Fascism

[westwall]

So now your claiming that fascism and socialism have no relation to the left/right political spectrum?

You've argued yourself into a circle. You've been claiming for this entire thread that fascism is "right wing," but now you just admitted that calling it "right wing" is bullshit.

Actually if you read what I wrote (which you don't seem very good at) - I've stated the following. Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both and unique and I've posted sources for that already. Fascism is widely regarded as rightwing. Socialism as leftwing.

In fact both Stalinism and Nazism have become their own categories.

However,,you've been educated here that that is incorrect.....

Afraid not. Open your mind and learn something new

Socialism is socialism. There is nothing new in that. What is new is your spin, which you can't even coherently describe. Stalinism isn't socialism cus. The same reason you think fascism isn't socialism. It doesn't fit the Democrat agenda. You're saying nothing

Actually, claiming fascism is leftwing and socialist is a new spin on history by those trying and demonize the left and whitewash the right. The Republican Agenda.

Actually it isn't. Like I have said before, back in the 1930's it was well understood that fascism and Soviet style socialism were close to the same. The leading progressives of the US and Europe, realized it, and approved of the leadership of those countries. In fact, many of the leading lights absolutely loved the very idea of dictatorship. They have spent decades trying to obfuscate their support for the leaders that the world was forced to go war to destroy.

Below are a few quotes that show how the progressives understood there were no real differences between the fascists and socialist....

• H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
• The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
• The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
• Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
• McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
• After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
• Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
• NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
• FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
• New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
• Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.

Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks



"Progressives generally greeted the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia with great enthusiasm, embracing it as a worthy effort to create a socialist utopia. In the 1920s and 1930s, a host of credulous progressive journalists traveled to Russia to chronicle the the revolution's afterglow, so as to inform Americans about the historic significance of what was transpiring there. According to author Jonah Goldberg: “Most liberals saw the Bolsheviks as a popular and progressive movement.... Nearly the entire liberal elite, including much of FDR's Brain Trust, made the pilgrimage to Moscow to take admiring notes on the Soviet experiment.”

One key contributor to this pro-Bolshevik genre was the communist journalist John Reed, author of Ten Days that Shook the World. Reed dismissed concerns about the Red Terror and the mass murder of non-Bolshevists by praising the killers of “this treacherous gang.” Said Reed: “To the wall with them! I say I have learned one mighty expressive word: ‘raztrellyat’ [sic] (execute by shooting).”"

Progressive Support for Russia's Bolshevik Revolution - Discover the Networks

 

[Coyote]

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

Something you're completely unqualified to provide as what you want in "regulation" is socialism.

What you are arguing is corporatism, which is another form of socialism. Corporations get government to control the economy in their favor. Free people cannot be held in sweatshops. You're arguing against yourself

Corporatism isn't socialism: corporatism | ideology

Socialism: means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Corporatism is a form of fascism. Just sayin....

Yes, but it's not socialism.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Arguing whether or not fascism is left or right is pointless.

It is the struggle between liberty and slavery to ideology that is the important discussion.

 

[Coyote]

Actually if you read what I wrote (which you don't seem very good at) - I've stated the following. Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both and unique and I've posted sources for that already. Fascism is widely regarded as rightwing. Socialism as leftwing.

In fact both Stalinism and Nazism have become their own categories.

However,,you've been educated here that that is incorrect.....

Afraid not. Open your mind and learn something new

Socialism is socialism. There is nothing new in that. What is new is your spin, which you can't even coherently describe. Stalinism isn't socialism cus. The same reason you think fascism isn't socialism. It doesn't fit the Democrat agenda. You're saying nothing

Actually, claiming fascism is leftwing and socialist is a new spin on history by those trying and demonize the left and whitewash the right. The Republican Agenda.

Actually it isn't. Like I have said before, back in the 1930's it was well understood that fascism and Soviet style socialism were close to the same. The leading progressives of the US and Europe, realized it, and approved of the leadership of those countries. In fact, many of the leading lights absolutely loved the very idea of dictatorship. They have spent decades trying to obfuscate their support for the leaders that the world was forced to go war to destroy.

Below are a few quotes that show how the progressives understood there were no real differences between the fascists and socialist....

• H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
• The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
• The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
• Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
• McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
• After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
• Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
• NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
• FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
• New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
• Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.

Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

Hold on a second, what you're showing is not that "progressive understand there is no real differences between the fascists and socialist". All you're showing is quotes from various"progressives" and "liberals" complimenting aspects of fascism and that is deceptive.

Just for example the H.G. Wells quote. H.G. Wells pretty much rejected Facism:
As the bootsteps of both fascism and Communism began stamping down his influence, Wells wrote a 1924 essay, “The Spirit of Fascism: Is There Any Good in It at All?” The answer: a resounding no. Wells also rejected the British Union of Fascists. Well's ideology was also often contradictory in regards to his views fascism and socialism and his "Wellsian" ideology showed he was easily influenced by a number of new political factions in the 1930's.

None of the quotes really show that the speakers think socialism and fascism are the same, though it's hard to evaluate because they are stripped of context.

Also....Discover the Networks is a self-professed anti-left site. I don't know how much credibility to give it's claims.

 

[TNHarley]

I only read the first two pages. No need for anything else. Hope the OP fled this thread. Kept some kind of dignity..

 

[westwall]

However,,you've been educated here that that is incorrect.....

Afraid not. Open your mind and learn something new

Socialism is socialism. There is nothing new in that. What is new is your spin, which you can't even coherently describe. Stalinism isn't socialism cus. The same reason you think fascism isn't socialism. It doesn't fit the Democrat agenda. You're saying nothing

Actually, claiming fascism is leftwing and socialist is a new spin on history by those trying and demonize the left and whitewash the right. The Republican Agenda.

Actually it isn't. Like I have said before, back in the 1930's it was well understood that fascism and Soviet style socialism were close to the same. The leading progressives of the US and Europe, realized it, and approved of the leadership of those countries. In fact, many of the leading lights absolutely loved the very idea of dictatorship. They have spent decades trying to obfuscate their support for the leaders that the world was forced to go war to destroy.

Below are a few quotes that show how the progressives understood there were no real differences between the fascists and socialist....

• H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
• The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
• The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
• Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
• McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
• After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
• Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
• NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
• FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
• New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
• Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.

Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

Hold on a second, what you're showing is not that "progressive understand there is no real differences between the fascists and socialist". All you're showing is quotes from various"progressives" and "liberals" complimenting aspects of fascism and that is deceptive.

Just for example the H.G. Wells quote. H.G. Wells pretty much rejected Facism:
As the bootsteps of both fascism and Communism began stamping down his influence, Wells wrote a 1924 essay, “The Spirit of Fascism: Is There Any Good in It at All?” The answer: a resounding no. Wells also rejected the British Union of Fascists. Well's ideology was also often contradictory in regards to his views fascism and socialism and his "Wellsian" ideology showed he was easily influenced by a number of new political factions in the 1930's.

None of the quotes really show that the speakers think socialism and fascism are the same, though it's hard to evaluate because they are stripped of context.

Also....Discover the Networks is a self-professed anti-left site. I don't know how much credibility to give it's claims.

Yes. It is an anti left wing group. Just as there are anti right wing groups that everyone uses for their info. What this group does that the others, for the most part, don't do is post the actual source material. Yes, after Wells saw the abuses of the fascists he abandoned them. But only after. Until those abuses became known (starting as early as 1935 in the case of the Germans, and much earlier in the case of the Soviet Union) he was all in favor of that form of government. He also never lost his liking for that form of government. He just realized that its power could be abused.

 

[danielpalos]

Whatever type of socialism works....fascism will use....

Socialism is the elimination of classes, collective ownership of all property and means of production. Fascism is not. It's an authoritarian rightwing ideology that utilizes some aspects of socialism. That doesn't make it "socialist".

Now you're playing word games. Both socialism and fascism have an elite political class. You're pretending the socialist elite political class doesn't exist when it clearly does

Defacto - yes, but I'm talking about just the ideology not how it ended up working with real human beings. Just like capitalism without regulation actually stifles competition and has no moral compass.

You're using "regulation" as a euphemism for government control, and that's not capitalism it's socialism. There is no need for "regulation" and it doesn't exist. Regulation is government controlling companies in advance.

What we do need are civil and criminal courts for when they do wrong. That's not what you are talking about. You're talking about controlling wages, controlling benefits, controlling healthcare, telling companies what they are allowed to do ... socialism ...

Government either controls through regulation or outright owns production and controls every aspect of it. You're trying to create a fuzzy area where government interferes in the private sector and calling it socialism in SOME cases and not in others and drawing arbritrary lines.

In fact, in the mid-1930s after breaking with the socialists, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector although they maintained strict regulations.

socialism starts with a social contract, not any degree of social control of means of production. only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[westwall]

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

Something you're completely unqualified to provide as what you want in "regulation" is socialism.

What you are arguing is corporatism, which is another form of socialism. Corporations get government to control the economy in their favor. Free people cannot be held in sweatshops. You're arguing against yourself

Corporatism isn't socialism: corporatism | ideology

Socialism: means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Corporatism is a form of fascism. Just sayin....

Yes, but it's not socialism.

Sort of. Fascism is corporate controlled socialism. The corporations control the government in their ideal world, they dictate to the government what they want done, and the politicians that the corporations have bought do the corporate bidding. Invariably the policies benefit the corporations but harm the individuals. There will certainly be some "concessions" made to the civilians, but ultimately they pay for those concessions through higher taxes and reduced freedoms.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

Something you're completely unqualified to provide as what you want in "regulation" is socialism.

What you are arguing is corporatism, which is another form of socialism. Corporations get government to control the economy in their favor. Free people cannot be held in sweatshops. You're arguing against yourself

Corporatism isn't socialism: corporatism | ideology

Socialism: means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

yes, it is another form of socialism. capitalism includes no government since all transactions must be voluntary.

 

[danielpalos]

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

Something you're completely unqualified to provide as what you want in "regulation" is socialism.

What you are arguing is corporatism, which is another form of socialism. Corporations get government to control the economy in their favor. Free people cannot be held in sweatshops. You're arguing against yourself

Corporatism isn't socialism: corporatism | ideology

Socialism: means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Corporatism is a form of fascism. Just sayin....

Yes, but it's not socialism.

Yes, it is a form of socialism. Socialism just means any degree of government involvement in the private sector.

 

[Coyote]

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

Something you're completely unqualified to provide as what you want in "regulation" is socialism.

What you are arguing is corporatism, which is another form of socialism. Corporations get government to control the economy in their favor. Free people cannot be held in sweatshops. You're arguing against yourself

Corporatism isn't socialism: corporatism | ideology

Socialism: means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

yes, it is another form of socialism. capitalism includes no government since all transactions must be voluntary.

No, it's not socialism since socialism means owned or regulated by the community - the workers.

Corporatism: According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction.

 

[bripat9643]

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

Something you're completely unqualified to provide as what you want in "regulation" is socialism.

What you are arguing is corporatism, which is another form of socialism. Corporations get government to control the economy in their favor. Free people cannot be held in sweatshops. You're arguing against yourself

Corporatism isn't socialism: corporatism | ideology

Socialism: means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

yes, it is another form of socialism. capitalism includes no government since all transactions must be voluntary.

No, it's not socialism since socialism means owned or regulated by the community - the workers.

Corporatism: According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction.

I fail to see the difference between those to definitions.

 

[Coyote]

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

Something you're completely unqualified to provide as what you want in "regulation" is socialism.

What you are arguing is corporatism, which is another form of socialism. Corporations get government to control the economy in their favor. Free people cannot be held in sweatshops. You're arguing against yourself

Corporatism isn't socialism: corporatism | ideology

Socialism: means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

yes, it is another form of socialism. capitalism includes no government since all transactions must be voluntary.

No, it's not socialism since socialism means owned or regulated by the community - the workers.

Corporatism: According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction.

I fail to see the difference between those to definitions.

That is your problem. Not mine.

 

[bripat9643]

Something you're completely unqualified to provide as what you want in "regulation" is socialism.

What you are arguing is corporatism, which is another form of socialism. Corporations get government to control the economy in their favor. Free people cannot be held in sweatshops. You're arguing against yourself

Corporatism isn't socialism: corporatism | ideology

Socialism: means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

yes, it is another form of socialism. capitalism includes no government since all transactions must be voluntary.

No, it's not socialism since socialism means owned or regulated by the community - the workers.

Corporatism: According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction.

I fail to see the difference between those to definitions.

That is your problem. Not mine.

Failing to understand English is your problem

 

[Coyote]

Here is a better definition. Frankly sounds like the direction we're headed in:

Corporatism - Wikipedia
Corporatism, also known as corporativism,[1] is the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.[2] It is theoretically based on the interpretation of a community as an organic body.[3] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora") meaning "body".[4]

 

[Indeependent]

Here is a better definition. Frankly sounds like the direction we're headed in:

Corporatism - Wikipedia
Corporatism, also known as corporativism,[1] is the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.[2] It is theoretically based on the interpretation of a community as an organic body.[3] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora") meaning "body".[4]

Corporatism is represented historically by a Global Employment Pool which forces bottom feeder wages.

 

[Coyote]

This article has a pretty good explaination of left/right...

The Left-Right Political Spectrum Explained - Fact / Myth

Despite the ambiguity and complexity involved in creating a political spectrum, the political left and right are properly defined (from a historical perspective that considers the basic government types, the basic political parties, social contract theory, and the origin of left-right), by the following two paradigms (which should both be considered at once):

1. Most importantly, “Liberal (favoring liberty) is left, and conservative (favoring authority) is right” (see a discussion on liberalism vs. conservatism).
2. And, almost equally as important, ideologies that favor the collective are left, and ideologies favoring the individual are right. See individualism vs. collectivism.

Thus in summary: the left-right spectrum can be defined by the “individualism (right) vs. collectivism (left) paradigm” compared to the “authority (right) vs. liberty (left) paradigm”. This means there is not one primary left-right factor, but at least two that must be considered simultaneously!​

and

Basic Liberal Vs. Conservative Political Ideology Spectrum – What is the Difference Between the Left-Wing and the Right-Wing?

As noted above, historically speaking, the simplest way to understand left-right ideology is: liberal is left and conservative is right. Also noted above this relates to the authority and collectivism vs. individualism paradigms. With this information covered, let’s better define the underlying terms so we can be clear on their meaning.

• Liberalism (AKA classic liberalism) typically being a fight for liberty, progress, and democracy and against authority. It supports the individual liberty and individual authority of the people, but at the expense of collective liberty and collective authority of the state. At its worst, it is lawless anarchy or a tyrannical mob.
• Conservatism (AKA traditional conservatism) being a push toward tradition, order, and authority and away from liberalism. It favors collective authority via the state, but at the expense of collective and individual liberty and individual authority. At its worst, it is a tyrannical dictatorship.
• A third concept, Socialism, is a populist movement rooted in late 19th century Marxism, that is typically to the left on most issues. Conservatism stands against this as well, as does classic liberalism. It favors collective authority via the state to ensure collective liberty, but at the expense of individual liberty and individual authority. At its worst it is also a tyrannical dictatorship.

​

 

[Indeependent]

This article has a pretty good explaination of left/right...

The Left-Right Political Spectrum Explained - Fact / Myth

Despite the ambiguity and complexity involved in creating a political spectrum, the political left and right are properly defined (from a historical perspective that considers the basic government types, the basic political parties, social contract theory, and the origin of left-right), by the following two paradigms (which should both be considered at once):

1. Most importantly, “Liberal (favoring liberty) is left, and conservative (favoring authority) is right” (see a discussion on liberalism vs. conservatism).
2. And, almost equally as important, ideologies that favor the collective are left, and ideologies favoring the individual are right. See individualism vs. collectivism.

Thus in summary: the left-right spectrum can be defined by the “individualism (right) vs. collectivism (left) paradigm” compared to the “authority (right) vs. liberty (left) paradigm”. This means there is not one primary left-right factor, but at least two that must be considered simultaneously!​

and

Basic Liberal Vs. Conservative Political Ideology Spectrum – What is the Difference Between the Left-Wing and the Right-Wing?

As noted above, historically speaking, the simplest way to understand left-right ideology is: liberal is left and conservative is right. Also noted above this relates to the authority and collectivism vs. individualism paradigms. With this information covered, let’s better define the underlying terms so we can be clear on their meaning.

• Liberalism (AKA classic liberalism) typically being a fight for liberty, progress, and democracy and against authority. It supports the individual liberty and individual authority of the people, but at the expense of collective liberty and collective authority of the state. At its worst, it is lawless anarchy or a tyrannical mob.
• Conservatism (AKA traditional conservatism) being a push toward tradition, order, and authority and away from liberalism. It favors collective authority via the state, but at the expense of collective and individual liberty and individual authority. At its worst, it is a tyrannical dictatorship.
• A third concept, Socialism, is a populist movement rooted in late 19th century Marxism, that is typically to the left on most issues. Conservatism stands against this as well, as does classic liberalism. It favors collective authority via the state to ensure collective liberty, but at the expense of individual liberty and individual authority. At its worst it is also a tyrannical dictatorship.

​

Yeah, we've seen how accepting Liberals are.

 

[Coyote]

This article has a pretty good explaination of left/right...

The Left-Right Political Spectrum Explained - Fact / Myth

Despite the ambiguity and complexity involved in creating a political spectrum, the political left and right are properly defined (from a historical perspective that considers the basic government types, the basic political parties, social contract theory, and the origin of left-right), by the following two paradigms (which should both be considered at once):

1. Most importantly, “Liberal (favoring liberty) is left, and conservative (favoring authority) is right” (see a discussion on liberalism vs. conservatism).
2. And, almost equally as important, ideologies that favor the collective are left, and ideologies favoring the individual are right. See individualism vs. collectivism.

Thus in summary: the left-right spectrum can be defined by the “individualism (right) vs. collectivism (left) paradigm” compared to the “authority (right) vs. liberty (left) paradigm”. This means there is not one primary left-right factor, but at least two that must be considered simultaneously!​

and

Basic Liberal Vs. Conservative Political Ideology Spectrum – What is the Difference Between the Left-Wing and the Right-Wing?

As noted above, historically speaking, the simplest way to understand left-right ideology is: liberal is left and conservative is right. Also noted above this relates to the authority and collectivism vs. individualism paradigms. With this information covered, let’s better define the underlying terms so we can be clear on their meaning.

• Liberalism (AKA classic liberalism) typically being a fight for liberty, progress, and democracy and against authority. It supports the individual liberty and individual authority of the people, but at the expense of collective liberty and collective authority of the state. At its worst, it is lawless anarchy or a tyrannical mob.
• Conservatism (AKA traditional conservatism) being a push toward tradition, order, and authority and away from liberalism. It favors collective authority via the state, but at the expense of collective and individual liberty and individual authority. At its worst, it is a tyrannical dictatorship.
• A third concept, Socialism, is a populist movement rooted in late 19th century Marxism, that is typically to the left on most issues. Conservatism stands against this as well, as does classic liberalism. It favors collective authority via the state to ensure collective liberty, but at the expense of individual liberty and individual authority. At its worst it is also a tyrannical dictatorship.

​

Yeah, we've seen how accepting Liberals are.

About as accepting as Conservatives.

 

[Indeependent]

This article has a pretty good explaination of left/right...

The Left-Right Political Spectrum Explained - Fact / Myth

Despite the ambiguity and complexity involved in creating a political spectrum, the political left and right are properly defined (from a historical perspective that considers the basic government types, the basic political parties, social contract theory, and the origin of left-right), by the following two paradigms (which should both be considered at once):

1. Most importantly, “Liberal (favoring liberty) is left, and conservative (favoring authority) is right” (see a discussion on liberalism vs. conservatism).
2. And, almost equally as important, ideologies that favor the collective are left, and ideologies favoring the individual are right. See individualism vs. collectivism.

Thus in summary: the left-right spectrum can be defined by the “individualism (right) vs. collectivism (left) paradigm” compared to the “authority (right) vs. liberty (left) paradigm”. This means there is not one primary left-right factor, but at least two that must be considered simultaneously!​

and

Basic Liberal Vs. Conservative Political Ideology Spectrum – What is the Difference Between the Left-Wing and the Right-Wing?

As noted above, historically speaking, the simplest way to understand left-right ideology is: liberal is left and conservative is right. Also noted above this relates to the authority and collectivism vs. individualism paradigms. With this information covered, let’s better define the underlying terms so we can be clear on their meaning.

• Liberalism (AKA classic liberalism) typically being a fight for liberty, progress, and democracy and against authority. It supports the individual liberty and individual authority of the people, but at the expense of collective liberty and collective authority of the state. At its worst, it is lawless anarchy or a tyrannical mob.
• Conservatism (AKA traditional conservatism) being a push toward tradition, order, and authority and away from liberalism. It favors collective authority via the state, but at the expense of collective and individual liberty and individual authority. At its worst, it is a tyrannical dictatorship.
• A third concept, Socialism, is a populist movement rooted in late 19th century Marxism, that is typically to the left on most issues. Conservatism stands against this as well, as does classic liberalism. It favors collective authority via the state to ensure collective liberty, but at the expense of individual liberty and individual authority. At its worst it is also a tyrannical dictatorship.

​

Yeah, we've seen how accepting Liberals are.

About as accepting as Conservatives.

If you are attempting to converse in regards to the US economy I suggest you do read some history and discover that both parties, of which Trump is neither, are BOTH fucking up our economy.
And I'm not referring to the Bleeding Heart Liberal or Sociopathic Neo-Conservative version of history.