Elder-Basilisk said:
The idea that politics can be mapped on a right/left spectrum is pretty much bunk.
I disagree. I think politics
can be mapped on a right/left spectrum, but
isn't usually mapped so in any particularly meaningful way, the majority of the time.
Elder-Basilisk said:
It may (though I don't think it does) work for Eurpean politics where there is a tradition of statist conservative parties but in the US, at least, the conservative tradition has more in common with libertarianism in many respects.
*Whereas my reply here originally referred to the liberal tradition in the US, I realise now, in hindsight, that libertarianism has nothing much to do with 'liberalism'. Ahem. My ignorance of the details - or even the terms - of US politics indeed is formidable.
*
Elder-Basilisk said:
Similarly, both fascist and socialist governments operated on many of the same philosophies and by many of the same methods. Both require totalitarian collectivism and state ownership. Both were hostile to religion in their most prominent forms. Nazi is short for National Socialist. While the thesis that fascism, socialism, and communism are simply different branches of the same family may be informative, there is no right-left or conservative-liberal spectrum that will capture the relevant and important differences.
True, they did indeed operate on many of the same philosophies. IMO however, the thesis (what thesis?) that fascism, socialism and communism are simply different branches of the same family would be stillborn, for they are simply
not. Socialism, in Marx's view for example, was intended to be the intermediate stage in this progression : capitalism -> socialism -> communism. Fascism, on the other hand, is not even related, except by the fact that opportunistic leaders will use any banner to distract the people's attention from deceit. Speaking of which, 'capitalist democracy' as modern first-world countries experience it, comes complete with significant chunks of socialism. State ownership, as listed above, is one such chunk; public health and education too...though all of these are slipping away, according to some. So maybe one day socialism will release its grasp on pure capitalism - who knows.
Elder-Basilisk said:
As for the idea that the KKK and Neo-Nazis are ultra-conservatives, that's nothing more than (frequently repeated) slander. There isn't some convenient dial of conservatism which can be turned from nine to eleven to produce a Neo-Nazi from a libertarian or a KKK member from your typical republican. The reality of political life is far more complex than that. Robert Byrd is probably the most prominent former KKK member. Many observers believe that Republican Bobbie Jindal lost the Louisiana governor's race, in part, because of the dark color of his skin. There is no doubt that some KKK members and neo-nazis also consider themselves conservatives but that just goes to show that there is more to politics than race.
The notion that conservatives are all racists merely one step away from being Nazis or clan members appeals to a certain self-righteous and arrogant set of intelligentsia but has no basis beyond their relentless need to feel superior.
Agreed. It's bollocks. It's closed-minded fanaticism, ironically enough - the very thing that said 'intelligentsia' supposedly rail against.
*Final note : In retrospect, I wish I'd never replied to this. Why oh why did I??? (sigh) Hmph.*
