Colin Powell Endorses Obama on 'Meet the Press'

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

For the record, from an international affairs perspective,

(On the Left) Marxism -> Liberalism -> Moderate <- Realism <- Fascism (On the Right)

Fascism and Marxism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. It stands to reason, however, that Marxism is solidly on the left (as is the US Democratic Party), and Fascism is solidly on the right. This is why:

According to The Globalization of World Politics, 2nd ed.,



Hitler's NAZI party did not practice the truest form of fascism - Mussolini did, at least ten years before Hitler's rise to power.

Your general point may be true when people are really paying attention to economic systems, but when you see lists like this:http://www.bushwatch.com/fascism.htm, you can see how the little that has to do with how the term is being thrown around.

[agzg]

Right - the term as thrown around is definitely an insult. I have to giggle to myself though when someone calls the candidate on the left a fascist, when really, if they were to the extreme left they'd be a Marxist.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Right - the term as thrown around is definitely an insult. I have to giggle to myself though when someone calls the candidate on the left a fascist, when really, if they were to the extreme left they'd be a Marxist.

Why Marxist rather than Communist?

And honestly, it might make sense to appropriate a different word for the extreme right wing position if the point is simply to describe the political position without all the totalitarian fun.

Marxism suggests an economic and social view. Fascism bring with it a whole boat load of associations that the far left position is equally as deserving of, and fascism typically doesn't even suggest economic implications to the average person.

In most instances when people use fascism, I think that they neglect the word totalitarian when it would work so nicely.

ETA: And it also seems to me that there is a more likely far right position that is laissez faire capitalism without the state actually serving or merging with the corporations.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Why Marxist rather than Communist?



In most instances when people use fascism, I think that they neglect the word totalitarian when it would work so nicely.

But the word "fascist" is easier to say, and hear, and catch on, than "totalitarian", which is long and kind of hard to say. And almost imposible to repeat in a crowd. For instance, some one might yell back "yeah, he's a fascist" at a rally, but not too many people I think would yell back "yeah, he's a totalitarian." It would take too long say.

Not saying that you're not correct, you are, but I think the terms "fascist" and "fascism" get thrown around more is that they work better for rhetoric, which is what this is.

[AGDee]

I think "He's totally a totalitarian" would be good to say... ya know, a tongue twister

[agzg]

Academics who study and write about international affairs prefer the term Marxist rather than Communist, that's all. It boils down to the fact that Marxists call for collectivization of industry (communism) AND lack of government (or really, lack of nation to raise government from as it's all based on class), and Fascists tend to call for corporation of industry AND totalitarianism.

Russia (or the USSR, rather) as a "Communist" country employed collectivization AND totalitarianism, therefore was not a true Marxist country.

So, purely used, either refers to BOTH the economic and political atmosphere of a given country.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Academics who study and write about international affairs prefer the term Marxist rather than Communist, that's all. It boils down to the fact that Marxists call for collectivization of industry (communism) AND lack of government (or really, lack of nation to raise government from as it's all based on class), and Fascists tend to call for corporation of industry AND totalitarianism.

Russia (or the USSR, rather) as a "Communist" country employed collectivization AND totalitarianism, therefore was not a true Marxist country.

So, purely used, either refers to BOTH the economic and political atmosphere of a given country.

And this is where academics completely tip their hands and reveal their leftist bias.

On the left, we have a system that could function without totalitarianism although it never has, and on the right we have a system that at its end must be totalitarian.

Why would we assume that Marxism could be practiced without the authority of the state? Because Marx said so?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

And this is where academics completely tip their hands and reveal their leftist bias.

On the left, we have a system that could function without totalitarianism although it never has, and on the right we have a system that at its end must be totalitarian.

Why would we assume that Marxism could be practiced without the authority of the state? Because Marx said so?

This is just simple accepted thought among political theorists. I never said Marxism works. I just said that for it to be Marxism, it must be collectivization and lack of government. And yes, because Marx said so. He gets that right because he came up with the world view.

My grad school was anything but leftist. Considering I studied Security and Intelligence studies within the perview of an MPIA, we couldn't afford to lean too far left and we couldn't afford to be taught by those who leaned too far left or we wouldn't be able to find jobs.

ETA: Fascism wouldn't be fascism without the totalitarianism. Hence why it has to fulfill both the economic and political criteria in order to be fascism.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

This is just simple accepted thought among political theorists. I never said Marxism works. I just said that for it to be Marxism, it must be collectivization and lack of government. And yes, because Marx said so. He gets that right because he came up with the world view.

My grad school was anything but leftist. Considering I studied Security and Intelligence studies within the perview of an MPIA, we couldn't afford to lean too far left and we couldn't afford to be taught by those who leaned too far left or we wouldn't be able to find jobs.

Maybe, but it might not make sense to set the spectrum up like that and if you lean right, it probably bothers you more. There are philosophies we could place on the right that would no more require totalitarianism than the definition of Marxism does, and yet, political theorists go with fascism.

How many of your professors will be voting for McCain, do you think?

ETA: go back and look at your definition of fascism in your text box. On the left we have a clearly defined if completely unpracticed ideal and on the right we have fascism. We can't say exactly what it is, but it's the opposite of Marxism and it requires totalitarianism.

[agzg]

Does anyone else find it interesting that Powell campaigned for John McCain in the republican primaries for 2000? What a difference eight years makes, either on the McCain side or the Powell side.

[agzg]

Communism also lies on the left, just not as extreme left as Marxism as it requires government.

The left side of the model (in more complete detail) tends to read:

Marxism -> Communism -> Socialism -> Liberalism

I would say a handful, at least. My grad school was a mixed bag because it offered Masters' Degrees in Public and International Affairs (Global Political Economy, Security and Intelligence Studies, and Human Security), Public Affairs, and International Development. Those who were not SIS professors, I don't know.

I do know, however, that several of MY professors voted for Bush both times. As far as McCain goes, with some of the problems plaguing that campaign and with my distance from the school now, not sure.

If Marxism is the extreme left (the accepted view, purveyed by Marx himself) and fascism is the opposite of Marxism, then fascism is in its correct place if it's at the extreme right. I'm not understanding your problem with the model.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Communism also lies on the left, just not as extreme left as Marxism as it requires government.

The left side of the model (in more complete detail) tends to read:

Marxism -> Communism -> Socialism -> Liberalism

I would say a handful, at least. My grad school was a mixed bag because it offered Masters' Degrees in Public and International Affairs (Global Political Economy, Security and Intelligence Studies, and Human Security), Public Affairs, and International Development. Those who were not SIS professors, I don't know.

I do know, however, that several of MY professors voted for Bush both times. As far as McCain goes, with some of the problems plaguing that campaign and with my distance from the school now, not sure.

If Marxism is the extreme left (the accepted view, purveyed by Marx himself) and fascism is the opposite of Marxism, then fascism is in its correct place if it's at the extreme right. I'm not understanding your problem with the model.

My problem is that Fascism isn't the opposite of Marxism in any real sense, nor does it really reflect the extension of many aspects of the right, anymore than the dissolution of the state reflects an extension of the left.

We can set it there because it's convenient to do so, but if you really start thinking about it and you have any sympathy for the right, problems emerge almost immediately.

At this point, we all just accept that spectrum for theoretical purposes and I know it would be the right answer on a college test, but it doesn't hold up when you start thinking about it, particularly if you are thinking about it economically, unless the idea that underpins your thinking is that Marxism would have these good ideal traits: economic equality and complete freedom from other aspects of the state. What would be the opposite bad traits? We'll call that fascism and put it on the other end. The right deserves the opportunity to put forth its own idealized standard to oppose Marxism, rather than being saddled with a system that by its very definition is totalitarian. Libertarianism makes as much sense as an economic opposite of Marxism.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

My problem is that Fascism isn't the opposite of Marxism in any real sense, nor does it really reflect the extension of many aspects of the right, anymore than the dissolution of the state reflects an extension of the left.

We can set it there because it's convenient to do so, but if you really start thinking about it and you have any sympathy for the right, problems emerge almost immediately.

At this point, we all just accept that spectrum for theoretical purposes and I know it would be the right answer on a college test, but it doesn't hold up when you start thinking about it, particularly if you are thinking about it economically, unless the idea that underpins your thinking is that Marxism would have these good ideal traits: economic equality and complete freedom from other aspects of the state. What would be the opposite bad traits? We'll call that fascism and put it on the other end. The right deserves the opportunity to put forth its own idealized standard to oppose Marxism, rather than being saddled with a system that by its very definition is totalitarian. Libertarianism makes as much sense as an economic opposite of Marxism.

I'm glad you changed the last sentence there. I'm neither left nor right in this argument. Fascism is as much an extension of the right as communism is on the left. However, fascism and Communism are not true opposites, because they share totalitarianism. That is what makes Marxism the opposite to fascism.

I'm sure liberals that are compared with Marxists are just as offended as conservatives are when compared with fascists. At least they should be.

[AGDee]

Any extreme is bad if you ask me. I'm left, but I'm much closer to the middle than most people realize, especially with economic issues.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

I'm glad you changed the last sentence there. I'm neither left nor right in this argument. Fascism is as much an extension of the right as communism is on the left. However, fascism and Communism are not true opposites, because they share totalitarianism. That is what makes Marxism the opposite to fascism.

I'm sure liberals that are compared with Marxists are just as offended as conservatives are when compared with fascists. At least they should be.

I don't remember what I changed in the last sentence. It wasn't my intention to address you specifically even in the original form.

I don't think being called a Marxist is nearly as inflammatory as being called a fascist for all the reasons mentioned earlier in the thread, but also because of fascism being thought of as racist and totalitarianism and Marxism being an idealized wonderland.

Economic opposites in political systems could share totalitarianism. And if only one side of the political spectrum gets to claim individual rights, why don't we just label the spectrum from Individual Liberty to Totalitarianism.

Here's what it boils down to: do you believe that a system could exist that provided economic prosperity to most members of a society without collectivization? Could this system also be non-totalitarian? Could this system perhaps function without the state?

If so, why is the spectrum Marxism to Fascism rather than Marxism to what for now, I've decided to call Ugaalum94ism.