: Further point, something that i was just reading;
: John Locke himself has a very interesting passage which suggests the connections that would arise in the twentieth century between fascism and "freedom". So even on Frenchy's own terms, in which the right is dintified with freedom and the left with subordination to the collective, Hitler is STILL a right winger.
: In the passage, Locke (a reactionary bastard of whom I'm not a big fan) describes absolute monarchy, the Elightenment version of fascism. YThe problem he identifies with aboslute monarchy is one of TOO MUCH freedom, not too little. The man on top is free to do absolutely anything he chooses, not subject to teh constraints and laws that bind us as civilized beings. Hence Locke says that an absolute monarchy is nt fully civilized, because the man on the top enjoys unrestricted freedom.
: This is exactly tha same thing that happened with teh Nazis. It's been said before that for upper class white reactionary germans, Nazi Germany was a very free state. All of us are in favor of freedom, the question is, freedom to do what? Will it be, as in socialism, the freedom to partoicipate as a n equal member of society? Will it be, as in capitalism, the freedom to exploit your fellow man? or will it be, as in Nazism, the freedom to indulge your darkest, basest animal instincts of bloodlust and hatred.
: To draw a political spectrum on the basis of freedom is, therefore, pointless. equality is a far better differentiating factor.
((((((((((((9"Equality". God, that's a scary thought. Equality can only be forced on people. Some people, wheather or not you approve, are better than others while some are not as good as others. Not only that, all those people are better and worse in vastly different areas of life. You may be an excellent scholar while not having any skills as an artist. How do you make a good scholar equal to a bad artist?