Using the linear Left vs. Right political model where nationalism is given Right Wing value Facism has always been placed on the Right.
Of course, this linear model was created by a follower of Karl Marx.
What many people don't understand about this Linear Model is that nationalism is not the overiding factor as the Russian Soviets were possibly more nationalistic than the German's under Hitler.
The Left vs. Right is a over simplified model as it does not take into account things like nationalism and authoritarian nature.
Under this model libertarianism is generally placed in the Left wing based on the lack of nationalism in traditional civil libertarians.
There are Left and Right Wing versions of nearly every ideology. Right-libertarians, left-libertarains, right-socialists, left-socialist, and so on.
Whole books have been written about this subject so go buy one if you are a capitalist (or borrow, check-out or steal one if your a communist.)
Seth Williams
· 3 years ago
Thank you for the comment, but did you read the post? I'm not talking about a strictly linear model. I ask because you seem to gloss over my conclusion.
MikeAdamson
· 3 years ago
Interesting post Seth and I generally agree with your conclusions. Right vs. Left has so many different meanings now that it really isn't of much value anymore. I had always viewed Fascists as ultra right wingers but the argument for lumping them in with Russian Communists is certainly valid when you're using a totalitarian vs. freedom scale. Good work.
FreeRepublicans.com
· 3 years ago
Well, you post just states things in a slightly different way. I understand what you were trying to do. Although, your analysis of the anti-abortion stance of facists doesn't really jive with history.
Using the Nazi model of facism (which is different from textbook defined facism, but is the easiest to point back to) obviously they were against citizen rights for abortion. But there are clear cases of force abortions on Jewish and non-Jewish women. Some as part of the eugenics projects, other part of general torture techniques.
The problem that I have with an appoach like this is that you are citing common beliefs between facism and republicanism as if these similarities should be pointed out. In my view, by doing this you are giving the other side ammo.
It may be academicly and intellectually true that there are similarities, but to bring them out detracts from the credibility of out positions today which do not originate in anyway from the origins of facism.
Dave
· 3 years ago
I've always viewed fascists as being like serial killers--they can come from either party, and it's foolish and naive to believe that fascism will come from just one party.
Seth Williams
· 3 years ago
My point is that fascism is a unique ideology that lies in its own political "space"--a space that is not in the mainstream of American politics. I can't think of a single mainstream politician in America that you could accurately call fascist.
modern instances
· 3 years ago
Good post. I think the bottom line is that attempting to discuss fascism on a policy level is an execise in futility. Once an autocratic state is established, the policies it pursues are secondary.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
I think the bottom line is that attempting to discuss fascism on a policy level is an execise in futility. Once an autocratic state is established, the policies it pursues are secondary.
I think that's a good point. I could see a facists dictator supplying things like "free health care" and "right to an abortion" to the public if they thought it solidified their position.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
The main fallacy with your post is that you don't have a current model of facism to compare Republicans and Democrats with.
Where are you getting your defination of facism from: Nazi Germany? Pre-war Italy? Some Tin-Pot Third world country?
The Republican Party of the 1930's believed in a lot of different things than the party does in the 21st century. Same thing for the Democrat party. A third world party cannot be compared with either the Democrats or the Republicans.
The only defination of a facism that ever really made sense was that it's an economic/political system of central planning while leaving industry in the hands of private owners. Basically it's a model where big government, big labor and big business supposedly work together. You can make up your own mind what party this is near to.
Sigivald
· 3 years ago
I suspect you mean Fascists "Strongly Support" spending more on the military, not the reverse.
Seth Williams
· 3 years ago
Sigivald--yes, I do mean that. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.
Seth Williams
· 3 years ago
To all: thanks for the comments. Let me clarify a few points.
The model of fascism that I worked off of was based on an amalgam of sources--not any one historical state or party. I tried to reconcile the positions of different historical and contemporary fascist states/parties and find common broad ideological threads, and not just a snapshot of one state at one time.
I'm aware of the weakness of applying the politics match questions to fascist ideology--we simply have no contemporary mainstream American party to work off of. The politics match quiz also doesn't account for fascist ideas about an "in group" (usually race-based). Nonetheless, using the modeling of general ideological threads that fascist parties have had in common, we can come to a fairly decent understanding of where they fall within a broad spectrum.
I used the profiles of the Democrat and Republic platforms to give a sense of perspective and scale to the results. It was in no way an attempt to declare an equivilence between them or to tar one or the other as being closer ideology. This was an honest (if amature) attempt to understand fascism's "place" in a spectrum. I was somewhat surprised by the result--it came out further to the right than I expected (Disclaimer: I'm a libertarian-leaning conservative/Republican).
FreeRepublican's comment about the Nazi stance to abortion is true enough. Yet one must realize that in the fascist ideology, abortion among the "in group/race" is strongly opposed--other minorities not being considered as citizens and thus not worthy of the same legal consideration. This is a broad feature of the fascist ideology that is present not only in one state/party/historical context, but in many.
Seth Williams
· 3 years ago
FreeRepublican: following is some evidence to support my contention that fascism is a generally anti-abortion ideology.
Anti-abortion fascists in history:
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Germany under Adolf HItler) Fasci di Combattimento (Italy under Benito Mussolini)
Anti-abortion fascists in contemporary times:
British National Party (BNP--United Kingdom) National Front (FN--France) National Republican Movement (MRP--France) Italian Socialist Movement (MSI--Italy) Republicans (REP--Germany) German Peoples Union (DVU--Germany) National Democratic Party (NPD--Germany) Flemmish Block (VB--Belgium) Self-Defence of the Polish Republic (S--Poland) League of Polish Families (LPR--Poland) Christian Falangist Party of America (CFPA--USA)
My research indicates to me that the evidence of fascist support for abortion is quite lacking.
robert108
· 3 years ago
Individual Independence:
Fascists: Strongly oppose
Republicans: Strongly support
Democrats: Wishy-Washy
robert108
· 3 years ago
Opportunity:
Republicans: Equal opportunity for all
Democrats: Special opportunities for favored groups
Fascists: Opportunity only for favored groups
John
· 3 years ago
A study of Fascism has much more to offer than crowding it to one corner of a 10 by 10 plot. Were the results really that surprising? Getting past the anti-liberal assumptions in its philosophy, Fascist thought is presented quite thoroughly and coherently by its intellectuals. All told, the results of the politics test really isn't very interesting.
On the other hand, it's nice to see all that white space between America and fascism. Were our nation's circumstances very different than they are today, I might support a pacifistic fascist regime, but as a member of the richest, most powerful country in the world, I enjoy my freedom.
Dave
· 3 years ago
Seth: I figured it was something like that, but when John said:
On the other hand, it's nice to see all that white space between America and fascism.
I assumed I was the only one who couldn't see the last image.
Seth Williams
· 3 years ago
John: of course there's more to learn about fascism than a 10X10 grid--but does that make the work that I've done pointless? Yes, I've presented a simplification, but don't make the mistake of thinking this is something I cranked off in 30 minutes. I actually spent weeks researching for this--anything more detailed would make a lousy blog post, and is going to require some funding. Baby needs a new pair of shoes and all that.
Seth Williams
· 3 years ago
Dave--the image is being hosted off of blogspot because I can't upload images to Rob's server. Maybe Rob could copy it to his server and edit the IMG tag...
Dave
· 3 years ago
Seth: Your very last image shows up as a little red "x" on my computer, yet several other commenters have referenced it. Come to think of it, I'm not sure why I addressed you directly. Any idea what may be causing this?
Seth Williams
· 3 years ago
Nope, even I can't see it sometimes.
docdave
· 3 years ago
MI: I think the bottom line is that attempting to discuss fascism on a policy level is an execise in futility. Once an autocratic state is established, the policies it pursues are secondary
I can hardly believe it but I'm agreeing with MI on something. I think the overriding principle of individual freedoms trumps all other comparison items. Fascism has virtually no individual freedoms as compared to all other systems. Seth, this would have become obvious if you had used the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution for comparative values. For instance, taking the first amendment, fascism typically does not permit the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of the people to protest and/or assemble or the right to petition for redress of grievances. I think if you go down the entire list of what we consider our constitution rights, none would be permited under fascism.
Seth Williams
· 3 years ago
docdave: that was sort of my point. It's becoming obvious to me I need a better model of "political space" that can express levels of authoritarianism. Mea culpa--I went into this with no preconcieved notions about what the result should be (although, I did have notions about what the result might be).
Seth Williams
· 3 years ago
docdave: in my defense, fascist parties and candidates have been elected, and to this day run in elections (even here in America)--so it's not a completely crackpot idea.
The model I used is too limited, that's clearer to me now (I knew it was from the start, but I probably didn't appreceate that as fully as I should have).
docdave
· 3 years ago
Seth: in my defense, fascist parties and candidates have been elected,
Well, there are elections and then there are free elections. There were elections in Iraq under Saddam but how free are election when there is only one candidate. Another example is the recent elections in Iran when only a limited number of candidates were allowed to be on the ballot. Granted, Hitlers National Socialist were initially elected but that was before he assumed dictatorial power. Maybe the real test of free elections is once one elects a scondrel can they unelect him in some future election.
Anyway, Seth, my comments were not intended to berate you in any way. Actually, your post was excellent if only for the responses it provoked.
modern instances
· 3 years ago
I was just kidding
docdave
· 3 years ago
MI, my comment wasn't meant as a dig, or maybe it was.
Seth, understand what you were doing, however I think a comparison of freely elected political systems e.g. liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, etc. would be more meaningful using your comparison criteria.
Seth Williams
· 3 years ago
Oh, I didn't take it as berating. Your comments have been constructive.
modern instances
· 3 years ago
I can hardly believe it but I'm agreeing with MI on something.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :)
I think Seth is aware of the limitations of his exercise, but it was interesting nonetheless.
robert108
· 3 years ago
Seth: It might be even more interesting to run a comparison of Republicans and Democrats on the Bill of Rights.
All Comments
Of course, this linear model was created by a follower of Karl Marx.
What many people don't understand about this Linear Model is that nationalism is not the overiding factor as the Russian Soviets were possibly more nationalistic than the German's under Hitler.
The Left vs. Right is a over simplified model as it does not take into account things like nationalism and authoritarian nature.
Under this model libertarianism is generally placed in the Left wing based on the lack of nationalism in traditional civil libertarians.
There are Left and Right Wing versions of nearly every ideology. Right-libertarians, left-libertarains, right-socialists, left-socialist, and so on.
Whole books have been written about this subject so go buy one if you are a capitalist (or borrow, check-out or steal one if your a communist.)
Using the Nazi model of facism (which is different from textbook defined facism, but is the easiest to point back to) obviously they were against citizen rights for abortion. But there are clear cases of force abortions on Jewish and non-Jewish women. Some as part of the eugenics projects, other part of general torture techniques.
The problem that I have with an appoach like this is that you are citing common beliefs between facism and republicanism as if these similarities should be pointed out. In my view, by doing this you are giving the other side ammo.
It may be academicly and intellectually true that there are similarities, but to bring them out detracts from the credibility of out positions today which do not originate in anyway from the origins of facism.
I think that's a good point. I could see a facists dictator supplying things like "free health care" and "right to an abortion" to the public if they thought it solidified their position.
Where are you getting your defination of facism from: Nazi Germany? Pre-war Italy? Some Tin-Pot Third world country?
The Republican Party of the 1930's believed in a lot of different things than the party does in the 21st century. Same thing for the Democrat party. A third world party cannot be compared with either the Democrats or the Republicans.
The only defination of a facism that ever really made sense was that it's an economic/political system of central planning while leaving industry in the hands of private owners. Basically it's a model where big government, big labor and big business supposedly work together. You can make up your own mind what party this is near to.
The model of fascism that I worked off of was based on an amalgam of sources--not any one historical state or party. I tried to reconcile the positions of different historical and contemporary fascist states/parties and find common broad ideological threads, and not just a snapshot of one state at one time.
I'm aware of the weakness of applying the politics match questions to fascist ideology--we simply have no contemporary mainstream American party to work off of. The politics match quiz also doesn't account for fascist ideas about an "in group" (usually race-based). Nonetheless, using the modeling of general ideological threads that fascist parties have had in common, we can come to a fairly decent understanding of where they fall within a broad spectrum.
I used the profiles of the Democrat and Republic platforms to give a sense of perspective and scale to the results. It was in no way an attempt to declare an equivilence between them or to tar one or the other as being closer ideology. This was an honest (if amature) attempt to understand fascism's "place" in a spectrum. I was somewhat surprised by the result--it came out further to the right than I expected (Disclaimer: I'm a libertarian-leaning conservative/Republican).
FreeRepublican's comment about the Nazi stance to abortion is true enough. Yet one must realize that in the fascist ideology, abortion among the "in group/race" is strongly opposed--other minorities not being considered as citizens and thus not worthy of the same legal consideration. This is a broad feature of the fascist ideology that is present not only in one state/party/historical context, but in many.
Anti-abortion fascists in history:Anti-abortion fascists in contemporary times:My research indicates to me that the evidence of fascist support for abortion is quite lacking.
Fascists: Strongly oppose
Republicans: Strongly support
Democrats: Wishy-Washy
Republicans: Equal opportunity for all
Democrats: Special opportunities for favored groups
Fascists: Opportunity only for favored groups
On the other hand, it's nice to see all that white space between America and fascism. Were our nation's circumstances very different than they are today, I might support a pacifistic fascist regime, but as a member of the richest, most powerful country in the world, I enjoy my freedom.
I assumed I was the only one who couldn't see the last image.
I can hardly believe it but I'm agreeing with MI on something. I think the overriding principle of individual freedoms trumps all other comparison items. Fascism has virtually no individual freedoms as compared to all other systems. Seth, this would have become obvious if you had used the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution for comparative values. For instance, taking the first amendment, fascism typically does not permit the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of the people to protest and/or assemble or the right to petition for redress of grievances. I think if you go down the entire list of what we consider our constitution rights, none would be permited under fascism.
The model I used is too limited, that's clearer to me now (I knew it was from the start, but I probably didn't appreceate that as fully as I should have).
Well, there are elections and then there are free elections. There were elections in Iraq under Saddam but how free are election when there is only one candidate. Another example is the recent elections in Iran when only a limited number of candidates were allowed to be on the ballot. Granted, Hitlers National Socialist were initially elected but that was before he assumed dictatorial power. Maybe the real test of free elections is once one elects a scondrel can they unelect him in some future election.
Anyway, Seth, my comments were not intended to berate you in any way. Actually, your post was excellent if only for the responses it provoked.
Seth, understand what you were doing, however I think a comparison of freely elected political systems e.g. liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, etc. would be more meaningful using your comparison criteria.
I think Seth is aware of the limitations of his exercise, but it was interesting nonetheless.