Sorry, but that’s the funniest sentance I’ve read here in a LONG time. I think picturing left wing fascists marching through the streets of Nazi Germany with red stars on their hats is what did the trick for me. 
— G. Raven
p.s. I don’t suppose I can have it for a sig?
Would it be safe to say that fascism is an extreme form of conservatism and communism is an extreme form of liberalism?
In any event, any form of government is bad if it does not provide some mechanism for the people ruled by that government to change it. Fascism obviously does not do this since ‘the Great Leader is always right because he is the Great Leader and he’s always right’.
Just out of curiousity, do any Simpsons fans here remember the Ranier Wolfcastle movie where McBain fought against ‘Commie Nazis’?
Kingpengvin, I think you’re seriously mistaken. The Guomindang certainly had fascist overtones, were extremely nationalistic, and Jiang Jie Shi was no George Washington. However, the fact remains that the Japanese government leading up to World War II was decidedly, violently fascist. The power of the military was immense, individualism was considered detrimental to the nation, and the self-effacing service of the emperor, particularly in the sphere of militaristic expansion, was the ONLY acceptable route. That fits MEBuckner’s definition rather well. Military societies in Japan went so far as to mutiny, and even assassinate the civilian prime minister Inokai.
All of this leads up to a few points I’d like to make. Fascist government is very dependent on the character of the individual leader. His personality quirks and hang-ups are played out on an entire nation, whether they like it or not. Failures always need a scapegoat, because the sorts of personalities that become dictators tend not be accepting of failure. Fascist states are also almost always militaristic and expansionists, and their neighbors pay for it. Evil enemies, external or internal, real or imagined, are also necessary to make people forget the rationing, sacrifices, and steady stream of body bags.
I’d rather deal with the averaged-out hangups of a nation than those of one megalomaniac.
Just for the record, imho, the Kuomintang were a very oppressive right-wing regime, but mostly just corrupt. I’m not sure they had any special political agenda, apart from getting fat from kickbacks and dealing with the whole Japan mess.
— G. Raven
Not really, no. Liberalism is a term whose meaning has varied widely over history and in different countries. It originally meant something very close to what Americans would now term libertarianism, and in other countries it still retains more of that meaning. In the United States, what we call “liberalism” would probably be closest to the the policies of what Europeans would call social democrats; however, it’s been a while since the American left has really flirted with even peaceful socialism, and I don’t think American liberals–at least not liberal politicians in power–ever went as far in that direction as the European left wing did.
Conservatism is arguably not so much a specific political philosophy as it is an attitude towards change. Many American conservatives–especially the ones who emphasize individual rights and free enterprise economics–might be termed “conservative liberals”, i.e., liberals who have stuck to the original 18th and 19th Century platform of liberalism. Conversely, in a Communist country, a committed Marxist might well be quite conservative–Brezhnev wasn’t exactly a bomb-throwing radical, and some of the revolutionaries who brought down Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were quoting Milton Friedman–in other words, they were libertarians or old-fashioned liberals.
Libertarians are fond of the idea of replacing the “spectrum” with a two axis grid–“personal self-government” on one axis, and “economic self-government” on the other, as explained here. (Note that this page is run by libertarians; personally, I’m what they call a “left-liberal”.) One might add a third axis “preference for change”, on which terms like “reactionary”, “conservative”, “progressive”, and “radical” or “revolutionary” would appear, but note that this axis is inherently somewhat conditional–someone who’s conservative in one time and place will be a revolutionary in other circumstances, without that person’s basic philosophy changing at all. Note that fascist movements often had a self-conscious “revolutionary” element to them; the idea that sweeping away the “corrupt” old order was necessary and good.
Excellent post, ME. The development of American politics, especially since the New Deal, have corrupted the meanings of the terms liberal and conservative beyond all meaning. The Democratic Party and the GOP have each adopted portions of classic liberalism and conservatism, with the result that neither is anywhere near self-consistent.
A minor nit - while classic liberalism and libertarianism share many ideas, I disagree that they are very close. Classic liberalism recognizes that, while government regulation should be minimal, it is very necessary, particularly in the field of economics. Liberalism believes that a free market system, without an impartial referee, is untenable.
Sua
[slight hijack]
Left-Wing Fascists was the name of a good, local college bar band in Norfolk, VA.
[/hijack]
[Might be a double post; I’m having a little trouble with my browser]
I think it’s safe to say that most people don’t care that much about politics, as they go through their daily lives. It’s also well documented that German and Italian fascists did bring about social and economic order after years of turmoil. To the extent that these governments succeeded in vilifying certain minorities or opposing political parties,
I think the “silent majorities” in those countries were probably quite comfortable with those regimes. Indeed they probably would not have perceived that there was anything bizarre or ominous about the governments under which they lived.
[hijack] I think there are parallels with modern day racial prejudice, especially with respect to African Americans. The white majority, for the most part, really doesn’t see that this prejudice exists, because it’s embodied in ways of behaving and thinking that are almost subconscious. African Americans have a decidedly different take on the issue, and with considerable justification. I’m not saying that racial prejudice in America today is anything like the anti-Jewish fervor that led to the Holocaust, but it is a persistent problem, and one that is fostered by the same kind of obliviousness that must have prevailed in the general populations of Germany and Italy during their fascist periodds[/hijack]
I meant to add here:because they had been conditioned to regard the victims of oppression as less than human, and hence were not in a position to be alarmed by it.
(Note to self: Proofread and edit better.)