Tuesday, June 12, 2012

I'm a Right-Wing Nut, Which Means I Can NOT Be A Fascist

Let's get this straight.  As a right-winger I can be racist and hateful. In fact, it appears I HAVE to be. Oh...and I'm down for gun-toting, bitter-clinging, Bible-thumping, cousin-jumping, and beer drinking, too. All this fun because I don't like can't stand Obama, his czars, and their collectivist, dictatorial, fascist, top-down rule.  Especially when the "top" is filled with idiots.  

The unavoidable contradiction in leftist ideology is that their egalitarian, everybody-is-equal, social justice, every-vote-must-count, power-to-the-people rhetoric must necessarily be implemented by an insulated elite who is waaaaay more equal than those who support them. The reality of true democracy is that it simply doesn't exist. It can't. It has no structure to function if everyone remains in the decision-making process and every freaking voice is taken into consideration on every freaking thing. Can't work. That, kittens, is chaos. So it inevitably morphs into the masses handing over everything to a select few who get to "speak for you." Rule by committee.  Think of the same nice kids who were on the Senior Prom committee and decided everything.  Remember how great that turned out? Thank GOD the years of "Stairway to Heaven" were slightly before my time.  Did ANYONE ever listen to the words of that song? Stupid on steroids...but I digress. 

ALL leftist ideas are eventually expressed through some variant of rule by committee, because they are all based on the ideal of absolute democracy. So you can just quit worrying your pretty little heads about this, okay? Socialism, communism, Nazism and fascism are ALL ON THE LEFT. They are all collectivist political structures. They are all essentially rule by committee. They are all throwbacks to the first political structure known to man - the tribe. It was only with the truly progressive idea that each man belonged to himself and NOT to the tribe that we developed any other political idea on which to base a government. And they gave it a name. Republicanism.

For the first time in human history, it was decided that the individual had natural rights that could never be removed by a majority vote...or by the rule of that special and wise Senior Prom committee. This was truly radical and progressive.

Republicanism believes in the RESTRAINT of power; all other forms of government believe in the EXERCISE of power.

Limited government, rule of law, enumerated rights of the individual, a system where the majority could not vote away an individual's right to life, liberty, or property - no matter how necessary it might seem to everyone else - is an idea created by the right. 

Socialism, communism, Nazism, fascism. All are political systems where the power of the government has no restraints and dictates the actions of the market and, therefore, the individual. They are all ideas of the left. The difference between these variants of collectivism is who appears to actually own the means of production. This is splitting hairs. It matters not who owns them if the government makes every single decision as to what the "owners" can do, what they can produce, and what they can keep.

So what especially peeves me is that apparently bright people, well...okay...EDUCATED people actually believe that while socialism and communism are on the left, Nazism and fascism are  phenomenons of the right. This is a degree of stupid that can make the blood vessels in my eyes pop from the pressure.

With that in mind, Thomas Sowell, in his inimitable style, goes into details about some of the finer distinctions between socialism and fascism.


  1. I am going to try play devil's advocate on the lib side without hypocrisy. Yeah, I don't know if it is possible either.

    Socialism(S) and communism(C) as political and philosophical theories have certain similarities that are disparate from Nazism(N) and Fascism(F). The particular similarity that libs focus on, and it is an important category of ideas, is that in S & C, the common people agree, as a majority, to share all the fruits of their labor with everyone in the group equally. Communism is one step further in that the people have agreed that nothing is owned, so all is open to all. Both of them, however, have the unrealistic lib dream that people will work in harmony and greed can be 'bred out' of the human.

    N & F have the common trait of Government forcing compliance to share or redistribute goods and taking ownership away whether the individual wants to share or not. That is a pretty radical difference. I'm done lib-loving now.

    Libs get sloppy in their comparisons to Rep/cons. Because they think that one humanitarian (or 'the pipedream') factor makes those theories opposites(and to that extent they are), they then assume two more things automatically:
    1) There are no similarities between the four theories or that those similarities are insignificant.
    2) Since libs and cons are 'opposites' cons must be N or F because, you know, they are opposites.

    All that aside, most libs that think Rep/cons are N or F because part of the definition of each includes some sort of division by race or nationality and their dogma states that all rep/cons are racists. They really don't know what the hell those political philosophies fully encompass. They never get that they are forcing redistribution on everyone AGAINST THE WILL OF THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION with their policies. It would actually be okay if we were a socialist society as the masses do agree to put all of their trust in the hands of a few, which is exactly what we do now. I can at least see their confusion.

    1. But as I attempted to point out, there is no such thing in the practical sense of ownership of everything with everyone at once, no matter if the people want that or not. All such arrangements descend into some level of force, mostly a HIGH level because there are no brakes on the desires of anyone if it's all share and share alike.

      Focusing on unimportant nuances between the various collectivist governments (does the gov own things, or do private citizens...or is there a nationalistic flavor, etc.) are what get liberals into trouble. But I think it is their sneaky little secret, to be honest. I think many, if not MOST, liberals know they desire to use force to have their way. They may honestly believe their way is right or moral or wise or whatever, but they also know that enough people won't participate in "their way" that they must pick up a gun to make their way stick. And the decent ones know that's not really right, so they MUST have the "other side" (the conservative) be as bad or worse, ie, fascist or Nazis, in order to continue to support obviously failed and morally corrupting systems. Or just plain stupid. So the conservative has been designated as either evil or stupid, because if we're not, then their use of force is evil AND stupid. That's not very complimentary.

      So it is vital that they divide up the worst of governments and give us half. Evens things out and justifies their position on using force.

      It's sort of a case of "I know you are, but what am I?"

  2. "So it is vital that they divide up the worst of governments and give us half."


    I totally agree that the nuances are mishandled. However, I have always been able to see what they are trying to believe. That is all I am saying. I think it is why so many young people are 'liberal'. Sure, there is a certain level of indoctrination in school, but idealism is for people without all of the facts. People who have been living as dependents all of their life, have a somewhat skewed view of reality. Especially if they were spoiled at all. Their experiences have taught them that food, shelter and clothing are givens. They understand intellectually that their parents have sacrificed, but the idea that no one should suffer is still strong in them. Then they have to pay all of their bills and realize how little is left. I bet 75% of conservatives could say they were liberal, then they grew up.

    1. ***I bet 75% of conservatives could say they were liberal, then they grew up.***

      Not me. I was always a stingy little brat. LOLZ!

      ***idealism is for people without all of the facts.***

      I'm stealing that.