Does right-wing populism have some traditional left-wing ideas?

@Graciebaby False. You're using horseshoe theory that complete negates the axis of authoritarianism vs libertarianism.

Anarchists are far-left and we're literally the polar opposite of fascists and Nazis in every possible way. They want nationalism, a strong state, traditional roles, hierarchy. We want all those abolished.

@Graciebaby Nah. Totally disagree with that and history proves the opposite.

In 30s Europe, Fascists and communists were fighting in the streets. If they were close together on the political sphere, nobody told them.

Recently, the nationalist right (and/or far right) have been taking support from libertarians and classical liberals. That ideology has more in common with fascism than it does with socialism.

@Burnley123 not to mention Antifa tends to be full of Anarchists and Communists and they clash sometimes violently with the far-right nationalists.

@Burnley123 @basilfawlty89

@Graciebaby makes a valid, and rather crucial, point. It's the lesson that George Orwell teaches us in Animal Farm. Far Right and Far Left ideologies have a tendency to meet in the middle of the political circle. At totalitarianism.

@room101 Again, no. You forget nicely that Orwell was a socialist and Anarchist, living alongside the Anarchists of Catalonia.

Socialism is merely an economic system. It can be done in an authoritarian manner (state socialism/state capitalism such as with Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism) or a libertarian manner (Mutualism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Collectivism, Democratic Socialism, Luxemburgism, Council Communism, Left Communism, De Leonism, etc.)

@room101 I love Orwell and he was right to warn of the dangers. It is also true that communism has never worked as a result of a violent revolution, which is why I am an evolutionary socialist.

However, fascism is based on a desire to dominate. Mussolini said 'I am the state' and it was anti-democratic in essence. The radical left what the opposite; radical emancipation and something more democratic and egalitarian than liberal capitalism. In key case and under harsh conditions, that failed and resulted in totalitarianism. The far-right just want totalitarianism.

@basilfawlty89 I know what Orwell believed and what he did during his life. So no, I didn't "nicely forget" anything.

The point is that, regardless of political technicalities, motives and/or intended outcomes, totalitarianism is what we end up with. As @Burnley123 concludes above:

"In key case and under harsh conditions, that failed and resulted in totalitarianism. The far-right just want totalitarianism."

@room101 But again, you can't conflate Anarchism with Marxism. You cannot say a Stalinist is the same as an Anarcho-Communist purely for both being far left. When Libertarian Socialism has been attempted, it has succeeded. See Anarchist Spain, see Free Ukraine before the Soviets took it. See the Zapatistas in Chiapas and today Rojava.

@basilfawlty89 Mate, I'm not conflating anything. I'm simply pointing out what history (not just Orwell) has shown us to be the case.

And since when has Libertarian Socialism been a Far Left (or even a Far anything) ideology?

@room101 Libertarian doesn't mean right wing outside the United States. The first to call themselves a Libertarian was Dejacque, an Anarcho-Communist. Classical Liberals like Murray Rothbard stole the term to mean right wing in the 1950s.

And I'm pointing out to you it's not been that case with Libertarian Socialist. Anarchism does succeed.

@room101 This is hard for me because I agree with you on some things and with him on others.

Libertarian socialism is far left (and as far left as you can get). The most classical example was the anarchist trade union called the CNT which were contemporaries of Orwell's POUM during the Spanish civil war. Both the POUM and the CNT were crushed from within as Stalin... well... stalinised the Republican side.

As an ideology, libertarian socialism is as far removed from Fasicsm as you can get. It wasn't responsible for fascism or Stalinism in any way, though nonetheless, you can legitimately question its viability.

@Graciebaby Also I just noticed that you compared fascism to Zionism. I hate the modern incarnation of political Zionism but I don't think you should compare it to fascism.

@basilfawlty89 Do you think that I'm American and that I have an American perspective on political ideologies? If you do, then please look at my profile.

You say that Anarchism does succeed. Anarchism eschews all forms of government and, instead, calls for a co-operative and voluntary management/organisation of society. Please show me when and where that type of political structure has even been attempted. Let alone actually succeeded.

@Burnley123 With all due respects, I would argue that the CNT is not a political ideology. It's a trade union movement based on workers rights. Obviously it is political but, that alone doesn't make it a political ideology.

POUM was a political party which was based on Communist ideology. But was opposed to the Stalinist interpretation, and enforcement, of Communism. Again, as such, it is not a political ideology per se.

I too balked when @Graciebaby conflated Zionism with Fascism. Zionism is a movement which seeks the establishment, development and protection of an independent state in the land of Israel. As such, it can encompass both Left and Right political ideologies.

@Burnley123 Sorry, I missed the bit where you said:

"Libertarian socialism is far left (and as far left as you can get)."

Really? Left-wing ideology states that the means of production should be in the hands of government. We are talking about traditional left-wing ideas are we not?

Libertarian socialism is an ideology which states that the means of production should be in the hands of the individual. It rejects state ownership and state control of an economy. It has socialist ideology embroidered into its fabric but, it really is not "as far left as you can get".

@room101 No, Marxist ideology states that the means of production should be in the hands of the proletariat. Marx was vague on political strategy, which is why others have interpreted his word so differently.

Troskyism is one I terpretation and definitely ideologically Marxist. The CNT had an anarchist (or syndicalist) ideology which informed their strategy. Anarchists may or may not be Marxian.

Communists (such as trotskyists) want a radical socialist society and see a vanguard party taking over the state as the means of achieving it. The theory goes that once socialism has been established, the state would no longer be necessary. Modern trotskyists have had lots of arguments as to whether the usssr was a deformed workers state or state capitalism.

Anarchists arguably want the same thing but reject the idea of a vanguard party and state control. For them, these things replicate existing oppressive structures which is why they are big on direct democracy and localised action. Communists say that this doesn't provide the structures necessary to defeat capitalism and that they are too idealistic.

Hence why anarchists are the most left wing.

I see both of these things as idealistic and hard to achieve but they are definite political ideologies which exist apart from (and in opposition to) fascism.

@Burnley123 I completely agree that the "movements (?)" that you've mentioned are in opposition to fascism. But, totalitarianism is not confined to fascism. That's my point. Whether by accident or design, that's where we invariably end up.

Also, please note that I said left-wing ideology and did not confine myself to Marxism. As you have noted yourself, different brands of Communism apply different emphasis, and interpretation, and even pragmatism on who should control the means of production.

As it stands, we have never had any kind of organised and/or widespread anarchist society. Which, I think, makes it very difficult to say things like, "anarchists are the most left wing". It also makes it very difficult to discuss Anarchists in anything other than theoretical terms.

@room101 Yes, but I think anarchists are the most utopian, idealistic and radical of leftists so I think they are to the left of me.

I believe in parliamentary democracy and just as well because we might have another election very soon.

@Burnley123 Oh God, please say it ain't so. Not another bloody election.

Question: Why do you think that there's another one on the way? Do you think that the resignations of Boris Johnson and David Davis are enough to trigger another election?

Utopian, idealistic and radical..........all somewhat synonymous with theoretical don't you think 😉

@room101 Brenda from Bristol won't be pleased lol.

I posted on all shite a min ago. Lol. Its on mindreadfuls politics question.

I don't have not know if there will be an election. I think May is doomed though.

@room101 @Burnley123 To chime in I think a lot of modern anarchist thinking is focused on 'anarchism within capitalism' and building social organization and political structures that exist in the context of our current system. I treat anarchism as practical tools for accomplishing political work to a goal rather than a fanciful daydream.

Largely because a completely anarchist society is so abstractly utopian as to be not worth caring about too much. The revolution ain't coming tomorrow and the times anarchism has functioned as a working model in history have been short-lived and violently put down like in Spain in the 30s.

@Burnley123 I remember Brenda from Bristol. She was hilariously brilliant 😂😂😂

Sorry mate, but understand your second sentence.

@room101 mindreadful is a user has posted a politics question about this. I have to go now but I'm interested to know what you think.

@Burnley123 *mildreadful 😝

@Mildreadful sorry. Lol