@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:okie wrote:
... There was little or no real freedom for individuals to act for their own self interest. That is Fascism to a "T", and that is why I think it can be defined as leftist in nature.
I suspect this reveals the essence of this endless argument. okie chooses to
define facism as "leftist". That is certainly his right and he can believe that as long as he wishes. The problem is the remainder of the English speaking world defines facism differently, and if okie wishes to converse with anyone else in the language he will have to find some new words with which to communicate his ideas.
You have identified the problem, george, but as I have pointed out, nobody needs to swallow so-called "conventional wisdom" put out there by liberal professors and authors if simple common sense says otherwise. As I used an analogy in a previous post, perhaps in Germany in the 20's and 30's, a pear might have looked to be the opposite of an apple. However, with the context of a few more decades and examples of fruit, it would be more logical to now see much more similarity of a pear to an apple than it is to an orange. I am comparing an apple to communism, an orange to conservatism, and the pear to Nazis and Fascists.
Quote:He also employs a unique definition of "leftist", equating that with authoritarianism in any form. Again it is OK for him, but it renders him a verbal cripple in any attempt to converse with anyone else. I believe most folks would have a hard time considering Diocletian, Tamerlane, Ivan the Terrible, Napoleon, or Elizabeth I to be left wing or "leftists" , but that is a problem okie will have to deal with in his communications with others.
That statement is a huge point, george. As you now accuse me of equating authoritarianism to leftists, I would point out that leftists have also attempted to do the same thing by equating authoritarianism to extreme right wing, which is one of the measuring sticks they apply to Hitler. They not only use authoritarian, but the nationalistic nature of his regime, as indicating an extreme right wing system. I would submit to you that neither of these are valid reasons to judge the guy conservative or right wing, and in fact you have acknowledged that leftist regimes tend to be more authoritarian. The ploy of using nationalism to equal right wing does not work either, because I can cite numerous examples of nationalistic regimes that are leftists, one right now being North Korea.
Quote:There is some consistency in okie's lexicon, however it also has some misleading and positively deceptive implications. Prominent among these is the fact that most European governments have political spectra and social welfare policies well to the left (in the conventional sense) of those in the United States. By okie's rhetoric they should all be caught in an irreversable descent into tyrannical authoritarianism. Unfortunately the observable facts tell us otherwise. While their financial situations are certainly in some serious duress, their democratic institutions appear quite healthy and sound. Unfortunately these distinctions are impossible in okie's language - he merely defines them away.
I agree with you about European socialism and the fact that even America has incorporated socialistic programs. None of that changes the fact that those European forms of Democratic Socialism are to the left, just not hard left. To correct you, I have never argued that those systems will inevitably fall under authoritarian rule. However, I would submit to you that those governments might in fact be in more danger of that than a more conservative country, a Democratic Republic, such as the United States, would be. In fact, did we not see that happen in Nazi Germany? Would Nazi Germany have been to the left of what we currently have here in the U.S. now, before the Nazis gained power? In other words, perhaps they went from soft left to hard left, rather than from soft left to hard right?
