4 ms·

Let me clarify what I meant in my original post. The aims of conservatism and liberalism differ, clearly. Extreme forms of these dogmas still have divergent aim

Let me clarify what I meant in my original post. The aims of conservatism and liberalism differ, clearly. Extreme forms of these dogmas still have divergent aims. But extreme liberalism/conservatism is by definition forced upon a society, because it is extremism. In asserting their beliefs, the extremists mirror one another in means and action even if their ends differ. As we have seen, both Fascists and Communists are capable of delivering up human suffering. In the midst of this suffering, the two groups use similar means to achieve their ends.

eesmith 9y ago
Thank you for the clarification. Do I understand you right that Sweden is not an extremely liberal country, and that it won't be extremely liberal until it becomes communist? What I still don't see is how "forced upon a society" (or "authoritarianism") is something which only holds for extreme positions. We see that the US does good job of delivering up human suffering (high prison rates, effective wage slavery such that people start their careers deeply in debt just to get the required education, many ongoing military bombing campaigns, etc.). But the US is neither fascist nor communist. In Sweden (to use the earlier example), companies are not allowed to discriminate on sex, ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, etc. This is something forced on society, yes? There are 13 countries where atheists potentially face the death penalty. They are not fascist countries. I can't think of any country where some laws, based on the beliefs of lawmakers, aren't forced upon a society. Including laws that a majority of the population do not want. So while I agree that what you say is true, it doesn't seem to be diagnostic. "The tallest people and the shortest people breath" is true, but that's because all people breath.

4 ms·

Let me clarify what I meant in my original post. The aims of conservatism and liberalism differ, clearly. Extreme forms of these dogmas still have divergent aim

by meri_dian 9y ago

eesmith 9y ago
Thank you for the clarification. Do I understand you right that Sweden is not an extremely liberal country, and that it won't be extremely liberal until it becomes communist? What I still don't see is how "forced upon a society" (or "authoritarianism") is something which only holds for extreme positions. We see that the US does good job of delivering up human suffering (high prison rates, effective wage slavery such that people start their careers deeply in debt just to get the required education, many ongoing military bombing campaigns, etc.). But the US is neither fascist nor communist. In Sweden (to use the earlier example), companies are not allowed to discriminate on sex, ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, etc. This is something forced on society, yes? There are 13 countries where atheists potentially face the death penalty. They are not fascist countries. I can't think of any country where some laws, based on the beliefs of lawmakers, aren't forced upon a society. Including laws that a majority of the population do not want. So while I agree that what you say is true, it doesn't seem to be diagnostic. "The tallest people and the shortest people breath" is true, but that's because all people breath.