Ahh, this is great . . . Thank you for this insight, we must have imagined it for the last century. Sure, pal. Of course, neither fascism, democracy, true love, devine enlightenment, nor a 7-year coaching contract is in practice as it is defined. Your objections to communism's inherent conradictions does not change the widespread understanding of what a communist is. martin, if you don't even know Who's on First, I can't take you any further here.
Martin isn't debating the definition of communism. He's saying that in practice, communism & fascism resemble each other. Thus, agreeing that the political spectrum could look like a bowed arch.
you will not even concede that communist states are not really worker's utopias, but are actually crippling authoritarian states? fascism is what it is. so are most other political systems, we (more or less) really have the system we claim to have. no communist ever in history has had anything close to marxist communism. it is impossible. human nature prevents it. not suprisingly, i found out today that what i am telling you is a widely held view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart this "nolan chart" is a more accurate representation of the political spectrum that whatever they taught you in your high school civics class, the hyper-simplified left-right continuum. even if you refuse to accept the nolan chart, you should at least accept that the sigle axis spectrum is woefully inaccurate. authoritarianism is authoritarianism. i know this is a concept you are unwilling to accept, i am not sure why, possibly pure ignorance on your part. you often think you know more than you do. and i am not just pulling stuff out of my ass, i majored in this boring crap. edit: i made some mildy funny typos i corrected.
exactly. well said. the single axis view of the spectrum misrepresents what we consider right-leaning conservatives for many reasons. 1. it doesnt take into account that their religious traditionalist views lead to their favoring of more restrictive social policy. 2. it puts them closer to authoritarian fascists than left-leaning liberals, when in general, liberals favor a more government centered approach to solving our problems.
Well, he suggested communism & fascism were basically the same thing because they are totalitarian. I think they are basically opposites on the political scale and that totalitarianism exists at both ends. Fascists and communists have been long-time enemies and oppose each other wherever they co-exist. See: Spanish Civil War, WWII Eastern Front, Pinochet in Chile, etc. To use your bowed arch premise, I am using model "A" below. martin seems to be suggesting model "B".
the simplest model i would endorse is authoritarian on one side and anarchy on the other. because to me, government meddling at the expense of individual liberty is basically always the same. you might be told you can own private businesses under a fascist, but that wouldnt last unless you joined the party and made yourself the bitch of the leader. i doubt your private business would last very long if you were a vocal opponent of the leaders. the leaders wouldnt literally own you (like communists), but they sort of would anyway. i am willing to admit that my view of the political spectrum is biased, but that doesnt mean it isnt the smart and accurate way to look at it.
