Socialism is liberalism is fascism...

"Stalin was a socialist. Hitler was a socialist. Obama is a socialism". ​

This is arguably one of the most common errors on internet forums, where folk find that they are incapable of acknowledging the mutual exclusivity between the political economies of fascism, liberalism and socialism. But what's behind this crass misconception? A non-exhaustive list of possibilities:

1) Bounded rationality: Is it the result of a history skewed by the Cold War and fears skewed by the likes of McCarthyism?

2) Skewed information sets: Is it the result of consensus politics and therefore political misuse of words in order to grab the attention of the median voter?

3) Knowledge deficiencies: Is it just the result of educations flaws where political economy is not openly communicated? (e.g. a lack of pluralism in Economics where only neoclassical theory is taught)

 

All of it is the antithesis of freedom and liberty.

 

Liberalism is against freedom? Where did you derive that notion. And socialism can be easily embedded within Austrian economics. You seem to be going for the knowledge deficiency angle here. Personally I think its the other 2, with apparent education flaws just a negative spillover

 

Where one is lifted economically by the work of another without making any tangible inputs the freedom of the one who is supporting the scum has been infringed.

 

This is nonsensical as welfare is an integral aspect of capitalism. You would have to be anti-capitalist. Hope you've got a black beret that does you justice!

 

No that is not the case. Welfare is good but leaches are bad.

 

All I know is that if I don't buy health insurance I could face jail time. And with the Obama NDAA legislation that jail time could be indefinate without trial so long as they can link me to terrorism in some way whether it be manufactured or otherwise.

The traditional meaning of liberal is the opposite of authoritarianism. HOwever, the modern day liberal is all about authoritarianism. It is he who decides how the rest of us should live. Freedom promotes injustice and inequality and must be snuffed out.

 

Capitalism is reliant on a reserve army as a discipline device on workers. Over pursuit of efficiency (i.e. ensuring that dosh goes to those deemed 'deserving') will reduce the effectiveness of that device (as human capital amongst the unemployed is more easily destroyed).

However, this is a side issue. Why do you think folk can't distinguish between mutually exclusive political economics schools of thought?

 

Not according to the psychological experiments. Thee authoritarian personality isn't linked to liberalism. It is of course linked to those flying under the conservative banner.

 

Personalities? I speak of my rights being stripped away and you speak of personalities?

 

I'd say classic liberalism isn't, but the modern perversion of liberalism (aka utopian or "progressivism") is.

I've studied comparative political ideologies and understand their differences, but I also understand the actions and thoughts of the modern liberal.

 

The authoritarian personality is a concept used in psychology from the original work by Adorno et al. (1950, The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row). Psychologist World offers a nice summary, describing the elements of the Authoritarian Personality type as:

Blind allegiance to conventional beliefs about right and wrong
Respect for submission to acknowledged authority
Belief in aggression toward those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking, or who are different
A negative view of people in general - i.e. the belief that people would all lie, cheat or steal if given the opportunity
A need for strong leadership which displays uncompromising power
A belief in simple answers and polemics - i.e. The media controls us all or The source of all our problems is the loss of morals these days.
Resistance to creative, dangerous ideas. A black and white worldview.
A tendency to project one's own feelings of inadequacy, rage and fear onto a scapegoated group
A preoccupation with violence and sex

Liberals are just too darn nice to fall foul of such characteristics. The result? The right wing vote in authoritarian types that celebrate the further creation of economic rents (that's nice lingo for theft from the people)

 

Its nonsense to all it utopian. The liberal political economy adapts according to the needs of capitalism. Those attempting to fly under the 'classic liberalism' banner (such as the libertarian wannabes) are the utopians as they ignore market failure and the assciated instabilities created

 

There elements in the US that are morphing the foundations of the empire. Since Obama the Guber-ment has done much and come evar closer to socialism.

The liberal elements in the United States are trying to move to a socialist structure similar to China.

 

This also is nonsensical. There have been no changes that have enabled worker ownership and control of the means of production. There has only been rational reaction to crisis within capitalism

You're sounding ridiculous now.

 

Classical Liberalism describes people that are open minded and tolerant.

This has become bastardized into neo-lliberalism, that uses the state in a near fascist manner, to create laws that enforce "tolerance" toward their viewpoints, and intolerance to other viewpoints.

 

No, classical liberalism describes people that have been long time dead

A basic error in terms! Neo-liberalism is used to refer to the bastardisation of free market economics, leading us- for example- to the folly of the hegemony of the financial class

 

No I am an American and I can see what you can not.

 

Being American isn't an excuse for erroneous comment.

 

Then, what explains the intolerance of the left? They are one step away from the Creationists in their zealotry.

 

Intolerance to what? You really shouldn't be asking vague questions when you've just been found guilty of mistake

 

There were no errors. Maex was a Sociologist of sorts and I loved his works because they reveal many truths. Wana play? We can play just let me find the manifesto. At least I think it is around here somewhere Well I can use the web for reference. Should we start with worker discontent and anger at the wealthy and the fact that our liberals are pushing that (*)(*)(*)(*)? Come on lets play.

 

You've admitted to it essentially as you've chosen rant, rather than a serious reply to my comment. Let's see if you can get yourself out of the hole though: Where has Obama's policy led to a radical shift in property rights such that workers now have ownership and control of the means of production?

 

Well the rant was not meant toward you and I actually agree with the premise of this thread.

Well we are going to get him out but he did make an effort with suggested bank take overs. The libs are pushing to see what they can get at this juncture we are not a socialist state..

 

It's just confusion over the degree of government invovement. Socialism defines a government controlled economy. Fascism is that with an authoritarian power behind it. Communism is that with collectivism behind it. Europe and America have free capitalist eonomies with elements of socialism. Obama isn't a socialist in the true sense of the word. There are certainly socialistic tendencies in his behavior.