Quote:
Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam
Here is the point that I've been trying to make this ENTIRE thread. What makes Marxism opposite to Fascism, particularly, is that they are opposites in BOTH criteria, rather than sharing one and being opposites in the other.
A conservative may think that liberals make Marxism a wonderland. Some do. Most liberals would rather not be compared with Marxists, who, to laypersons reads Communists.
The spectrum is what it is. If you want to change that, write a book and get it taught in millions of IR classes. It's not Individual Liberty to Totalitarianism because Communism employs totalitarianism yet is still on the left. Again, what makes Marxism opposite to fascism is that Marxism is lack of government PLUS collectivization and fascism is heavy government (opposite) PLUS corporation (opposite). The spectrum boils down more to economics plus worldview than it does political basis for a state.
Both systems are flawed and are hard to maintain - Marxism on the point that absence of government is bound to create issues in terms of those seeking to rule, and fascism on the point that eventually those under totalitarian rule will revolt.
I think that recent international history has proven that once a state goes too right or left of center it has a hard time maintaining its stability.
|
And my point is that placing totalitarianism on the right is entirely arbitrary, assuming that we have to place it on one side of the spectrum.
It make little sense to have a spectrum that on one side goes from totalitarianism communism to no state/collectivist in one step and on the other must end in totalitarianism.
I agree with you that it's the accepted spectrum, but if you think about it, it's goofy.
It insists on pairing things on the right that don't necessarily belong on the right.
ETA: placing totalitarianism on the right is entirely arbitrary from a economic point of view, but less so if we assume that fascism is an extension of political realism. I'm not sure it is, but at least there's a relationship in growth of power.
EATA: I've got to ask: "The spectrum boils down more to economics plus worldview than it does political basis for a state." What do you consider political basis for a state if not economics plus worldview? Or are you excluding a state's position on individual rights from its worldview?
Threaded Mode
