Discussion in 'Politics' started by manifold, Apr 2, 2008.
What's the difference?
Neocons are closer to being fascist than plain old cons. That's because they're closer to the liberal end of things, and liberals are generally fascists.
Have you read Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism? It makes some interesting points on the historical origins and meanings of the term as it relates to American conservatism and liberalism. I don't know about neoconservatism, however. Just throwing it out there.
What are we defining as NeoConservatism?
There's a good difference between the two.
Are aware that on the axis of leftwing/rightwing ideology fascism is extreme rightwing?
Can I infer then that the biggest differences you see rest in the theory behind the ideologies and not the real life implementation?
Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron. The two are mutually exclusive.
That's not true in the least, Manifold. If you haven't read the book I suppose its hard to comment on it. You can check here for a bit of a blurb:
Goldberg makes some interesting historical points in the books, though I can't say I'm in agreement with him across the board by any means.
true true....my own personal opinion (differenciating between the two), is that NeoConservatism is concerned with keeping the world in order, while Fascism is concerned with Dominating the world by getting rid of lesser races and uniting under a single ideology (for instance, an arryan race). Fascism has a more aggressive and militarized way of doing things without regard to the people that they are trying to control. Hitler didn't try to "keep the world in order," he tried to conquer it and create a superior race of people by eliminating those he thought to be inferior.
That's a liberal twist. Fascism is tyranny, and tyranny springs directly from socialistic concepts.
Separate names with a comma.