Yes, but far left can go that far. Note there are no far left politicians in serious play in American politics. Radical far left means you are ready to go all in on on bad stuff because you think it’s the only means to the correct end.
The far right is currently more dangerous in American politics because they are actually in serious play, but let’s not assume tossing in some far left would make things better.
I suppose this is a way the ‘left<->right’ spectrum to align everything breaks down.
Some would graph ‘authoritarianism’ on the right and more liberty on the ‘left’.
Except some ‘leftists’ would love to use authoritarian strategies against malicious capitalism and people responsible for environmental misbehavior, which are also seen as “leftist” ideals.
As evidenced in the scenario today, where the far right is in rabid support of a convicted felon and the left is rallying behind someone seen as a pretty aggressive prosecutor. Generally opposite of the traditional view of what ‘right’ and ‘left’ would tend to favor.
Authoritarianism tends to assert itself when people feel like they can use it to advance their own stance and minimize opposition, regardless of side. We just don’t have people that far left in US politics currently.
“policy failure in one occasion creating a famine in a preindustrial country which used to have 10 famines a century proves that communists want to murder people!”
Yes, they certainly made sure everybody’s needs were met during the Holodomor.
That was under Stalin’s rule which was a fascist regime like any other ‘communist’ regime that gained power in the last century.
I get what you are saying, but wasn’t Stalin “just” a dictator (with an iron fist, killing millions) but not faschist?
If one applies a strict definition of fascism, probably yes as stalinism is a kind of it’s own.
Yes, but far left can go that far. Note there are no far left politicians in serious play in American politics. Radical far left means you are ready to go all in on on bad stuff because you think it’s the only means to the correct end.
The far right is currently more dangerous in American politics because they are actually in serious play, but let’s not assume tossing in some far left would make things better.
Far-left would be something like anarcho-communism. Fascism is, in fact, far-right.
I suppose this is a way the ‘left<->right’ spectrum to align everything breaks down.
Some would graph ‘authoritarianism’ on the right and more liberty on the ‘left’.
Except some ‘leftists’ would love to use authoritarian strategies against malicious capitalism and people responsible for environmental misbehavior, which are also seen as “leftist” ideals.
As evidenced in the scenario today, where the far right is in rabid support of a convicted felon and the left is rallying behind someone seen as a pretty aggressive prosecutor. Generally opposite of the traditional view of what ‘right’ and ‘left’ would tend to favor.
Authoritarianism tends to assert itself when people feel like they can use it to advance their own stance and minimize opposition, regardless of side. We just don’t have people that far left in US politics currently.
“policy failure in one occasion creating a famine in a preindustrial country which used to have 10 famines a century proves that communists want to murder people!”