[Ghostavo]

Regarding NAFTA, I'm going to have to be a devil's advocate and point out that it doesn't seem to be all rainbows and sunshine.

In the linked report, they seem to link the agreement with the rising income inequality in the US.

[The E]

When I look at the economic policies of Nazi Germany, I see things like people being required to labor, building infrastructure, planting trees, building war ships and being given housing and food (and some small amount of money) in return, all with the ultimate reward of making life better for all of your people. That seems remarkably communistic. It looks like they come to very similar economic policies from different philosophical foundations. It seems the main difference is Nazi Fascism only included certain racial groups as 'people' and considered other racial groups as a threat to the preferred race. That seems more like a bug of that particular implementation. Nazis were not the only Fascists. If you implemented Fascism with a civic nationalist model, would it differ in any significant way from Communism? what would those ways be?

The ground state of a communist society (as defined by Marx) is equality. Everyone, regardless of their personal characteristics, is an equal to everyone else, with everyone enjoying the same rights and priviledges. Hierarchies are a temporal thing, only created when necessary and torn down when they're not. The overriding maxim of communist society is "to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities"; it doesn't matter to the society what you are as long as you use your abilities to make the lives of your fellow citizens better. As a result, communism doesn't ackknowledge the state as an entity. In a communist society, it doesn't exist.

In fascism, the state is everything. Everyone is considered a part of the Nation, and the Nation (through its agents) issues decrees and orders to perpetuate itself and keep itself independent of outside influences. A fascist state will adopt socialist or capitalist methods in the pursuit of national unity as its leaders decide; fascism itself doesn't really have an economic theory. What it has instead is the overarching goal of making the state as strong and self-sufficient as it can be, thus measures that decrease the influence of outsiders (like, for example, international trade or globalist political positions) are inherently good. Fascism accepts capitalism and inequality as long as capitalists ackknowledge the supremacy of the state in all matters and as long as inequality does not cause internal strife (however, the strongly hierarchical nature of fascist regimes will cause it to side with people in power over the powerless more often than not in these cases).

I am not quite sure whether civic nationalist fascism can work. Under civic nationalism, the state has power because it is imbued with it by the citizenry; under fascism, people have power because they were granted it by the state. There are fundamental conflicts here that I think cannot be resolved, so the question of what civic nationalist fascism would look like is moot. By the time you changed enough core concepts of either to be compatible with the other, you wouldn't be talking about fascism anymore.

[666maslo666]

I am not quite sure whether civic nationalist fascism can work.

I think it could work as a fascist state but one where the "supremacy" is tied not to some ethnicity or race but citizenship and country itself. Something like a society from Starship Troopers movie or maybe US nationalism taken to the extreme or even Star Citizen society. It would be in contrast to ethnic/racist fascism.

[Grizzly]

*post deleted*

[MP-Ryan]

I have only one thing to add to Joshua and The E, and that is that there is a confounding issue of theory vs practice.

In theory, as proposed by Marx, Communism is a utopic means of societal organization in which everything is owned by the people, including the state (in Marx's original views, the State would eventually disappear entirely).  It projects absolute equality between all peoples.

In practice, Communism in the USSR and China became all about the State and its supremacy above all else.  Any pretense of social and economic equality was extinguished from nearly the moment of the revolutions, and both countries ended up run by dictatorial hierarchies within a scant few years.  Economically, the USSR still made pretextual motions in the direction of a equal-distribution society, but in practice there was still extreme stratification, added to by a thriving black market in addition to a huge problem of exchange-for-political-favour.  It ended up in a situation where the state took control of everything and essentially gave it to the political elite class and ordinary people were left with nothing.  It was a long way from Communism as proposed by Marx.  China, on the other hand, took the long view and shifted gradually to a capitalist society with a veneer of Communism as government.

Fascism, by contrast, was not proposed in theory before it was put into practice; as a political ideology, its theories and practice grew together so we never get this dichotomy.  Fascism in practice and Communism in practice share some core features - centralized governance, authoritarian control by a single individual or selected unelected and unaccountable group, primary of a single charismatic leader, some socialized industry, nationalistic ideology - but their rationale is different.  Communism in practice was based on a economic policy twisted and subverted by an authoritarian regime.  Fascism is based entirely on the concept of an authoritarian regime, which adopted various economic policies that increased its power and popularity.  Two different means of getting to essentially a similar outcome.  It's why some popular thought will place fascism to the extreme right on a socioeconomic scale, Communism on the extreme left, then point out that if you go far enough to either extreme you end up with more or less the same practical system with different means of getting there and subtly different rationales.  At that extreme, the economic factor is essentially ignored and you end up with more a system of governance than anything.  The key difference at that point is in the social realm - Communism never abandons its pretext of equality of all peoples, while fascism is founded on the belief that people are never equal and the strongest deserve primacy above all others.  Communism also remained dedicated to its core idea of a collectivist economic system, while fascist forces embraced the centrist [at the time, more on this in a moment] notion of limited capitalism.

There are some other big differences too - one core tenet of fascism is the cult of personality surrounding the fascist leader, which is why Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco get the "credit" for everything their governments did.  That was never an intentional feature in Communist Russia, and the leadership turnover is indicative of the primacy of the State over the leader of it.  Communist governments also justified all of their actions, economic and social, through the [often bastardized] rationale of Communist theory.  Fascist states justified their actions simply through their popularity.  This, incidentally, is why European fascist states adopted many of the economic policies of their Socialist parties (names differed by country); they consolidated power by taking a middle ground (which, as odd as many Americans in particular will find today, the socialist parties occupied at the time between traditionalist parties and Communist/anarchist forces).  As above, the socialist parties invoked a policy of limited capitalism in most countries which brought - as a few people have said - things like the 40-hour work week.  It is worth noting that they did this while being quite honest about their intentions toward government - the Germany Nazi Party in particular never really pretended they would maintain a democratic government - explicitly because democratic governments are "weak."  They built their power based on a combination of popular economic policies, nationalist rhetoric, strength of the state (this was especially key in Germany following the pain inflicted by the Treaty of Versailles), rhetoric on the supremacy of certain peoples over others, and enforced by socially-conservative, nationalist paramilitary groups.

Part of the confusion is compounded by the fact that left/right politics as they are understood today do not apply to the period of 1920-1940 very well.  Most European politics at the time were divided into five or six camps that varied in support by country, and aren't easily understood on a modern left-right spectrum.  This is why seeing the word "leftist" appear in that author's work Goober linked early in sets off major alarm bells - he doesn't define what it means, and it appears he's trying to cram fascism crudely into the modern political left as it is understood in the United States based on a few economic policies which, at the time of their use, were decidedly centrist/nationalist in nature.  Fascism is placed roughly today by most historians as sitting to the right of center because of its authoritarian nature and social policies, embrace of limited capitalism, abject rejection of equality and human rights, nationalist rhetoric, and war/might-based doctrine.

All of which goes to show that trying to understand politics over any meaningful length of time using a simple left-right scale is generally stupid.

[Mongoose]

Okay can we just be done with it and amend the Constitution to enable MP-Ryan's election? If I thought it'd do any good I'd be quoting that entire post at every political idiot I've ever come across.

[Dragon]

Well, he certainly knows more about history of politics and actual meaning of certain words than either candidate, not that it's a particularly high bar to clear...

That post is indeed a concise explanation of what Fascism and Communism (at least if understood as an ideology, not an economic system) are. I'm of the opinion that they're orthogonal to themselves and prefer to use the word "Communism" to refer only to the economic system (I remember seeing a political compass someday where they were literally on orthogonal axes), many people, including most USSR politicians, used the political meaning more.

[MP-Ryan]

Okay can we just be done with it and amend the Constitution to enable MP-Ryan's election?

I want nothing to do with the bat**** lunacy you uproariously call a government, sorry

[Goober5000]

I can see that a comprehensive rebuttal is required...

3. A true apples-to-apples comparison with the article would be from 1993 to 2010.  And a better metric than absolute unemployment is the employment-to-population ratio.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the employment-population ratio in December 1993 was 62.2 percent, whereas the same ratio in December 2010 was 58.3 percent.
4. Aside from actually harming employment, as in the previous bullet point, GDP per capita in the US has increased from $16,718 in 1993 to $43,644 in 2010, a factor of 1.6.

The dates go to 2007 because in 2008 there was this minor hiccup in the world economy that distorts the figures so horrendously that they're no longer worth considering.  The fact of the matter is that nothing about 2010 is more relevant than 2007 in terms of NAFTA's influence, and the difference between 2010 and 2007 is that one supports your flawed narrative and the other does not.  You know damn ****ing well the downturn from 2007 to 2010 was not caused by NAFTA, or even related to it in the ****ing slightest.

I cited 2010 because that was a direct comparison with the date in the WND article.  But it's interesting that you latched onto the red herring rather than address the main point.  The BLS statistics from December 2007 list an employment-population ratio of 62.7 percent, which is an increase of all of 0.5 percent from 1993, far from the glowing picture implied by the 24 percent figure that MP-Ryan cited.

Hilariously, in your rush to talk about the financial crisis, you missed a whale of a typo where I accidentally wrote GDP per capita rather than debt per capita.  And debt per capita increased from $16,718 in 1993 to $29,638 in 2007, an factor of 0.77.

I'll take Trump's word the second he shows any of his statements are credible.  He has a serious problem with facts and truth, demonstrated throughout the campaign.  Elected officials are at least held to some standard of the truth; at present, Trump hasn't been held to any.

On the contrary, every time Trump opens his mouth, all of the pundits rush to "fact-check" whatever he says.  This is the case even for statements that are clearly metaphorical, such as "Obama is the leader of ISIS."

Note how you call that statement "clearly metaphorical" when Trump himself denies that.

But I guess using Trump's own words against him is just another appeal to authority, am I right?

Bobboau addressed this here.  But thank you for proving my point.  As this article illustrates, MP-Ryan's claim that Trump hasn't been held to any standard is quite clearly false.

No, I'm going to dismiss the guy's interpretation of history - which begins with his first use of the word leftist - because he lacks any peer-reviewed work, research, credentials, or really anything that would make his interpretation credible against the literal library shelves full of work that doesn't draw silly conclusions based on the writers' personal interpretations.

Fascism was founded by people who explicitly opposed the tenets of what was considered leftist political thought - and leftist political parties, including Labour, The Social Democrats, and the Communist Parties - in the era in which it developed.  It renewed an interest in social conservativism and opposed equality.  Adopting modern interpretations, it was supported directly by white nationalists, racist paramilitaries, and the areas of the political arena that favour social stratification.  It opposed constitutional rights in all forms, and especially those that led to representative governance.  By any measurement stick, fasicism was not associated with what was considered the left wing then, or now.  Incidentally, you'll note that nowhere have I actually said fascism is an explicitly right-wing movement either.  In point of fact - as as actual credible sources contend - fascism contained a mix of policies from all aspects of the political spectrum, but was defined more by its method of governing, its social conservativism, and its opposition to both Communism and representative democracies.  It is frequently placed on the far right as a counter-equivalent to Communism on the far left, but in practice neither designation is truly appropriate.  Placing fascism in the early 20th century on the political left makes about as much sense as placing anarchism in the early 20th century on the far right - both miss the point spectacularly.

This is utter hogwash.  The author lists fact after historical fact, none of which can be subject to interpretation.  It cannot be disputed that Mussolini was a member of the Socialist Party or that he was lionized by the left-wing intelligentsia before World War II.  Nor can the planks of the Fascist Manifesto be described as anything other than left-wing.

I find it telling that you insist on constructing your argument based on what people say about fascism while ignoring what fascism says about itself.

Since you missed it last time:  WHAT.  EVIDENCE.

It was apparent from the context of the very first quote in that quote chain.  To wit: the evidence methodically laid out in that FBI statement.  Just because the FBI declined to pursue a case does not mean they were correct to do so.

Ah, but you see, intent doesn't matter.  Contrary to the FBI statement, mishandling classified information is a crime regardless of whether there is an intent to supply it to an enemy or not.

Here is another example.  Clinton stated under oath that she did not send or receive classified information on her private server.  The FBI determined that she did.  This is prima facie perjury.

Keep your day job, law enforcement or prosecution is not for you.  Here's a non-legalese version. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html  You can always read the sections yourself.  Moreover, to prove perjury you must prove the person knew that the statement was false; the specifics on the few classified emails the FBI did find do not make it clear that Clinton knew that was the case.

The Washington Post article makes a number of statements that are true but irrelevant.  Supplying classified information to an enemy is not the only way one can mishandle classified information.  From that very link:

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

To spell it out, the private email server qualifies as an unauthorized location.

Also, perjury is proven from both the FBI's statement that the information was "properly classified as Secret at the time it was discussed" and Clinton's absurd suggestion that the (C), (S), (TS) paragraph markings were for "alphabetizing" the paragraphs.  Anyone who views classified materials must undergo classification training.

By your own standards, I should disregard that article because the author is an uncredentialed crank whose objectivity is under serious question.

I'm only quoting this because it made me actually laugh out loud.  The guy pulling crank authors and political operatives with no pretext of objectivity out of his ass as sources has a problem with a researched and cited NewsWeek piece.  Are we done?  I think we're done.

Ah, so you agree that your credentialism is laughable.  I'm glad to have that concession at least.

Libel laws don't affect average people?  Tell me, have you heard of Popehat and/or Ken White?  How about FIRE?  The ACLU?  Libel laws absolutely affect average people.

The context of Trump's comment about libel laws was for the purposes of suing news organizations.  Whether you agree with that or not, news organizations are not "average people".

I'm not sure how an economic recession in which jobs are invariably lost and disproportionately affects the poor and middle class actually helps people.  Then again, I'm sure there's an explanation in a world in which fascism is a movement of the political left.  Do we get to hear how that's the case, or is this going to be another round of dodgeball?

You're assuming the premise of your own argument.  If Trump's policies do not prompt recession, the syllogism fails.

Putting the US into yet another middle eastern conflict absolutely affects average people.  First off, the military draws much of its rank and file from the poor and middle classes (after all, like Trump, why would the rich both with military service even if they were drafted?).  Second, any idea of the cost to your national debt that the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos racked up?  It wasn't a benefit, that's for damn sure.  The Congressional Budget Office currently pegs the combined conflicts there at a total cost of 2.4 TRILLION by 2017.

I'm no fan of the current military engagements.  But that argument has no substance because a) military generals are not average people; and b) the US is already involved in direct conflict with ISIS in Iraq and elsewhere.

Also: argument from authority is only a fallacy when you quote sources operating outside their area of expertise, or authorities who are not true experts.  Have a gander in the mirror before you keep invoking it.

You clearly don't understand what argument from authority actually is.  It's when you endorse or dismiss an argument based solely on the person himself, or the person's qualifications.  You've been repeatedly guilty of this in your dismissal of David Ramsay Steele, Pat Buchanan, and Joseph Farah, as well as your comments about "cranks" and "credible sources".

I'm honestly more interested in how exactly they differ. Unlike Communism which has some very specific philosophical underpinnings, Fascism has always seemed relatively vague and nebulous. When ever I have looked into fascism it has always been described as an extreme right wing ideology built around collectivism and redistributive economics, but that has always seemed like a contradiction in terms. Not that 'left' and 'right' have any really strong clear definitions.

In a nutshell, whereas communism entailed the abolition of private property and the equalization of individuals, fascism entailed the subsumption of the individual and his property to the interests of the State.  Mussolini encapsulated it in his slogan: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.  Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

The E's post comparing communism and fascism is mostly correct, as is (surprisingly) MP-Ryan's follow-up post, except for the points where they continue to incorrectly associate fascism with the right wing.

Part of the confusion is compounded by the fact that left/right politics as they are understood today do not apply to the period of 1920-1940 very well.  Most European politics at the time were divided into five or six camps that varied in support by country, and aren't easily understood on a modern left-right spectrum.  This is why seeing the word "leftist" appear in that author's work Goober linked early in sets off major alarm bells - he doesn't define what it means, and it appears he's trying to cram fascism crudely into the modern political left as it is understood in the United States based on a few economic policies which, at the time of their use, were decidedly centrist/nationalist in nature.  Fascism is placed roughly today by most historians as sitting to the right of center because of its authoritarian nature and social policies, embrace of limited capitalism, abject rejection of equality and human rights, nationalist rhetoric, and war/might-based doctrine.

All of which goes to show that trying to understand politics over any meaningful length of time using a simple left-right scale is generally stupid.

Authoritarianism, nationalism, and militarism are not intrinsically left-wing or right-wing.  (Nor are human rights specific to one side.)  Many people forget that all of the major US wars of the 20th century, with the exception of the first Gulf War, were started under Democrat presidents.

The left-right spectrum is very easy to understand: it goes from collectivism on the left to individualism on the right.  This is why it should be obvious that fascism is a left-wing philosophy, as the individual is completely de-emphasized in favor of the State.  Anyone should be able to understand that, even if you ignore the Marxist roots of fascism's founders, even if you ignore the lifelong socialism of fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile, even if you ignore the alliances between fascist Italy, socialist Nazi Germany, and communist Soviet Union.

[MP-Ryan]

I hate quote wars, and I hate beating my head against a brick wall even more, so I'm going to keep this short-ish.

1.  You are objectively wrong that fascism is left-wing, for all the various reasons I've laid out.  You may continue to choose to ignore them at your leisure.  The fact that Mussolini once espoused the views of an Italian socialist party (and I'll remind everyone that socialist in 1920-1940 doesn't mean left wing today) does not indicate fascism is a left-wing ideology.  I really can't be bothered to continue this further when you clearly want to continue down a path which your political biases lead you to despite all evidence to the contrary.  Someone else can feel free to pick up where I've left off if they so desire.

2.  The 24% comes from an actual bit of research in the article I cited, which you may want to actually read in full instead of focusing on the one basic stat I pulled out of it.

3.  An argument from authority is as follows:

An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.

All of the "authorities" I'm quoting are credible sources supported by actual research in the areas which they discuss (yes, even NewsWeek).  You have quoted an opinion piece in a crank "independent" but conservative news site written by a former right-wing politician, and an author with no credentials to speak of, particularly historical ones in the area in which he's writing.  His historical facts are immediately coloured by his very ahistorical opinion.  He's not credible, nor is your argument.

4.  For your interpretation of the law, again, keep your day job.  "Knowing" and "intent" feature throughout those sections, and your interpretation of perjury is, once again, flat wrong as to proceed on a perjury count the prosecution must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly lied.  Not balance of probabilities, not Goober-and-the-Clinton-haters-on-the-Internets-best-guess, but beyond a reasonable doubt.  The reason why Clinton was not charged was, as the FBI said, there was no proof of intent, the basic elements of the offences are not completely met, and there is therefore no reasonable prospect of conviction.  As the FBI said, she could have faced administrative or other sanctions based on what they did find, but criminal charges were not appropriate in the circumstances.  In my case, this IS my day job.  I read and enforce law for a living.  Ordinarily I'd be less emphatic on a legal interpretation, but since this is already a path tread by the FBI and Justice and my reading matches their conclusions, I don't see that sort of hedging as necessary. So:

WHAT. EVIDENCE. (Third time is the charm, maybe?)

5.  In terms of Trump's economic policies, actual economists are predicting job losses and recession based on modelling of the policy impacts.  I'm not assuming anything.  Firing generals and committing the United States to a prolonged engagement against ISIS also affects the average citizen in the form of the economic pain it causes to the national budget and the lives lost in military engagements, which as disproportionately from low and middle class backgrounds.  War absolutely has a cost.  EDIT:  And on libel laws, you don't think modifying the First Amendment (which is what it would take to open up libel laws) would affect anyone other than newspapers?  For context of how free speech of newspapers affects regular people, see the important New York Times Vs Sullivan decision.  Opening up the first amendment is the complete antithesis of a person who defends individual liberties.  The first amendment is the one which makes all the others possible.  It is difficult to overstate the consequences - if he could actually do it.  Naturally, like most of Trump's other promises, there are considerable legal barriers in his way which he apparently doesn't even recognize.

6.  Lastly:

The left-right spectrum is very easy to understand: it goes from collectivism on the left to individualism on the right.

It's like my entire post on this subject flew spectacularly over your head, launching fireworks, flags, and blaring trumpets as it went by.  You may want to apply a simplistic modern US left-right spectrum to the politics of the past, but the entire point is that is a false representation of the situation at the time. And even your simplistic application is apparently doing it wrong.  Regardless, I have better things to do with my time than keep repeating basic facts in new and more colourful ways, amusing as that is.  Is there anything new on the horizon, or are we done?

[NGTM-1R]

It goes from collectivism on the left except when it comes to bedrooms and drugs to individualism on the right except when it comes bedrooms, drugs, national defense, and rhetorical patriotism.

Also both sides have become individualists when it comes to trade.

Also also how individualist the right is willing to be on religion depends largely on whether you're nominally Muslim.

Also also also this analogy is exceptionally bad, if that wasn't clear already, and the fact it was posted with a straight face is incomprehensible.

[The E]

The left-right spectrum is very easy to understand: it goes from collectivism on the left to individualism on the right.

Let's use your own style of argumentation here: No, it doesn't. Left and Right are designations stemming from the French Revolution of 1789 to 1799; delegates seated on the left side of the Estates General were generally opposed to monarchy and supported the revolution to create a secular republic. Those on the right sided with the old regime.
In a very real sense, these sort of definitions haven't lost their meaning: The Left is generally portraited as the progressive side, willing to make changes, the Right opposes change and wishes to conserve the status quo (like some sort of conservatives).

Right now, societal progressivism tends to include collectivism and conservatism tends to include individualism, but this is not a historical constant.

This is why it should be obvious that fascism is a left-wing philosophy, as the individual is completely de-emphasized in favor of the State.

It's also a right-wing philosophy because fascists are very much obsessed with taking their country back to a time where it was supposed to be "great". Social conservatism thrives under fascist rule, because the traditions it is built on are the foundations of the national culture fascists seeks to enforce (that is, the traditions whose observance makes someone german or italian or american will be encouraged by fascist regimes, while traditions imported from elsewhere will be abolished). Yes, it is a collectivist philosophy. That alone is not enough to make it "Left Wing".

Anyone should be able to understand that, even if you ignore the Marxist roots of fascism's founders, even if you ignore the lifelong socialism of fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile, even if you ignore the alliances between fascist Italy, socialist Nazi Germany, and communist Soviet Union.

Lenin and Stalin also had Marxist roots, and yet the respective regimes they founded are the very definition of being communist in name only.

But now we come to the big one.

"socialist Nazi Germany"

Are you serious. Did you seriously fall for the NSDAP propaganda? Do you seriously believe that, despite my explanation of why a fascist regime adopts socialist policies?

Nazi Germany, for all the collectivist stuff they did, was marked by an ultraconservative approach in social matters. The liberalization seen in 1920 and 1930 Berlin was blown away by a total focus on christianity and on traditional ways of living.

Always remember that "National Socialism" is one word in german. It is, for all intents and purposes, a purely german word for Fascism, and only takes a few elements of socialist thought. Hitler himself positioned national socialism as a third way between Left- and Right-wing politics, writing:

Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.

Calling nazis left-wing purely because naziism is a collectivist philosophy is wrong. No, worse, it's not even wrong: It's such a misunderstanding of what naziism and fascism are that anyone who does it is either woefully misinformed about history, or else misrepresenting history to make a cheap point. That you can trace a lineage of socialist thought to fascism is nowhere near as relevant to their categorization on the political spectrum as what their policies looked like in practice.

And, finally, to go back to something you said in the beginning of your post: "Left" and "Right" is only one of several axis' in the political spectrum, and they're mostly mislabelled. If we want to categorize political positions, we need to add more dimensions; the most common such graph uses collectivism/individualism and  socially progressive/socially conservative as its markers (an argument can be made to plot economically progressive/economically conservative on its own axis as well).

[MP-Ryan]

Regarding NAFTA, I'm going to have to be a devil's advocate and point out that it doesn't seem to be all rainbows and sunshine.

In the linked report, they seem to link the agreement with the rising income inequality in the US.

I was remiss in focusing my energy on correcting the apparently uncorrectable and didn't respond to this perfectly reasonable point earlier, for which I apologize.  Yes, NAFTA has had side-effects that haven't always been positive, but its net benefits to the economies of its member nations, jobs, and the free movement of people have generally outweighed some of its more negative effects.  The American Council on Foreign Relations, a well-established a reputable think-tank (despite the fact that it is regularly targeted by gloablist/NWO-fearing conspiracy theorists), has a good primer on the subject as well:  http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790

And to the original point, which is Trump's assertion that trade agreements harm US residents overall and should be backed out of:  the US imports staggering quantities of raw materials and finished goods.  Making those things more expensive isn't going to help Americans struggling to pay the bills as it is, nor will it boost employment.  Regressive economic nationalism will not help the US economy.

This is different from the as-yet-un-ratified TPP, however.  Whereas existing trade agreements are already fully integrated, there's a decent argument that TPP comes with some ugly costs and some intangible benefits and it may be better for North America as a whole to stay out of it for now.  I admit I'm not very well-versed on the impact of TPP to the US; for Canada, TPP comes with some required legal changes (particularly around copyright) that are a step backward.

Calling nazis left-wing purely because naziism is a collectivist philosophy is wrong. No, worse, it's not even wrong: It's such a misunderstanding of what naziism and fascism are that anyone who does it is either woefully misinformed about history, or else misrepresenting history to make a cheap point. That you can trace a lineage of socialist thought to fascism is nowhere near as relevant to their categorization on the political spectrum as what their policies looked like in practice.

Your entire post was fantastic, but this line in particular cuts to the heart of the point.  To use a contemporary analogy, saying fascism was left wing because it essentially stole centrist economic policy from the Socialist (capitalized due to names, not policies) parties is akin to saying China has a Communist economic system because it calls itself a Communist country.  It just simply is not the case.

[Cyborg17]

And to the original point, which is Trump's assertion that trade agreements harm US residents overall and should be backed out of:  the US imports staggering quantities of raw materials and finished goods.  Making those things more expensive isn't going to help Americans struggling to pay the bills as it is, nor will it boost employment.  Regressive economic nationalism will not help the US economy.

A thousand times yes! *goes back into lurk mode*

[Aesaar]

Guys guys, Goober has one online article that says Fascism is a left wing ideology.  Clearly that trumps the hundreds of peer-reviewed history books and articles that claim the opposite.  You know, kinda like one or two scientists claiming climate change is a lie trumps all the others who say it's real.

Sorry you're all wrong.

[Mongoose]

I find it telling that you insist on constructing your argument based on what people say about fascism while ignoring what fascism says about itself.

So by this logic we can assume that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is exactly what it says on the box, then?

[Phantom Hoover]

Guys guys, Goober has one online article that says Fascism is a left wing ideology.  Clearly that trumps the hundreds of peer-reviewed history books and articles that claim the opposite.  You know, kinda like one or two scientists claiming climate change is a lie trumps all the others who say it's real.

Sorry you're all wrong.

Reminder that Goober is a young-earth creationist and therefore is so inured to ignoring obvious, undeniable reality that nothing anyone says in this thread will make the slightest dent in his delusions. You would do as well trying to reason with Judge Floro.

[NGTM-1R]

You would do as well trying to reason with Judge Floro.

...actually Judge Floro can be reasoned with, to a limited degree.

[Bobboau]

I think a lot of problems in this thread come from (The E touched on this) poorly defined terms. "Left" and "Right" are chief in this regard, and I honestly think we should avoid using them at all for the sake of making sure we are not talking past each other, how about we clearly define some terms. I know I'm misusing some of these actual words that already have an established meaning outside of this conversation, and if you have better labels for the concepts I'm open to alternatives, especially if I'm misusing something horribly, but I think they need to be laid out explicitly somewhere in this conversation.

Rather than 'Right' and 'Left' I think better terms would be Conservative and Liberal. I would define them thusly:
Conservative - a position that an optimal state has been achieved, either in the present or in the past.
Progressive - a position that the world needs to be changed in some new way to obtain a better state than it currently is in.
'Progressive' is not my preferred term because it has a connotation implying that the change in question will as a matter of fact be 'better' when depending on who is doing the progressing we might all agree that is most certainly not. 'Radical' might be a better term here, but for this conversation I think 'Progressive' might be the best term as it is already used for this purpose a lot. Liberal is an alternative, but has it's own problems as a label here because it also has meaning in the realm of liberty vs subjugation and general enlightenment values, and it's much more associated with those than it is the concept I'm trying to address here and some might see a curtailing of liberties as an improvement (hate speech laws?). This label can be applied categorically, i.e. "economically Conservative, socially Liberal"

Independent of this there are concepts related to how to weight values; Individualism vs Collectivism. Is the collective of all people more important that the individuals who make it up? The US and it's sphere of influence, despite it's many many failings in this regard, is probably culturally the most pro-individual culture to have arisen. We very much value the rights of the individual over the right of the collective. This is why groups like the KKK and Westboro Baptists are not hunted down as criminals, and why a small few are allowed to amass vast fortunes while millions live in the gutter. Nazi Germany was collectivist (because the good of your race/nation trumped your personal prosperity), as were the numerous communist experiments that went on in the 20th century. Would anyone argue if I were to assert that even the golden utopia of Correctly Implemented Communism could be described as collectivist as well?

There are concepts as to how people relate to a state or if I want to get into risky territory we could say one's group(s). Is the group owned by the individuals that make it up, or are they owned by it. This is where I think the word 'Liberal' belongs, as people having liberty from their state/group. so our dichotomy would be 'Liberal' vs 'Totalitarian'. This might be too connected with the previous concept.

There is also the concept of the relative value of people (either as a group or individuals) with the two options being equality vs inequity, we can call this Equalism vs Inequalism.
There is even a further dimension to this as you can have people who believe all people are fundamentally equal but should be treated unequally (via 'earning' it for instance) or that all people are inherently unequal, but should be treated as though they are (if there is not a level playing field how will the truly superior prosper?). This fairness like concept is also about equality, but we've already used the obvious words, so equality vs disparity (if I wanted to be a real snark I could try to call this 'diversity'). To put these into isms we can say 'Egalitarianism' and... 'Disparitarianism'? is there a word better than my made up one here for this?
Also is the concept of equality of opportunity vs outcome, but these are less base positions and more consequences of your views on equality. If you are either an equalist  or an egalitarian you would hold to equality of opportunity, but you would reject equality of outcome unless you were both, and if you were an inequalist disparitarianist you would obviously reject both forms of equality.

So Nazi Germany was a progressive collectivist totalitarian inequal disparian ideology.
As opposed to Communism which is a progressive collectivist totalitarian equal egalitarian ideology.

I know I'm going to get push-back on the totalitarian assertion for Communism and the progressive assertion for Nazis.
But how could Communism not be totalitarian? Personal property does not exist and you have no right to autonomy as a result. You cannot choose the utilization of the fruits of your labor as it will go to those who need. If we assume your group is the entire human race, in a Communist utopia do people have a duty to help out all of humanity? The Nazis internally thought that humans were of vastly different worth person by person and group by group, they were trying to make the world better from their ****ed up perspective by getting rid of all the untermensch. Think about the definitions I supplied and if it works here. Again, I am open to other labels for these concepts.

[Goober5000]

I hate quote wars, and I hate beating my head against a brick wall even more, so I'm going to keep this short-ish.

[...]

1. No, fascism is left-wing, as characterized by its founders, by its origins, by its philosophy, and by its allies.  Here are the planks of the Fascist Manifesto...

For the political problem: We demand:
a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women.
b) A minimum age for the voting electorate of 18 years; that for the office holders at 25 years.
c) The abolition of the Senate.
d) The convocation of a National Assembly for a three-years duration, for which its primary responsibility will be to form a constitution of the State.
e) The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.

For the social problems: We demand:
a) The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers.
b) A minimum wage.
c) The participation of workers’ representatives in the functions of industry commissions.
d) To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants.
e) The rapid and complete systemization of the railways and of all the transport industries.
f) A necessary modification of the insurance laws to invalidate the minimum retirement age; we propose to lower it from 65 to 55 years of age.

For the military problem: We demand:
a) The institution of a national militia with a short period of service for training and exclusively defensive responsibilities.
b) The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
c) A national policy intended to peacefully further the Italian national culture in the world.

For the financial problem: We demand:
a) A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.
b) The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
c) The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

How can that be reasonably described as anything other than left-wing?

2. I did read the article, and the 24% statistic is not incorrect, just grossly misleading.  The usual unemployment rate is subject to all sorts of modifications depending on how many people you actually count in the workforce and how they are employed.  That's why a much better metric is the employment-to-population ratio.

The rest of that article similarly uses sleight of hand to paint a rosy picture when the true picture is considerably bleaker.  Debt-to-GDP, as I cited, is a better metric than straight GDP, as the article did.  The article's claim that jobs lost in one sector can be made up elsewhere is without basis because jobs are not fungible: a factory worker cannot magically become a doctor, lawyer, or hedge fund manager.

3. An argument from authority is a fallacy when the argument is accepted or rejected on the basis of that authority.  It is a fallacy precisely because authorities can be, and often are, wrong -- witness the recent revelations that scientists in the 1960s suppressed the link between sugar and heart disease.  You're committing that fallacy when you urge dismissal of certain arguments because they are written by people you label as cranks.

And historical facts are not affected by an "ahistorical opinion".  A historical event either did or did not occur.  Reality is not subjective.

4. Now you're committing the fallacy of arguing from your own authority.  You may be highly knowledgeable about the legal field but that does not make you correct -- not to mention that different lawyers often come to different conclusions about the same evidence.  (In fact, they are paid to do so.)

In this case, the FBI's own statement is definitive:

"there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

"we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government."

"there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information"

The FBI's recommendation not to bring charges contradicts its own statement that there is evidence to support doing so.  The evidence supports gross negligence and perjury, at the very least.  Actually producing a conviction is for the trial to determine, but one cannot possibly say that there are no grounds to file charges.

5. a) The problems with modern economists are enough to occupy another topic entirely; suffice it to say that the actual as opposed to theoretical effects remain to be seen.  Additionally, economic impact should not be the sole metric for judging an economic policy; political and social impacts must be taken into account as well. b) Re military engagements: Yes, you said this already. c) The libel law conversation was entirely in the context of newspapers printing stories about Trump that he didn't like, and he even said in that conversation that he'd have to consult with his lawyers.

6. I am merely doing my own small part in setting the record straight on fascism.  It's been mischaracterized as right-wing for so long that I am under no illusions it can be corrected in the space of one discussion thread.

Yes, I suppose we're done.  I also have better things I could be doing with my time.

The left-right spectrum is very easy to understand: it goes from collectivism on the left to individualism on the right.

Let's use your own style of argumentation here: No, it doesn't. Left and Right are designations stemming from the French Revolution of 1789 to 1799; delegates seated on the left side of the Estates General were generally opposed to monarchy and supported the revolution to create a secular republic. Those on the right sided with the old regime.
In a very real sense, these sort of definitions haven't lost their meaning: The Left is generally portraited as the progressive side, willing to make changes, the Right opposes change and wishes to conserve the status quo (like some sort of conservatives).

Right now, societal progressivism tends to include collectivism and conservatism tends to include individualism, but this is not a historical constant.

This is another definition of the left-right spectrum, and as you said it's where the terms originally came from, but this is more properly referred to as the classical liberal/conservative spectrum.  It's tangential to this discussion because the principal point of contention is whether fascism is a collectivist philosophy or not; i.e. whether it belongs on the same side of the spectrum as communism and socialism.

It's also a right-wing philosophy because fascists are very much obsessed with taking their country back to a time where it was supposed to be "great". Social conservatism thrives under fascist rule, because the traditions it is built on are the foundations of the national culture fascists seeks to enforce (that is, the traditions whose observance makes someone german or italian or american will be encouraged by fascist regimes, while traditions imported from elsewhere will be abolished). Yes, it is a collectivist philosophy. That alone is not enough to make it "Left Wing".

Nationalism is not intrinsically left-wing or right-wing.  But I'm glad to see you acknowledge fascism as collectivist.

"socialist Nazi Germany"

Are you serious. Did you seriously fall for the NSDAP propaganda? Do you seriously believe that, despite my explanation of why a fascist regime adopts socialist policies?

Nazi Germany, for all the collectivist stuff they did, was marked by an ultraconservative approach in social matters. The liberalization seen in 1920 and 1930 Berlin was blown away by a total focus on christianity and on traditional ways of living.

Always remember that "National Socialism" is one word in german. It is, for all intents and purposes, a purely german word for Fascism, and only takes a few elements of socialist thought.

Well, let's take a look:

1. We demand the union of all Germans, on the basis of the right of the self-determination of peoples, to form a Great Germany.
2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations, and abolition of the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
3. We demand land and territory for the nourishment of our people and for settling our surplus population.
4. None but members of the nation may be citizens of the State. None but those of German blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation.
5. Anyone who is not a citizen of the State may live in Germany only as a guest and must be regarded as being subject to the Alien Laws.
6. The right of voting on the leadership and laws of the State is to be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand, therefore, that all official positions, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, the provinces, or the small communities, shall be held by citizens of the State alone. We oppose the corrupt parliamentary custom of filling posts merely with a view to party considerations, and without reference to character or ability.
7. We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of the citizens of the State. If it is not possible to nourish the entire population of the State, foreign nationals must be excluded from the Reich.
8. All further non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany subsequently to August 2, 1914, shall be required forthwith to depart from the Reich.
9. All citizens of the State shall possess equal rights and duties.
10. It must be the first duty of every citizen of the State to perform mental or physical work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the community and must be for the general good.
11. Abolition of incomes unearned by work. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST.
12. In view of the enormous sacrifice of life and property demanded of a nation by every war, personal enrichment through war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand, therefore, the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been amalgamated.
14. We demand that there shall be profit sharing in the great industries.
15. We demand a generous development of provision for old age.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, immediate communalization of the large department stores and their lease at a low rate to small traders, and that the most careful consideration shall be shown to all small traders in purveying to the State, the provinces, or smaller communities.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the confiscation without compensation of land for communal purposes, the abolition of interest on land mortgages, and prohibition of all speculation in land.
18. We demand ruthless war upon all those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Sordid criminals against the nation, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.
19. We demand that the Roman law, which serves the materialistic world order, shall be replaced by a German common law.
20. With the aim of opening to every capable and industrious German the possibility of higher education and consequent advancement to leading positions, the State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education. The curriculum of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. Directly the mind begins to develop the schools must aim at teaching the pupil to understand the idea of the State. We demand the education of specially gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
21. The State must apply itself to raising the standard of health in the nation by protecting mothers and infants, prohibiting child labor, and increasing bodily efficiency by legally obligatory gymnastics and sports, and by extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of the young.
22. We demand the abolition of mercenary troops and the formation of a national army.
23. We demand legal warfare against conscious political lies and their dissemination in the press. In order to facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand that: (a) all editors, and their co-workers, of newspapers employing the German language must be members of the nation; (b) special permission from the State shall be necessary before non-German newspapers may appear (these need not necessarily be printed in the German language); ( c ) non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and the penalty for contravention of the shall be suppression of any such newspaper, and immediate deportation of the non-German involved It must be forbidden to publish newspapers which are damaging to the national welfare. We demand the legal prosecution of all tendencies in art and literature which exert a destructive influence on our national life and the closing of institutions which militate against the above-mentioned requirements.
24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the moral and ethical feelings of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent recovery from within only on the principle: THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST
25. That all the foregoing requirements may be realized we demand the creation of a strong, central national authority; unconditional authority of the central legislative body over the entire Reich and its organizations in general; and the formation of diets and vocational chambers for the purpose of executing the general laws promulgated by the Reich in the various States of the Confederation. The leaders of the Party swear to proceed regardless of consequences - if necessary at the sacrifice of their lives - toward the fulfillment of the foregoing Points.

There is a lot of fascism there, certainly.  But points 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 24 are socialist in whole or in part.  That's 15 out of 25, more than "only a few".

And, finally, to go back to something you said in the beginning of your post: "Left" and "Right" is only one of several axis' in the political spectrum, and they're mostly mislabelled. If we want to categorize political positions, we need to add more dimensions; the most common such graph uses collectivism/individualism and  socially progressive/socially conservative as its markers (an argument can be made to plot economically progressive/economically conservative on its own axis as well).

This I certainly agree with.  The left/right spectrum, or indeed any one spectrum, must necessarily be a simplification.

Yes, NAFTA has had side-effects that haven't always been positive, but its net benefits to the economies of its member nations, jobs, and the free movement of people have generally outweighed some of its more negative effects.

This relates to my "economic impact should not be the sole metric" statement above.  The free movement of peoples is actually causing considerable trouble in both the US and Europe.  Exhibit A is the refugee crisis.

So by this logic we can assume that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is exactly what it says on the box, then?

There's a difference between propaganda and philosophy.


Aesaar and Phantom Hoover: Leave the drive-by rhetorical sniping out of this, please.