Again the terms 'left' and 'right' and 'conservative' and 'liberal' are defined very differently in the USA than they are in Europe. if you're going to use the Oxford Dictionary, that has to be taken into account.
If you don't agree that Conservative = 'right' and Liberalism = "Left" in the USA, then this argument is moot. I am going on the belief that most Americans do see it that way.
Again modern American Conservatism is very similar to classical liberalism. I adapted my definition (abbreviated in my post in this thread) based on a number of sources. Look up "Classical Liberalism" in Wikipedia as it is a pretty good one. It by no means is the only source looking at it in exactly the same way though:
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term liberalism generally meant a philosophy of public life that affirmed the following principle: societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit. Today we cannot call this philosophy liberalism because the term has been appropriated by the democratic totalitarians. In an attempt to recover this philosophy for our own time, we give it a new name, classical liberalism.
An American Classical Liberalism - - Mises Institute
2.1 Classical Liberalism
Liberal political theory, then, fractures over the conception of liberty. But a more important division concerns the place of private property and the market order. For classical liberals — sometimes called the ‘old’ liberalism — liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free.
Liberalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
So again, I say that using American definitions, radical Islam/the Taliban, that does not recognize nor respect unalienable rights and definitely believes in authority having control over the people is a more 'left' ideology than 'right.
That's only true, if you don't believe totalititarianism could come from either side. I think your just making a post based on your personal bias.
Come on, think about it. How could totalitarianism be the extreme of both the left and right? HUH? The left believes in big, powerful government. They believe whatever the problem -more and bigger government is the answer. Going further and further to the left would mean bigger and bigger and more powerful government along the way. Totalitarianism is the NATURAL and only LOGICAL outcome for going to the extreme in their beliefs. If you believe government can and should try to be everything to everyone -you are BEGGING for totalitarianism.
But those on the right believe in smaller, decentralized federal government with limited powers. Going further and further to the right would mean smaller, smaller and smaller government with ever fewer powers. Taken to the extreme that belief is ANARCHY. No government at all, no government power, no laws, not institutionalized power over anyone. Rightwing extremism is pure freedom of the individual, answering to no institution and no government.
We already know the problem with totalitarianism which is actually the most common state of man's existence throughout history. The problem with anarchy, no government at all, is that it creates a very real, very deep absence of institutionalized and organized power -a power vacuum which will not only be seen as weakness - but an invitation to those on the left who want power for themselves to try and grab it for themselves. But the only way to KEEP that power given a population that wants no government at all -is by sheer force. By imposing totalitarianism.
But that is still LEFTWINGERS who would be imposing the totalitarian state in that situation -and NOT those on the extreme right who still want no government at all. Those creating that totalitarian state are still leftwingers -always. It doesn't matter how it comes about -those who would impose a totalitarian state on his fellow man for ANY reason - are ALWAYS leftwing.
Leftwing extremism is the state slavery of the individual and rightwing extremism is pure freedom of the individual. Those ARE the extremes of both, the only natural and logical outcomes of both taken to their extremes and you can't get more extreme on either side than these. There IS no further right than no government at all and there IS no further left than totalitarianism!
So believing totalitarianism is not only the outcome of extreme leftwing political ideology but the natural and logical outcome of extreme right wing political ideology as well -is like claiming if you take anti-slavery beliefs to the extreme, you actually support slavery after all. You have to be devoid of any critical thinking skills to buy that!
The problem is the left also likes to use "conservative" interchangeably with "right wing" to further muddy the waters -in order to pretend US conservatives actually have anything in common with Iranian hardliners for example -or Hitler, one of their favorites. But an American conservative who would then also be right wing -has nothing in common with an Iranian conservative who is LEFTWING. Again, it is the MODEL OF GOVERNMENT that determines whether someone is left or right, not WHY they want it. When calling someone a "conservative" it typically refers to them being conservative about deviating away from some SPECIFIC doctrine or document. Not the SAME document or doctrine! In the case of US conservatives -that document would be the Constitution. US conservatives believe we should adhere pretty closely to that document as written and any deviation from it should be conservative. But in the case of Iranians conservatives, that doctrine would their fundamental, strict interpretation of the Koran. But the fact their religious beliefs would require a large, powerful government with near total control of the individual does NOT make them right wing -but LEFTWING. They are Islamic conservative leftwingers -which means they believe a very conservative version of Islam and in the imposition of a huge, powerful government in order to impose near total control over individuals -and you just don't get any further from what a US conservative believes than that bullshit!
Let's try it this way since those who pretend they just can't grasp the difference still lie and insist Nazism is somehow "right wing". (And are then just repeating Stalin's stupid but very effective lie that Nazism is the opposite of communism which is actually impossible.) Consider Nazi Germany. Hitler was democratically elected. Germans FREELY chose him in an election everyone agrees was free and fair. So, after winning that election did Hitler FIRST make his nation even MORE FREE from government control, made government ever smaller and less powerful to the point it was briefly an anarchy with no government at all? In other words, did Hitler do away with government which would mean he had no power at all -and THEN he was somehow able to grab power back again in order to go even further to the "right" past that extreme of no government at all you claim exists as rightwing extremism too - and suddenly turned Germany with a total lack of government into a TOTALITARIAN state where people ended up with so little power that the state had such massive power it was able to round up and slaughter its OWN people? Hell no that isn't what happened! Hitler got elected and IMMEDIATELY went about dismantling all democratic institutions to make sure the people could never remove him from office again -
his first acts were to make Germans LESS free, not more free. He made sure government had MORE control of the people, not less. He took a hard LEFT upon taking office. He deliberately turned Germany into a totalitarian state so HE could maintain HIS power of that totalitarian state and make sure the German people no longer had the ability to remove him from power.
Which is exactly what Hugo Chavez is doing as well! Chavez was also democratically elected -but then went about tearing down the democratic institutions that brought him to power, stripping rights and freedoms from his citizens too, changed their constitution, stacked government institutions with his own lackeys to rubber stamp whatever he wants -all so the people of his country cannot get rid of him either. In fact he wants government to declare him "President-for-life" which is would mean dictator for life -because hey, he is just that same kind of guy with the very same overinflated ego maniacal opinion of himself. Chavez DELIBERATELY used many of the identical steps Hitler took to grab ultimate power. The end result was two dictators controlling two totalitarian states.
But the fact Chavez is a communist admiring dictator and Hitler was a Nazi admiring dictator doesn't make either one of them "right wing" whatsoever. They both share the same fundamental political ideology in the first place and just used different excuses -oops, "reasons" for why they sought to impose a totalitarian state with them sitting at the top in control of all that power! Which makes them BOTH leftwing and just merely disagreeing about which one of them should be sitting at that top ruling over everyone! A pretty minor disagreement when discussing the proper size, power and role of government! What determines whether someone is right or leftwing is the model of government each seeks to create -not the justifications they give for it.
Freedom House: Freedom in the World 2011: The Authoritarian Challenge to Democracy
