See https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FC0ZB2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?.... It speaks a lot about market dominant ethnic minorities. The Chinese and the Jews are the target of a lot of these attacks.
If you're filipino, and ethnic filipino, it's easy for a populist government to incite economic confiscation and persecution of the ethnic group that tends to hold all the money, which happens to be the Chinese in the Phillipines.
Same thing happened in Venezuela. "All the rich people have the money! Let's go take it back! They must have cheated us somehow! Nationalize the factories."
This is true. However right-wing authoritarian dictatorships aren't usually ideologically driven, and don't pretend that what they're doing is just "for the good of the people".
Most left wing ideological governments usually go down the bitter road to the end, and do things for political rather than financial purposes. They usually end in either a referendum or revolt when all the money goes away and there are no other exits. That's what Venezuela is doing right now.
And it's also quite interesting that your response is "Oh yeah? Well the right wing does it too." What's your point?
Maybe it does, and they should be strung up by the thumbs as well. We're talking about left-wing governments who believe in central control of methods of production.
I'm curious. Do you have a specimen in mind?
[p.s.]
> right-wing authoritarian dictatorships aren't usually ideologically driven
And I question this as well. The ideological basis of right-wing is precisely that the natural order of things is a rigid & hierarchical and that such hierarchies are by nature more stable.
And anywho, minus the superficial comrade this and people's soviet that, what was the difference between Stalinist Soviet Union and some right wing system with a generalisimo on top?
The power went fairly smoothly from a military dictatorship to a democratically elected government.
Sure the parallel isn't perfect - Taiwan and South Korea were on a war footing against communist rump states. However, the generals never claimed any particular moral high ground or rights.
Most enterprise was limited to Park's inner circle (which became the chaebol), allowing him to have a planned economy that finally surpassed North Korea's. Labor rights were nonexistent, journalists and other writers frequently became political prisoners, and travel outside the country was not allowed. The only thing that can be convincingly said to be better (holding Western liberal democracy as best) than in North Korea is the GDP, whether that meant much to the average citizen is up for debate since North Korea remains opaque. And it surely would have carried on if not for Park's assassination, which left no obvious successor. The new constitution (remember, Yusin made sure that only Park Chung-hee could be president) had a term limit on the new president, Chun Doo-hwan, to appease democratization activists who had been incensed by the Gwangju (5/18) massacre, the murder of hundreds or thousands of people for the crime of living in a restive province. When Chun's term ended, violent protests, this time in Seoul, forced his successor to make the 6/29 Declaration, a complete capitulation to the democratization activists.
That was long...point is, South Korea's military dictators did claim a democratic mandate, justifying oppression as the only way to economic prosperity (sound familiar?). After Park Chung-hee, they sought to appease democratization activists. Despite that effort, the transition was quite messy, not "fairly smooth": between 200 and 2000 protestors were killed in one week in 1980, and democracy was finally won through violent protests in the streets of Seoul in 1987.
I patiently await for you to point me to a cite that documents that the South Korean/Taiwanese military justified their rule because they asserted the right to dress up in military uniforms and lord it over the rest of the population.
WTF? Hitler definitely said he did what he did for the good of the German people (okay. not the Jewish people or handicapped people, but the people that mattered)
https://www.quora.com/Was-Hitlers-Nazi-party-left-wing-or-ri...
Of course this probably just shows that left vs right is really one dimensional, and politics is bigger then one dimension.
For instance: "All citizens must have equal rights and obligations", "Abolition of unearned (work & labor)income. Breaking of rent slavery", "Nationalization of all associated industries","Profit sharing of heavy industries","Expansion on a large scale of old age welfare","Provision of a law for free expropriation of land for the purpose of public utility". "Enabling of every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education", "State to support all outstanding intellectually gifted children".
Fascism does not mean much when it comes to spectrum and can be compared to anything as long as the dictator's mood was right. It essence it believed in the strength of one man to take the nation forward.
For Nazism, you will see a mishmash of economic policy that slants a little towards the right economically as compared to Mussolini's fascism that leaned a little towards the left - he was part of the socialism movement before obvious disgruntlement.
It's not useful to compare against something defined by the whims of one man.
Again with "trying to use the word socialist without a clear definition is not making your argument any more credible."
How is that even a logically coherent sentence...
Basically authoritarian governments want something, and don't really care what else happens as long as they get what they want. Fanatics want to run everything.
There isn't a meaningful spectrum that has "authoritarian" on one side and "communitarian" on the other. One is a "how" and the other a "why".
In many "classless", free-market capitalistic societies (and a bunch of similar ones), society ends up approximating social class by the logarithm of the wealth of the person. In these cases "liberty and equality" really mean "lack of government interference in use of wealth", which ultimately translates to government restraint on social status to influence society for your own benefit.
In cases where there's no special laws targeting the wealthy, you essentially have a feudalistic society without any formalized duty of or decorum from the higher classes to the lower classes, which ultimately leads to an exploitative and abusive relationship.
As with many cases in politics, the lack of an explicit structure merely means a more abusive invisible structure.
The further argument is that this is why we should have laws which target the wealthy to provide civic funding/service, eg, higher taxes above say, $250k/yr. That allowing the dynamic class assignment of free-market economies, but formalizing the duty of the higher classes to provide for those under them, provides for the strongest and most resilient societies. Which is generally speaking what the data shows.
Similar arguments can be made about why you should have laws which provide damages if you buy a newspaper and lie about your business rivals molesting kids.
I'd probably phrase it as the US leftwing and rightwing have different importances placed on different kinds of libterties a person can have and different notions of equality.
Gun rights, for the left, are an issue of liberty; while abortion, for the right, is a matter of equality.
Too often in American politics, we pretend that what are orthogonal axes are different choices in a dilemma. Here I think we have an instance of that: liberty and equality are related but mostly orthogonal groupings of several related concepts, the preference of which can lead to radically different notions of "equality" or "liberty".
That's what makes politics hard: the other guy wants liberty too, but he understands that in a fundamentally different way than you.
By 'this' I mean the idea that the Left and the Right have different experiences of what is moral.
My issue with politics is that I think we need to extricate it from morality. Like we have separation of Church and State a la Secular Society, we need amoral politics.
Put more power into the hands of the common people and you end up with someone like Trump as a nominee.
Don't you think in a weaker country with more classism like Venezuela, that if a Trump were elected, that you'd end up with something like this?
The majority can turn a democracy into a dictatorship.
Partisan fanatics who breathlessly wait for the total victory of their side would do well to remember this.