I think our working uses of the term "socialist" are a bit different. I use it to refer to a particular government structure, while you seem to use it to describe the goals and actions of a government. In that sense, fascist is the only term I need to use, then, to represent the authoritarian side.
On the matter of socialist democracies, if people lack the power to discard socialist policies through their vote, it's more an oligarchy than a democracy. That is, if the system has been set up such that the ability of elected officials to alter it into a non-socialist oriented alternative system is infeasible, then the people are no longer at liberty to decide how power is held, only by who. This is akin to a concert audience being free to vote for who performs, but not to leave the auditorium. I'd say that's how most European socialist systems currently operate - the ugly side to what TDS tried to make light of. Socialist dictatorships (Cuba, Venezuela, Congo, etc.) carry this to the logical conclusion (if the people can't change the system, why should they get to change the leadership?) and drop all facades.
Note that I'm not saying the people have to *use* this ability (that is, it's fine for them to keep voting in socialism as much as they like), only that the option must be present for it to considered a free democratic society. Contrast this with America, where we have the choice on whether we want to vote ourselves into a socialism, corporatism, or a laissez-faire capitalism. Even if we don't pursue those routes, we are at liberty to do so if we wanted.
I lean closer (dangerously so at times) to the anarcho-capitalists than anarcho-socialists, because I believe the means of production are best suited in the hands of entrepreneurs not unions. My volunteerism stems directly from my Libertarian views: in a system of minimal government, it's the job of private charity to fill the role of caring for the unfortunate. Charity doesn't get more private than the individual.
If l!Stephen is an anarcho-socialist, then the person he most closely parodies would be Noam Chomsky (who is one and has helped define that political field). However, Chomsky very much falls into the "arrogant academic" stereotype, since he believes the GOP is run by Neo-Nazis (no, seriously) among other things.
"Capitalist fascism" is better known as "corporatism." It's the system Mussolini used.
I think now I see the difference in your and my take on l!Stephen. Using Authoritarian to mean "supporting less individual liberty" and Libertarian to mean "supporting more individual liberty" and left to mean "supporting big gov't, less free market" and right to mean "supporting small gov't, more free market," we'd get:
c!Stephen: Authoritarian right (into corporatism, since he's a Neocon) l!Stephen: Libertarian left (all the way to anarcho-socialist territory) l!AU!Stephen: Authoritarian left (the embodiment of Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal fascism") c!AU!Stephen: Libertarian right (but not into anarcho territory)
So your wishy-washyness is intended as a parody of the anti-authoritarian left, while I focus on the "Give us more power!" left.
I wonder what a far out Libertarian right parody would be like (a!Stephen?). Making him a conspiracy nut would be too easy - in fact, I'd require any good anarcho-capitalist parody to be completely above them, just to avoid cheap gags. It'd require reading Murray Rothbard and others to get a good understanding of where they come from so it could be skewered properly.
no subject
On the matter of socialist democracies, if people lack the power to discard socialist policies through their vote, it's more an oligarchy than a democracy. That is, if the system has been set up such that the ability of elected officials to alter it into a non-socialist oriented alternative system is infeasible, then the people are no longer at liberty to decide how power is held, only by who. This is akin to a concert audience being free to vote for who performs, but not to leave the auditorium. I'd say that's how most European socialist systems currently operate - the ugly side to what TDS tried to make light of. Socialist dictatorships (Cuba, Venezuela, Congo, etc.) carry this to the logical conclusion (if the people can't change the system, why should they get to change the leadership?) and drop all facades.
Note that I'm not saying the people have to *use* this ability (that is, it's fine for them to keep voting in socialism as much as they like), only that the option must be present for it to considered a free democratic society. Contrast this with America, where we have the choice on whether we want to vote ourselves into a socialism, corporatism, or a laissez-faire capitalism. Even if we don't pursue those routes, we are at liberty to do so if we wanted.
I lean closer (dangerously so at times) to the anarcho-capitalists than anarcho-socialists, because I believe the means of production are best suited in the hands of entrepreneurs not unions. My volunteerism stems directly from my Libertarian views: in a system of minimal government, it's the job of private charity to fill the role of caring for the unfortunate. Charity doesn't get more private than the individual.
If l!Stephen is an anarcho-socialist, then the person he most closely parodies would be Noam Chomsky (who is one and has helped define that political field). However, Chomsky very much falls into the "arrogant academic" stereotype, since he believes the GOP is run by Neo-Nazis (no, seriously) among other things.
"Capitalist fascism" is better known as "corporatism." It's the system Mussolini used.
I think now I see the difference in your and my take on l!Stephen. Using Authoritarian to mean "supporting less individual liberty" and Libertarian to mean "supporting more individual liberty" and left to mean "supporting big gov't, less free market" and right to mean "supporting small gov't, more free market," we'd get:
c!Stephen: Authoritarian right (into corporatism, since he's a Neocon)
l!Stephen: Libertarian left (all the way to anarcho-socialist territory)
l!AU!Stephen: Authoritarian left (the embodiment of Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal fascism")
c!AU!Stephen: Libertarian right (but not into anarcho territory)
So your wishy-washyness is intended as a parody of the anti-authoritarian left, while I focus on the "Give us more power!" left.
I wonder what a far out Libertarian right parody would be like (a!Stephen?). Making him a conspiracy nut would be too easy - in fact, I'd require any good anarcho-capitalist parody to be completely above them, just to avoid cheap gags. It'd require reading Murray Rothbard and others to get a good understanding of where they come from so it could be skewered properly.