A View From Here

I had a rousing debate with a coworker of mine in the lab this evening, and it sparked a lot of thoughts and a small bit of research to fill in the gaps of my knowledge. It's important to me to "get my story straight" when making political and ideological arguments, since I severely dislike finding the roots of my beliefs were poisoned from the start. Anyway, the argument was about the merits of left versus right wing politics, in general, and the subject of fascism came up.

Now, of course, the prototypical fascist in history is Mussolini, the Italian prime minister during World War II. Now, there really is no agreed upon or concise definition of what exactly fascism is, but it exists on a continuum that includes both traditionally right- and left-wing issues under its cloak. This is especially important to remember when thinking of groups like the Nazis - my coworker did, in fact, cite them as being an example of "left-wing". I staunchly disagree.

As far as left-wing policies usually incorporated in "fascism," generally they have to do with fiscally liberal politics, especially when considering the "corporate state." Corporatism was at the heart of both Mussolini's policies and Hitler's. The concept, in general, means that the government is the means of production - that is, a governing group is installed to exert control over the corporate structure of a state. This is similar to the concept of socialism, though there are differences.

Socialism, broadly, is the placement of the means of production in the hands of the people. This would generally imply the government takes the reigns, being an extension of the public. The one flaw here in a fascist system is that fascism also exhibits extreme forms of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism includes under its skirts the concept of unelected leadership. So the government is no longer a representation of the "people" - yes, technically, fascism does include socialist fiscal policies, but there are subtle differences.

On the right wing, fascism takes on an authoritarian nationalist viewpoint. That is, it suppresses individual rights and promotes nationalism in an extreme way. The key concept here is that the suppression of individual rights is innately right wing - social control, as it were. You can see that in the dichotomy of the Republicans versus Democrats today; Republicans tend to be more for interventionism in social matters like abortion, marriage equality, and basically anything in the Bill of Rights. This is also the reason why the right wing of the United States demonizes organizations like the ACLU which defend civil liberties. The one issue that falls into the hands of the Republicans is gun control, which they favor.

Anyway, the spectra and coordinate systems that can represent these beliefs are undoubtedly infinite. Below is one I threw together to illustrate a point. Please note that the sometimes-ambiguous term "liberal" is used here in the current, left-wing context.

To keep terms straight:

• Social rights are on a spectrum from - as a libertarian would put it - "less" to "more" personal freedom. This includes issues mentioned above; the "more" socially liberal someone is, the more likely they are to agree with pro-choice movements, the right to due process and fair trial, the right for marriage equality, et cetera. The reason I mention the ACLU here is that it really illustrates how current-era conservatism (especially neo-conservatism) is in opposition to the organization and the concept of civil liberties generally. Republicans are generally in opposition to the ACLU on issues such as separation of church and state, the death penalty, the USA PATRIOT act, and the defense of accused and convicted criminals.
• Economic ideologies span from socialism at the top to laissez-faire anarcho-capitalism at the bottom. In general, the more economically liberal an individual is, the more they are for government intervention into resource allocation, production, and environmental protection. An economically conservative person would likely be an advocate of concepts like corporate citizenship, lowered taxes levied on corporations and individuals alike, and the dissolution of workers' unions.

So, the point I'm trying to get across is that totalitarianism and populism are on a spectrum opposing libertarianism, and not conservatism neither liberalism in general. Just as libertarianism combines personal "freedom" and economic "freedom," totalitarianism seeks to suppress both. It's really not that hard to understand, though sometimes the spectrums can be exaggerated or simplified by too high a degree. I have simplified them for this example, but hopefully I haven't neutered them beyond recognition.