"Authoritarian Leftist Regimes"

[Norquist Nemesis]

Help! This is a term that's frequently thrown out there by a Con I know. He is the ultimate political partisan when it comes to any discussion--not just of a political nature but, life in general.

He's so rarely able to find "good news" about Bush/Cheney and has doesn't even try to say anything in defense of him anymore. He simply can't shake his partisan nature though and has made Chavez, Castro, and coming up in the ranks Putin his favorites to poke a stick at *boo*Liberals!*boo*.

So, I wonder why he favors this term so much. Is it because he likes to the sound of "Left" being in the middle of "authoritarian regime"? If an "authoritarian left" is the bad thing, does that mean an "authoritarian right" is the good thing? Trouble is, he's not the only partisan Con I hear inserting "Left" into terms in order to attach evil to their meaning. Congressional hearings have had Cons asking questions about 'troubling leftist regimes.'

Should we start asking about the "authoritarian right regimes"? Do they exist and, if so, what are they? I ask this seriously, because it seems to me that it's another way for the Cons to associate "Left" with bad just as they have done with "Liberal".

Thoughts?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Here, check this out

http://politicalcompass.org/

You'll see the upper left quadrant is where the authoritarian leftists reside.

[rman]

3. question is, are those who are called authoritarian left by conservatives,

really authoritarian left?
Most "nationalist" governments overthrown by the US were democratically elected; they'd more appropriately be called "democratic left" - but that would not fit the myth of the US' "spreading democracy".

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Just as I thought

He likes Hitler and promotes Thatcher-like government!

Thanks for the link. It's always good to retake it everyonce in a while and see if I've changed. I'm quite proud to be pinned to Ghandi. :D

[FormerDittoHead]

6. I took the test. Is EVERY ONE of the questions slanted or poorly worded?

"Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory."

WHICH schools? Grade school, yes, some high school classes, no, etc... Does "schools" include tech schools?

"Marijuana should be legalised."

Sold like bubble gum or for medical use only???

that's just from the last page I visited...

[rman]

9. The point of the test is to promote "libertarianism"

as a viable, 'different' political paradigm.

Where else besides a few fringe political parties and the occasional discussion of political science - and this political compass - does one ever hear about libertarianism?

If the opposite of "authoritarian" is "libertarian" - then where does democracy fit in? Or is it perhaps that in this compass "democracy" is substituted by "libertarian"?
Libertarians however often argue that we don't need government - in other words: no elected representative government, no democracy - market forces will take care of everything.

I think that's the agenda behind this test.

[Amused Musings]

31. Economics departments at universities

The majority consensus you will find among economists is something along the lines of libertarianism. The question becomes equity versus efficiency. I have always had great sympathy for libertarians, even if they take their conclusions to an absurd logical end many times. You are thinking of anarcho-libertarianism. Most Libertarians are people who just want to be left alone and do their own thing. They are not the insane people that make up the harcore element of the party (does anyone remember the libettarian they were making fun of on the Daily Show giving out toy guns in urban areas-very funny). They don't believe in the absence of government, they just think that more government is not desirable and an infringement on personal liberty.

[FormerDittoHead]

41. It wasn't my experience that the "majority consensus" was libertarianism...

In fact, it was quite the opposite.

The economy professors I learned from studied the economic systems of history and Western civilization, and if anything, the "day one" lesson of economics was the repeated historical failure of the "hand off" / little control system that libertarians would suggest.

I kind of curious what the economists in your college had to say were the causes and cures of the Great Depression. Or what are the major measuring metrics used to measure the success of an economic system (eg: distribution of wealth).

How would they address monopolies? As good things?

Would they teach about "the economies of scale" - ie: the advantages that rich people have over the poor?

Would they teach about economic costs (pollution, preventative health care, etc) versus financial (current) costs?

No, in the 5 economics courses I took all of these concepts were well explored, and the libertarian view offers no solutions to any of them.

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. I had that problem too

For instance, "What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us."

Well, "ultimately" can be also be taken as that we learn from their mistakes and enact legislation for controls to be placed on them. I end up thinking too much about the question and over analyzing it, I guess.

[Zhade]

38. Well, it's safe to assume it would be regulated like other legal drugs.

NT!

[bluedawg12]

48. The test is not slanted

they are asking questions that we find on the right and left today.

I didn't find bias of a point of view they were questions period.

[bluedawg12]

47. The best explanation of RW and LW I have seen-thanks!

http://politicalcompass.org /

That was really helpful and organized and shows how complex these issues are.

It is worth reading as a starter for any RW -LW discussions.

[rman]

2. "authoritarian right wing regimes" -

essentially all the dictators propped up and supported by the US over the cause of the past 50 years of US foreign policy. Pinochet is just one that everybody knows about.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. Pinochet...Now, there's a fine example

And it sort of leads to what I'm getting at. Do you think they use the "left/leftist" term with the intention of pejorative, or because it is appropriate? In terms of the social scale, one man's "right" is another man's "wrong" (i.e. gays, abortion, legalizing marijuana). :shrug:

[rman]

7. first "left" is associated with "bad"

ie being communist (which has first been associated with Stalinist totalitarianism and the threat of the Cold War), not having US interests at heart, and by mentioning it in combination with "authoritarian".
Once that association has been established, just calling something "left" is enough for people to 'understand' that it's bad. By extension the same applies to "liberal" and "socialist".

[cool user name]

17. Exactly. It's how the debate is framed that is important. n/t

[cool user name]

16. It's important to note that authoritarian doesn't necessarily have ...

... to have a dictator at the helm. Authoritarianism/fascism can essentially be disguised under the auspices of democracy; in particular, that's where it's most effective.

Everyone knew that Stalin was a fascist but what about Italy's former Prime Minister, Sylvio Berlusconi? He certainly was a fascist and authoritarian, however, he was not a dictator.

I say this only because it is important to not confuse dicatorships as being automatically fascist and/or authoritarian and vice versa.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

24. I agree with you

During the Cold War days the U.S. and the U.S. media dubbed those régimes as "anti-communist" to play down the anti-liberal and anti-democratic nature of those states and to emphasise that they were 'allies.'

[AX10]

33. True.

[ieoeja]

8. Existing Authoritarian Rightist Regimes

Egypt
Syria
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Islamic Republic of Iran

In fact, pretty much every country with a majority Muslim population is both Rightwing and Authoritarian. Give your friend a list of Authoritarian Rightist Regimes then ask him which is a bigger threat: the Rightists who back terrorist attacks against the United States or the Leftists who don't?

As an interesting side note, the Islamic Republic of Iran is the least authoritarian of all these.

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. Good points!

Although, can't say he's "my friend". It's actually from another board that I no longer interact on, but view on a daily basis. He is one of two reasons why I no longer participate. (Funny thing, he came on to DU a while back and instantly I knew it was him! I think he made it to around 100 posts before getting tombstoned, but it wasn't me that rang the alert. LOL!)

[slackmaster]

10. A left jack boot up your ass feels the same as a right jack boot up your ass

:nuke:

[cool user name]

18. Accept for the orientation of the big toe.

:D

[rinsd]

22. That was funny (nt)

[Peace Patriot]

11. I would ask him who, specifically, he is talking about. Don't let him get away

with a generalization. Because, who IS he talking about?

Two, I can think of.

Cuba: that tiny island. Big deal. Yeah, it's "authoritarian" and "leftist" (if leftist means everybody has a full stomach, a place to live, good medical care, and a good education).

Venezuela: somewhat bigger, DEMOCRATIC country, with fair and square elections (unanimous opinion of the Carter Center, the OAS and EU election monitoring groups), where the Bush Junta has FUNDED the opposition--millions of US taxpayer dollars, for an attempted military coup, a crippling oil professionals' strike, a recall election and several regular elections. OUR money! And still the Chavez government wins 60+% of the votes. So, whatever Chavez is doing has been repeatedly approved by the great majority of Venezuelans. You might worry about anyone being so popular, but is THAT "authoritarian"--being responsive to the voters?

I draw an analogy to FDR, who was ALSO accused of being a "dictator"--by the rightwing fascists, corporatists and super-rich--as he tried to drag the country out of the financial disaster that THEY had created.

For an antidote to corporate propaganda, try: www.venenzeulanalysis.com. It's pro-Chavez, but with warts and all, and it's well-written--very informative.

Who else?

North Korea? Hardly fair. Run by a madman. But grant it as "left authoritarian." Another tiny country. A bit worrisome because of nukes. But a minor player on the world scene. Non-democratic. And not even beneficial to the poor, as Cuba is.

Who else?

There you've got your friend stumped. Who else is he accusing of being "authoritarian leftist" --besides the tiny island of Cuba (such a big threat!), the tiny country of No. Korea (run by a madman), and Venezuela, a country where the voters WANT somebody to TAKE CHARGE and reverse poverty, illiteracy, lack of medical care for the poor, an excruciating gap between rich and poor, and theft of Venezuela's resources by global corporate predators.

Who else? Challenge him. Make him name names. Then go research what he says, and come back to him with FACTS. Are his assertions about "authoritarian leftists" just a regurgitation of corporate propaganda, or is there something to it?

It's OKAY to be worried about "leftist dictatorship." Stalin certainly proved that. "Power corrupts...," etc. But is there really anything to it, in the current world scene? And is there not far, far more evidence, in the current world picture, that it is the RIGHTWING that tends toward dictatorship? Saudi Arabia. Kuwait. UAE. Uzbekistan. Russia. But you can use, as an example, our own "unitary executive."

[Peace Patriot]

32. I spelled Venezuela wrong, in www.venezuelanalysis.com. n/t

[cool user name]

12. Castro is a leftist authoritarian (love him or hate him).

Putin is not a leftist. He's very rightwing but just as authoritarian. One thing in Castro's defense is that he actually has done tremendous work with regard to healthcare and the poor. But he didn't do it alone.

[manic expression]

43. One thing

Castro is not very authoritarian, the Cuban people have a ton of power both in government and in society. Castro didn't even exercise most of the power he had.

[rman]

60. If Castro is authoritarian then he's one of very few.

Only for the sake of this argument i'll give you that he is..

[cool user name]

15. A leftist authoritarian regime ...

Is exactly that. In the process of socializing the state, the state is absolute (and generally, this includes a fusion of state and industry; essentially fascism, ex. USSR and Eastern Europe).

A rightwing authoritarian regime uses the industry to rule, capital is absolute and there is also a fusion of industry and the state, where the state is subservient to capital interests; essentially fascism as well, ex. Chili under Pinochet, Nazi Germany, Franco's Spanish rule, Mussolini's Italy and various others.

[rman]

23. What would be the big difference

between industry run by a democratic socialist state, and private industry strictly regulated by such a state?

And what would be the difference between industry run by a fake democracy or fascist state, and unregulated private industry run by a minority of powerful financial interests?

I think the issue is not so much the merger of state- and corporate power as such, but rather who is controlling the state: a minority of powerful financial interests, or "the people".

[cool user name]

28. The difference is which is subservient ...

Rightwing fascism, currently speaking, tends to have industry as the government (they're still fused but industry controls the government).

Leftwing fascism, traditionaly speaking, tends to have the state rule but is still fused with industry.

I understand where you are coming from and perhaps I didn't clarify but it's which part of the equation serves the other.

[rman]

30. I have a problem with associating Leftwing with Despotic

I think leftwing dictatorships are fake Leftist.

See my post #29.

[cool user name]

34. I agree in a sense ...

I don't think it's compatible to be a true leftist and be a dictator but in the interest of political discourse, it is sometimes necessary to acknowledge that leftists have been dictators.

[rman]

46. I think it is necessary to acknowledge that some dictators

are leftist/pro-labor, or at least have leftist/pro-labor tendencies - there have been (and perhaps still are) a few relatively enlightened despots.

[rinsd]

19. The authoritarian part is the important one. Left or right doesn't make that better. (nt)

[IsItJustMe]

21. Good point. If it's authoritarian, left or right is just a technical detail.

Under Hitler's right authoritarian regime, the fatherland (the state or ultra nationalism) was the ultimate god.

Under Stalin's left authoritarian regime, the state was also the ultimate god, with the pretense that it was for the peoples common good.

No true difference in my view.

[cool user name]

20. Here's a good reference chart to compare to historical figures

[rman]

25. I have issues with the libertarian compass

but seeing it with other labels at the axis puts it in a different perspective.

It's interesting that you (or whoever put them there) put "Libertarianism" at the right end of the horizontal scale, equating it to neo-liberalism, libertarianism and right-wing - which i think is quite appropriate. While the original compass puts Libertarianism opposite of "Authoritarian" (implying that Libertarianism is synonymous with or implies democracy - which i disagree with).

I think it could be quite useful with the authoritarian/fascism label replaced by the more general term "despotism", and anarchism/libertarian replaced by "democracy"(*. That's what is presented as the only truly relevant scale in the 1946 educational movie "despotism" by Encyclopedia Britannica.

If there would be true democracy then society's position on the horizontal scale would reflect what the people really want when it comes to collectivism versus libertarianism/individualism. Since we're all both individuals and part of a collective, we'd probably arrive at some workable balance between individual freedom and protection of collective interests. We can then apply various labels to different balances that people perceive.


*) to me, Anarchism is essentially democracy - just more of it, by having far less hierarchy in the system as to avoid concentration of power (which i think is the main problem with most current political systems).

[sutz12]

26. We have a language disadvantage....

The Right has successfully, for many people, meshed the political term "Right," as in right-wing with the moral term "right," as in correct or good. So when a con hears "R/right" they can't distinguish which is which.

And when they hear "Left" in political terms as the opposite of Political "Right" they hear "wrong" as in the opposite of moral "right."

Yes, their brains work that simply.

[POAS]

27. Try the old South African regime on him for size.

[rman]

29. Historically, Left = Labor movement

And since most people were and still are "laborers", it is by definition democratic. It's not very credible to have one person or a small minority dictate what "the people" want.

Traditionally it is the labor movement and the Left that has been pushing for sharing of risk, collective insurance, social services, unions, public education etc.
And traditionally it has been and still is powerful corporate interests that oppose those 'socialist' ideas because to them those mean less profit.
Of course these corporate interests have all kinds of fancy stories about why everything should be privatized and deregulated, including that it's democratic and that everyone benefits. Plenty of people buy those stories. They would not stand a chance if they'd be honest. What they want is not majority rule or as they call it, "tyranny of the majority". They want to make the rules so that they suit their goals: to get still more wealthy and influential.

[Colobo]

35. Left or Right

No authoritarian regime is good. Period.

[rman]

36. How many pro-Labor authoritarians have there been?

How was Stalin pro-Labor?

[Zhade]

39. This is a critical point you're making, and thank you for it.

While Stalin did his works in the name of leftism, were they really leftist actions?

[ButterflyBlood]

40. An example would be Juan Velasco Alvarado

Face it, there are nasty dictators on the left as the right. Authoritarianism sucks, regardless of which wing it is.

[rman]

44. Yes there are - point is *how many* nasty dictators on the Left

are there - and just calling them "Left" (ie Stalinism = Communism - or 'Hitler was a socialist') doesn't count, what matters is just how pro-Labor their policies are.

It's true though that there's the occasional enlightened despot. But those are exceptions.

[rman]

54. case in point that there have been/are more RW dictators than left-wing dictators

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Velasco_Alvarado
...
"In foreign policy, in contrast with his 1970s Latin American contemporaries, which were mostly right-wing military dictatorships, he pursued a partnership with the Soviet bloc, tightening relations with Cuba and Fidel Castro and aggressively purchasing Soviet military hardware; this close relationship earned him the hostility of the American Administrations, which engaged in trade, economic, and diplomatic pressure."
...



So in Latin American there was this one left-wing dictator Juan Velasco Alvarado, the rest of them were right-wing dictators - who did not "earn the hostility of the American Administrations", rather the contrary, and many of those came to power in some kind of coup with US support.

[Bronyraurus]

37. Are you guys kidding?

What's the mystery here? There are authoritarian regimes on both the right and left, and anybody with a brain understands that. Nobody thinks that Franco or Mussolini were anything but authoritarian rightist regimes. This has nothing to do with "framing the debate" or whatever crap you're talking about.

[rman]

45. Point is *how many* authoritarian regimes on the Left

are there? Just calling them "Left" (ie Stalinism = Communism - or 'Hitler was a socialist') doesn't count, what matters is just how pro-Labor their policies are.

Suggesting that there are as many authoritarian Left wing regimes as there are authoritarian Right wing regimes *is* framing the debate.

[bluedawg12]

49. Left and right are economic and social

Left and right have economic and social components.

Left wing ecomomy= government involvement
Left wing social= depend on who you look at, authoritarian Stalin or indvidualist Ghanda.

Right wing economy= Friedman and Norquist, Pinotchet and Thathcer. Less government more free markets
Right wing social+ law and order traditional values.

[rman]

51. There's considerable overlap between social and economic components.

Ie (tax-funded, state controlled) Social Services also have the economic aspect of not being privatized so that corporations can not make a profit off of it. Privatized social services have an economic effect but also the social effect that many people can no longer afford it.

Ultimately the only thing that matters is who is in control of government: a small wealthy and influential minority (as was the case with Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet and to a lesser extent is the case with most governments of the wealthy nations), or "The People" - most of whom happen to be laborers.

[Bronyraurus]

63. The real mechanics of government

will never be in the hands of "The People," because you just can't fit that many bodies in a room. The closest thing that can come to that is a representative democracy where the representatives are routinely recycled through election. The West largely understands this, as well as India and some others. The People might not be in charge of actual decision-making, but their views are expressed through their representatives. If the representatives screw up, they can be replaced.

[Bronyraurus]

62. But no one makes that claim

I don't buy the right-wing trope that Hitler was a socialist, just because his party had that word in its name. He wasn't a socialist. But, at least ostensibly, Lenin and Stalin were. Castro certainly is. Mao was. The Kims are/were. Chavez is.

In America, European-, Asian-, and Latin American-style authoritarianism is not an option. But the Republican Party often manifests an authoritarian attitude towards social policy, and the Democratic Party often does the same with economics and language under the banner of political correctness.

[rman]

67. How was Stalin pro-Labor?

[manic expression]

42. Let me say as a leftist

such a criticism of liberals and liberalism is as insipid as it is ignorant. There is NO connection between liberalism and the governments he cites; NONE.

Castro is a Marxist-Leninist, Chavez has cited Bolivar and Castro (as well as Marx and Lenin IIRC) as some of his influences, Putin is a Bonapartist strongman who really has no respect for anything that doesn't give himself more power.

It's difficult to argue with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. However, I can tell you, as a Marxist-Leninist, that Marxist thought is practically diametrically opposed to liberalism. And with Putin, he's a f*cking dumbass if he thinks Putin has any ideology other than "Putin Power". Putin is about as liberal as Franco.

To be brief, your friend has no f*cking clue what he's talking about.

[seabeyond]

50. i am very bothered by the democratic left authoritarians. they scare the shit out of me

and bother me immensely. yes they do exist and you see examples on this board. personally i hate it. and yes there is a right authoritarian. we are living it now. no it is not good. i hate it. and it is what i have been fighting for 6 yrs and strongly the last four. i am bothered that we seem to have just two choices. the right and the left authoritarian. both are damaging and in my view, neither are good.

[rman]

52. "democratic authoritarian" is a contradiction in terms

If under an authoritarian regime there is any democracy, it is a fake democracy - you know: manipulation of public opinion via the media, stolen elections. Though in all fairness, it's not black-and-white; there are many shades in between.

[seabeyond]

53. democratic as in party. not process. n/t

[rman]

55. A democratic party without democratic process is fake democracy;

proves my point.

[seabeyond]

57. fake or not,.... it IS within our party. it is like the right authoritarian

suggesting they protect the constitution. the complete opposite. authoritarian right is fake to their party. regardless they are there and are running this country and causing us problems and damage.

[rman]

58. It's just the *name* of a party - how it it "within" the party?

I'll be one of the first to say that the US has a fake democracy.

[seabeyond]

59. but the questions was.... is there an authoritarian left. i say yes. n/t

[rman]

61. I know you say yes. But i argue against it

If historically speaking "the left" is the labor movement: laborers organizing mutual support and massive strikes to get what we take for granted these days: 40hr work-week, a (now only half-) decent minimum wage, labor safety laws, no child labor etc.

And a regime or party enacts policies that hurt laborers (which happens to be the vast majority of the population),

then just how "left" or "democratic" is that party or regime really?
I think it is obvious that it is left (and/or democratic) in name only.

[Bronyraurus]

64. I think what Seabeyond is saying

is that there is an authoritarian impulse among leftists in America, just as there is on the right. It's true. I don't know what Seabeyond is specifically referring to, but I mentioned central control over the economy and political correctness upthread. Centralized control over the economy is justified as a protection of labor, but is it not still authoritarian?

[seabeyond]

66. i dont get into the specifics on this board. when i do the authoritarians

jump on and start the black and white argument of authoritarian rule that i hate and refuse to do with the right, i equally refuse to do with the left.

[rman]

68. I've literally said its not a black-and-white issue. nt

[seabeyond]

71. i wasn't talking this issue. the issues i consider at authoritarian take on

a black and white argument style that i see so often, consistently with the rw authoritarian.

[rman]

69. case in point that there have been/are more RW dictators than left-wing dictators

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Velasco_Alvarado
...
"In foreign policy, in contrast with his 1970s Latin American contemporaries, which were mostly right-wing military dictatorships, he pursued a partnership with the Soviet bloc, tightening relations with Cuba and Fidel Castro and aggressively purchasing Soviet military hardware; this close relationship earned him the hostility of the American Administrations, which engaged in trade, economic, and diplomatic pressure."
...



So in Latin America there was this one left-wing dictator Juan Velasco Alvarado, the rest of them were right-wing dictators - who did not "earn the hostility of the American Administrations", rather the contrary, and many of those came to power in some kind of coup with US support.

[seabeyond]

65. not all of what the democratic party does is detrimental nor negative

or authoritarian. but there is an arm of it in the democratic party. such as dictating how ones should, by there standards, live life. that is in the party. right or wrong. passing law for the good of the whole, as they perceive that good should be.

[rman]

70. i never said it was. nt

[bluedawg12]

56. This is what I learned from the Political Compass

These days we talk a lot about right wing this and liberal that...but I wasn’t even sure what people meant when they said that. This article helps give an over view and it turns out it is more complex than we may think.

http://politicalcompass.org/

The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.


There is also a quick little self test you can take to see where you stand at: http://politicalcompass.org/


After you take the test you learn where you stand and then get to read their over view.

For example right and left in terms of economy:

If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left....Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.



There is also the consideration of issues beyond economy, social issues:

That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.


For example most would consider arch commie Joe Stalin an authoritarian leftist.

How does that equate with the 1960's “free-love” anti-war “do your own thing” leftist movement, which would have Stalin sending hippies to Siberia?

The article claims that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist. The state is more important than the individual.

While some one like Ghandi believing in the supreme value of each individual, was a liberal leftist

So if someone says that person is a lefty: do they mean Stalin style, lock step, jack booted Gulag sending authoritarian or love bead wearing, laid back, individualist Ghandi style?


On the right wing the article mentions, “Pinochet,(1) who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position.”


On “the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman (2), who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons...”

Milton Friedman, recently deceased, a University of Chicago economist and whose ideas influenced Reagan is famous for his ideas that the only duty of corporations is to their share holders and not society. This leading the way to multinationals, the quest for cheap foreign labor markets at the expense of US workers.



So someone like Friedman on the right, who believed in less government regulation in business is different from right winger Hitler, “who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.”

The article makes some interesting points:

despite popular perceptions,
the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism),
the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy).


Today we think of the G8 protestor -types as left wing Marxist Anarchists.
But, the article points out that anti-government intervention sentiment can be found in right wing circles: Famously anti-communist Ayn Rand, who championed the “Virtue of Selfishness” meaning that individuals must make their own way in life and not expect the state to support them. In an economic sense guys like Milton Friedman and Grover Nordquist, were anti-state to the extent that the state was minimalized to basic functions and to keep their paws off business and our wallets (taxes) but at the same time they would be right wing in terms of a “strong law and order” stance.

Of course, you need law and order to pursue the goals of self sustained, individualistic success financially. Chaos is bad for business.

Some of today’s applications of these concepts are seen in laws that lower taxes, the privatization of government services-most recent example was privatizing social security, “Friedman devoted much of his effort to promoting school vouchers that can be used to pay for tuition at both private and public schools” (2), in extolling the virtues of small businesses and the “entrepreneur,” globalization of business in order to “stay competitive,” the corporate loyalty is not to the nation, the workers in the nation, in fact “anti-union,” the duty is to the share holders.


The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues.


Right wing libertarian thinking stops short of social libertarianism and is usually in favor of strong law and order positions.

Friedman's economic ideas were implemented in Chile under the military government of General Augusto Pinochet.

Friedman had given a lecture in Chile advocating monetarist economics . Friedman said that the "the emphasis of that talk was that free markets would undermine political centralization and political control."<25>

Ironically, Pinochet, a devotee of Friedman’s ideas held Chile in his power with political centralization and political control-he was a dictator.

“Friedman did not criticize Pinochet's dictatorship at the time, nor the assassinations, illegal imprisonments, torture, or other atrocities that were well-known by then, <26>although later, in Free to Choose he said the following: "Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system...”




references:

(1) Pinochet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

“November 25, 1915–December 10, 2006) was a general and President of Chile.

In 1973, Pinochet led a coup d'état deposing the democratically-elected Socialist President Salvador Allende and establishing a military government. In 1974, Pinochet declared himself president and remained in power until 1990.<2><3>

At the time of his death in 2006, around 300 criminal charges in Chile were still pending against Pinochet for human rights abuses and embezzlement during his rule.<9> Pinochet remains a polarizing figure in many parts of the world, dividing people who condemn him for human rights abuses and for taking power from a democratically elected government, from those who credit him with stabilizing Chile and preventing a Communist takeover.<10><11>”

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

“In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom. In his 1980 television series Free to Choose, which aired on PBS, Friedman explained how the free market works, emphasizing that its principles have shown to solve social and political problems that other systems have failed to address adequately

His political philosophy, which Friedman himself considered classically liberal, stressed the advantages of the marketplace and the disadvantages of government intervention, shaping the outlook of American conservatives and libertarians. He adamantly argued that if capitalism, or economic freedom, is introduced into countries governed by totalitarian regimes that political freedom would tend to result.

Friedman's advocacy of free markets was a minority view during the "big government", high taxation, high regulation, welfare state era of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. However, he lived to see his laissez-faire ideas embraced by the mainstream,<5> especially during the 1980s, a watershed decade for the acceptance of Friedman's ideas. His views of monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation informed the policy of governments around the globe, especially the administrations of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom”

[Zodiak]

72. Compulsory national service

is a good example of left wing authoritarianism. "Nanny statism" is another aspect of the authoritarian left.