Far right groups are in fact far left (UK left reconsiders the BNP)

[Askthepizzaguy]

Indeed, perhaps we should use socialist and conservative? In that case, only socialism can be considered an ideology, conservatism is just a way of thinking not governing, a conservative in the UK does not believe in the conservatism of the U.S, well if he does he is a nutter and would not be elected.

Fascists, in my opinion do derive alot of their political thoughts from socialism, but they also take a lot from romanticism and jingoism, creating a truly different monster. Socialism and Fascism should be on the same poll but at oposite ends, whereas Liberalism and Conservatism can perhaps be considered for their own spectrum?

Socialist?

Every nation is at least to some degree socialist. You pay taxes, you get a national army and government services. As for the whole mucky conservative thing, conservative simply means resistant to change. It's meaning depends upon what is being changed and by whom. Conservative groups would be the ones keeping abortion legal, by definition... but I doubt "conservatives" identify with that.

Fascists and socialists have little in common in terms of political thought. That's why they have separate words and rarely do they cooperate with one another. Conservatism as it is known in the USA is just another brand of liberalism, with a less progressive bent. That's all. Same love for liberal democracy, human rights, and the same basic stance on free market principles. The current difference between liberal and conservative in the USA? About 3% in federal income taxes and slight differences on foreign and energy policy. The "fascist" and "racist" nonsense that keeps being slung around by wackos on the left and right is just designed to generate interest in the very slight differences between the two monolithic parties.

If Obama is a socialist who wants to turn America into Sweden, I'm looking forward to all those weeks of paid vacation, healthcare, education, etc. But it will never happen because what those on the so-called right are doing, is called using hyperbole to get attention. There is a lack of political will in this mostly moderate, slightly conservative country to progress to the point where we have a balanced social system like Sweden. That's evil communist freedom-hating stuff.

The wingnut partisans on both sides would have you believe the epic battle between the Republicans and the Democrats is the battle between liberal progressive Sweden-like utopia with a balanced ecosystem and state-supported business, and some conservative paradise where Bible camp is tax deductible and abortions and divorce are made illegal, and all the homosexuals get "cured" by Jesus. But the fact is, there's little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, beyond some minor changes. I happen to like some of those changes, and so I have an opinion on the matter. But the Republicans won't turn the nation into Saudi Arabia, and the Democrats won't turn the nation into Sweden. Case closed. Though I'd prefer Sweden over Saudi Arabia, and I think most people alive would, hence why I believe in spite of all their protestations of "conservative" values, most people in America have to own up to the fact that they support liberalism over fundamentalism. It's not a sin, you won't go to hell. Democrats aren't pushing fascism and Republicans aren't pushing Sharia Law. So perhaps we can be less melodramatic about it.

You have a state government which collects income taxes and uses it to fund national services, you've got at least a slightly socialist state. Reps and Dems are nearly identical. I don't recall George Bush cancelling the department of education or closing the federally mandated interstate highway system, or abolishing welfare. Seems kinda socialist to me.

You have a state government which is resistant to the idea of stricter controls on guns or more lax restrictions on privacy rights and abortions, you have a government which basically rejects the idea of gay marriage... you have a conservative state that's resistant to progressive values. The Democrats are in power and gay marriage isn't legal in all 50 states, guns are still very very legal, and they haven't really touched the abortion laws. Seems kinda conservative to me.

I wonder, if there will ever come a day when people can leave their political party at the door, and forget all the buzzwords and stereotypes and slogans and divisive propaganda, and sit down together in spite of minor disagreements on policy, and create a language we all understand and accept as being real and legitimate, and use those words to bridge gaps in our understanding and perhaps, just perhaps, agree on the major issues, or agree to disagree while the other party is in power, and otherwise not slander them as being un-American, fascist, racist, etc.

Nah. People are having too much fun creating false controversy and joining factions to gain power over each other to leave all that third-grade behavior at the door. People, in my opinion, are more interested in associating with people who agree with their particular ideology and persecuting those who disagree, than creating a harmonious world which takes into account people's differences, and remembering that if we were all the same, this would be a world filled with billions and billions of examples of human monotony, not exceptional individuals.

Me personally? I say let states decide contentious issues, and leave the national issues for things which are really important, like human rights and legal protections. If you don't want a nationalist light rail system, fine, we won't build one in your state... but let the other states build one. Simple stuff, people. If Texas doesn't want gay marriage... whatever. You live in Texas, you deal with Texas values. But there's no reason why other states can't allow it if the courts rule on it and people vote on it. Let "God" sort out those deep spiritual matters after we're dead, and leave religion out of the law. Live and let live.

Whoooo.... better stop before I really get goin'. I'm the only one who wants to listen to my opinions anyway. This quibbling about left and right though... it's very stupid in my opinion. It's not based on anything substantive, the real definitions have gotten lost, and it's just mindless partisan bickering and slander at this point. But what do I know. Didn't mean to intrude... people, have fun portraying political opponents as demons and making little headway convincing them of your worldview.

[Incongruous]

Socialist?

Every nation is at least to some degree socialist. You pay taxes, you get a national army and government services. As for the whole mucky conservative thing, conservative simply means resistant to change. It's meaning depends upon what is being changed and by whom. Conservative groups would be the ones keeping abortion legal, by definition... but I doubt "conservatives" identify with that.

Fascists and socialists have little in common in terms of political thought. That's why they have separate words and rarely do they cooperate with one another. Conservatism as it is known in the USA is just another brand of liberalism, with a less progressive bent. That's all. Same love for liberal democracy, human rights, and the same basic stance on free market principles. The current difference between liberal and conservative in the USA? About 3% in federal income taxes and slight differences on foreign and energy policy. The "fascist" and "racist" nonsense that keeps being slung around by wackos on the left and right is just designed to generate interest in the very slight differences between the two monolithic parties.

If Obama is a socialist who wants to turn America into Sweden, I'm looking forward to all those weeks of paid vacation, healthcare, education, etc. But it will never happen because what those on the so-called right are doing, is called using hyperbole to get attention. There is a lack of political will in this mostly moderate, slightly conservative country to progress to the point where we have a balanced social system like Sweden. That's evil communist freedom-hating stuff.

The wingnut partisans on both sides would have you believe the epic battle between the Republicans and the Democrats is the battle between liberal progressive Sweden-like utopia with a balanced ecosystem and state-supported business, and some conservative paradise where Bible camp is tax deductible and abortions and divorce are made illegal, and all the homosexuals get "cured" by Jesus. But the fact is, there's little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, beyond some minor changes. I happen to like some of those changes, and so I have an opinion on the matter. But the Republicans won't turn the nation into Saudi Arabia, and the Democrats won't turn the nation into Sweden. Case closed. Though I'd prefer Sweden over Saudi Arabia, and I think most people alive would, hence why I believe in spite of all their protestations of "conservative" values, most people in America have to own up to the fact that they support liberalism over fundamentalism. It's not a sin, you won't go to hell. Democrats aren't pushing fascism and Republicans aren't pushing Sharia Law. So perhaps we can be less melodramatic about it.

You have a state government which collects income taxes and uses it to fund national services, you've got at least a slightly socialist state. Reps and Dems are nearly identical. I don't recall George Bush cancelling the department of education or closing the federally mandated interstate highway system, or abolishing welfare. Seems kinda socialist to me.

You have a state government which is resistant to the idea of stricter controls on guns or more lax restrictions on privacy rights and abortions, you have a government which basically rejects the idea of gay marriage... you have a conservative state that's resistant to progressive values. The Democrats are in power and gay marriage isn't legal in all 50 states, guns are still very very legal, and they haven't really touched the abortion laws. Seems kinda conservative to me.

I wonder, if there will ever come a day when people can leave their political party at the door, and forget all the buzzwords and stereotypes and slogans and divisive propaganda, and sit down together in spite of minor disagreements on policy, and create a language we all understand and accept as being real and legitimate, and use those words to bridge gaps in our understanding and perhaps, just perhaps, agree on the major issues, or agree to disagree while the other party is in power, and otherwise not slander them as being un-American, fascist, racist, etc.

Nah. People are having too much fun creating false controversy and joining factions to gain power over each other to leave all that third-grade behavior at the door. People, in my opinion, are more interested in associating with people who agree with their particular ideology and persecuting those who disagree, than creating a harmonious world which takes into account people's differences, and remembering that if we were all the same, this would be a world filled with billions and billions of examples of human monotony, not exceptional individuals.

Me personally? I say let states decide contentious issues, and leave the national issues for things which are really important, like human rights and legal protections. If you don't want a nationalist light rail system, fine, we won't build one in your state... but let the other states build one. Simple stuff, people. If Texas doesn't want gay marriage... whatever. You live in Texas, you deal with Texas values. But there's no reason why other states can't allow it if the courts rule on it and people vote on it. Let "God" sort out those deep spiritual matters after we're dead, and leave religion out of the law. Live and let live.

Whoooo.... better stop before I really get goin'. I'm the only one who wants to listen to my opinions anyway. This quibbling about left and right though... it's very stupid in my opinion. It's not based on anything substantive, the real definitions have gotten lost, and it's just mindless partisan bickering and slander at this point. But what do I know. Didn't mean to intrude... people, have fun portraying political opponents as demons and making little headway convincing them of your worldview.

I don't understand why you posted this in reply to my post.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't understand why you posted this in reply to my post.

hit the reply with quote button. You and I were discussing which words to use... socialism, conservatism, etc... talked about fascism, differences between socialism and fascism... my reply was in the context of what, if anything, these words mean anymore, and if they aren't just labels used to play up what is actually much more minor differences.

Wasn't all aimed in your direction. Just expressing frustration with labels and lumping people together by ideologies which are murky at best.

[Fragony]

Left: mommy
right: daddy

[Incongruous]

hit the reply with quote button. You and I were discussing which words to use... socialism, conservatism, etc... talked about fascism, differences between socialism and fascism... my reply was in the context of what, if anything, these words mean anymore, and if they aren't just labels used to play up what is actually much more minor differences.

Wasn't all aimed in your direction. Just expressing frustration with labels and lumping people together by ideologies which are murky at best.

I will only call someone a socialist or fascist if they indentify as one, there is no great lack of them.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I will only call someone a socialist or fascist if they indentify as one, there is no great lack of them.

I'm very interested to speak to these fascists... I really have to wonder what value system they hold dear. My understanding on the subject is vague, but I believe... nationalistic, one-race one-religion kind of people? i.e. xenophobes? But it's obviously not that simple. There has to be more to it than blaming every problem on minorities and the rest of the world. Surely they sense the danger which is inherent in a one-party state populated with people who all think alike. I could name a few rather populated nations who abuse human rights and national sovereignty constantly who cling to such world views.

Out of curiosity, who have you met that self-identifies as a fascist? Perhaps they could educate me on the merits of the value system they believe in.

[Incongruous]

I'm very interested to speak to these fascists... I really have to wonder what value system they hold dear. My understanding on the subject is vague, but I believe... nationalistic, one-race one-religion kind of people? i.e. xenophobes? But it's obviously not that simple. There has to be more to it than blaming every problem on minorities and the rest of the world. Surely they sense the danger which is inherent in a one-party state populated with people who all think alike. I could name a few rather populated nations who abuse human rights and national sovereignty constantly who cling to such world views.

Out of curiosity, who have you met that self-identifies as a fascist? Perhaps they could educate me on the merits of the value system they believe in.

I work with two Hindu nationalists, both of whom accepted the term fascism does apply to their certain beliefs. They believe in a highly millitarised Hindu state, lead by some kind of super-Hindu/s, which would re-conquer Pakistan, drive all the Muslims out along with those dirty Sikhs (they also want all the Buddhists out because they apparently invented the caste system and slavery). They also hate whit people because we are really, really racist. So racist that in NZ we actually allow them to have a job, a house and a life free of harrasment, its that really secret whitey type of racism.

I don't think you would want to meet them as they are not likely to be your cup of tea.

[Fragony]

Basicly a strong state with defined layers of citizens, working class, middle class, upper class, different from socialism because it doesn't aspire equality.
(@ATPG)

[Askthepizzaguy]

Basicly a strong state with defined layers of citizens, working class, middle class, upper class, different from socialism because it doesn't aspire equality.
(@ATPG)

What does the state do, with all its strength? What values do the people of this state believe in?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm very interested to speak to these fascists... I really have to wonder what value system they hold dear. My understanding on the subject is vague, but I believe... nationalistic, one-race one-religion kind of people? i.e. xenophobes? But it's obviously not that simple. There has to be more to it than blaming every problem on minorities and the rest of the world. Surely they sense the danger which is inherent in a one-party state populated with people who all think alike. I could name a few rather populated nations who abuse human rights and national sovereignty constantly who cling to such world views.

There is a lot more to it than that. Not all fascists believed in the superiority of their own country/race. For some, they believed that if all nationalities ruled themselves then they could create a utopia across the world. While nowadays we link nationalist with Nazism, Imperial Japan etc, we should remember that in the early days of the 18th/19th Centuries, nationalists from different countries worked across borders to help each other, trying to free various nations from the monarchies, most notably the Hapsburgs.

There were still elements of this utopianism even by WW2. Oswald Mosley, the British fascist, supported a complete independent Irish state - and that pretty much condemned facism to death in Scotland.

[Kralizec]

Every nation is at least to some degree socialist. You pay taxes, you get a national army and government services.

That's not a very useful definition of socialism you're using. Socialism is usually understood to mean:
1) the state is the sole employer and runs all production and services
2) democracy, since the people run the state all property is "collective"
3) all are equal so nobody's entitled to more wealth than others

A lot of socialists argue that no socialist state has ever existed because the USSR, China etc. were not democratic and because the upper party members were for practical purposes a privileged caste. I'd agree, but would add that the fact that it's been tried so often should show the futility of even attempting.
Most socialist parties have abandoned 3) because in developed societies the middle class is huge and they'd lose income in the case of total redestribution.

Fascism is an ideology that dismisses all enlightenment ideals and thus opposes both socialism and capitalism, the "third way" as Mussolini put it. The government manages the economy without taking away formal ownership from industrials using coersion. It runs all sorts of social programs to build up popular support without recognising that all people are equal. Most self-described socialists deny socialism and fascism have anything in common, but Mussolini and many of his contemporary supporters were former socialists themselves.

[Rhyfelwyr]

the "third way" as Mussolini put it.

Hey, I think I heard that somewhere else...

EDIT: And yeah, Mussolini was socialist at first, he was the editor of a quite far left-wing paper called "Avanti" IIRC. He believed socialism to be purely materialistic, fascism expanded upon the material equality and offered something deeper in his eyes.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

Whereas I find myself astonished that I am going to say this, but rules are rules: please avoid insulting generalisations of people with differing opinions - yes, fascists count as people too, and we have some members who adhere to that philosophy.

You may disagree with their views, but not insult them.

Thank you kindly

BG

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm not a fascist BTW, I just don't think they are as evil as we want them to be.

[Kralizec]

I'm not a fascist BTW, I just don't think they are as evil as we want them to be.

I agree somewhat- (Italian) fascism isn't nearly as crazy or as "evil" as national socialism. But that's not a particulary high standard to begin with.

[Incongruous]

I'm not a fascist BTW, I just don't think they are as evil as we want them to be.

I don't think their evil I just think that they are more deserving of "meany weany names" thann most other groups, since they profess a hate of me I will profess a belief that they are idiots who feed off the fear of those whom see something wrong with this country at the moment.