I only ask, because it seems like America is already on its way to the extreme right. Is this more preferable than the extreme left? A fascist society of a communist one? Corporatism or socialism? Complete social equality or intense social inequality? Stalin or Hitler? Kim Jung Un or Souphanouvong? These questions need to be asked, because frankly, I am starting to see blurry lines between places like Russia, US, and other extreme places where corporations are being given political power, and the fascist nations. Since both ideologies are extremely authoritarian, I'll put the definitions up by doctrine. Since Fascism's definition is much harder for people to understand, I gave a more in depth definition http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html And here is the base definition.............
I would like to clarify though, that I am not for or against either liberal/conservative economics. I feel money needs to be circulated to its importance in the economy, Currently, I feel money is best stimulated in the lower class hands for awhile, with a quick return to rapid corporate growth in the next decade or so. The USD needs to be inflated, but by means of small business growth and consumption. My policies are realist, and I feel that growing deficits, huge tax cuts to the rich, and tremendous subsidies to Wall Street are hurting the economy, therefore, I do not support them at the moment.
If the United States have to go towards extremism, I would suggest a nice populist regime. Reactionary? It's not so necessary, also progressive populism can exist [in Italy we have seen it in action]. So my choice about an eventual future American regime is in the middle, in the center ... - - - Updated - - - Populism has got also a great advantage: it leaves room for lobbies and establishment to keep on running their business in the shadow, substantially the whole system doesn't need to change and when the populist regimes falls ... the passage to something different is more easy and less traumatic.
Corporatism is defined as having the government control corporations as interest groups. It's usually lumped in with socialism, not presented as an opposite of socialism. You have probably confused "friendly to corporations as a business model" with corporatism. Insofar as Nazi Germany was corporatist and socialist, the only connection between them and American conservatism is the supposed racism of American conservatives. It's a very tenuous connection. The American left, with its worship of a specific leader, attempts to discourage disagreement, hostility towards Israel, and affection for corporatist and socialist policies, bears a far greater resemblance to fascism than the American right does.
I don't think so. The definition clearly states it as putting free market corporations into power under nationalized control. Like Mussiolini.
I'm not sure where you get your definition from, but if the corporations are nationalized, they aren't part of the free market.
Ideologies are matters of faith, and radical ideologies are matters of fanaticism. Pragmatism eschews dogma in pursuit of whatever demonstrably works best. Of all the systems that have been tried, the most advanced nations on earth share the approach that has proven itself: democratic governance that regulates capitalism and incorporates a system of social welfare responsive to the needs of the people. Such nations as Norway, Australia, New Zealand, United States, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden and Germany vary in particular respects, but all follow that same general paradigm. And it is only common sense to dispassionately ask appropriate questions such as, "What heath care system is prevalent in these most successful countries?" Empirical data trumps partisan pipe dreams. Why would anyone wish to impose some airy-fairy confection for which they can cite no such extant models? Why favour fictions over facts? Political philosophies that thrive only in the imagination should stay there. What works best is what the evidence demonstrates is working best.
In Europe [we are complicated, you know!] there is a difference between corporativism and collectivism [the system you are making reference here]. When a state nationalizes a corporation that's no more a corporation, it becomes something more similar to an "order". In substance in a corporativist system the corporations are organizations of owners of business activities and their workers [this is fundamental to grasp ] with state guide, but the owners are still private. In other words that was the "third way" between Communism and Capitalism: no more class conflicts in the idea of Fascism ... owners and workers were together in the same corporation [let's say the corporation of metal: metalworkers and capitalists owning the industries were together, represented by representatives of their corporation in the Chamber of the Corporations]. But this didn't mean the end of the class of the capitalists, on the contrary ... usually within the corporation the Fascist party kept well strict relations with them, but also with the workers [this is the "social" aspect of Fascism].
Fascism is a leftist ideology. It's a natural variant of socialism. - - - Updated - - - When corporations are "under control", they're no longer part of the free market. Which means they're no longer capitalist.
They aren't nationalized, per say. Mussolini called it controlled corporatism or something like that. There is a evident free market, but they are intertwined with the government. For example, you could start a mcdonalds, but the government would give you quotas and invest in your business. You weren't forced to work somewhere, or were you told which house you could live in. It was authoritarian capitalism. And I'm getting my definitions from the fascist triumvirate themselves. - - - Updated - - - I agree, it is complicated, but unlike communism, people were allowed to start, run, and work where they pleased. The fascist council had the rights politically to intervene in corporations. Does that make since?
In addition, the national socialists were actually known as the far right national socialist party. Hitler openly declared himself right wing and fascist. As did Mussolini, Franco, and several of the big 4 south asia leaders back in the 50's.
Actually, all three of these extreme ideologies actually all claimed to provide freedom. Communism provided liberty in how one was provided for, without government constriction. Fascists claimed freedom was earned through control. And populism for obvious reasons. Populism does seem like an alright choice, but you have to at least consider the possibility for large scale chaos.
Chaos is the risk of populism, usually it happens when the people realizes that the regime is everything else, but popular [meaning a regime doing the interests of the people]. This calls for "emotional linkage" to create with the people. A beloved figure can help. In the United States a very emotionally charged Hollywood actress could play the role of the emergency president. And note that usually populism can play paradoxical cards. If I have to think to a personage for an emergency president to build a populist regime in America ... well ... an absurd name comes to mind: Sharon Stone But it's just a name, only to indicate a populist model.
Until you define what "since" is, it makes no sense. Also, fascism is FORCE, hence anti-freedom and anti-choice...and hence it's a leftist ideology. - - - Updated - - - By the far left organs such as the New York Times, which made a career out of covering for Stalin and FDR's communist ties.
Another fool who think the left wing is authoritarianism. Lets get something straight. Both left and right offer different forms of liberty. Its whether they choose to give it with authority or libertarian democratic elements. Hence, why most political compasses have 4 wings. - - - Updated - - - Nope. Hitler literally called his party the far right national socialists. Along with Mussolini and France. Right wing sir.
What's radical is a matter of perspective. I guess when you put it like that I'd prefer Fascism, depending on its description. I prefer obviously totalitarian Fascism because people can see it clearly. The creation of state-industry cartels is a much more subtle manifestation. So subtle that it has taken hold across the Western world. Not Communism because at least Fascism allows some freedom for the elite class. Not populism because I find it absolutely repugnant. Complete group think. Screw that. It's much easier to coerce minorities with the force of the majority than it is to coerce the majority with the force of an elite. Of the three options you offered, I despise this the most - by a significant margin.
How do you get an extreme center? Did we change physics or what? Perhaps its........never mind I am still laughing.
Do you understand that there is no extreme right in America? What you people call "extreme right" is just the Constitution, itself. By your standards, the Founding Fathers would have been far right extremists. Their beliefs that were laid out in the Constitution are all that the modern right wishes to preserve. Anything beyond that is just your own projection based on either ignorance, prejudice, or some combination thereof. If you want to hate me for what I believe, that's fine. But at least get it right.
I wish "None of the above" had been a choice. I go with the radical ideology laid out in the U.S. Constitution. You know, the idea that all government is inherently evil and it's our responsibility to control the government and not the government's responsibility to control us.
I would have to go with Populism although I don't know anything about it. Fascism and Communism are totally unacceptable though.
Did anyone notice that the author of this post had the word "extreme" in every choice? Goldwater was dead wrong. Extremism in the cause of ANYTHING is a vice. In WWI, my Grandfather fought at the Somme, and had no love of Germany. Yet he sometimes said "Oh, Hitler's not all that bad" Throughout the late 1920s and most of the 1930s, Europe was bombarded with extreme right and left wing propaganda, much like America is today. Democracies and Republics had "failed the people", as shown by the world wide Depression. By the mid thirties, only two countries appeared to be doing well; Russia and Germany. Both sides tried to outdo the other in their extreme views. Both sides vehemently attacked ANY sort of moderation. "The Future belongs to (pick one; Fascism or Communism). Be a man! Take a stand! CHOOSE ONE!!!". Believing he only had those two awful choices, My Grandfather decided that Hitler was less dangerous than Stalin. And history has shown that to be true. That does not make Nazism a good system by any means. Today, we are offered the same two (OK, in this case three) choices. I suspect that this is really a ploy by some extreme right or left wing fanatic to belittle moderation and common sense. To put it in the same light as the extreme lunatics of the hard right and the hard left. And it looks like a lot of people are falling for it. Just like my Grandfather did.
I can't choose anything. Communism, Populism and Fascism are all such bad ideas that I cannot bring myself to choose one.
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism. It is a combination of right-wing positions with elements of left-wing politics and is in opposition to liberalism, Marxism and traditional conservatism. So....The OP's poll is highly flawed. Fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.[36] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.[37][38] Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views. Look here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
