Skip to content

Political matrix is actually 3D

January 17, 2016

Right/Left: balance of power (“meritorious” [whoever becomes rich] or “egalitarian”)
Libertarian/Authoritarian: how much power wielded (less or more)
Populist/Corporatist: who holds the power (“the people” or an elite group)

In my recounting of the history of the race issue, based on Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, I had noted how there were always these same three approaches to progress, but that the middle ground, generally represented by a movement and party called “libertarianism” now, was held by a movement and party called “populism” during the end of slavery.

In actuality, you still hear the term “populist” today, and usually attributed to conservatives, in their anti-government sentiments. When you think anti-government, you think “libertarian” (anti-authoritarian), but it’s also anti-elitist.
The original Populists, recall from, criticized large corporations and the wealthy elite, viewing the privileged as conspiring to keep poor whites and blacks locked into a subordinate political and economic position, and took aim at conservatives (known as a party of privilege) and pointed out the divide and conquer tactics of these powers. Causing alarm for the conservatives (favoring racial division), they were eventually forced to become conservative by various intimidation tactics. This sort of figured, as they were not as progressive as liberals, and thus agreed with conservatives to some extent, and so were apparently drawn along the lines of what they agreed were the excesses of progressivism.

To this day, they ideologically remain blended in with conservatives and/or libertarians on what’s largely the Right. Anti-government sentiment is based on the government supposedly taking hard earned resources and giving it to undeserving minorities.
(The government wasn’t seen as bad when it served mostly whites, but when it opened up its services to blacks, then it became evil, and eventually associated with what became the nation’s number one enemy, the left/authoritarian/elitist “Communists”).
It seems the Republicans had always been the more fiscally conservative party, opposing the New Deal, and this shift of government assistance to minorities is what laid the groundwork for the eventual Southern Strategy. All that remained was the Democrats adopting Civil Rights platforms on top of the programs (with the “Great Society” superseding the New Deal), and the Civil Rights opposers then found refuge in the more fiscally conservative party, and the association of the issues: big bad government and black causes, was complete. (And so, current Republicans can also now even more easily claim continuity with the old party; in total denial of the Strategy).

So while you had the “paleo-cons” who were the “blue-collar Archie Bunker” types who favored limited government and even worker (union) protection, this gave way more to neo-cons, who on one hand lumped unions in with an “undeserving” class (even if it included whites), and still favored a Republican “limited government” platform (“austerity”) in theory; but yet they were seen as compromising on this, to allow for certain interests, like legislation in favor of religious influence. Government power then was good, if it enforced moral “values”. Hence, actually taking on a measure of authoritarianism.

So then, both paleo-cons and a new “Libertarian” party would begin criticizing “neo-cons” for money-draining endeavors such as the drug war, militarism and the support of Israel. They even criticize corporatism, going as far as to acknowledge “cronyism” and “corporate welfare” as a drain on the economy, unlike the more mainstream conservatives who think business can do no wrong, as they deserve whatever they can get.
I find myself admiring a lot of what they say. But then they always end up joining the neocons in dog whistling, with the biggest focus regarding “big government” always coming back to the blacks on welfare (eventually, at least). I tried to give people like Ron Paul a chance, when they spoke of the drug war’s negative effects on blacks; and yet still having to wonder if this was a genuine concern, or if it was apart of a bit of a fixation on “blacks and their problems” (which is the backbone of dog-whistling), but that in this case simply takes a different tack from the others. Sure enough, I eventually read of the same old dog whistling from them. Basically, the evils of the “rich elite” pulling the strings is using the blacks, with their desire for “free stuff”, to tax and oppress everyone else. Same racist broad stereotypical blaming as everyone else, but couched in the language of some sort of “concern” for them.
These views also seem to be more likely to be antisemitic, which of course figures, given an anti-Zionist platform. They’re often part of the “it’s the Jews” crowd, holding them as the force pulling the strings in the financial and media worlds (areas blacks obviously do not have the power to be accused of controlling).

When I believed the spectrum was just a 1D line, I had always said that it was actually a circle, so that the further right or left you went, you came to the same point, which was marked by extreme authoritarianism. (What’s known as libertarianism was assumed to be dead center). Then, through Politopia and Political Compass, I realized authoritarianism and libertarianism was a separate factor of a 2D matrix. I wasn’t sure if the dimensions were still circles, with extreme right and left and extreme authoritarianism and libertarianism meeting at a point. (I figured extreme authoritarianism [totalitarianism] would lead to a revolt that would shatter the system, leading to anarchy, which was the libertarian extreme. Or from the other direction, anarchy would lead to chaos, which would cause a backlash and erection of an authoritarian system to gain control and maintain order. In the original right/left dimension; since in the extremes, the line between business and government becomes fuzzy ⦅like all the government appointees and consultants who still have their positions in private enterprise⦆, that scale definitely is a circle).
So the true shape of the matrix would be something called a “Clifford torus” or “flat”/”square” torus, or “duocylinder frame”, which is similar to a familiar torus or “donut”, but with one important twist. When one pair of opposite ends of the square field are brought together (forming a tube or hollow cylinder), then to avoid distorting the object when bringing together the other pair of opposite ends, this step must be done in higher dimensional space. (You turn the 2D square into a 3D cylinder in the first step, so the second step would add yet another dimension of rotation, making the overall shape 4D). This will create a square field bent around into a boundless surface (like a sphere, but still mapped with a square’s orthogonal grid and retaining it’s undistorted area, instead of geodesics). This is the “global” shape of a video game screen where going off one edge (vertical or horizontal) brings you to the other side.

But now, again, it seems populist-corporatist (or “elitist“) is really an additional dimension on top of those. The dimensions seem to collapse or fold on top of each other; sort of like when scientists use a 2D Minkowski diagram to measure the three dimensions of space, plus one of time. Vertical becomes time, so then horizontal ends up representing all three dimensions of space.
To prove they are separate dimensions, we should be able to factor them together, yielding a cube of eight combinations of the three sets of opposite poles:

Right-libertarian-populist (rhetorical US ideals; paleocon rhetoric)
Right-libertarian-elitist (“CEO’s deserve unlimited money/power”; neocon ideals)
Right-authoritarian-populist (“take back the country”; religious right)
Right-authoritarian-elitist (fascist state, conservative practice in lesser extent)
Left-libertarian-populist (hippies, etc.)
Left-libertarian-elitist (“neo-liberals”)
Left-authoritarian-populist (Marxist “worker” ideals; Bernie Sanders)
Left-authoritarian-elitist (socialist state, liberal practice in lesser extent)

The Rightists using populist and libertarian language are all operating from a “rugged individual” or “Wild West frontier” premise, where conquest over others isn’t really wrong in itself, if you are not weak or lazy. (Weakness, along with laziness, are character flaws that make one deserve to fall and be dominated!) So they don’t care about everyone‘s “liberty” or rights as individual “people”. Only for them, deemed “earning” liberty, which is “not free” as an old saying goes.

This is where the de-facto system ends up becoming both authoritarian and elitist (no matter who is elected, and how much this is decried in the political rhetoric), with the people suffering the most from it being blamed for their own plight.

Whoever feels lacking of power (even if still in power and trying to protect it) will appeal to libertarian and populist sentiments, but if power is gained or needing to be protected, these will always turn back into authoritarianism and corporatism, as rules and structures will need to be put in place to maintain the order of the ideals. (Like US conservatives criticizing the “statism” of Communism, in favor of “freedom”, which they believe is being taken from them here, yet when their ideal system was in place in the past, others’ freedom was suppressed using both the government and business.

It’s like kids whining because another kid is genuinely bullying them. He even taunts them for “whining” ⦅and being “victims”⦆, but then when the adults chastize him, he begins whining that he’s being “abused”.
In this case, whining doesn’t cease being “whining” because he thinks his complaint is “valid” and not the other kid’s).

So maybe the overall shape is a “Clifford 3-torus” (a cube bent around in 4, 5 and 6 dimensions so that its boundaries join each other. Can’t find much about this shape)?

From → Politics

  1. The “circlular” nature of these political dimensions really stands out here:

    The rise of American authoritarianism
    A niche group of political scientists may have uncovered what’s driving Donald Trump’s ascent. What they found has implications that go well beyond 2016.

    Ironically, all of this authoritarianism is surfacing under the premise of libertarianism (i.e. “freedom”; the opposite of authoritarianism)! It’s all fear, of someone controlling them. “These tendencies can be triggered or ‘activated’ by the perception of physical threats or by destabilizing social change, leading those individuals to desire policies and leaders that we might more colloquially call authoritarian.”

    This leads

    many Americans to seek out a strongman leader who would preserve a status quo they feel is under threat and impose order on a world they perceive as increasingly alien.

    Authoritarians prioritize social order and hierarchies, which bring a sense of control to a chaotic world. Challenges to that order — diversity, influx of outsiders, breakdown of the old order — are experienced as personally threatening because they risk upending the status quo order they equate with basic security.

    This is, after all, a time of social change in America. The country is becoming more diverse, which means that many white Americans are confronting race in a way they have never had to before.

    When they face physical threats or threats to the status quo, authoritarians support policies that seem to offer protection against those fears. They favor forceful, decisive action against things they perceive as threats. And they flock to political leaders who they believe will bring this action.

    And the extreme nature of authoritarians’ fears, and of their desire to challenge threats with force, would lead them toward a candidate whose temperament was totally unlike anything we usually see in American politics — and whose policies went far beyond the acceptable norms.

    A candidate like Donald Trump.

    Also mentioned in there are a set of insights on how the current state of affairs came to be. One is that “many authoritarians might be latent — that they might not necessarily support authoritarian leaders or policies until their authoritarianism had been ‘activated.'” (Either that, or they only begin behaving like that when threatened, or they were always authoritarian, but only express it when threatened. It also mentions the Southern strategy, where the GOP became the party of “law and order”).

    The article also briefly mentions the other dimension, of “populism”: “The point, rather, is that the increasingly important political phenomenon we identify as right-wing populism, or white working-class populism, seems to line up, with almost astonishing precision, with the research on how authoritarianism is both caused and expressed.”
    Recall from the matrix above. “Right-authoritarian-populist” is represented by the “take back the country” position. But then, when the structures are put in place to implement these values, that dimension too will automatically swing to the opposite side to become corporatist.

  2. Here are some articles of conservatives who are against him.:

    “Let me start by saying that I get it. I get the frustration.
    I, too, am tired of all the PC language that has dominated our culture. I’m tired of having to be careful about everything (and I mean everything) I say for fear of accidentally offending someone and dealing with hyped up repercussions.”

    “Trump has gotten far in the GOP race on a brash manner, buffed over decades in New York tabloid culture. His refusal to back down from any gaffe, no matter how grotesque, suggests a healthy impertinence in the face of postmodern PC (although the insults he hurls at anyone who crosses him also speak to a pettiness and lack of basic civility).
    If Trump were to become the president, the Republican nominee, or even a failed candidate with strong conservative support, what would that say about conservatives? The movement that ground down the Soviet Union and took the shine, at least temporarily, off socialism would have fallen in behind a huckster.”

    Yes, that’s what they need to ask. They’re the ones who have long trashed “PC”, and now, “hypersensitivity”, and in this candidate have gotten everything they want and more; i.e. not wanting everything they get. He’s the ultimate logical conclusion of much of what conservatives have been saying for decades. Even his “hucksterism” is basically the American entrepreneurial spirit they defend in capitalism. “Produce value”; not necessarily real value, but just tell them what they want to hear or make them feel good.
    The problem is, they don’t see this “lack of civility” in themselves, because they hold themselves up as “par”. So when someone else comes who is a reflection of themselves, but stepped up a notch, now they are all of a sudden pitching sensitivity. (And notice, the article is even criticizing “populism”).

    “You’ve created this Trumpenstein, with all of the racism the Republican party pushed, for decades and decades, and the Southern Strategy; you created the xenophobia; you’ve fed that beast; and you said that billionaires are great, and they should be lauded, and everybody should understand how the greatest people in America are the richest, most wonderful, and then you got a billionaire who came out and said OK; thank you very much for this monster that you created…so now, when you go and try to fire your phasers at him, he’s like ‘get on your knees’! Well, you’re the ones who wanted to do a corrupt system, where rich people give you money, and you get on your knees! So don’t complain now that Trump turns it around on you and says ‘I was the rich guy, you got on your knees for!’
    Sad day for you; maybe you shouldn’t have been in favor of all that money pouring into politicians and bribery being legalized. Now that Trump’s using it against you; don’t cry over it!”.

    This article sows how other GOP candidates like Rubio and Cruz now opposing him aren’t any better, and just as radical in their statements:

    “In fact, you have to wonder why, exactly, the Republican establishment is really so horrified by Mr. Trump. Yes, he’s a con man, but they all are. So why is this con job different from any other? The answer, I’d suggest, is that the establishment’s problem with Mr. Trump isn’t the con he brings; it’s the cons he disrupts. First, there’s the con Republicans usually manage to pull off in national elections — the one where they pose as a serious, grown-up party honestly trying to grapple with America’s problems. The truth is that that party died a long time ago, that these days it’s voodoo economics and neocon fantasies all the way down. But the establishment wants to preserve the facade, which will be hard if the nominee is someone who refuses to play his part.
    Equally important, the Trump phenomenon threatens the con the G.O.P. establishment has been playing on its own base. I’m talking about the bait and switch in which white voters are induced to hate big government by dog whistles about Those People, but actual policies are all about rewarding the donor class. What Donald Trump has done is tell the base that it doesn’t have to accept the whole package. He promises to make America white again — surely everyone knows that’s the real slogan, right? — while simultaneously promising to protect Social Security and Medicare, and hinting at (though not actually proposing) higher taxes on the rich.”

    If Trump were to become the president or the Republican nominee, what would that say about conservatives?
    —The National Review

    It’s even degraded down to the level of total school yard crudity, with the penis references:

    Republican debate makes history, but not in a good way

    Donald Trump’s Penis Boast Sends Shudders Through Conservative Ranks

    It should be kept in mind that it was Rubio who actually took it there. And he’s not even sorry for it:

    Another good video, showing how this contradicts the whole “family values” and “culture” concern often lobbed at blacks:

    Also of interest:

    In economics in general, here, Reich debunks the “myth” of a “natural” free market. (It has manmade rules, which can be are rigged to one side)

  3. Trump’s not Hitler, he’s Mussolini: How GOP anti-intellectualism created a modern fascist movement in America

    Points out the populist [without using the term] sentiment both fascism and Trump operate off of.

    “Fascist leaders made no secret of having no program.” This explains why Trump supporters are not bothered by his ideological malleability and policy contradictions: He was pro-choice before he was pro-life; donated to politicians while now he rails against that practice; married three times and now embraces evangelical Christianity; is the embodiment of capitalism and yet promises to crack down on free trade. In the words of the Italian writer Umberto Eco, fascism was “a beehive of contradictions.” It bears noting that Mussolini was a socialist unionizer before becoming a fascist union buster, a journalist before cracking down on free press, a republican before becoming a monarchist.

    Like Fascism, Trumpism has come about on the heels of a protracted period of ideological restlessness. Within the Republican Party this restlessness has resulted in a complete de-legitimization of the so-called GOP establishment.

    Benito Mussolini came to the scene in the 1920s at a time when all the known “isms” of the time had lost their mojos. Conservatism, which since the French Revolution had been advocating for monarchy, nobility, and tradition, was dealt a devastating blow by the First World War, which destroyed four major empires (Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and German), made universal male suffrage (mostly) the norm, and eliminated a generation of aristocrats. Although initially seen as victorious, liberalism, in its emphasis on equality, constitutions, parliaments, and civil debates, quickly proved unable to solve the mammoth problems facing Europe after the war. To the millions of unemployed, angry, and hungry Europeans, the backroom politicking and obscure party debates seemed petty at best, and deserving of destruction at worst. Shoving millions of Europeans into nation-states they saw as alien to their ethnicity created huge minority problems and sparked irredentist movements including fascists and their many copycats. The success of Lenin’s Bolsheviks in Russia and their protracted, terrifying, civil war made Communism unpalatable for most Europeans.

    Enter Fascism. Fascism promised people deliverance from politics. Fascism was not just different type of politics, but anti-politics. On the post-WWI ruins of the Enlightenment beliefs in progress and essential human goodness, Fascism embraced emotion over reason, action over politics. Violence was not just a means to an end, but the end in itself because it brought man closer to his true inner nature. [i.e. “rugged individualism”; do or die, looking down on weakness, etc] War was an inevitable part of this inner essence of man. Millions of European men had found this sense of purpose and camaraderie in the trenches of the First World War and were not going to sit idly by while politicians took it away from them after the war. Fascists’ main enemies were not just Marxist politicians, or liberal politicians, but politicians in general.

    It is therefore no coincidence that the most common explanation Trump supporters muster when asked about their vote is that “he is no politician.” Trump did not invent this anti-politics mood, but he tamed it in accordance with his own needs.

    Still, for a fascist to be accepted as legitimate he has to move the crowd and from the very beginning of his candidacy Trump has done this by stoking racial animosity and grievances. It is no coincidence that the Trump phenomenon emerges during the tenure of the first black President. It bears remembering that Trump’s first flirtation with running for office was nothing more than his insistent, nonsensical, irrational, and blatantly racist demand that President Obama show his birth certificate and his Harvard grades. This was more than a dog whistle to the angry whites that the first black President was not only un-American, literally, but that he was intellectually inferior to them, despite graduating from Harvard Law. If one considers this “original sin” of Trump then the KKK endorsement of his candidacy and Trump’s acceptance of it seem less strange.

    Obama himself explains him well, too:

  4. The rise of populism in America

    Income distribution in the US is now among the worst of developed countries. It has fallen behind both China and India according to the World Bank.

    Here’s what’s happening from an economist’s point of view. There’s an excess demand for high skilled workers (too few of them) and an excess supply of unskilled workers (too many of them). There are some 20 million people unemployed in the US, most of them unskilled. And there are four million unfilled jobs, a majority of them requiring skilled workers. This situation is driving down wages for unskilled workers and pushing up wages for skilled workers. Why has that been happening? Fairly simple. The education system in America hasn’t kept up with the rapid advances in technology and globalisation.

  5. Conservative or “right wing” simply means favoring the [morally] stricter yet simpler ways of the past.
    When a nation forms, things are simpler and there are less people with different viewpoints and lifestyles. So on one hand there are more “freedoms”, yet this smaller culture has a tighter grip on people’s behavior.

    As it grows and gains power, then a tighter system of control is needed, especially if the people become more diverse and begin demanding their own desires. So government grows, as the earlier “morality” declines.

    So US conservativism is just the same system of de-facto control and “freedom” for the powerful as liberalism, only it favors corporate control instead of government. The early US and institutions such as colonialism and slavery were driven by corporations. They had small state governments to maintain order, and these were more easily controllable by the private powers.
    This is what began to be broken up by the northern-based “federal” government. It ultimately could also be controlled or at least heavily influenced by corporate interests, but it would be harder, and require more power, meaning bigger corporate powers. Lesser ones would simply find themselves controlled (taxed and regulated) like everyone else.
    So this is what’s created the modern “libertarian”, “populist” form of “conservativism”. Their ideal system would end up just as controlling as liberal “socialism”, but the difference is in favoring private control over public.

    The difference between those two forms of organization is how we interact with them. Both require “trade” to operate. Government taxes us to provide public services. Private companies “charge” a “price” for their “products”, in which there is more choice in providers. Both can be overbearing and demand too much money. Both are led by people who want more and more money for their own comfort, which becomes the bigger motivation than their products and services. Both can cross the line into each others’ fields. And both can be mixed up with each other.

    The “freedom” of public service is that it’s a bigger “moderator” over private power, and we have direct input through the vote, where private leaders are chosen purely by the existing private power structure. However, of course, the govt. can become too bureaucratic and stifling, and again, even are virtually “bought” by private interests. The “freedom” of the private industry in contrast is supposedly that any one cannot only climb up in it, but even start their own organization, and if you don’t like one, you can go to a competitor. But if the “market” forces have them all doing the same things (and you don’t have the timing, talent and temperament to create your own and succeed in it), then you’re pretty much just as trapped.

    So a conservative is just one that favors the more older-fashioned “private”, and more exclusive corporate system. If it gained control, order would still have to be maintained, and whether the government was simply converted to enforce the new system, or broken up into individual state powers, it would still become very authoritarian and corporatist.

    Also should reiterate, that Mark Hunziker (who just did the book on Beebe’s model, in addition to Beebe’s own book, see, pointed out that the conservative and liberals seems to be according to “two different family models” of “cultural typology”.

    The conservatives take a “strict father” model where human nature is flawed and must be tamed and molded into “right behavior” by rewards and punishments to train people to survive in a hostile world. It’s a “scarcity-based view”, where there must be “winners” and “losers”, and so right behavior leads to success, while wrong behavior leads to failure. (Hence, social “entitlement” programs promote laziness). But what the conservatives fail to remember is that this “flawed nature” includes they themselves.

    So the liberals use the “nurturing parent” model, which is more in accord with Jungian thought. Human nature is basically good if properly guided and supported (which we see is what the conservatives have long condemned them for). They have an “abundance-based” view that assumes individuals will succeed if their parents protect, support and enable them to find out “who they are”. (And the conservatives are right to an extent, that this is an ideal that fails to take into consideration human sin. But again, they too as well, in setting up their own ideals. In a way, their view also implies human nature is basically good, if properly guided. It’s just that their “rewards and punishments” ARE the “proper guiding” in their view!)

    [A side thought; Conservatives (whether religious, political or “cultural”), thinking they are so different from the “other side” don’t understand the full extent of the fallen human nature. They think because they (or those they praise, such as corporate leaders) have made the “right” choices, they have “grown” past the same sinful tendencies that (as they so emphatically point out) plague the rest of humanity.]

  6. To sum up “The rise of American authoritarianism” article (see above),
    even though the Right talks in “libertarian” terms (“freedom”), what they really believe is liberty for themselves, authoritarianism for others. They see only themselves as truly “earning” freedom, while others are threats who have thus forfeited freedom.

    So as the article points out, these “threats” (including to the “status quo”), lead them to “support policies that seem to offer protection against those fears. They favor forceful, decisive action against things they perceive as threats. And they flock to political leaders who they believe will bring this action. Hetherington and American University professor Elizabeth Suhay…found that when non-authoritarians feel sufficiently scared, they also start to behave, politically, like authoritarians.”

    Thus is revealed the shadow of a movement that has always pitched “liberty/freedom”. “In an influential 2005 book called The Authoritarian Dynamic, Stenner argued that many authoritarians might be latent — that they might not necessarily support authoritarian leaders or policies until their authoritarianism had been “activated.” This activation could come from feeling threatened by social changes such as evolving social norms or increasing diversity, or any other change that they believe will profoundly alter the social order they want to protect. In response, previously more moderate individuals would come to support leaders and policies we might now call Trump-esque.”
    (Just look at this article: And so, not only does a “libertarian” premise loop around to become “authoritarian”, but even the “populism” itself will eventually loop around to become “corporatist”, as structures will no doubt have to be put into place to enforce the authority. Many of these “alt-righters” as it is, openly reject “American values” and the Constitution, but have still lured in other conservatives with the common thread of the threats of others, and they don’t realize, and perhaps by now don’t care about those values of “freedom” any more, and for the Christians, the values of “modesty”, chastity and decent language in following Trump. So the third dimension of conservative vs liberal has looped around as well. Hence, a Clifford 3-torus).

  7. Now we see the conflation of two [unlikely] of the factors:

  8. Someone posts this, this morning:

    What he’s describing is not liberalism but authoritarianism, which is the opposite of “libertarianism”. That’s a totally separate factor from liberal/conservative (left/right). Many liberals may be authoritarian, but conservatives can be as well. They’re the ones talking about “law and order”, and they end up not minding strong government control over [certain] OTHERS (deemed “problematic”). That’s how the authoritarianism creeps in, unawares, even under the banner of “freedom”.
    “Private ownership, but with government control”, but in our case, it’s not government muscling in and ruling over the private leaders; it’s both of them in cahoots the whole time (which conservatives have ignored, thinking government is only serving “undeserving poor” interests).

    The answer to this is this somewhat common meme:

  9. The GOP Is No Longer A ‘Conservative’ Party
    They’ve become radical, and they want to remake America.

    Good, but basically makes “radical” the opposite of “conservative”.

  10. I thought I had written this somewhere already (but it can never be repeated too often).

    We get people still trying to argue “Naziism” or “Fascism” were left wing. In fact, on the “” site polls, a majority seems to always disagree with it being right wing. The cause is always the confusion of authoritarianism with “leftism”.

    A question I got of how Naziism and Marxism really differed was answered excellently on Quora:
    “Fascism and Communism can be distinguished by what they view as the unifying force in society and the source of conflict. For fascism, the unifying force is nationalism. When people don’t share a nationality, there is conflict, therefore to end conflict other nationalities need to be suppressed or eliminated. For communism, the unifying force is class and conflict is caused by class differences. Therefore, to end conflict, communists must create a classless society, if need be through a bloody revolution as the bourgeois are reluctant to surrender their position.”

    So this is what carries over to the Right and Left of our US political debate, with sure enough, the Right being very nationalistic, and the Left being very egalitarian. (Isn’t that what the Right often criticizes liberalism for the most?). So, the key term in “Nazi” is the “National”, NOT the “Socialist”.
    On Wikipedia: “The term ‘National Socialism’ arose out of attempts to create a nationalist REDEFINITION of ‘socialism’, as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁❟ 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝗺𝗼𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the ‘common good’ and accept political interests as the main priority of economic organization.” (So it was more comparable to the old Democrats who were less conservative on spending for social programs, as now, but back then, those programs were originally for whites only. When forced to open them up to other races, that’s when the [CULTURAL] “conservatives” —those pushing for the “old values”, left the party, and “socialism” then became bad to them).

    So where they are the same, again, is being “authoritarian”. In both empires (Soviet; Germany), they had the power to enact absolute authoritarianism, so the end result (tyranny, oppression) looked the same. In the US, neither has attained that level of power, but each side accuses the other of doing so, hence the tossing around of terms like “communism”, “socialism”, “Nazi” and “fascism”.

    Two other good answers:

  11. What America Still Doesn’t Understand About Fascism
    What Happens When a Rich Society Suddenly Becomes a Poor One?

  12. How Capitalism Turned America Soviet
    Why Americans Ended Up Choosing Between Their Money or Their Lives

    (should also be noted, that the “soviet” system was actually “state capitalism”!)

    Why Fascists Never Think They’re Fascists — but Victims and Heroes
    The Psychology of Neo Fascism

    (This guy is good! Nails it just like Wise!)

  13. Umair nails it again!

    America’s Collapsing Into Fascism Because Americans Still Don’t Understand Fascism
    Fascism Isn’t What Americans Think it Is, and That’s Why Americans Are Losing the Fight Against Fascism

    Americans were taught that socialism is fascism, but slavery and segregation weren’t. Their echoes, ideals of supremacy and nationalism and so on, were something repellent, maybe, but also to be tolerated, in the “market” or “battle” of “ideas”.

    Fascism is best seen this way. A person who believes that there is a hierarchy of personhood — that some people are more human than others, and some fall below the threshold of being people entirely — and furthermore, that that hierarchy should be institutionalized, is a fascist. A movement composed of such people is a fascist movement. A government managing such a project is a fascist government. (The natural moral logic of such a hierarchy is that violence must be done to the weak by the strong, since they are not human beings at all, but parasites and predators.)

    So Americans struggle to understand fascism because they have been taught to think about it not just poorly — but in a fatally backwards from the very beginning. They’ve been taught the stupid, foolish, lie that socialism is fascism, but supremacy, slavery, and segregation weren’t. Therefore, today, the echoes of the expressions of the idea that some people are more human than others, are quite alright (hey, I hear people talking about dirty, filthy lower kinds on Faux News all the time, what’s the big deal?) But a little bit of public healthcare, education, media, or retirement — my God, that way lies the abyss!
    Do you see the setup for tragedy occurring here?

    This one’s also good:

    Why it’s a Myth That Fascism’s About Demographic Change and Cultural Anxiety
    How Neoliberals Have Taught You to Play Right Into Fascists’ Hands — Without Knowing It

    And what kind of “culture” is it precisely that American whites are going to lose? Hotdogs and ribs? Baseball? Fox News? Trips to Home Depot? Country music? Religion? Small-town bakeries? I don’t mean that in a derisive way — I mean that all kinds of people partake in all those things. I can’t think of a single thing that white American “culture” really is exclusively, in the way that, say, Venetian carnivals and Parisian fashion are— a thing that only really belongs to a particular social group. American culture, unlike European culture, is a genuine melding. From jazz to literature to art to dance, none of it fully belongs to any one group — and never has. Who popularized rock’n’roll? Elvis or Chuck Berry? What makes American culture uniquely its own is precisely that, unlike in Europe, no one group can claim it exclusively.

    So “cultural displacement” must mean that either other people have no culture — or that you have a culture that’s so different, so fragile, so precious, it falls apart the moment anyone touches it. It can’t be shared — it’s zero-sum. But am I “displacing” you when I sit next to you at a movie theater? On an airplane? At a job? If I am, then don’t all those things really belong to you? Wait — all of those positions are precisely what fascists also believe, aren’t they?

  14. Republicans May Find They Have Become The Boy Who Cried ‘Socialism’
    Trump rarely misses a chance to accuse Democrats of wanting a socialist America — something Republicans have been doing since the New Deal.

  15. There is no ‘right’ v ‘left’: it is Trump and the oligarchs against the rest

    So why do we continue to hear and use the same old “right” and “left” labels?

    I suspect it’s because the emerging oligarchy feels safer if Americans are split along the old political battle lines. That way, Americans won’t notice they’re being shafted.

    In reality, the biggest divide in America today runs between oligarchy and democracy. When oligarchs fill the coffers of political candidates, they neuter democracy.

    The oligarchs know politicians won’t bite the hands that feed them. So as long as they control the money, they can be confident there will be no meaningful response to stagnant pay, climate change, military bloat or the soaring costs of health insurance, pharmaceuticals, college and housing.

    There will be no substantial tax increases on the wealthy. There will be no antitrust enforcement to puncture the power of giant corporations. There will be no meaningful regulation of Wall Street’s addiction to gambling with other peoples’ money. There will be no end to corporate subsides. CEO pay will continue to skyrocket. Wall Street hedge fund and private equity managers will continue to make off like bandits.

    So long as the oligarchy divides Americans – split off people of color from working-class whites, stoke racial resentments, describe human beings as illegal aliens, launch wars on crime and immigrants, stoke fears of communists and socialists – it doesn’t have to worry that a majority will stop them from looting the nation.

    Divide-and-conquer allows the oligarchy free rein. It makes the rest of us puppets, fighting each other on a made-up stage.

  16. From an old FB memory, from before this entry was posted:

    Statism: Whether Fascist or Communist, It’s The Deadly Opposite of Capitalism

    What’s being overlooked is that the spectrum is really 2D. Right-Left is one dimension, and Authoritarian-libertarian is the other dimension [comments seem to be gone, so I can’t find the rest of what I wrote] (and there’s also the dimension of “populist-elitist”). What he’s calling “statism” and even “socialism” (as in “national Socialist”), and associating with the “left” is “authoritarianism”. So Soviet Communism is Left wing authoritarianism, and Naziism/Fascism is Right wing authoritarianism. The key term in “Nazi” is “National[ist]”, not “Socialist”!

    Many conservatives assume the definition of Right-Left” is basically “Libertarian-Authoritarian”, basically folding two separate dimensions together; like if east and south became the same direction, with north and west as the common opposite of both. This stems from the Cold War, where our opponent bloc was both Leftist and Authoritarian, so the “values” of the US looked Rightist and libertarian in comparison.
    But the real definition of Right vs Left is “exceptionalism” vs “egalitarianism”. Conservatives believe some are morally better, and thus should rule based on that. Liberals believe all should be equal (but often with “equality” being an end in itself, and going too far in trying to create the condition).

    What conservatives don’t realize is that both “wings” will always veer into authoritarianism when they gain power, for their values and principles need to be maintained, and a lot of people won’t play along, and so they will end up enforcing it.
    On the other hand, both sides also try to appeal to both libertarianism and populism, when the other side is in power (or even if they still are, but feel in danger of losing it).

    what this guy is preaching is a hypothetical ideal (Just like the Soviets and other radical leftists preach), which will never pan out in actual practice. For again, when any side gets into power, it corrupts and becomes authoritarian! Then, when this happens, all the Right can do is claim the Left is what ruined it, as he does. No matter who is in office (and how much power, er, “freedom” the private sector gains), they complain of “a century and a half of distortion, lies–and compromises.” The closest to the pure “capitalism” to him was in the 19th century —which was the age of the “robber barons” (which they also try to deny).
    He also calls slavery an “anti-capitalist institution” (which of course would also go along with blaming “the Democrats”, now using the party to “try to keep blacks on the plantation”, etc.), when it in fact was the fullest fruition of capitalism (a point not really emphasized, until more current writers like Wise, Michelle Alexander, etc), and the basis of what the Right Wing in America has looked up to and tried to restore (in more financial rather than chattel forms) ever since. It’s not Leftists that defended the Confederate flag, so where are all of these Leftist Confederates who are the true legatees of the old Democratic South at?

  17. The right needs to stop falsely claiming that the Nazis were socialists
    The Nazis hated socialists. It was the governments that rebuilt Europe that embraced social welfare programs.

    Were the Nazis Socialists?

  18. The Truth about “Left” and “Right”: They’ve Been Inverted

    View at

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Another excellent Progressive writer: Medium’s Umair Haque | "ERIPEDIA"

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: