It's YOU who needs to get the facts straight. I don't think you even know what fascism is. If you think Rumsfeld and Cheney are fascists, it's not even worth discussing this. The closest to a "popular" fascist in USA right now is probably Ann Coulter (she is either a fascist or quasi-fascist).

Canada is NOT a socialist country. It has some socialist ideals and institutions but it is anything but. In case you have been living in a cave, Canada practices capitalism. How is it socialism then?

Lastly, anarchism IS left wing. What is neutral is liberatarianism. Anarchism is definitely left wing. In fact, the official Anarchist Party of USA of USA even calls themselves liberatarian socialism. What might be confusing you is the mainstream view that anarchism is something to do with vandalism. Or perhaps you are confused with anarcho-capitalism, which in my opinion isn't even anarchism since capitalism will result in corporations ruling everyone. If anarchism is NOT left wing, why do they always march with socialists, communists, Greens, feminists, etc during marches? You don't see the fascists or capitalists (right wing) marching with any of these people, do you?

If you still think anarchism is not left wing, study the history and roots of anarchism. It is squrely rooted in left wing ideologies. Anarchism may not support the state (like communism) but it certainly is rooted in egalitarianism.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

I think that there is a little more to it than "left-wing"/"right-wing". I like the 2-dimensional model shown at the libertarian party website [lp.org]. It recognizes that governmental systems have varying degrees of control over it's citizens both economically and socially.

"Left-wing" means high social freedom (i.e. pot smoking or the rights of the accused), and low economic freedom (you have to give 15% of your paycheck to social security and medicare).

"Right-wing" means low social freedom ("If you didn't commit the crime, why else would you be sitting here in handcuffs? The chair for you."), and high economic freedom (if the government wants money it should take it from some other contry's citizens!).

Libertarian means both kinds of freedom, and totalitarian means neither.

Why call commies leftists and fascists right-wing? I guess the intent of the two sides is different (I'd disagree), and maybe they go about their plans in different ways, but untimately they all take away freedom. I suppose you could talk about how ideally, communism would not take away individual freedoms, but I'm talking about reality. I think they're all totalitarian.

And my cynical side would argue that any serious politician wants to take our freedoms away somehow (for his own power), it's just a question of which we're willing to part with.

His confusion about left and right is probably due to the fact that the left-right ideal is based on the politics of the late 1700s, not today. There are three major divisions to modern political movements that have to be considered. All three are independent of each other. You have Economics, Social Issues, and Political Heirarchy to consider.

Economics: Communism - Socialism - Capitalism - Laissez Faire

Social Issues: Progressive [Secular, Pro-Environment, Pro-Labor, Egalitarian, Pacifist] - Conservative [Religious, Pro-Mercantile, Social Darwinists, Militarists]

Political Heirarchy: Anarchy - Democracy - Republic - Confederation/Feudal - One Party - Monarchy/Theocracy - Despotism

As for the fascists, they have typically plotted as moderate economics and social issues, with a right-moderate political heirarchy. They get into trouble because their graphing on the social issues is actually roughly evenly split between left and right extremes: nationalistic, rely on traditional foes of the culture as straw men, which are rightest characteristics socially; pro-labor, pro-middle and lower class, which are leftist characteristics socially. Now if you compare the historic examples of the Third Reich, Imperial Japan and Mussolini's Italy to the current administration of the US as a whole, they share a great deal in common. Where they tend to differ is that the Bush administration greatly favors businessmen and the upper class over the other two classes. They also happen to be limited in their actions by the Senate and the judiciary, so even though they are further to the right on the social spectrum than facists, the Bush administration is forced to be rather leftist on the political spectrum. If the judiciary were loaded in his favor and the Senate Democrats stopped filibustering some of his major issues, you'd have the equivalent of the One Party system you see currently in China. Actually I'd probably prefer a Facist state if that latter possibility came about. It would be the lesser of two very nasty evils.

I disagree with your assessment of Canada as well. They are almost certainly going socialist, as is much of western Europe. Socialist economics is a mix of state run and private businesses, with the private businesses having a significant tax burden. Those nations won't legitmately be communist however, until private businesses become illegal and all aspects of the economy are directly (mis?)managed by the state. Until recently the United States was also going socialist, but the most recent Republican administrations (Bushes and Reagan) have stalled and possibly reversed the momentum in that direction for the immediate future.

That is a debatable point. There are SO MANY defintions of socialism that it is hard to say what it exactly is. Also, unlike communism (Marx's works, etc) or capitalism (Adam Smith's works, etc), socialism doesn't really have a solid work behind it. There is no Wealth of Nations. There is no Communist Manifesto. So, it's really hard to say for sure whether something is or is not socialism .

I admit that quite a few hold your view but it is misleading. No one who is ideologically driven, or follows econopolitics, can seriously consider Canada to be socialist. There are many criticial things that are lacking. In particular, workers don't have enough power. Yes, it is better than most countries but it is seriously lacking. We are still worker-consumer ants. That is hardly socialism. When it comes to egalitarianism, THE most important driving philosophy of socialism, Canada is lacking too. I don't know about you but most socialists would not be happy with a society where billionaires rule. You literally have to be a millionaire to run for prime minister, you need to be supported by the wealthy, etc. How can one seriously consider Canada socialist when a CEO of a large company has greater access to politicians than you or me? They can call politicians and set up meetings, while you (or even if you are small business) try doing that.

I think it is most accurate to consider Canada to be a capitalist country with socialist ideals. THat's how I look at it and most people realize that. For instance, people refer to Canada as Mixed Economy precisely for that reason.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

I like to use the political classification system put forth by Political Compass. I agree with your descriptions in your first few paragraphs but this system is simpler. (There is also  another one by the Liberatarian Party of USA but I don't like it as much).

I agree with most of what you say so I'll just pick stuff that I disagree with.

Actually I'd probably prefer a Facist state if that latter possibility came about. It would be the lesser of two very nasty evils.

People who go with the "lesser of two evils" doctrine are not idealists. They are pragmatists. Needless to say, I am not one. I will oppose both (yes, I realize your implication is if you ONLY had those two but if we ended up with those two, we FAILED :( ). I just hate it when people use the "lesser of two evils" doctrine because they are generally being manipulated. USA, for example, is in the mess it is in because of following that philosophy. What ends up happening is that you end up allying with the devil--which is a big no,no. Will Usama bin Laden (arguably the #1 enemy of USA) be as lethal and powerful if USA didn't think he was a lesser evil than Soviet troops in Afghanistan?

In any case, I'm not sure if a fascist state would be better of the two. It depends on the person though. A fascist state, I am sure, will revert to racism and genocide (in the worst case). They will blame immigrants, native Americans, blacks, and pretty much anyone that is "different" (I'm taking different to mean non-white). So, fascism would be horrible for me. The future US state will likely not engage in ethnic cleansing (at least I don't see how that would fit in with Bush or similar views). If YOU were white AND you were lower class, I can see why you would prefer a system that supports the lower classes (as in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy) over one that supports the upper classes (as in future USA, under your scenario).

I disagree with your assessment of Canada as well. They are almost certainly going socialist, as is much of western Europe.

They are becoming socialist in the sense that they are being progressive on social issues. So Europe/Canada/etc are more likely to legalize drugs (at least marijuana) or give rights to homosexuals, or something. BUT the same is not true on the economic front. If anything, the capitalists are winning. So socialist institutions are under great threat and some of them are losing. For instance, many things are being privatized. Most socialists would not support privatization in general, let alone healthcare, schools, energy, etc. Because of this, I really wouldn't claim Canada is becoming more socialist. To a socialist like me, it seems as if we are further off than ever. Also, workers are weaker than 30 years ago. Unions are becoming corrupted and turning into bureaucratic entities. They are losing their power, businesses literally have a gun to their heads with outsourcing, etc. I really don't think Canada/Europe is becoming more socialist.

Until recently the United States was also going socialist, but the most recent Republican administrations (Bushes and Reagan) have stalled and possibly reversed the momentum in that direction for the immediate future.

USA was hardly going towards socialism. It has been becoming more capitalist by the day. The only time USA was going towards socialism was during the Great Depression with FDR's New Deal. Other than that, USA has hardly be socialist. If anything, USA has always been tending towards capitalism except during the Great Depression (New Deal) and during the independence days (Alexander Hamilton, Tom Paine, et al, can be though to be some sort of a "socialist". Hamilton, in particular, supported UNIVERSAL rights--a concept only socialists and other leftists care about eg. universal healthcare, universal schools, universal freedoms (country over state), etc))

Sivaram Velauthapillai

I don't like that Liberatarian Quiz that much. It's ok but I prefer the Politial Compass one. Check it out if you have some free time (a lot of so-called Liberatarians don't like it though).

The problem I have with the LP Quiz, and American Liberatarians in general, is that it lumps economics and social issues together. You aren't a Liberatarian unless you support pure capitalism, and are libertarian on social issues. I prefer to seperate them. The world-view of liberatarianism is very different from the American Liberatarian view. American Liberatarians treat free markets (and hence pure capitalism) are part of liberatarianism. The rest of the world doesn't; the rest generally consider liberatarianism to do with liberties only.

To a leftist like me, Liberatarians in USA are too biased towards capitalism. The markets, private businesses, etc are treated as a key Liberatarian principle. To see the flaw with this, consider this. I find it ironic that Liberatarians (in USA) don't generally support anarchism (no govt). If I'm not mistaken the Liberatarian Party doesn't either. The "justification" for this is that you need government to enforce private property laws, deal with contract law, have a justice system, and so forth. Liberatarians don't even consider anarchism to be "true" liberatarianism (because there is no govt to enforce private property). This is totally hypocritical to me given that the government is the entity that oppresses people. How can you stand for liberty (as Liberatarians claim to) when you support a government. A small one, but nevertheless *a* government. I'll tell you why it is like this. It's because American Liberatarians support an economic system (namely capitalism) when in fact they should just worry about liberties.

You can read the reasoning behind political compass to see my problem with the LP Quiz.

Why call commies leftists and fascists right-wing? I guess the intent of the two sides is different (I'd disagree), and maybe they go about their plans in different ways, but untimately they all take away freedom. I suppose you could talk about how ideally, communism would not take away individual freedoms, but I'm talking about reality. I think they're all totalitarian.

Yes, the form of communism that the world saw and the fascism, were both totalitarian. As Political Compass says, Stalin and Hitler will agree on everything except economics.

And my cynical side would argue that any serious politician wants to take our freedoms away somehow (for his own power), it's just a question of which we're willing to part with.

It's not as simple. The difference between a Liberatarian like you and a strongly-liberatarian leftist like me (eg. I am probably in favour of legalizing drugs, prostitution, full freedoms (USA is better than Canada in this respect), etc; do note that I do NOT consider myself THAT liberatarian--I'm nowhere near anarchism :| ) , is that I do not consider economic freedoms in the same way. So-called free markets are nothing more than ways for private businesses (such as corporations) to enslave workers. You, since Liberatarians consider capitalism to be the Holy Grail, do not see it that way. Workers being enslaved by businesses is evil to me while you are "ok" with it. For example, Liberatarians support workers working as slaves for 12 hours with no washroom breaks with little benefits in many poor countries. They support this by arguing that people are WILLING to work therefore they are still free. After all, the market decides right? I'm sure you would say that too. I, on the other hand, wants government intervention or some sort of worker intervention to block such mistreatment of workers.

The problem is not when a politician is stripping your liberties. That's easy to fight. Both the left and the right comes together to fight it (as is happening for Patriot Act and Patriot Act II). The real question is what happens when economics is involved! The left and the right will seperate on this issue. One side worships capitalism; the other side hates it. A billionaire is ok with you; a billionarie is an undesirable result for me.

On top of all this, there are also differences with international treaties, human rights and things like that. For instance, leftists generally prefer UNIVERSAL rights. The right generally does not. You can see this difference by comparing, for example, Noam Chomsky (liberatarian socialist, aka anarchist) vs Justin Raimondo (some dude who writes for antiwar.com). Chomsky, who is leftist, will support the UN more than Raimondo, who is on the right even though both of them are against the Iraqi war on liberatarian principles. Both are strong liberatarians (ie. extreme views towards freedoms, power of govt, etc) yet the left diverges from the right.

Until American Liberatarians cut off their ties with capitalism, they will amount to nothing. They clearly aren't going to do that for a few hundread years.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Fascism [reference.com] is essentially dictatorship. It's a ruthless destroying of opposition, and an illegally keeping hold of power obtained. The ussr under stalin was fascist as well as communist (it's pretty hard to do communism and avoid fascism, as cuba and china have proven). The current US leadership isn't quite there yet, but they have created an environment which discourages having dissenting opinions (small example: if a journalist says something in opposition to the government party line, they will not be invited to white house press briefings, so the only people reporting on press briefings are parrots). They've also performed various tricks like redistricting to keep hold of the power they have right now. And I wouldn't be surprised if after another 9/11-like event (which I fully expect to happen within the decade), elections are delayed (read: cancelled) for the sake of national security. At that point, the US would truly become fascist.

Socialism [reference.com] is quite difficult to capture into a definition because nobody can agree on what it is. The dictionary follows marx's definition here, and Marx himself saw socialism as a process which resulted eventually into communism. That is, the end goal of socialism was to abolish private property. This is obviously not socialism as practised today by western european countries, so it's not appropriate for definition anymore. I would say modern socialism is essentially a desire to see to it that everyone has what they need (or in other words, a form of moderate egalitarianism). It takes marx' ideals of providing a high quality of life to everyone by having the government provide the resources people lack, but strips it of the lunacy of communist theory that welfare can only be created by ending private property (in practice, without private property there is no motivation to work hard other than patriotism, which is why most products of communist russia were of shoddy quality).

Lastly, anarchism [reference.com] is about abandoning government and essentially all forms of control (due to a belief that control breeds corruption, and so there can never be a benevolent form of control, a flawed theory as proven by linux kernel development). Egalitarianism [reference.com] is not compatible with that, since without authority you get the right of the strongest (which surprisingly is also the result of unregulated capitalism), which will never, ever, result in a system where everyone has equal access to resources. So your argument that socialism/egalitarianism and anarchism are basically two masks on the same face sounds quite impossible to support to me.