Atheist Meditations

Broadly speaking, I can't fault you about what you wrote. However, I find it almost impossible to talk about Fascism without mentioning it's twin brother Communism. These two ideologies left strikingly similar foot prints in the history. In the case of Fascism, in it's darkest form, the terror lasted, thankfully, a relatively shorter period of time.

I would also draw an attention to the cultural repression practiced by these ideologies. The strong guide lines of what's acceptable seem to be always associated with these extremes. Banning and burning books, heavily sensured movies and live theatre, unacceptable visual arts and on and on it goes. I am quite sure that the extreme right in the U.S.(and elese where) is more than willing to start curbing all kinds of ills they precieve plagueing modern arts.
 

I'm involved in a interesting little investigation into everything I don't know about communism.

I think communism was a noble Idea that did not take enough precautions to avoid some of the serious risks involved with such a consolidation of power. Stalinism, that I'd easily say was the twin of fascism.

Some of the more Idealistic commies like Trotsky or the Ukrainians in the '20's - the system did not have to be oppressive.
 

I beg to differ in regards to your comments on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is only supported by liberals if it makes it through their racist, sexist, homophobic,offensive, etc filter. If someone, somewhere, at some time, MAY find something offensive, the left will label it so and decry it.
 

Actually, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with communism as it was intended. However, this ideology was distorted so badly by power hungry despots, and not only in the Stalin's Soviet Union but in countless of countries every where. To whom I feel sorrow for are the millions of rank and file and idealistic communists that sacraficed their lifes for the unselfis and higher goals. They were gruelly exploited and most of their sacrafices were done in vain. The ideology was not neccessarily the problem but the human animal that is not advanced and noble enough to perform under it.
 

I find this debate interesting as it falls into the problem of trying to place Fascism as practised by the Nazi's onto a left / right scale.
If you are trying to tie the political spectrum to a single line with Communism representing the left and Fascism the right then the "far right" political expressions of today actually fall in the middle of the line.

The problem is that Fascism and Communism are actually very similar in outcomes and both are more similar to modern day Socialism (modern left political spectrum) than Libertarianism (Modern right political spectrum, at least in NZ).

The thing I find most amusing about the initial post is that what you are specifying as the Liberal point of view is actually the Libertarian point of view. Which is generally closer to a capitalist not socialist outcome.
 

"If you are trying to tie the political spectrum to a single line"

All of the issues and perspectives of billions of humans, in all combinations, reduced to a single variable.

To communicate with most people, it's neccesary to accept this absurd reduction and speak in it's terms.

But it's far from a useable model of reality, and one reason why so much political discourse is a waste of time. People who disagree can almost never identify the real core of their differences, and too often even people who might agree on the things that matter most to them end up on opposite sides of an imaginary divide.



----------------------------------


Fascism and Communism, like virtually all '-isms,' were almost completely reduced to simple emotions and slogans in the minds of the vast bulk who supported them. It's kind of silly for intellectuals to believe that these ideologies were in any sense seriously adapted, or even really responsible for the actions of the prime movers of those revolutions.

Ideologies are like software methodologies or high-profile criminal prosecutions: vehicles for the advancement of the ambitious.

And the intellectuals who develop the deeper foundations and structures of ideologies and argue over the details of same, these are truly the "useful idiots."
 

Fascinating set of comments. Thanks.

I particularily like the last anonymous comt.

More than anything, just reading these comments provides insight into the great many different interpetations of polical discourse and the definition of 'liberal.'

'useful idiots' - that's so damn true.