Leftwing Fascism...

As the Left continues to lose its grip on power it becomes more willing to embrace fascist tendencies. Let me give two examples:

!. The University is the greatest stronghold of the Left. However, knowing they are becoming an increasingly smaller minority, they have become the exact opposite of that which they claim to represent. They call themselves liberal but they hate liberty. Don't believe me? Check this out: Le Moyne Univ. expelled a man because they didn't like what he wrote in a paper. He was getting his masters in education and wrote a paper embracing the use of corporate punishment in the schools. So they expelled him! So much for one's freedom of speech, so much for the universities being a refuge for the expression of ideas without threat of retaliation. I hope the man sues the school for every dime they have.

http://www.dailyorange.com/news/2005/01/25/News/Lemoyne.Expels.Man.Over.
Paper-840196.shtml

2. Deceivius - this board's administrator. He doesn't like my thread that talks about how the Mayor of Baghdad wants to erect a statue honoring President Bush. Deceivius hates Bush and so he simply deletes my thread. He knows he cant win the debate so he erases speech that hurts his views. What a fascist!

"As for me censoring you for my own personal whims, although it is completely in my right to do that (since this board is not supported or endorsed by the government), I do think that I have explained well enough that it is not fascism. But it is definitely not a democracy either."

First I have I never said any laws were broken although the 1st amendment is a right shared by all American citizens regardless if whether the government supports or endorses this board.

However, what I said is that you revealed your own fascist tendencies by censoring thought that you do not like or that opposes your biases. And I was just reading where you called Dumb Teen a dipshit because he called you Bucko.

Sadly you associate leftwing only with fascism, that is highly biased in the manner you are complaining, I have heard of a lot of this behavior in Universities and schools, and I think it is disgusting, and even more in mainstream media and government where it is as equally vile.

But the fact that you are so blind to right wing fascism shows your ignorance and bias.

That's why people like me have been trying to clarify that calling me leftist is not at all accurate.

Because the government is made up of both right and left wing fascism, how bout we focus on both so we can change it rather than switch from one "lesser evil" to the next.

A concept that I wish you understood better.

The least you could do is bitch at both so people won't have to be so distracted by your one sided views. That would allow for some open conversation, but that might mean overcoming your own denial or whatever makes you so openly bias.

Leftwood - you are right - in America the right can never be fascists! Read the definition:

Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Now I am not saying a republican could not be a fascist but a true right-winger never could. In America the farther right you go the more anarchist you become. Since being Right is defined as opposition to government involvement or those who are for limited government a true right-winger could never, thus, be a fascist - that can only come from the Left. However these definitions only apply to American political science and not European!

Don't forget that the Right can also stand for a strong Reagonite military and State.

What I mean is, most Western politics have many axes that cannot be simplified to "left" VS "right":
- economic left (social aid, economic intervention) VS economic right (laissez faire capitalism)
- social liberal (gay emancipation, free drugs etc..) VS social conservative (prayer in schools, anti-abortion, tough on drugs etc..)
- Weak Center (Labour's devolution, return state rights) VS Strong Center (Reagonite, Gaullist or Thatcherite state)

Just look at radical left-wingers like Noam Chomsky. They call for the abolition of the state and call for socialist anarchy. I don't think American political thought cannot be reduced to left VS right.

Well, in case you missed it, we have been centralizing authority more and more, they just tell you its good for you and you eat it up. This is being done with the Patriot Acts, Victory Acts and the brand new extra centralized intelligence head posistion, the either failure or coercement of congress to be so allowing of it and on and on.

And this is all under your republican supposed right winger, who is a neo con and I wonder if you consider neo conservatism as right wing or something else, like Americanized globalist warmongers.

Even you have been speaking of increasing censorship from leftist, but the right is just as guilty, flagrant and often false, as deemed by the government, terror threats does control through terror, and whether you like to admit or realize, deception and terrorist tactics of the CIA and other branches is the same thing as well. False claims of mushroom clouds and WMD's from cherry picked intelligence is a terrorist act, it scares the shit out of people.

The nationalism comes in the form of countless soley pro american rhetoric and outright threats to dissent which you apparenlty missed. Quotes from both Ashcroft and Bush denote these things.

If you aren't aware of what the Patriot Acts etc. entail then you are living unaware to just how all of what you are saying is happening, perhaps it won't end in pure fascism which is why I'm not fond of limiting terms, but whatever form the connected few who rule would be called.

If another Bush ends up in office, hopefully you'll at least take it into consideration.

Yes Reagan was a classical liberal - in the tradition of the Federalists, and he believed in a strong military. However, Reagan also believed strongly in less government involvment as he proved by his massive tax cuts, deregulations and social spending reductions. Reagan, like me, is center-right.

As for Chomsky I think he is pretty much a hypocrite as he, if my memory is correct, has supported numerous state actions such as court mandated abortions.

"I don't think American political thought cannot be reduced to left VS right."

It can't, and its harmful to do so.

"Reagan, like me, is center-right."

So what you are saying is you don't like big government, that is what Bush is all about, the Reagon cabinet housed many neo cons that were held at bay and even called the crazies for shits sake, and now they are Bush's primary posse.

How does that fit into your views?

Big government isn't just giving money to everybody through government socialism, but also Spying on the entire country in Nazi like and Communist like fashion, which is all the rage these days.

Tell me you know this, if not, wake up.

Chomsky may be insane, but that doesn't change the fact that "left" doesn't always mean "statist", it can mean Anarchist.

Also, note the Right can be divided on what "a weak State" is. A classic example is the the South before black civil rights. Does the Right stand for freedom of the individual? Or to the States of the union have the right to deny citizenship to some? Are people more free if the federal government doesn't have the right to meddle in state citizenship affairs?

There isn't even a "weaker State" versus "strong State" axis. As you can sea "weaker State" can mean just as much more individual freedom as giving the Federal States the right to define who has the right to citizenship.

I would still argue that if someone, regardless of their personal beliefs, has crossed over to being an anarchist that they are members of the extreme right. Although the fact that many people are not rationale or are 'insane' as I would agree with you suggests that it is never possible for such people to be accurately classified.

As a Hamiltonian and admirer of John Adams I would not be able to defend the mentality of the South that viewed rights as being the domain of white males only. Nor would I associate them with the Right but with a Jeffersonian philosophy, which was more concerned with economic rights and the fear that the South would not be able to compete with the North economically. But you make some good points though, like I said, humans can be hypocritical nuts which makes it impossible to accurately classify them.

Or, arguably, all humans are insane. I mean, any view is bound to have irrationalities. I really don't think a capitalist-anarchist (right in ur definition) is more irrational (unclassifiable) then a socialist-anarchist.

I do not think a simple Left-Right qualification of all "rational" American political thought is that useful. Many "unclassifiables" can be classified if we add an axe or two, that system of qualification I is probably more useful.

Leftwood, if you believe Bush is all about big government then we simply do not agree. Yes more should be done to limit government however after 70 years of democratic congressional rule transforming the system is like turning a massive ship at sea - it takes time and many, like me, believe that incrementalism is the best way.

Regarding the Patriot Act I find the radical criticsm to be often over the top and not based upon facts. Nor do I find it Naziesque as the laws in the Patriot Act are not new and have been on the books for drug dealers and organized crime for 30 years, also there is congressional oversight and all investigations must be court ordered. Do I openly embrace it? No, I am cautious however I am not a chicken little either.

Humans may all be insane and thus unclassifiable but I do believe political science can be.

Well, fine, lets take Bush. He advocates the PATRIOT Act. That's quite minor, I agree its overblown, it represents a small negligeable nudge in the direction of stronger State.

However, the subject of Gay Marriage. The Democrats stand for letting the States allow or ban gay marriage as they wish. Bush on the other hand stands for a Constitutional Amendment oulawing that State Right. Thus, the "Left" today stands for State Rights while the "Right" stands for a stronger Federal Government.