On the political compass subreddit they called them watermelons - green on the outside (libertarian left), red on the inside (authoritarian left). I realize they’re not really left at all, but the authoritarianism is baked in.
To be clear, the Political Compass is a measurement of what the Heritage Foundation believes, not to mention the numerous flaws within the testing mechanisms themselves.
Do you have a source for that? The Wikipedia page about it doesn’t mention it and mentions other sources, which I guess could be tied to the heritage foundation but even clicking through links I couldn’t find any connection.
I’m not saying there isn’t plenty to criticize about the concept and where they place particular individuals. That’s just the first time I’ve heard this claim, and I’m curious about it.
It isn’t a heritage foundation outlet, the creator of the Political Compass based the ideas of “libertatian-authoritarian” and “left-right” on how the Heritage Foundation sees those aspects.
Liberalism and fascism are the same ideology in different economic and social circumstances. That’s why the saying goes “scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds,” the underlying system supported by both is heavily based on the private ownership of the means of production.
Liberalism and fascism are descriptors for superstructural ideology sprouting from the same base in different circumstances. The liberal Weimar Republic quickly became the fascist Nazi Germany not out of a pivot in underlying ideas, necessarily, but due to the natural changing material conditions the same Mode of Production found itself in.
The liberal Weimar Republic quickly became the fascist Nazi Germany…
But there’s a reason why you called it the liberal Weimar Republic and the fascist Nazi Germany and not the fascist Weimar Republic and the liberal Nazi Germany and that’s because they are different.
Your original comment is that it’s impossible for a liberal to turn into a fascist. The reality of fascism and liberalism is that they are ideological justifications for the same system in different circumstances, they aren’t competing schools of thought or anything.
the number of times i’ve seen a scratched lib turn fash surprised me… at first.
On the political compass subreddit they called them watermelons - green on the outside (libertarian left), red on the inside (authoritarian left). I realize they’re not really left at all, but the authoritarianism is baked in.
To be clear, the Political Compass is a measurement of what the Heritage Foundation believes, not to mention the numerous flaws within the testing mechanisms themselves.
Do you have a source for that? The Wikipedia page about it doesn’t mention it and mentions other sources, which I guess could be tied to the heritage foundation but even clicking through links I couldn’t find any connection.
I’m not saying there isn’t plenty to criticize about the concept and where they place particular individuals. That’s just the first time I’ve heard this claim, and I’m curious about it.
It isn’t a heritage foundation outlet, the creator of the Political Compass based the ideas of “libertatian-authoritarian” and “left-right” on how the Heritage Foundation sees those aspects.
Well actually it is impossible for a liberal to turn into a fascist as they are two completely different ideologies.
Liberalism and fascism are the same ideology in different economic and social circumstances. That’s why the saying goes “scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds,” the underlying system supported by both is heavily based on the private ownership of the means of production.
This might be true but there are some significant differences between the two as well.
Such as?
Well one is a liberal and the other is a fascist to start.
Liberalism and fascism are descriptors for superstructural ideology sprouting from the same base in different circumstances. The liberal Weimar Republic quickly became the fascist Nazi Germany not out of a pivot in underlying ideas, necessarily, but due to the natural changing material conditions the same Mode of Production found itself in.
Liberalism and fascism are tied.
But there’s a reason why you called it the liberal Weimar Republic and the fascist Nazi Germany and not the fascist Weimar Republic and the liberal Nazi Germany and that’s because they are different.
Your original comment is that it’s impossible for a liberal to turn into a fascist. The reality of fascism and liberalism is that they are ideological justifications for the same system in different circumstances, they aren’t competing schools of thought or anything.