Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

Well sck, of course, you can call them anything you please, whether it's accurate or not. The point is, fascism and conservatism are polar opposites, plain and simple. Calling conservatives fascists is just ad hominem.

For an example of fascist governing, we have the latest (hopeful only) trial balloon by the Obama Administration: U.S. Eyes Bank Pay Overhaul - WSJ.com
Government intervention into business policy.

[craigimass]

FYI, this speaks a bit to the CCP and Lotech thing. I have noticed also...in the last year or so, that some racists and bigots are making it their life's work to infiltrate EVERY community on the net and post the same drivel. And why not? It's free.
UPDATE 1-Hate goes viral on social network sites - report | Markets | Markets News | Reuters

[OsmundL]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Thus, fascism is applied to the right, not because it applies, but because of it's pejorative connotation.

Yes it is pejorative, but it applies, and that's the problem.

Strictly speaking, fascism isn’t “conservative” and certainly not “leftist.” As a “theory” it is neither, but that’s not the reason fascists are always labelled “right wing.”

The reason is found in (a) an overlap in the groups that hold fascist and right wing ideas, and (b) a whole range of apparently incidental but in fact integral elements of fascist propaganda.

Here is a list of “themes” that we tend to use to distinguish “right” and “left.” I am not even arguing that they are a “true” part of e.g. conservative values (they are not), but for each question you could ask in the negative: “Is is at all probable that a leftist would embrace this?” You know for a fact, on the other hand, that the fascists and nazis use them:

Anti-Jew, Black, Moslem, immigrant
Anti homosexuality
Anti-union
Anti-communist
Nationalist
Crusader against “loose morals” in all forms
Belief in an earlier Golden Age
Pro guns
Pro citizen’s militias
Critical of police, weak judges
Anti-government, belief that all is corrupt
An emphasis on some individuals being stronger than others – tougher, more moral, or in some other dimension, but in any case this feature gives them special rights to rule.
General appeals for government to be “tough” on all sorts of deviance: crime, immigration, foreign nations, terrorists, subversives (among them, most other ideologies)
Attraction to uniforms, idealising of soldiers who “defend our country”, so on.
A general belief that government messes up the lives of ordinary people.
Finally, a difference that isn’t so straightforward, but here is the gist of it: Fascists and right wingers alike speak very rarely of governing through “consensus,” of politicians negotiating and mediating between legitimate interests, of people arriving at agreement. Instead, society is run by innate instincts such as “greed”, “enlightened self-interest”, natural leaders, superior races or ideologies, survival of the fittest – in short, a whole range of more or less Darwinistic forces and outcomes of individualistic action – anything other than democratic process.

Fascism isn’t so easy to define, but you sure know when you meet one. And doesn't it ring a good many right wing bells?

[PBzeer]

Interesting post OsmundL, and one that certainly fits the media-generated "vision" of the right in the US. On a superficial level, quite a devastating indictment, but, when you go beyond the words, to actual actions, it begins to unravel. Especially, as much of it is a caricature of the right. As well as a white-washing of the left.

As an example, let's take the recent flap over Miss California. In responding to the question of "gay marriage", she gave an answer that is completely in accordance with that of the President, "that marriage should be between a man and a woman". Now, contrast the reaction to her stating that, and the reaction to the President (whom no one could confuse with a righty) stating the same position. Oddly enough, I've yet to hear the President accused of being anti-homosexual.

So the correlation between right and fascist is somewhat facile (not just by one example, but it's application to many of the "themes" you listed).

My personal favorite though, was consensus. Since both left and right think consensus is when you agree with them.

Addendum: one could easily make a similar list of "themes" that would identify the left with communism. Of course, those that tend to embrace the "themes" of the right as being true and factual, would be aghast at the effort.

[craigimass]

Miss California?
You actually equate a private corporate pageant - run by Donald Trump - which allowed a drug and sex crazed winner last year to keep the crown......to some sort of political movement or outlook?

I suppose next we will find out your take on the E network, and whether that is politically relevant.

On a political scale (meaning applicable to us all)....I rate a private beauty pageant (and anyone's opinion about it)......at about 0 out of 1000.....1000 being a wrongly prosecuted war, etc. and 0 being what I ate for dinner (mac and cheese, mixed fresh veggies and water).

[OsmundL]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Interesting post OsmundL, and one that certainly fits the media-generated "vision" of the right in the US. On a superficial level, quite a devastating indictment, but, when you go beyond the words, to actual actions, it begins to unravel. Especially, as much of it is a caricature of the right. As well as a white-washing of the left.
....
My personal favorite though, was consensus. Since both left and right think consensus is when you agree with them.

It is certainly no white-washing of the left. It is only that I kept to the one side to keep it short. You want my "left" list? It is as long and in many views quite devastating also, not to worry. Some keywords just for an hors d'oevre:
Save the seals because they are cute
My hard luck story is caused by capitalism
Tax the rich (no reason, just because they are rich)
Ride bicycles to work and save Africa
Rock concerts are the way to go for peace
Public servants are underpaid
We need a group meeting for this
Communism would have worked had it not been for Stalin

My comment on "consensus" goes deeper than that. Without delving into philosophy, there is a conceptual difference: a "leftie" deals programmatically in groups: workers, women, gays, the poor, with intentions of lifting them up collectively. Organising people is a common activity, and having meetings to agree on the way forward. The more programmatically socialist, the more excruciating these soul searches can be, and the longer the meetings. By contrast, as I said, the conservative focuses more on the individual, and you hear again and again processes in society explained as some cumulative effect of individual choices. You may note that a common feature of all industrialized nations is that employer groups are surprisingly weak compared to worker unions - employers act more like a cartel and can only be drummed together when it is absolutely necessary. They are simply more at home with other mechanisms such as market forces, and deeply suspicious of organizations for "the common good." Need I mention the UN, WHO, or the international court in the Hague? Conservatives instinctively distrust such edifices, lefties place faith in them.

Rest assured that I do not equate "right wing" with "conservative".

[PBzeer]

Actually, it isn't philosophy, so much as perception. Words versus actions. For while the left speaks of the common man, the results don't square with the rhetoric. Class distinctions are far more rigid within a leftist arena because they are far less transcendable, relying not on merit, but connection and adherence to dogma.

The idealistic concepts of the left have proven incompatible with inherent human behavior. And have, when applied, raised a select few, while lowering the majority to a common level. At the expense of the individual rights and freedoms that are common to the non-leftist societies.

There is a "center" position, but it's not a mathematical center, as in midway between left and right. And it is, the determination of this centerpoint that is the source of disagreement.

[jackdale]

John

Fascism is a difficult term to define. I suggest your look at the Wikipedia entry.

Among some of the pertinent central beliefs are:

• Authoritarian government
• Extreme forms of nationalism including Antisemitism and other forms of racism
• Glorification of the past
• Anti-Communism
• Opposition to class conflict
• Social Darwinism
• Anti-intellectual
• Corporatism - organizing society for industry

Fascism has taken many forms:

• Italy between the wars
• Nazi Germany
• Spain under the Falange
• Argentina under Peron

Unfortunately, the use of the term as an epithet has caused it to lose much of its meaning.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by jackdale

• Authoritarian government
• Extreme forms of nationalism including Antisemitism and other forms of racism
• Glorification of the past
• Anti-Communism
• Opposition to class conflict
• Social Darwinism
• Anti-intellectual
• Corporatism - organizing society for industry

I think most of those could be construed as the realm of the right wing in this country......
Some of them are moot points...like anti-communist.

The right, by and large, is strongly anti-intellectual, authoritarian, etc.

Yes, there are exceptions, but strong support of figures like Palin show the strongest possible anti-intellectualism possible. We're not talking someone of average knowledge...

None of those terms above would apply to the left....

Back to the basics here - WWII Germany was right wing. It exhibits virtually NO ideals which are compatible with the left. I'm not saying that those on the right are that FAR right...surely not.....but the Limbaugh/Palin sect is damn close. On the other hand, the Ron Paul types have almost nothing to do with that......but, then again, he probably disagrees with 3/4 of the party platform. He is a libertarian who uses the party as a vehicle for election.

[erps]

whatever.