Since joining academia, have you become more or less liberal than you were before?

[SoonerCoug]

I have become much less liberal.

[Indy Coug]

I have become much less liberal.

+1!

[falafel]

IIt bugs me that anti-abortion people call themselves "pro-life," because the implication is that the other side of the issue is "pro-death."
But everyone likes to use words and language for their own ends. Sometimes that's sad.

Yeah, but the other side does it too. As someone else pointed out, they don't call themselves pro-abortion. Instead, they use the much mor palatable "pro-choice." Who doesn't believe in choice? Who doesn't believe in life? Everyone believes in these things.

[JohnnyLingo]

Similarly, I've heard more than one Fox or CNN conservative talking-head recently decry Obama's "socialist" agenda as being just a step away from the "National Socialists" of Germany (a.k.a., the Nazis). Fascism is about as far away on the political spectrum from Socialism/Communism that you can get.

I see you didn't watch the video in my "if you can keep it" thread.

They argue that socialism and fascism are pretty much the same thing when it comes to the level of control the government has. Anarchy is on the far end of the spectrum.

[wuapinmon]

I see you didn't watch the video in my "if you can keep it" thread.

They argue that socialism and fascism are pretty much the same thing when it comes to the level of control the government has. Anarchy is on the far end of the spectrum.

And their definition of 'government' shows that they don't understand, at all, the differences between the 'government' of socialism or fascism.

[Solon]

I see you didn't watch the video in my "if you can keep it" thread.

They argue that socialism and fascism are pretty much the same thing when it comes to the level of control the government has. Anarchy is on the far end of the spectrum.

A) I rarely watch videos on here. More rarely political videos.

B) Ranking political systems in term of government control seems silly to me but, should you choose to do it, I think "totalitarianism" would be the more appropriate opposite of "anarchy."

C) Fascism comes in many forms, but the most obvious characteristics place it far away from socialism and democracy on the political spectrum: fascism is exclusive, communist socialism and democracy are inclusive ideologies.

[JohnnyLingo]

B) Ranking political systems in term of government control seems silly to me but, should you choose to do it, I think "totalitarianism" would be the more appropriate opposite of "anarchy."

Why is it silly? And under this ranking, would socialism/communism be around the same place as fascism or not?

C) Fascism comes in many forms, but the most obvious characteristics place it far away from socialism and democracy on the political spectrum: fascism is exclusive, communist socialism and democracy are inclusive ideologies.

When you say that fascism is exclusive, can you explain a bit?

[wuapinmon]

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...3&postcount=12

[Solon]

Why is it silly? And under this ranking, would socialism/communism be around the same place as fascism or not?

It depends on the version of socialism/communism. 20th century Soviet version? Sure, I guess. But all sorts of governments can have totalitarian leanings: Ancient Sparta (dual monarchy/oligarchy), Bush & Nixon's America. There might be others. I'm not a political scientist, but this is how I understand the definitions.

When you say that fascism is exclusive, can you explain a bit?

Although it's hard to define, generally speaking, (20th century) Fascism can be defined as a political persuasion characterized by charismatic leaders, totalitarian control, complete mobilization, intense patriotic fervor, imperialism, and racist or violent behavior. Fascism's extreme nationalism embraced what was "near and dear" and excluded the rest of humanity (e.g. Aryan supremacy). Communism/Socialism, though, sought to expand its movement to other nations (workers of the world, unite!) Similarly, democracy is an inclusive ideology, that assumes that other nation-states need/want democratic governments.

[JohnnyLingo]

Although it's hard to define, generally speaking, (20th century) Fascism can be defined as a political persuasion characterized by charismatic leaders, totalitarian control, complete mobilization, intense patriotic fervor, imperialism, and racist or violent behavior. Fascism's extreme nationalism embraced what was "near and dear" and excluded the rest of humanity (e.g. Aryan supremacy). Communism/Socialism, though, sought to expand its movement to other nations (workers of the world, unite!) Similarly, democracy is an inclusive ideology, that assumes that other nation-states need/want democratic governments.

That makes sense, thank you. I'd argue that Soviet communism also featured charismatic leaders, totalitarian control, intense patriotic fervor, imperialism and discriminatory/violent behavior. The inclusive/exclusive factor is a big one, but communism and fascism share a lot of traits.

[wuapinmon]

That makes sense, thank you. I'd argue that Soviet communism also featured charismatic leaders, totalitarian control, intense patriotic fervor, imperialism and discriminatory/violent behavior. The inclusive/exclusive factor is a big one, but communism and fascism share a lot of traits.

I want to say "well put" to this post, but I don't want you to think I'm being condescending, because that's not how I would mean it.

[JohnnyLingo]

I want to say "well put" to this post, but I don't want you to think I'm being condescending, because that's not how I would mean it.

I wouldn't consider a "well put" to be condescending.

Thanks.

[Solon]

That makes sense, thank you. I'd argue that Soviet communism also featured charismatic leaders, totalitarian control, intense patriotic fervor, imperialism and discriminatory/violent behavior. The inclusive/exclusive factor is a big one, but communism and fascism share a lot of traits.

Fair enough, but I think you'd have to differentiate between the "ideology" or "ideals" of fascism and communism, and the actual implementation of the systems. In theory, industrialized societies (according to Marx) would eventually see a proletariat revolution. The Soviet version of communism (and the Chinese and the Vietnam and the Cuban) skipped the industrializing step. In a way, it wasn't communism at all (according to Marxist definitions), but a totalitarian regime calling itself communist. Later, Stalin had to try to "catch up" by initiating the horrendous collectivization movement. This step shouldn't have been necessary, since Marxist communism was supposed to happen in a society that was already industrialized. Lenin offended some ideologues by trying to "jumpstart" the revolution before the theoretical situation had arrived (i.e., Russia was still agrarian and had not yet industrialized in the early 20th century).

So, I see your point about the totalitarian nature of the Soviet Union, but - according to communist dogma - it wasn't supposed to be that way. It was supposed to have emerged from a class struggle, independent of powerful individuals and totalitarian enforcement (not very likely, I know, given human nature).

Maybe the overall lesson is that totalitarian states can come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and ideologies. If that's the case, we might be better off criticizing "totalitarian" tendencies in modern US government instead of "socialistic" or "communist" ones. (although, as we discussed earlier in this thread, words 'mean' what they 'mean.')

[Jarid in Cedar]

But that doesn't make any sense. The entire basis of liberal thought is that people are too stupid to think for themselves, thus Big Brother must take care of them.

You are confusing liberalism with socialism.

[pellegrino]

Although it's hard to define, generally speaking, (20th century) Fascism can be defined as a political persuasion characterized by charismatic leaders, totalitarian control, complete mobilization, intense patriotic fervor, imperialism, and racist or violent behavior. Fascism's extreme nationalism embraced what was "near and dear" and excluded the rest of humanity (e.g. Aryan supremacy). Communism/Socialism, though, sought to expand its movement to other nations (workers of the world, unite!) Similarly, democracy is an inclusive ideology, that assumes that other nation-states need/want democratic governments.

There are respectable studies out there that discuss the similarities between fascism and communism. One that comes to mind is James Gregor's The Faces of Janus. Giovanni Gentile, Mussolini's leading intellectual saw the nationalism that fascism promoted as a means of uniting proletarian (i.e. less developed) nations against the forces of international capitalism and imperialism that would exploit proletarian nations. In a sense, fascism was the socialism of the proletarian nations.

I don't want to encourage JohnnyLingo too much, but suffice it to say there is an ongoing debate with regards to the similarities between fascism and communism. The most recent and credible arguments assert that indeed they were evil twins, so to speak. This consensus could change as some dissenting scholars have objected to this classification, but I cannot offer an opinion as I have read Gregor and others, but the dissenting opinions are so new I haven't had a chance to read them yet. Perhaps next year when I teach my course on 20th century Italian culture I'll have time and interest to digest them.