes it, in my mind to corrupt the viewpoint of people who do not go to the trouble of digging deeper. This may, over time (as such people are in the majority), corrupt the usage of those terms in some areas of the world, thus corrupting the meanings of those terms. While admittedly, this would only be a popular corruption, most persons will not try to dredge up the older, less popular, "proper" meaning of terms. I suppose what I am trying to say is that, over time, the popular definition of a word may become the de facto proper definition of a word. After all, that would seem to be the way languages evolve.

Click to expand...

That's a thought that's occurred to me many times, and ultimately reveals an extremely problematic element. Many gain from the popular perception of anarchism as chaotic disorder and socialism as "leftist" repressive authoritarianism because those terms are then able to be used for the purpose of ideological warfare. Kropotkin wrote to Lenin in 1920 that "if the present situation continues, the very word 'socialism' will turn into a curse," a prediction that's effectively been nothing more than prophetic, as with Mikhail Bakunin's earlier observation that "if you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the czar himself." While it would of course be ridiculous to expect everyone to agree with me or even sympathize with me, it would be a welcome change for those who wish to comment on political philosophies to at least have an accurate understanding of them, something that's unfortunately uncommon. Scarecrow Akhbar, for example, bases his entire approach on the repetition of platitudinous misconceptions about the aforementioned ideologies and thus avoids actual insight or rationality. In short, I don't want to hear about Somalia when I mention anarchism and I don't want to hear about the Soviet Union and the National Health Service when I mention socialism.

The Mark said:

Well, no, which is why for anyone (I would hope) who actually considers "anarchism" to mean "total lack of any structure whatsoever", the word has negative connotations, and is a state of being to be avoided. Another "popular" corruption, if we use the definition you espouse.

Click to expand...

I suppose. But there is perhaps a ray of sunshine in that shallow misconceptions, however widespread, can't truly stand up against 160 years of anarchist political philosophy that stated its ideological basis as centering around voluntary association and participatory direct democracy without a state. The mistaken impression of some everyday brainwashed bot isn't going to stand up against Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in any legitimate sense.

The Mark said:

I suppose that makes sense. I think many people these days (at least in the area I live), tie the term "left" with large state controlled systems providing services to the masses. In many cases, these systems are closely tied to private entities.

Click to expand...

The definition of the "left" is really too vague to quibble much about that. The best that advocates of more libertarian form of leftism can do is mention the fact that there are certainly forms of leftism that involve the minimization or elimination of state power, while there are obviously forms of rightism that involve the precise opposite.

The Mark said:

This, obviously, contradicts your preferred (and perhaps correct) meaning for the terms "left" and "right". For that matter, I tend towards agreement with you. But, for some reason, and perhaps it is only in my mind, I tie the terms "libertarian", and "Conservative" to the ideas of small, efficient, governing bodies which interfere with their citizens as little as possible, and attempt to apply their citizen’s wishes in the best possible way (I’m not sure there is such a thing, as perspectives vary so widely). Now, this may be an unattainable ideal, but...

I’m an idealist.

I KNOW that such is extremely unlikely…but I still think it should be that way.

Click to expand...

I'd do the same...to some extent. Libertarianism is undoubtedly based on the minimization of state power, and whether that minimization merely involves a minimal state or whether it involves the complete elimination of the state will depend on whether it is minarchist or anarchist in nature. Modern conservatism has little resemblance to classical liberalism, however. While many elements of classical liberalism were broadly libertarian in nature, the advocacy of relatively unrestricted market exchange that many classical liberal philosophers offered are inapplicable to an economy that involves extreme inequalities, since they expected that agrarian conditions and relatively equitable land distribution would preserve egalitarianism. Strange as it sounds, I think the best modern adaptation of classical liberalism would probably be a libertarian form of republican market socialism.

I'm bumping this thread because it is an engine for divisive conversation. This is exactly what we need in this country. Its time to stop being nice to liberals. They don't give a **** about the country, all they care about is achieving their own warped, unrealistic view of what it should be. Look at Obama. We need a real culture war in this country to rid her of this disease known as liberalism.

G.I. Joe said:

I'm bumping this thread because it is an engine for divisive conversation. This is exactly what we need in this country. Its time to stop being nice to liberals. They don't give a **** about the country, all they care about is achieving their own warped, unrealistic view of what it should be. Look at Obama. We need a real culture war in this country to rid her of this disease known as liberalism.

Click to expand...

Well, wow. That in and of itself is....definitely not helping your arguement that the Far Right is less dangerous then the Far Left.....