Colin Powell Endorses Obama on 'Meet the Press'

[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.