Liberals are corrupt, hateful, immoral and taking the country in the wrong direction

Marine infantry? What is your favorite flavor of Crayon?

 

Green weenie.

 

Most ideologies are neither communism nor fascism. That's where you are running into problems and your definitions make no sense. You are trying to slot every ideology into either communism or fascism, when the vast majority of the world is actually liberalism. Libertarianism has much more in common with liberalism and even social democracy than it does with either fascism or communism (or Marxism-Leninism, or Maoism, which are just flavors of totalitarian socialism).

It isn't that I cannot analyze motivations or material conditions, it is that those factors are not part of the definitions of political ideologies. You can be a communist because you are a poor worker who has grown fed up with the wealth divide, or you can be a communist because you are a spoiled rich kid who hates his dad and spends all his time "reading theory" and just knows that if he were the one making the decisions instead of a brute like Stalin, he could make it work this time. Their material conditions and motivations are entirely different, but they are both trending towards communism (or more likely Marxism-Leninism, since no country ever actually becomes communist, they all go some flavor of totalitarian socialist). This is because their material conditions and motivations are irrelevant to defining their ideology, it is their support for an abolition of private property, punishment of the bourgeoise, etc. that defines what they believe.

 

Who are you trying to convince material conditions motivations and intent don't factor into political ideologies and how they form?

Like no, you can repeat that till you are blue in the face. Material conditions, who had the power, who wants more of it, the conditions of the working poor etc all things that effect how political ideologies form.

Political ideology isn't some vacumes concept that just exists independent of human needs and material conditions.

Thank you for making me more treasured how incapable you are at analyzing systems.

Where did I say that fascism and communism are the only two political ideologies. I'm saying that these are the two ideologies that coalease and compete when there is a destabilization of a nation-state in the modern nation-state era.

 

No, they do factor into how they form and why people adopt them. They don't factor into the DEFINITIONS of the political ideologies. You cannot equate two different ideologies because you believe they are generated by the same material conditions and motivations. The prescribed policies are what defines the ideologies. If two ideologies have the same origin but different proscribed policies, then they are not the same ideology. If two ideologies have different origins but the same proscribed policies, they are the same ideology. You are confusing how someone chooses which ideology to follow with what the ideology is.

The definitions of the ideologies do exist independent of human needs and material conditions.

It is implied by your binary of wanting to maintain hierarchies and wanting to overturn hierarchies forcing people into one of those two political ideologies and equating wanting to maintain hierarchies with being fascist. Presumably wanting to overturn hierarchies would make you communist under your rubric, but you have not addressed that. You have not been arguing that libertarians, in the event of a destabilization of a nation-state in the modern nation-state era will become fascists rather than communists, you have been arguing that libertarians ARE fascists. We are not. In the event of some hypothetical forced choice between communism or fascism, might we choose fascism over communism? Possibly. Does that presently make us fascists? No. I don't think I would choose either as both are authoritarian and I oppose authoritarianism, and there seem to be many countries that have been under tremendous strain that choose neither.

 

Social and economic hierarchies are the crux of how political ideologies form. They form because there is a scarcity of resources and as a society we debate on how those resources are allocated. How society organizes based on allocated resources is the basis of political ideologies.

The detention of a political ideology is it's end state. To understand a political ideology you have to understand the material conditions and motivations of humans in their respective social and economic classes which leads them to their respective political ideologies.

You want a vapid meaningless discussion if political ideologies. Anyone can spurt out the Merriam Webster detention of fascism or Communism. It's a useless endeavor.

 

News flash buddy. The vast majority of humans will tell you they don't want authoritarian governments. That's how you can tell how vapid and useless your detentions are.

I don't want an authoritarian government. You don't either. I guess we must have the same political ideology.

 

Buy Your Own Damn E-Bike
The popularity of e-bike subsidies doesn't mean these programs are creating more e-bike riders.

https://reason.com/2023/07/10/buy-your-own-damn-e-bike/

 

I did. It kind of sucks. Should have just bought a normal bike.

 

I didn't use a dictionary definition at all. I gave you Karl Marx's definition of communism and Benito Mussolini's definition of fascism. I think those guys know what those two ideologies mean. You are hung up on how thing form. That is important, but it doesn't define an ideology. I can't believe I have to type this again, but POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES ARE DEFINED BY THEIR POLICIES. You cannot be a fascist if you are anti-authoritarian, because fascism is by definition authoritarian. You cannot be a communist if you support private property, because the very basis of communism is the abolition of private property (I will note that communists draw a distinction between personal property, like your home or your toothbrush, and private property, like a factory).

You are stuck in the analysis of "how political ideologies form". That is an interesting topic for political scientists. How any ideas form is important to understand. That is not sufficient to understand what political ideologies are. I'm just going to cut and paste my response, because it directly addresses your argument. You cannot equate two different ideologies because you believe they are generated by the same material conditions and motivations. The prescribed policies are what defines the ideologies. If two ideologies have the same origin but different proscribed policies, then they are not the same ideology. If two ideologies have different origins but the same proscribed policies, they are the same ideology. You are confusing how someone chooses which ideology to follow with what the ideology is. Yes, the definition of a political ideology is it's end state. The end state is everything. What motivates or leads to the end state is interesting, but it doesn't define the ideology. The end state of libertarianism is personal freedom, both socially and economically. The end state of facism is state control, both personally and economically. They are the exact opposite. The end state of Marxism-Leninism is state control economically and is supposed to be personal freedom socially (but ask the citizens of the Soviet Union how that worked out). The end state of social democracy is personal freedom socially, but state control economically. The end state of conservatism is personal freedom economically, but state control socially. All of these political ideologies mean something. All of them are different. None of them are the same as any of the others. The two that are the most different are libertarianism and fascism.

I believe you when you say you don't want an authoritarian government. Maybe you really believe in the ideals of communism and long for a stateless society with no private property. Unfortunately, that has never happened on the level of a nation state. The closest anyone has come is communes in Israel and the United States. Generally, what happens when people decide to go communist on the level of a nation state is that you end up with Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, or something like the Khmer Rouge. Millions of people die and you have state control of everything. Sadly, that ends up being very similar to fascism, you just end up with new elites.

 

What political philosophy causes this ?
@Os Trigonum

 

Ecofascism - Wikipedia

 

What about this one ?

 

@Os Trigonum
@Salvy

Bro humans eat chicken.
You don’t see great white sharks protesting other white sharks from eating baby seals
@Jontro
@J.R.

 

Social democracy - Wikipedia

 

I love chicken. It is in the top 3-4 animals I enjoy eating. Cow and pig are top 2, not necessarily in that order. Chicken, goat, deer, bison, ostrich are all 2nd tier. I eat a lot more chicken than any of those though.

 

People who dislike you being a natural human want to prevent the chickens to be consumed.

They don’t understand things like the food chain

You know
Food chain

 

you are very patient

 

I don't want a country to go "communism". See, you miss entire points. The entire analysis of why a country has a communist revolution in the first place is just completely absent from your analysis.

When you regurgitate a single line of Mussolini's "definition" you are purposefully avoiding a nuanced conversation. A single line from Mussolini does not define fascism nor does it explain why fascism is utilized by wealthy property owners to maintain their status.


At the end of the day a communist revolution turns into a charismatic leader coalescing power and whenever humans coalesce power, abuse of power happens. That doesn't make the REASON why a bunch of poor people feeling the need to revolt irrelevant. The method of attaching one's hope to a charismatic leader is where the problem arises.

Hence why a lot of leftists are more anarchist than "communist" because they don't believe in hierarchical levels of power because they think that method of organizing society inherently corrupts.

Again any group of people who say their ideology is "personal freedom" you have to be skeptical of because that is a universal claim and to say one group of people uniquely likes "personal freedom" is a group that is using propaganda.

And that is what is throwing you off... The fact that you take the face value vapid rhetoric about "personal freedom" as a true virtue being expressed rather than regurgitated propaganda is kinda cute in a naive kinda sense. How many times do I have to tell you that I don't care how much a conservative says they care about "personal freedom". That's just a empty term propagandists use to make their world views seen tolerable to the commoner.

 

Are you fit? You are a fascist!

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/07/10/are-you-fit-you-are-a-fascist-n563581

excerpt:

​

more at the link