Google Redefines The Word ‘Fascism’ To Smear Conservatives, Protect Liberal Rioters

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: infolurker

So the conservatives are far right-wing? Fascism has always been considered a right-wing ideology. Nothing changed.

Old-World Right Wing, sure.

USA Right Wing, not so much.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Conservatives are not traditionalists? You sure?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Conservatives are not traditionalists? You sure?

Sure they are, but that is why I separate Old-World (should have included European) vs. USA.

Old-World/European traditions skew towards large autocratic government, and yes to a degree fascism.

USA tradition skews towards classical liberalism and smaller government with less control over the private citizen's life.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Just listen:
U.S. definition of right-wing / left-wing IS NOT THE SAME as European definition of right-wing / left-wing

I will say that terms like "liberal" often have very different meanings outside the U.S., but the ideas behind left and right political ideologies tend not to change much in any westernized nation. I don't even live in the U.S. so it's not like I only have one perspective on this. We're not talking about your personal definitions here, if you want to have that discussion fist you need to explain exactly what left and right means to you. Trump is right wing but more on the conservative side rather than the libertarian side. Ron Paul is also on the right side but closer to libertarianism, however still quite conservative in many regards on topics such as abortion because he is religious.

Left leaning to my mind means a preference for socialist policies or even communism whereas right leaning means a preference for capitalism and free market philosophies. The other axis of the spectrum is between authoritarianism and individualism/libertarianism. So one can easily be a right wing authoritarian or a left wing authoritarian, and authoritarianism is essentially the definition of fascism, so it most certainly isn't just a right wing thing. Just do a search for "political chart" and you will see the political spectrum I am talking about is used very widely.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

They're not my definitions. The definitions arose during the French Revolution era:
Left was revolutionary / democratic.
Right was authoritarian / religious.

The end.

I bet the terms Left and Right arose from a meaningless and trivial thing, like which side of the ballot the parties appeared on.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You seem to be equating the words fascism with authoritarianism.

An authoritarian/dictatorial style of leadership is the one common theme in all of the definitions given by the OP so that seems like a fairly reasonable association to make. I will admit that authoritarianism doesn't necessarily or automatically imply fascism in all situations, but it does in most. I don't see any reason to be applying a very narrow definition focused on right wing systems when historically it's perfectly valid to use it on the context of left and right leaning ideologies.

a reply to: FlyingFox

Interesting that it's only American conservatives who are trying to argue this, nobody else.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

They're not my definitions. The definitions arose during the French Revolution era:
Left was revolutionary / democratic.
Right was authoritarian / religious.

The end.

Ok I can see why you would relate to these definitions but I think you've taking a very narrow view on the matter. The left isn't automatically revolutionary because they are progressive and aren't conservative or traditionalists. In many cases the left seeks to implement authoritarian tactics, in fact the left is without a doubt the largest force behind the creation of modern day nanny states and the main actors behind cosponsorship and other dumb ideas like safe spaces. While claiming to be tolerant and open minded they simultaneously censor their opponents and hide from their opinions. Also being religious (which I am not) does not automatically equate to being authoritarian, just look at people like Ron Paul, he believes very strongly in principles of personal liberty and small government which has minimal interference in our lives, preferring states to have more power over the federal government, resulting in more decentralization and less centralization (with centralization being one of the main aspects of a fascist government).

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

LOL safe spaces. I have no idea why people buy into that narrative.

Anyway they considered the Founding Fathers to be on the left and revolutionary. They thought they were anarchists.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

It's oversimplification.

Fascism is right wing because of all the other things shared with other right wing ideologies. Like you said, the one thing that does coincide belongs on the other axis.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Anyway they considered the Founding Fathers to be on the left and revolutionary. They thought they were anarchists

Who is "they"? Several of the founding fathers were part of the "Democratic-Republican Party", which I guess by the name you could say wasn't democratic or republican, but the main ideology behind the party was Republicanism and for the most part I would say it espoused right wing ideals. Of particular note worthiness is their opposition to federalism and centralized government, which is a key part of a fascist government.

The Democratic-Republican Party was an American political party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791–93 to oppose the centralizing policies of the new Federalist Party run by Alexander Hamilton, who was then Secretary of the Treasury and chief architect of George Washington's administration.[2] The new party controlled the presidency and Congress, as well as most states, from 1801 to 1825, during the First Party System. It began in 1791 as one faction in Congress, and included many politicians who had been opposed to the new constitution. They called themselves Republicans after their ideology Republicanism. They distrusted the Federalist commitment to republicanism. The party splintered in 1824 into the Jacksonian movement (which became the Democratic Party in the 1830s) and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party).

The term "Democratic-Republican" is used especially by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as opposed to the modern Republican Party founded in 1854). It is also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans. Historians typically use the title "Republican Party".

Democratic-Republican Party

a reply to: daskakik

Fascism is right wing because of all the other things shared with other right wing ideologies.

Lol ok I can see this debate isn't going anywhere productive. What I'm hearing you say is "Everything right wing is fascist because I said so but nothing left could possibly fall in that spectrum, ok!"

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

England?
And lol you think they were "part of Republicianism"? Uh they wanted equal rights, remember? The Constitution?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Who said the left cannot be authoritarian?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

A highly centralized, highly socialist, leftist nanny state, which tries to control every aspect of our lives, through ridiculous nonsense such as "sugar taxes", is a form of fascism as far as I'm concerned and it matches all the classical definitions regardless of how Google wants to define the word.

What I find ironic, is that people in this thread are saying the left cannot be fascists because they aren't religious conservatives, yet in my experience the left loves to ban things using the old excuse "think of the children". The only reason the left made some progress on MJ legalization in the last few years is because Obama smoked in his youth and was quite liberal on that issue.

But in places like where I live, it's nearly always the left trying to get things banned or keep things illegal because they are at heart socialists and it's easy to appeal to their emotions using children as straw men. So this whole idea that the left is always more in favor of personal freedom is a hollow claim with no real substance. The only people I know who have true respect for liberty are libertarians, and they almost always lean to the right.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You said the other guy said that the left cannot fall into that spectrum, implying that the left cannot be authoritarian.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

That isn't what I'm saying at all.

I said fascists are on the right because of everything they stand for despite the authoritarianism, which belongs on the other axis.

Saying that leftists are fascists because they are authoritarian is flipping the two axis chart.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: infolurker

The Nazis have always been considered 'far right.' It's only the last year or so when an American movement has started to push them across to the 'left.' I've been watching it happen with interest.

I see it as elements on the right seeking to shrug off all negative associations. No more neo-Nazis, right? They'd be reinvented as 'far left.' Taken to its extremes, the ideal would be to have every negative, unwanted political group tied to the Left and none at all left for the Right. It's a process that's seen many on the right reject any allegations of racism on their side whilst consistently rebranding it as a Leftist habit. Neat as f*** and clever too!

When I was in high school, first learning more about the two sides of the political spectrum, left vs right, back in the dark days of the 1980's, Fascism and communism were given as examples of the extremes of either side of the spectrum. Fascism/Nazis were example of the extreme right, Communism and socialist dictatorships were examples of the left extremes. Although the ideologies of the commies vs Nazis was different, their tactics and methods were indistinguishable.

I don't know about clever, but it's definitely Orwellian.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Possibly Orwellian but one thing's for sure... they were enemies. Aren't enemies on the other side? That's one way of looking at it.