Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 15  Next

Are you sure you're not confusing "Canadian politics" with "anything at all"?

   

romanP

So? Does this give him diplomatic imunity or infalibility?

   

Well, I didn't write that, Mustang1 did, but I'll respond anyway.

This is not some schmuck on the street selling cheap cult magazines about how to dig a tunnel under the Bering Strait for $5 donations. He has enough credentials to be not only considered but accepted as a political advisor for a national leader, and wrote an academically accepted textbook on political science.

That is probably much more than the guy who wrote a book about "liberal fascism" can say for himself.

   

The fascism and Nazi accusations were started by the Left as a weapon to smear conservatives and to stifle debate. That someone on the Right would write a book calling liberals "fascists" is fairly stupid in and of itself. It doesn't, however, negate the fact that it is liberals who use these words like nuclear weapons to bring about quick endings to any debates they are uncomfortable with or to halt any policy threats to socialist programs that have been instituted throughout society over the last 30 to 40 years. When you hear "fascist" being yelled out loud it usually doesn't come from someone who puts Stephen Harper signs on his lawn during election season. This is one of the main reasons I can't take anything about the Left seriously anymore. They've made these ridiculous sort of accustations so many times it's lost all meaning. Over-abuse of hyperbole is strictly the domain of those whose arguments can't stand the light of day anyway.

   

If it's only liberals who use this word, why is it typically right-wing morons who dreg it up to make excuses for their shitty behaviour, especially the author of a book claiming that liberals are fascists?



No, it typically comes from talking heads on FOX News who haven't the faintest idea of what fascism is, except as a bogeyman of an era they never lived in.

   

   

That's amazing ManifestDestiny, you managed to go and quote Wikipedia (without even citing) even after I said don't bother giving me a wikipedia definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I made a one hour presentation on fascism for my political ideology class, do you really think I didn't look at wikipedia as a starting point (to later find out it's filled with msitakes).


Fascism is an italian word, it basically means unity. Unity under what? Unity of a nation under ONE ruler. This ruler is almost seen as Divine (like the rulers of Egypt for example), this is why he should be followed blindly, without questioning.

Perhaps the interests of the individual comes last, unless he is 'the one'. But there are reasons (wikipedia never goes into such details). It comes last because fascists believe that the freedoms and liberties are useless, or secondary freedoms/liberties. Secondary to the interests of the nation (not the state), the nation being united under the leader, freedoms of the individual are secondary to the freedoms (and rights, etc...) of the leader, uniter, the One, whatever you want to call him.

Even though fascism supports elitism, it doesn't support corporatism. Actually fascists states differ on their economic view. Fascism under Hitler had a lot of socialism inside of it, so it would appeal to the working classes. It may sound surprising. However remember the Hegel is often cited as a fascist but also a communism. Researchers who say he's a fascist will thus admit that some branches of fascism has a lot of socialism. Which is normal, shouldn't everything be bound to the interests of the state?

Your comment on the way fascists see society is completely untrue. Nazism does not equal fascism, they are different movement. Nazism came out of fascism (and fascism from nationalism). In my textbook the author described it as simply as this 'fascism+racism= Nazism' (Ball, 2006). In Italy, there were a lot of different ethnic groups (Especially in Southern Italy. Muslims, Greeks, Western Europeans). They were all united as Italians under Mussolini. They didn't think that social status was passed through birth at all. Otherwise the people of Italy would have united under the King, not under Mussolini (the king did hold a lot of power in Italy). Actually, Germany fascism was in somewhat a meritocracy. If you did very good things, and got noticed, you would probably be rewarded for it. Of course, you'll see a lot of von and van as generals, that's because meritocracies are utopias, and they also started at a higher level (welfare, tradition). Your comment made it sound like if Fascists favorised a chaste system.

Above all, Fascism is irrational (big key word here, if you were in class you would put all kind of colors around it). They don't feel the need to use reason to prove their points. Did you ever listen to one of Hitler's speech? If not go get a translated one (unless you speak German) what he says is very illogical and lacks basic grammar like connection between sentences. Why should you listen to the leader in a fascist state? Because he is the one. No more reasons needed.


I hope this clarifies what Fascism. However let me continue and explain liberalism/conservatism.


First let me straighten out the 'left-right' scale many people think is the main tool of political scientists. That's an economical (put colors here too) scale. It's not very used either, because it can become very inconsistent if you try to fit parties into them. However, liberals are on the extreme right (neo-liberals are in the mid-right). Conservatives are on the mid left (you'll understand if you bear with me). Communists are on the extreme-left. Socialists are basically the same as communists on this scale (a tiny bit less left). The term Market Liberal is used to refer to parties or ideologies that apply Smith theories or neo-liberal ideologies (basically neo-liberals are Smith on tranquilizer to keep it simple).

The scale we use actually defines how much social change (not what kind, just how much) an ideology wants. Here you can see it.



The more on the left the ideology is, the more changes it want and the more quickly it wants it. Revolutionist want change through blood because they want to stay away from the Status Quo. The more you're on the right, the more you are talking with time travelers who wish things were like it was before and want to change it to like it was before (Hitler was a retrogressive as he wanted the Aryans to be as strong as they used to be in his idea of the 'German golden age,' this is irrational so there are no historical proofs obviously) again the more on the right, the quicker they want it and the more they want it. On the mid-right there is reactionists. In Canada reactionists are the opposition when we have a majority government. They'll (most of the time) jump and say it was better before X policy. Conservatives were being reactionists when they proposed to ban gay marriage even though it had been previously made legal. Basically reactionists are 'Undo' buttons.

1: Communism
2:Socialism
3: NDP
4: Liberalism
5: Liberal Party of Canada
6:Conservative Party of Canada
7: Conservatism
8: Republicains

Democracts are not included because they seem to change their mainstream thoughts pretty quickly and it's hard to pin-point them. Usually they are much closer to Canadian conservatives than to Canadian liberals.

Liberalism began with Hobbes with his idea of social contract and that humans were bad (I will only mention Hobbes because I agree with him more than with Rousseau or Locke, yes I know bias, though luck). In his book Leviathan (a must read for any liberals. It's very interesting and can appeal to the general population) he uses an example: If a bunch of random people were stuck on an island with only them to fend off, what would happen? Hobbes assumes it would be a 'natural selection,' the rule of the fittest. A constant state of war. We have a modern example of this. Hurricane Katrina and countries where governments collapsed (Iraq is a bit of a stretch).

However society is not in this 'state of nature'. This is because societies made a social contract, this is a metaphysical agreement. The people trade some freedom for more security (so they don't all kill each other), the freedom they traded takes the form of a government.

Now I'm heading further away from Hobbes, so why would liberals want change? Liberalism started with the Enlightenment, a time where a common saying for kings was 'L'Etat c'est moi' (Louis XIII). Too much freedom had been traded for security. This is why change was required. However a revolution would have destroyed the social contract (the French Revolution was definitely not stable and was nearly the state of nature). This is why liberals want to change things, but while remaining inside the laws (this is why constitutions are so common in places where liberalism developed). Democracy is a liberal ideal because it allows a lot of liberty 'The rule of people, for people, by the people' (Marmhoud, 2007) but still keeps a lot of security. This is a brief description of liberalism.

Liberals (the movement, no Canadian liberals, if I mean Canadian liberal I will say it) believe in capitalism because it is freedom and democracy in one of its most pure forms. In theory there was no risk for the security of people, realistically there are. I guess the thinkers didn't stop to that (but that is why liberalism evolved away from economic liberalism to neo-liberalism).


Now let's take a look at liberalism in two states we can all relate to. The first one Canada (surprise!) and the second one, the United States (even bigger surprise!).
Canada is largely liberal, actually what caused the conservative trend in Canada were loyalists who came from the United States. Even our conservatives are further left than the basic conservatives.

Why is Canada liberal? Just look at how we earned our autonomy. Through many years, with many act and treaties and agreement with the crown. Slowly, bit by bits, without forcing things. At first we earned a symbolic government, then it earned power. Later we received our diplomatic autonomy. We never forced thing, we always followed the rules of the game to spare Canada useless bloodshed and disorder. However we're now one of the most free (and safe!) country. A proof that liberalism is deeply rooted in Canada.

In the United States your first reflex might be to say 'But they rebelled!' They did but I think that's because some pages of hobbes were lost on the ship to the new world. They did try to go through law first (by declaring themselves independent). However we can notice the constant friction to have as much security as possible but while losing the less amount of freedom as possible, this is why the US constitution is the equivalent of the Bible for christians.

It also explains why Americans are naturally untrusting of their government. Data recorded over the year has shown a steady decline of support for any US president over their term(s). Why do you think Bush is so deeply hated? Because he's taking a lot of freedom away at the expense of very little security. Liberalism is all about the minimum amount of security possible to be civilized with as much freedom as possible. Anarchists are actually close to liberals, the only thing is that they live in a land where you can live off of love and fresh air.


I'll do conservatives tomorrow, I just looked at the clock and I have class from 0800 to 1700, so I need some sleep!

   

For sure. Fascism is best described as something that is widely misused and misunderstood.

Hence whenever some uses the word, this forum gets polluted by smart asses that want to cut and past a description.

   

Why are Republicans on the far right scale, while communism on the far left? Come on, the Republican Party isn't the most far right body in existance

   

People ask where is it written that Uncle Joe often mentioned that Liberals were fascists?

   

   

So? Does this mean you're fessing up to being a first-rate ignoramus that doesn't know squat about the dreck you mash out?

You're a dsingenious troll and your ignorance just got ripped open and you're a blatant coward for not conceding your utter lack of political knowledge.

Just for the record, CKA crowd, samsquantch, in one of his tinfoil hat tantrums, labeled Stephen Harper's campaign adviser, Thomas Flanagan, a communist because he didn't fall to samsquantch's trucker education level.

What a joke!

   

Republicans are not on the far right side, they are center right. The current Republican president has many policies that are actually a step backward in the evolution of society in United States (banning abortion, banning same-sex marriage two things that I think are left to the states and that most agreed not to ban).

This scale usually works better when you work with ideologies, pin-pointing parties on it isn't exact science because parties can change quickly and sometimes have ideas that differ a lot from their previous one. I added parties to show the relation of Canadian parties (and American parties) to what people usually think liberalism and republicanism are.

Also don't forget this scale just takes into account how much social change an ideology/party wants and how quick it wants it. Communists believe in revolution (Marx said that when there would be too much alienation between the working class and the capitalists, that they would revolt). This has proved true of any country that called itself communists. Soviet Union, China, Cuba.

I also don't have knowledge of every party in the world, but you can rest certain that are parties that are even more on the right of this scale.

(I'm still going to do conservatism, but I just came here to answer some comments quickly before class).

   

The Left(in general offsite)did start the "Fascist" name calling of the Right, but many decades before that the Right started calling the Left "Communist". In the grand scheme of things, the Left's counter with "Fascist" was at least the proper term, although the name calling by either side is unproductive and as you say, stifles discussion.

   

It is easy for self-appointed intellectuals to confuse reality with what they are taught by a biased lecturer in a university. Currently, any scepticism of GW will not be a successful enterprise in the study of meteorology or climate scierce even though GW is as realistic as the virgin birth.

Dad once said the teacher is not always right but is the one who passes or fails you.

Unfortunately these ivory tower experts impose their prejudices and world views.

Even a casual observation of Nazi policy versus the policies of the USSR, the PRC and even North Korea are indistinguishable. Same military parades, secret police etc.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 15  Next