[lit-ideas] Re: What is the difference between ...

In response to this, since I'm lazy, I can only plagiarize myself and offer
something I posted originally on July 5, 2001 in the Phil-Lit group

... isn't it interesting that both far left and far right
beliefs can lead to the same thing: dictatorships? One difference strikes
me though: A left-leaning originated dictatorship does for the good of the
people according to his/her own whims; a right-leaning dictatorship tends
to go for the oppression of anything that doesn't agree with his/her code.
It's funny how people are more easily agreeable to the "he's doing it for
our own good"  than to the "he's doing it for his own good". Both end up
with the same result. Parents often answer their children's questions "why
do you want me to do that?" with one of two answers: a) "it's for your own
good" or b) "Because I said so." I would wager that "A" is more often
heeded because the Liberals can at least give the command/demand a
touchy-feely aspect to it. The right just want you to do it "because".  But
the motives are the same: 'I want to be in power with my principles in
place'.


On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Is there any difference between fascism, totalitarianism, autocracy,
> monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, theocracy, and dictatorship?
> All are forms of governance in which "an individual person or 'dictator', an
> assembly, a committee, a junta, or a party monopolizes political power by
> means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated
> through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the
> state, the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and
> criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of state
> terrorism" (thanks to Wiki for the wording).  I will use the single term
> fascism to refer to all the above.  Tribalism, feudalism, communism and
> capitalism have all thrived under fascism at times throughout history.
> There's nothing inherently fascistic about a communist economic system.  The
> kibbutzim movement in Israel was founded and operated as pure communist
> societies for a while -- I don't know if any remain so.  There's nothing
> inherently democratic about capitalism.  Indeed, capitalism has never backed
> away from fascism when fascism suited its needs -- which has been rather
> frequent in the last 300 or so years.  The communism of the Soviet Union was
> fascistic from the get-go, and those liberal intellectuals who embraced its
> iron fist as a necessary evil, an essential early stage of development into
> universal brotherhood were dupes of their own ideological mind-set.  I get a
> kick out of Lawrence's need to paint liberals as illiberal and conservatives
> as the true liberals, especially considering the fact that conservatives
> have done everything in the book to turn "liberal" into a dirty word.
> Liberal liberals don't think that conservatives are evil.  They believe that
> the social vision of conservatism will result in a hellish society, a return
> to the days of the Industrial Revolution, and I believe the liberals are
> right in believing that.  And worse, liberals fear that conservatism values
> immediate profit over than the life of the planet.
>
> Eric, in his post about the poet-turned-book-banner, asks: "why is this
> syndrome more characteristic of liberal zealots than conservative zealots?"
> I don't believe that it is.  Why that poet is being a fascist, I have no way
> of knowing.  I would suspect that the tendency has always been there. But
> certainly it is not the liberals who try to have books banned from
> libraries,  it is not liberals who have symbolic "book burnings" as some
> churches around here do.  The moral watch-dogs have always been affiliated
> with conservatism, not liberalism in my experience.  But of course, liberals
> can be fascists, too.
>
> Mike Geary
> Memphis
>

Other related posts: