That's why you need a two dimensional graph of political philosophies/governing systems.
It's not a number line with just left and right, there's an up and down too.

Both extremes of left and right end up with totalitarian regimes.
But the opposite of totalitarianism is anarchy which is neither Fascist nor Communist (Socialist).

Socialism is supposedly ownership by labor of the means of production. This ownership is of course always exercised through the government. In a fascist system, ownership of the means of production remains in private hands but is run under tight regulations promulgated by government and owners working hand in glove. The USSR was Socialist. Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, and the US New Deal were Fascist.


In practice and in political terms, both are authoritarian. They go on the same end of the Slavery -------------- Freedom spectrum.

Perhaps in the application of involved processes, but not in operating principles.

Agreed, these rather convenient spectrums that have come about are nothing but a revisionist attempt to put every authoritarian ideology on the Left.  Of course, many issues cross lines but Nazism and Fascism are predominately right wing ideologies.

FIFY

For certain values of 'left' and 'right'.  

I keep oscillating on whether Nazism was left or right.

this

Other than everything stated, I would argue that fascism produces better architecture and art.

Also Fascism was a reactionary movement. If it wasn't for Marxism and other radical leftist in the early 20th century there would of been no Fascist.

You can draw parallels between Europe in the early 20th century and today.


Progressives dragging their countries to the far left and in turn the right becomes more authoritarian and nationalistic.  

That's because socialist regimes trend towards Fascism.  Fascism is mainly just Nationalist Socialism.  That means socialism with nationalist influence.

Hitler was a trolling motherfucker.

I read somewhere that after you came into the main entrance in the Reich Chancellery you had to walk like 200 yards to get to his office. It was all on a slight incline. All the side rooms got progressively bigger the farther you went down the hall till you got pretty close to his office. Then it got small. I'm guessing that was the waiting room till you were escorted into his office.

Trolling motherfucker.

Leftists may or may not be nationalistic (a question best answered with an ice axe), but it is absolutely indisputable that leftism is authoritarian.

Radical anarchists have hailed from the left, so no, it's not indisputable.  Left - Right is not about degree of authoritarianism.

It's all socialism with a political twice



The political difference between communism and fascism isn't too far apart



What the Bern is promoting, democrat socialism, is the same as communism and fascism with it's own political twist.  



They all start with camps of some sort and trains that run on time.

What kind of person makes a chart and puts liberalism in the center, democrats



 

Left-Right is practically meaningless. The meaningful spectrum runs from Serfdom to Freedom. Leftist movements that succeed in forming governments tend toward serfdom as surely as do rightist ones.

But the base for both is socialism



Both are socialism with a political twist



 

Meaningless spectrum concocted by people who want to pretend that everything dealing with Freedom is on the right and nothing on the left does.  

I know you're a very smart guy, so I'm sure that sentence made sense in your head.

The Serfdom-Freedom line was created so that people on the Right could claim that Freedom is on the Right and, because this is how 2 dimensions work, not on the Left.

I think that all governments degenerate to - or at least towards - serfdom. Over time, power flows from the individual to the collective/government. Some governments (some called Left, some called Right) are just more efficient and up front about it than others.

So you're not claiming any correlation between that line and the political orientations we have in this country?  If so, my apologies for over-reacting.  The only times I've seen people propose that notion is when they're trying to argue that the right is all about freedom and the left is all about slavery.

Liberalism is centrist and the philosophy is most like a moderate Republican in the US. Democrats aren't liberals. If anything I wrote seems confusing to you it's because you literally lack the words for this conversation. I don't mean that to be an insult.

It's not like a circle, the guy who made that up idea up with his "extremes always meet" nonsense (extremes never meet, in reality) was a Leftist who did so as a way to try to explain away the similarities people were pointing out between the ideologies of the more internationalist Left (communists, international socialists, anarchists, etc.) and those of the more nationalistic Left (Fascism, national socialism), as the former group started referring to the latter group as being on the Right.  It was at one and the same time an effort to dissociate one side of the Left from the other, since the competing factions of the Left were effectively at war with one another, and also a way to taint the genuine Right with the ideas of the latter group.

Fascism is a derivative of socialism and maintains a number of socialist traits.  Its founders split off from the Italian Socialist Party (part of the 2nd International) after WWI to found the Italian Fascist Party.  It was the first party to formally adopt state-centric nationalism, also known as statism.  It is the idea of everything through the state, everything for the state, nothing against the state (as Mussolini put it).  Fascism is highly totalitarian in theory, but in practice it was actually less totalitarian than the German National Socialists or the Communists.  The state was the ultimate arbiter of things economic, like one would expect in an ideology derived from socialism, but it did not exert total controul at all times over everything economic or nationalize private property all that much; it certainly reserved the "right" to do so, however; originally, IIRC, it was more national syndicalist than socialist, syndicalism being another Leftist ideology (Fascism's cousins, like the Falangists, were syndicalists, as were a number of Leftist anarchists).  One characteristic is the drive for national discipline, which is rather unique to it compared to other forms of Leftism.  This is the result of the Italian culture which led to many issues in Italy that created the conditions for the success of Fascism in the first place.  The country was disordered, and Fascism promised to clean things up and "make the trains run on time," and Fascism also proclaimed to make the country great again with respect to other European powers, as the Italians had developed a sort of inferiority complex.  Fascism also promoted a synthetic national "religion," which put it at odds with the Catholic Church, which it tolerated as a "national religion" for pragmatic reasons (this, among other things, was the result of the influence of the Frenchman Charles Maurras on the Fascist movement).  It was influenced by both the failed Taborite revolutions in the past (something it had in common with German National Socialism).  It was a progressive ideology, but with a somewhat different idea of what the progress entailed, which was what the Fascists called a 'New Order.'

Fascism is ultimately something that has to be understood not just as an ideological phenomenon (a phenomenon which resulted in the original Spanish Falange and the Unions of the National Syndicalist Offensive, the Rumanian Iron Guard, and a couple of other ideologies) but also as an Italian historical phenomenon.  The latter makes it rather unique to Italy, with close cousins developing in a few other countries, all of which were countries where the languages were Latin-based, not coincidentally.  And, as the communist Victor Serge put it, "It is impossible to review the fascist phenomenon without discovering the importance of its interrelations with revolutionary socialism."

When you actually study the matter, even cursorily, it becomes very evident that the idea that American politicians or any part of the American political system is Fascist is just plain silly.  It's not part of the Right, and the Leftist movements here are not in any significant way Fascist.  Given the latter's socialist origins, sure, you're going to find some similarities, as all Leftist ideologies have some similarities, having a common basis even if their particular characteristics may vary in a number of ways.  But someone like Bernie Sanders is an International Socialist of a rather orthodox variety.

Nationalism is just a different manifestation of the fundamental Leftist ideas.  Leftist are not ideologically monolithic.  The basic ideas and drives from which all forms of Leftism derive can manifest themselves in a variety of ways, hence you have romantic socialism, scientific socialism (which includes international and national socialisms), communism, syndicalism, anarchist versions of some of these ideologies, fascism, national syndicalism, progressive "liberalism," etc.  They all appeal to the same mentalities, which is why they can be so brutally competitive, to the point where they're all killing each other.

 

both.


nazism cannot be understood outside the context of german nationalism

Authoritarianism is a very misused political term.  In a way, the concept is at odds with Leftist, as it is a sort of anti-revolutionary attitude.  Metternich is a good example of an authoritarian.

Anarchy is way more common on the Left than on the Right.  So many different varieties.  True communism is anarchist (although sometimes they are referred to as anarcho-communists), and you have anarcho-socialists and anarcho-syndicalists as well, among others.

Direct democracy and absolute monarchy are just forms of government.  They answer the question of "Who shall rule?"  They don't answer the question of how the ruler(s) shall rule.  Rule can be liberal, or totalitarian, or anything in-between, although democracy is much more likely to tend towards the latter than the former, even if the former can be prone to much simpler forms of tyranny.

The political compass is stupid and ultimately a worthless instrument for classifying political ideologies.

No, it really isn't.  Collectivism is an inherently Leftist trait.  The Right can be communitarian, but that belief still is oriented around the idea of the dignity and worth of the individual.  It's a less atomistic form of individualism.

They were basically left with two choices: nationalization of their capital or relativization of it, where they would remain the stewards of the property involved.  Naturally, they sided with the latter.  The political climate in Germany gave them no other alternatives, regardless of what they believed politically.

German National Socialism was not Fascist.  If anything, the former influenced the latter.  German National Socialism split off from the mainstream socialists in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1896.  The Fascist movement began in 1919 and ended up with its own party in 1921, and its leadership mostly were men who split off from the Italian socialist party. It inspired similar movements in countries like Spain, France, and Rumania.  They are cousins, but not as close as some might think.

No, they are not, and the original revision was the effort to label them as such, after they had begun seriously competing with the older Leftist ideologies (there is a reason why the areas that tended to go Red went Brown and then Red again when the Nazis were banned).  It's where the "extremes always meet" garbage was invented to try to explain away their ideological similarities.

Both National Socialism and Fascism have their origins in parties that were part of the 2nd International.  They both are characterized by the same basic drives and traits, the drive for sameness first and foremost.  They both draw inspiration from earlier revolutionary movements which were proto-Leftist in nature.  There is very little about them that can genuinely be characterized as Rightist.  Calling them Rightist is an effective way to smear the Right, though, and also try to poison competing ideologies, both useful if you're a Leftist of a different stripe.

That graphic is screwed up

agreed.  breaking it into its component axes reveals a lot of

I agree 100% with your clarification and expansion on my answer to the OP.

It's incredibly hard to get people outside this forum ( and some within ) to face the reality that we are now a Fascist-Lite nation.

+1

We are headed towards a reset, and it will be ugly.

This may be the first civil war where  one side is fighting to kick the other OUT.  Cali-banistan and Yankee Land need to go on their own to Totalitarianism without the rest of the country holding them back.

The political compass has been used by several well-respected organizations to measure political alignment.

You're welcome to disagree with it, of course, but you'd be doing yourself a huge disservice.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Socialism is an economic system, that has been proven to not work.  Fascism is not an economic system. Both killed tens of millions of people in the last century.

Socialism is not just an economic system.  Fascism has a related economic system as a component of the ideology.  Fascism has not killed all that many people.  Probably less than a million.  It's a lightweight in that department.  The same cannot be said for socialism, whether national or international, or under the façade of being communist.

multidimensional scaling is a useful tool for assessment and data visualization, and there is nothing wrong with charting power paradigms against economic paradigms.  the sloppiness of that particular graphic manifests in the very simple problem that the supreme head of national socialism is not classified as a national socialist.  that immediately starts chipping away at the credibility of the figure.  when a schema classifies hillary clinton as an exemplar of conservatism, something is very wrong.  when progressivism is listed to the right of liberalism, something is very wrong.  when liberalism isn't qualified, something is very wrong.

in technical terms, that figure is all ate up.

One of the biggest hangups on that graphic is exactly what you described here, that "Progressivism" is to the right of "Liberalism." The problem is, it is. Liberalism described in the non-Rush-Limbaugh sense, in the global sense, in the relative sense, is in the center. It always will be, because it's like zeroing your rifle. Liberalism is the middle of government authority (up and down) and the center of collectivism vs. individualism (left and right). When we Americans speak of people who are "liberals" like Hillary Clinton, it's used relative to the American viewpoint. The founders? Classical liberals, borderline progressives. We all want to believe they're in the center of conservatism, but it just isn't so.

From a global perspective, America in general is to the right of center. We are not the bastion of freedom we think we are, at least not anymore. Go back 200 years, and our national perspective would be more toward the center on all aspects, and would most likely be located somewhere in the lower right corner of "Liberalism" near "Activism."

Hillary is a liberal... To Americans. To the rest of the world, they can't figure out the difference between Hillary and Trump. It's just a matter of perspective.

PS. It doesn't help that modern liberals and progressives have stolen the labels and don't actually believe what they want everyone else to believe. American politics is fucked up, the graphic is not.

PSS. Here is a graphic easier to understand for most Americans.

you've made point admirably.  there is no construal of liberalism (either its global meaning, or the parochial american meaning) that places it to the left of progressivism.  none whatsoever.  political liberalism (what americans refer to as libertarianism) is the opposite of progressivism, which calls for an intrusive state apparatus to exert power over the population.  economic liberalism (which americans refer to as laissez-faire economics or classical liberalism) is also the opposite of progressivism, which calls for an intrusive state apparatus to manage the economy on a broad scale.  

under the american misuse of the term, liberalism is also to the right of progressivism economically, and less authoritarian politically.  the fact that your graphic puts progressivism to the right of liberalism economically, and equal to liberalism politically, is categorically wrong regardless of which construal of 'liberalism' is used.  and the fact that your figure does not stipulate which form of liberalism it refers to is symptomatic of the general sloppiness of the presentation.


your figure also says that hitler is not a national socialist.  think about that for a second.

Interesting discussion, for sure.

The meaning of liberalism as I understand it is total equality, which makes it a good neutral ground zero since it stresses that the importance of the individual is not more or less important than the collective society. As you move left in the compass, you find people who would argue "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," i.e. individuals should sacrifice for the collective good. Communism is left because it takes this to a the extreme which is why we find Marxism extreme left-of-center (and slightly down toward less government), and Leninism is an authoritarian Marxism in the area labeled Communism. The primary difference between Marxism and Leninism is how they view the role of government. Lenin thought the only true way to bring about equality between the workers and employers is through a third party, i.e. a government made up of intellectual revolutionaries.

As you move right in the compass, you find that society favors the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective. Freedom of speech is considered an individual right because you, as an individual, can say what you want without fear of reprisal regardless of who it hurts. Freedom to associate is also an individual right even though it references community because communities can withhold membership from undesirables (race, gender, religion, etc.). A good example from a relatively recent court case is the Augusta National golf course in which the USSC held the right to associate was an individual right and they didn't have to let in minorities if they didn't want to. (This is why it is so important to make sure the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.)

That explains the left-right purpose of putting liberalism in the center.

As far as in relation to government authority on the vertical axis, its really along the same lines. In the authoritarian view, nationalism reigns supreme and the state is considered the protector of society. In the opposite view, toward anarchy at the bottom, the state is viewed as a) a necessary evil which must be limited greatly, or b) an unnecessary entity which only serves to prevent pure freedom of choice.

Liberalism is, therefore, the center of everything on the compass. The individual and the collective are equal. The government and the people are equal. No bias, no lean, total equality, and therefore total neutral.

The reason progressives are considered right of liberalism is because they value the individual over the collective just slightly, enough to cause problems with what can be perceived as the social norm. Gay marriage is a progressive ideal because progressives believe the right of the individual to get married should outweigh the right of the collective to deny it. In that example, supporting gay marriage is a right-of-center ideology, and supporting Christian anti-gay values is considered left-of-center because Christianity is the collective.

With this in mind, consider that looking at the left-right of center on the graphic I posted as corresponding to the American left-wing and right-wing viewpoints is not the intention of the graphic (which, by the way, I can't take credit for as it belongs to the site I linked). A left-of-center policy on the compass does not mean it is a left wing policy, just that is favors the collective over the individual. A right-of-center policy favors the right of the individual.

Abortion rights is also a right-of-center policy on the compass because it values the right of the individual (the woman) over the rights of the "morally righteous" collective. Abortion is a left-wing ideology, but on the political compass it is right-of-center.

As far as Hitler's placement, the graphic is more like a measurement on the totality of the circumstances. Hitler valued the German collective, labor unions, and state property, which made him a national socialist. He devalued everyone else based on race, ethnicity, religion, and country of origin, which made him a fascist-fundamentalist. Because of the balancing act of the policies of the Nazi party, they end up in the middle.

(Side note: Trump is only far upper right because of his viewpoints on illegal immigration. Without that viewpoint, he would be somewhere between JFK and Ron Paul.)

i have to disagree.  when you look at progressive discourse, it is almost exclusively framed around classes of people, not individual persons.  color of skin, sexual orientation, economic status, cultural history...every progressive issue is framed around group identities, not individuality.  you don't find progressives talking about individuals at all--their entire political frame is based on class membership.  as such, it is intrinsically collectivist, even though it often critiques the majority position.

that's another component of the sloppiness of the presentation--it presents political labels so counterintuitively as to be worse than useless.  like it or not, the anti-gay-marriage stance is a fixture of the american political right.  to indicate that a position endemic to the the american right (which is far-right on the global spectrum) is actually a leftist position, and to use this as a kind of 'averaging' variable on a single axis (which is actually up-and-down on the figure rather than left/right) reduces the classification system to a muddle.

for example, i am vehemently pro-gun and strongly environmentalist.  this doesn't mean that i 'average out' to a centrist.

I think you're still confusing the classical left-wing and right-wing labels with left-of-center and right-of-center compass directions. They don't correspond.

ETA: Pro-gun can be a left-of-center (LoC) or right-of-center (RoC) ideology. In Switzerland, it is LoC because it is for national defense and not individual ownership. In the US, it is considered an individual right, therefore RoC.

you're not following--one of my main critiques of this piece of data viz is precisely that the structure of the figure leads to this confusion.  when you're building a MDS for presentation, you specifically want to avoid the kind of legacy association that puts communism on the left, and capitalism on the right, specifically because that predisposes the viewer to parse the figure in a certain way (according to intuitive or legacy classification systems).  that's just badly conceptualized data viz.

the easiest fix would have been to put the capitalism/communism poles on the vertical axis--this would immediately inform the viewer that they are looking at a different schematization.  but the makers of the figure want to have it both ways--they want to put what we think of as right-wing over on the right of the figure, and what we intuitively thing of left-wing over on the left.  but they also want to change things around, such that the left/right distinction is disrupted.  another easy fix would have been graphing from (0,0): political and market anarchy at 0 values, with increasing intervention represented as positive values.  this wouldn't change the substance of the figure, but it would inform the viewer that something is different.

tell me: what are the political ideals of "activism," and how do they compare with those of "progressivism"?

There are plenty of Swiss who do believe the RTKBA to be an individual right.  Switzerland, interestingly, is one of the few Western countries left with a strong political Right, with multiple major Rightist parties, including liberals and conservatives (as well as a more populist Right).