Lies/Al Frankin

[bodhitree]

Has anyone read anything by Al Frankin

Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them: a fair and balanced look at the right
or
Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot

both are extremely good, well researched, and realistic books!

[Kristoffer]

Have no idea what your talkin bout but..


BTW who is this Rush? I'm to lazy to find out but it seems most ppl dislike him for some reason?

[ZIM]

Rush L. is a right-wing blowhard who is very popular on the AM radios throughout the USA. This fact alone should frighten you as it shows the level of political thought now prevalent in the USA. He is fond of supplying anecdotes and pithy arguments to those who can't come up with their own. Official site (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html) It is best to listen to him yourself and there is audio available there, but it looks like you need to register. Do it anyway, you won't stop laughing.

If you do, please supply a review for us! :)

edit: actually, the variety of political stances throughout the USA can be measured thusly with about 3 Q's- Rush Limbaugh or NPR? Barn-coat or Trenchcoat? & Did you vote? Then you just check the bumper of their car for verifications. :p

[chen zhen]

What a pr!ck this guy is..:rolleyes:
Extreme right-wing politicians derserves a Beng-Chuan right in the guts, really.

[chingei]

Originally posted by chen zhen
What a pr!ck this guy is..:rolleyes:
Extreme right-wing politicians derserves a Beng-Chuan right in the guts, really.

but extreme left-wing politicians are ok?

[chen zhen]

No, they deserve a Pi-Chuan in the chest.:cool:

[chen zhen]

btw, name some extreme left-wing politicians.
It's rare I hear about them, i'd like to know who they are.

[chingei]

Originally posted by chen zhen
btw, name some extreme left-wing politicians.
It's rare I hear about them, i'd like to know who they are.


While we're on the subject, Limbaugh does not, and as far as I know has never, held or sought public office. So he is not a 'politician', just a radio guy that you can silence with a flip of the dial.


extreme left-wing politicians?
how's Ralph Nader grab ya?

[ZIM]

What is demonized as the extreme left in the USA is in reality the political middle.

Extreme Lefties would be: Lenin, Marx, Guevera, Mao, Stalin. Less offensive Lefties: Gandhi, ML King, Malcolm X possibly, Jello Biafra.

The American Left: ? Probably just Woody Allen & Alan Alda. And some Libertarians....what parties they must have. :p

Not Left but Middle: Both Clintons, Al Gore, Persons who opposed the war in Iraq. Gene Ching. ;)

[chen zhen]

Heh.GeneChing..;)

I never noticed any particular left-wing politicians in the US. both the Republican and the Democratic party is seen as fairly right-wing/middle parties from a European perspective.

chingei, u did'nt name any..;)

[chingei]

Originally posted by chen zhen

chingei, u did'nt name any..;)

look again

[chingei]

Originally posted by chen zhen
Heh.GeneChing..;)

I never noticed any particular left-wing politicians in the US.


Well, you know what that means...

[chen zhen]

look again

Never saw nader as left-wing.


Well, you know what that means...

What.. that it's good? yeah. Then get rid of your R-wing as well.;)

****, I never thought that a political discussion would sneak in here. I should never have started a discussion about another country's politics.. So I think I'll quit in time.;)

[chingei]

Originally posted by chen zhen

chingei, u did'nt name any..;)

I was trying to be charitable by only listing one extreme crackpot, but if you'd like more than just mr. green-boy:

Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, the entire Congressional Progressive Caucus, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy to include but a few

[chen zhen]

Caucus, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy to include but a few

Not particularly "extreme" left-wing, imo. hillary Clinton seems to be on the middle from my POW, Ted Kennedy and the others I don't know.

[chingei]

Originally posted by chen zhen


Never saw nader as left-wing.



:eek: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[chingei]

Originally posted by chen zhen

Well, you know what that means...

What.. that it's good? yeah.

If you look left and don't see anyone, well...........

[chen zhen]

ok, said in another way: I don't know much about him..:D
Info?

[chen zhen]

If you look left and don't see anyone, well...........

So u think it's... good, or bad?
U confuse the sh!t outta me..:(:eek:

[chingei]

Originally posted by chen zhen

hillary Clinton seems to be on the middle from my POW,


You are certainly entitled to your pov, but you might want to cosider where that pov really is

[chingei]

Originally posted by chen zhen


So u think it's... good, or bad?


Its not a matter of 'good' or 'bad', but if you look left and don't see anyone, you might want to consider that you are standing pretty far on the left of the viewing platform; which is fine.

[chen zhen]

She's not that left-wing.

[chingei]

Originally posted by chen zhen
ok, said in another way: I don't know much about him..:D
Info?


http://votenader.org/issues/race_testing.html


http://votenader.org/issues/gender-issues.html

http://votenader.org/issues/nuke_disarm.html

http://votenader.org/issues/military-budget.html

http://votenader.org/issues/livingwage.html

http://votenader.org/issues/guncontrol.html

http://votenader.org/issues/gender-issues.html

http://votenader.org/issues/DeathPenalty.html

http://votenader.org/issues/affimative_action.html


The site is a bit dated, but you'll get the idea

[chingei]

Originally posted by chen zhen
She's not that left-wing.


If you say so...

[ZIM]

Quoting someone else here:

"The right wants to shape opinion against the realities of global warming, ecological conservation, energy conservation, reproductive rights, and equal rights for minority religions, just to name a few. But I see all of these issues, ALL of them, as moderate issues. To claim that clean air is a liberal, bed-wetting battle cry is to show ignorance in what Leftist really means. If clean air is a leftist issue, then what would you define oppressive political communism as? "

[chen zhen]

Ok, Nader is left-wing, I can see it now. But I don't see anything wrong with his views. I agree with the issues of Nuclear-disarmament, gun-control, and the military budget. I can see that the way you have responded so far, chingei, that you're not left-wing.
Nader is not "extreme". but I doubt he will live up to his own promises, as all candidates probably would'nt either. (I know he's not a candidate in this election)

[chingei]

Originally posted by ZIM
Quoting someone radically left here:



is what you meant to say

[Christopher M]

Wolfowitz, Kristol, etc. would be a good example of radical leftism in America. Nader often won't use the typical language of the far left, but with analysis, his views end up basically equating to many of them, quite radically (eg. see "maximum wage" and "100% income tax").

The quote Zim supplied is pretty bang on. Alot of the issues people get most upset about, like "reproductive" rights and conservation are not fundamentally associated with the tenets of a political polarity.

It's too bad the bias in the quote was so silly though.

[chen zhen]

>Wolfowitz, Kristol, etc. would be a good example of radical leftism in America.<

Wolfowitz?!! Left wing!!!!!:eek::eek::eek:
One of the architects behind the Iraq war, and the Neo-Conservative ideology which is the main driving-force of contemporary US, left-wing?
He's one of the most extreme & dangerous right-wing zionist politicians in the US and the world!:eek:

[Christopher M]

Yes, him.

I'm commenting here on political principles, and not party affiliation nor semantics... so as to notice the wolves no matter what clothes they're wearing, eh?

[chen zhen]

But he will never be left-wing whatever the hell u say!!

Know the Wolf(owitz)'s in sheep's clothing..:(

[Christopher M]

Sounds like you've made up your mind about how things are, regardless of how reality might be. That's ok, so long as you're aware that you're doing it.

[chen zhen]

oh boy, here we go again..:rolleyes:

So if I say the truth, that equals me being stuck in my own way of thought, and if I say what is downright untrue, then that's better?

You're waaay off.

[Christopher M]

No. If you say "this is the truth, regardless of any evidence I see to the contrary", then you're stuck in your own way of thought.

[chen zhen]

So you're saying

You're right, because you say X, regardless of it being true or not

I'm wrong, because I say Y, regardless of what u want it to be, preferably false.

You're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing!

[Christopher M]

Um, no. I never said "Such-and-such is true regardless of any evidence to the contrary." You did. This is what I'm commenting on.

[chen zhen]

U just lying around here, waiting to attack? :D

But I know you're wrong, so I'm trying to express my viewpoint of what I know. You just hang in teh petty little lingo-details, to escape from the real issues.

I'll post later why Wolfowitz is right-wing. (he's republican! Republican+left-wing=no-no.)

just wait, ok?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
But I know you're wrong

In absense of anything I could possibly say; I know, we've covered that. See previous remarks.


You just hang in teh petty little lingo-details, to escape from the real topic.

What are you referring to here? It's unclear.


I'll post later why Wolfowitz is right-wing.

Don't you believe nothing people say should change a belief? If so, I don't understand your motivation for posting this later. Or do you only believe nothing people say should change your beliefs?


he's republican! Republican+left-wing=no-no.

I thought we'd covered that, and there was an implicit agreement that group affiliation itself wasn't adequate as a judgement.

[chen zhen]

Ok, here goes:

He's the chief architect behind the Iraq war, it's strategies, and the argument for doing it.

He's Republican (if group affiliation is not a good argument, then why does he belong officially to this party?)

He's one of the major driving-forces behind the Neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington D. C.

He supports the Extreme right-wing parties in Israel, especially the Likud & Sharon, and he has officially uttered staements like the Palestinians should not be entitled to their own state, and should be expelled. Not especially left-wing to me.

I can name others. Then come with your arguments of him being left-wing, i have'nt heard them yet.




Sounds like you've made up your mind about how things are, regardless of how reality might be. That's ok, so long as you're aware that you're doing it.

I say what I believe to be true, and what I know. Why should I say what i don't believe in, and don't know? I'm not a retard!



No. If you say "this is the truth, regardless of any evidence I see to the contrary", then you're stuck in your own way of thought.

Again, i say what i believe to be true, as it will stupid otherwise, obviously. And where is this evidence to the contrary, present them to me, and I might change my mind. Sounds only fair, does'nt it?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
He's the chief architect behind the Iraq war, it's strategies, and the argument for doing it.

Well, he's the chief architect of a strategy and a argument concerning the Iraq War.

Why does that make him right wing? :confused:


He's Republican (if group affiliation is not a good argument, then why does he belong officially to this party?)

Here are two important reasons (ie. complications): That he feels some specific policies he is fundamentally interested are best done from within the Republican party; and that he feels political change must be aimed at the Republican (which means for all practical purposes, "from within the Republicans), insofar as the Democrats are allready cooperative.


He's one of the major driving-forces behind the Neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington D. C.

Yes he is. Again, why does this make him right wing? :confused:


He supports the Extreme parties in Israel, especially the Likud & Sharon, and he has officially uttered staements like the Palestinians should not be entitled to their own state, and should be expelled from. Not especially left-wing to me.

Could you explain to me why you take his position in Palestine to be "not especially left-wing"? It's not clear.


I can name others.

Please do.


Then come with your arguments of him being left-wing, i have'nt heard them yet.

You told me specifically that my arguments on the topic didn't matter. Please clarify: are you changing your position on this?


I say what I believe to be true, and what I know. Why should I say what i don't believe in, and don't know? I'm not a retard!

I've never suggested you should or shouldn't say anything.


And where is this evidence to the contrary, present them to me, and I might change my mind. Sounds only fair, does'nt it?

In my opinion this sounds very fair. It's certainly the stance I try to take. However, you specifically told me you would not consider any evidence to the contrary, as has been discussed. You seem to be changing your mind on this point; that's good, I think.

[chen zhen]

You told me specifically that my arguments on the topic didn't matter. Please clarify: are you changing your position on this?

When did I say that?


He's one of the major driving-forces behind the Neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington D. C.

Yes he is. Again, why does this make him right wing?

Because Neo-conservatism IS right-wing! the term "right" is traditionally used to describe conservatism(republican party), and "left" about a more liberal standpoint. true?
Then you would say your usual comment "why is this so", which would be hanging on to petty details again.




Could you explain to me why you take his position in Palestine to be "not especially left-wing"? It's not clear.

His rhetoric is very anti-arab & racist, and supporting right-wing parties is not usual for left-wingers, and opposite.


I've never suggested you should or shouldn't say anything.

don't start with the word-games again! I could just as well say "I did'nt ask you to bring up Wolfowitz", but you did. I can't do anything about it, right? That is an odd statement.

[ZIM]

Sounds very much like a semantics argument.

Left "wing" doesn't equal "Democrat". "Liberal" does not equate to "Democrat" either. Neither does Republican equal Right, in any necessary sense.

Historically, the Republicans were THE pre-eminent Liberal party; they had the first female senators & african-american politicians. They supported the suffragettes, were in office during the Civil War on the side of the Federal Government, and created the National Park Service. The fact that the Liberal Wing of the Republican Party is in quiessence currently doesn't alter the fact that party doesn't define right or left political polarity.

Anyway, Neo-cons are Radicals.

[chen zhen]

What is your position on Wolfowitz, then? I'd like to have a 3rd party POV.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
When did I say that?

07-12-2003 09:09AM And then pushed to clarify in the three exchanges that followed.


Because Neo-conservatism IS right-wing!

That's the very thing we're questioning here. It can't be used to prove itself.


the term "right" is traditionally used to describe conservatism(republican party), and "left" about a more liberal standpoint. true?

Yes.


His rhetoric is very anti-arab & racist

Are you suggesting here that right-wing is defined as racist and left-wing is defined as not racist?


and supporting right-wing parties is not usual for left-wingers

Wolfowitz, as you pointed out yourself, supports a specific stance with respect to Palestine. It could be the case that a right-winger also supports this stance. Would you expect, in this case, that Wolfowitz change his mind on Palestine? Of course not. Doesn't this entirely explain your observation here?

Unless you think Wolfowitz's stance on Palestine is itself rightist. That would certainly make your claim here reasonable. Do you think this? And, if so, why?


don't start with the word-games again! I could just as well say "I did'nt ask you to bring up Wolfowitz", but you did. I can't do anything about it, right? That is an odd statement.

I'm afraid I cannot figure out what you're talking about here. Perhaps you could rephrase.

...

Since you didn't reply to the topics of the Iraq War or his Republican affiliation, I'll assume, barring further response, that you no longer take them to be indicative of Wolfowitz's potential rightism.

[Christopher M]

P.S. I'd certainly agree with everything Zim just said.

[Christopher M]

But, as you pointed out, all this would just be reasons why not to assume he's rightist. For my position to be reasonable, I'd also have to offer some reasons to assume he is leftist.

First let's consider the cultural and historical situation briefly, then turn to principles proper.

Regarding the former, Wolfowitz is, as you noted, a prominent figure in the cultural movement "neoconservatism." Historically speaking, this movement is an evolution of Trotskyism, with specific antecedents and relations to American leftism (eg. see (1) below). Culturally, the neoconservative movement is predominantly populated by leftists (eg. see here (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States))).

This sets Wolfowitz's historical and cultural milieu dramatically in the radical left. Now let's address principles, starting basic and general, and getting specific and complicated if you want, per your input.

................................Rightism.......... Leftism.............Wolfowitz
New Deal Socialism....against..............for............. ..........for
Government/Taxes......small................big............... .......big
Foreign Policy......isolationist..supernationalist..supern ationalist
Locus of Power...........citizen.............state......... .........state

The trend here is obvious enough to not need pointing out, I think. I believe that the above, combined with a refutation of your arguments (given, of course, whatever further elaborations and defenses may occur in either case) would more than adequately defend my original remark regarding Wolfowitz.

Now, I haven't supplied references here as I assume you're familiar with the most basic tenets of leftism and rightism, as well as something of Wolfowitz's policies. Please tell me if you would like a detailed assessment of any of these associations.

(1) http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:7-LRcaHXGqkJ:www.foreignaffairs.org/19950701fareviewessay5058/john-b-judis/trotskyism-to-anachronism-the-neoconservative-revolution.html+neoconservatism%2Btrotskyism&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[ZIM]

Thanks for fixing that, CM. Enjoying the wikipedia, too. Always amazes me how thorough they are- it shows [for once!] how wide the political right spectrum really is, not just religious or crazed neo-con.

And [Yay!] Classical Liberalism! Woo hoo!! Way back when you could respect them! :D

[chen zhen]

"Unless you think Wolfowitz's stance on Palestine is itself rightist. That would certainly make your claim here reasonable. Do you think this? And, if so, why?"

This stance on the Palestine issue is the commonest in the right-wing extreme nationalist parties in Israel, (ex. Likud), which are traditionally conservative, and have an old history rooted in fascist Ideology (jabotinsky), which is, indeed, very commonly racist. Racism usually goes hand-in-hand with extreme nationalism (like Nazism), as it usually is dependent on an ideology of what and who belongs to "the nation", and what/who does not.

"Are you suggesting here that right-wing is defined as racist and left-wing is defined as not racist?"

No, of course not. One's stand on certain issues conserning this problem roots in one's prejudises and viewpoints. Racism is usually up to the individual. But politically, if one is racist in his/hers political standpoints, this usually belongs to the extreme right.

[Christopher M]

I'm not sure I follow your argument here; do you still disagree with me? You seem to be connecting neoconservatism with Nazi and Fascist movements, both of which are socialist. This seems to support my position rather than yours; so of course I'd agree completely.

Do you have any comments on the argument and references I gave above? It seems to me to be pretty thorough.


Originally posted by chen zhen
But politically, if one is racist in his/hers political standpoints, this usually belongs to the extreme right.

Perhaps this belief of yours could result from a preconcieved bias? When we think of movements of organized political racism; it seems to me they're all in left. The previously mentioned Nazi movement would, of course, be the classic example. The obvious example in current affairs would be the Baathists. Again, a leftist movement. Perhaps you could provide some counter-examples?

[chen zhen]

What you have been doing so far has been to change upside-down what is usually seen as facts. I expect you every moment to be calling communism right-wing, calling Bush a commie, to say south is north, and that the sun shines at night. I don't know how it has gone so far, but you have confused me a great bit!:eek::D


I'm glad you posted the link. I respect a man who can stand behind his arguments, and back it up with facts. But it took you a helluva long time to do so.

I know that many of them (neo-cons.) are former left-wing, but their radical new ideology is what I and most people see as right-wing.
I don't connect neo-conservatism with fascism, but I used it to comment Wolfowitz' support of right-wing parties.

[chen zhen]

When we think of movements of organized political racism; it seems to me they're all in left

Marxism/socialism opposes racism in it's ideology.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
I expect you every moment to be calling communism right-wing, calling Bush a commie, to say south is north, and that the sun shines at night.

You seem to indicate here I am calling things the opposite of how they are percieved. I believe I am making an analysis of things, regardless of how they are percieved. These are two different things.


[the neoconservative's] radical new ideology is what I and most people see as right-wing.

That's ok. "Most people" have all sorts of peculiar ideas. Personally, I choose not to derive meaning based only on what most people tell me to believe. Many people disagree though. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, so long as they realize they're doing it.


Marxism/socialism opposes racism in it's ideology

Marxist socialism in theory might. Hitler's socialism clearly didn't, right?

Rightism opposes racism in it's ideology as well, btw.

[chen zhen]

Rightism opposes racism in it's ideology as well, btw.

Yes, but fascism does not.;)


That's ok. "Most people" have all sorts of peculiar ideas. Personally, I choose not to derive meaning based only on what most people tell me to believe. Many people disagree though. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, so long as they realize they're doing it.

The I can say, that's ok.;) But does that mean, that because you don't want to linger with things that are usually what most people think (even what is common sense), because you don't want to have preconceived ideas, then you automatically position yourself to the opposite of other people's ideas of what they believe to be right? Because that is still a way of saying yourself, that your position is right (this is what you say I do. so, according to your logic, then we actually do the same thing, only you oppose my views with things that might not be true, to proove this point.)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
But does that mean... because you don't want to have preconceived ideas, then you automatically position yourself to the opposite of other people's ideas of what they believe to be right?

No, of course not. As I allready said, I'm considering these things regardless of what the status quo tells me; not in accordance, nor in defiance of it.


that is still a way of saying yourself, that your position is right

I'm not interested in saying "my position is right", nor "your position is wrong", but rather "let's go out and check."

[chen zhen]

I'm considering these things regardless of what the status quo tells me; not in accordance, nor in defiance of it.

ok, good to get that clarified.


I'm not interested in saying "my position is right", nor "your position is wrong", but rather "let's go out and check."

But you would'nt be participating in a discussion if you did'nt believe that your own standpoint is right.;) a discussion arises because A thinks this is right, and B thinks this is right, and present their arguments to prove themselves. Don't say that you don't do this.

[Christopher M]

Maybe.

On the other hand, maybe discussion can be approached as a tool for forging beliefs, rather than for exhibiting them; discussion as process rather than product.

Perhaps if I deliberately expose myself to different ideas, and lay bare my own thoughts to those who I know will disagree, it might help my development.

Maybe people who approach discussion as product will spend most of their time talking about how they are right, while people who approach discussion as process will spend most of their time talk about how they came to the conclusions they have. This might be an interesting analysis to make.

[chen zhen]

Yeah, sure. Also, discussion might foster anger, hatred, and other bad emotions. I say; let's make peace and end this discussion, as we will forever be going on and on. We may both be caught in our own thoughts..;)
How interesting is Wolfowitz anyway...:rolleyes::D

peace?

[Christopher M]

I'm sorry if you felt anger or hatred because of this discussion.

Peace? Of course; always.

[chen zhen]

I did'nt feel anger or hatred!:p I just felt the discussion became a little heated, of course..;)

But, it seems that the discussion continues on the main board anyway.. so I guess I'll see u there.;):)

This should be closed down.

[bodhitree]

Rightism DOES NOT oppose racism in its ideology! The Right wing is where hate groups and white supremicists come from. They are also the one who were segregationeists. The right is SUPPOSED to be classic liberals. They are far from that.

................................Rightism.......... Leftism.............Wolfowitz
New Deal Socialism....against..............for............. ..........for
Government/Taxes......small................big............... .......big
Foreign Policy......isolationist..supernationalist..supern ationalist
Locus of Power...........citizen.............state......... .........state
Christopher M.

If the lefts focus of power is in the state, then how come most civil liberties organizations are concidered left. Also how come the Bush administration is centralizing power to the state more than any other president in American history. He is helping the location of controll go to corperations and taking life out of the public sphere(example:eliminating public media, allowing it to go to private'corparate'ownership). Bush's policies are anything but isolationist. This chart is the most inaccurate peice of information I have ever seen!!!!

[chingei]

Originally posted by bodhitree
Rightism DOES NOT oppose racism in its ideology! The Right wing is where hate groups and white supremicists come from. They are also the one who were segregationeists.


moron.



http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030801.asp

[bodhitree]

You say moron however you do not back you claim with your own words. The Right is about controll on every level. It may not be the ideals they started out with, however lets look at the events of recent history: the second day of the war Haliburton has the contract to rebuild Iraq, Haliburton the oil company Richard Cheney used to be ceo of, and George W.'s ties to "Kenny Boy" as he affectionately called him at enron.

[bodhitree]

I appologise I'm going to edit that.

[chingei]

Originally posted by bodhitree
You say moron however you do not back you claim with your own words.

Oh, the claim is backed by your words.

[bodhitree]

I wrote on the issue didn't I. :rolleyes:

[chingei]

Originally posted by bodhitree
I wrote on the issue didn't I. :rolleyes:


Hence, the evidence.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by bodhitree
Rightism DOES NOT oppose racism in its ideology! The Right wing is where hate groups and white supremicists come from.

Hate groups come from all political leanings. Are you familiar with communist revolutions, Stalinist purgings, or the Nazi party? Would you like references, or more examples?


If the lefts focus of power is in the state, then how come most civil liberties organizations are concidered left.

For example, people consider "affirmative action" to be related to civil liberties. This involves the state dictating who private individuals can and can't hire - power in the state. Both left and right are interested in civil liberties, as they define them; they differ in how they think this should be accomplished.


Also how come the Bush administration is centralizing power to the state more than any other president in American history.

Have you read the thread? This whole thing came up because I suggested the Bush administration is running on leftist ideology.


This chart is the most inaccurate peice of information I have ever seen!!!!

I encourage you to substantiate that claim so I can reply reasonably to it. I will be happy to provide any manner of references and elaborations.

[ZIM]

Now, hold on a minute

Whats being said regarding the Right OR the Left being inherently racist is BS. Racism, like the environment or education are issues not ideology. Racists exist anywhere on the political spectrum- a revanchist might very well want to reinstate slavery or whatever, while an ardent communist might hate all whites, regarding them as being bourgeois ruling class purely by their skin tone. Both are wrong and theres plenty of blame to go around.

Yes, white racists tend to identify themselves as right wing in the USA- but that is not what the right wing is about. Yes, white self-haters tend to identify themselves as leftist- but that is not what the left is about. In each case, it is doubtful whether each are truly aware of their self-ascribed loyalties.

The right-left split deals primarily with state vs. individual [authoritarian] and class structure/struggle [socio-economic]. Race plays a role only insofar as the individual sees them as playing a role- the ideologies themselves are neutral, showing different concerns.

Racism in the USA is a NON-trivial issue- lets not muddy it by partisan BS, please- no one owns that issue, but we all have to deal with it.

[Christopher M]

Thank you.

[chen zhen]

Hate groups come from all political leanings. Are you familiar with communist revolutions, Stalinist purgings, or the Nazi party? Would you like references, or more examples?

Stalin comitted genocides on many ethnic groups in the soviet republics, killing up to 20 million people. So, genocides based on ethnic belongings have in fact peaked in the soviet union, and not by the nazis, as many believe.
Good point.

[bodhitree]

Zim Chen
good points!

[bodhitree]

Christopher M
Bush is running on Leftist ideology, What is the matter with you. Leftist??? Bush is going on Right wing eliteism, his tax cut only benefits people who make 800,000 a year and up! Leftist WTF? This tax cut is going to be horrible on all social programs: medicare, Social security, ect. He gives the rich a break when 42 states are in a budget defacit! The privitazation of media to people like Rupert Murdok and Ted Turner, Starch Republicans! Phoney Shallow nationalism and lies, thats what his administation does!
ANYWAY
Bush is just an empty suit for the Righties. Anybody who beleives that idiot has anything to do with running the country is a fool. The guy thought Africa was a Country. He choked on a pretzel, and passed out from it! The real descision makers in that administration are The corparations whom contribute to his campaign, and they are being thanked with this tax cut. The guy won the election because of the state his brother is governer of, doesnt sound bogus to you?

OH YEAH YOUR CHART IS STILL THE MOST ILLOGICAL THING I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!!!!!!

[chen zhen]

But that does'nt mean (pointing to my last post) that racism is a part of leftist ideology, nor of rightist. My point is, that extreme right-wing movements (reactionary fascist, that is) has (usually) racism as part of their ideology.

As for fascism=leftism, I could use this:
If you asked a nazi if he sees himself as leftist or socialist, I think he would say a clear NO. He might even call his skinhead buddies and beat u up..:p but that's not the point..:D
They would never ever in their lifetime call themselves left-wing nor socialist.

Does'nt matter what your POV on semantics is, Christopher M, this would be the truth.

[bodhitree]

Chen I totally agree
In America most hate groups are from the right. They are NRA driven righties.


If you asked a nazi if he sees himself as leftist or socialist, I think he would say a clear NO. He might even call his skinhead buddies and beat u up.. but that's not the point..
Chen Zhen

Ask a klansman or skinhead if they are a marxist or for income transfer programs! I'm sure there are racist lefties. Lefties have committed horrible atrocities also.

I guess your all right, neither side promotes racism in their ideology.

[chen zhen]

Skinheads would kill for being called Marxists.

edit: also because Karl Marx=jew

[chingei]

Originally posted by bodhitree
....

moron.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by bodhitree
Bush is running on Leftist ideology

No, aspects of the Bush adminstration are.


What is the matter with you.

I understand your reaction to hearing something very different than what the media tells you; however, you've given me nothing here which I could use to reply constructively. Perhaps you would like to read the links on this topic allready provided, and/or offer some sort of substantial comment.


Bush is going on Right wing eliteism...

It might be helpfull if you didn't state your opinion as to how models work as if it's fact, let alone the intentions of the proponents of those models. This approach causes alot of confusion.

Regarding the tax break, I'll reiterate again to distinguish between various elements within the administration. This was, in fact, the very topic of the thread; so I'm not sure how else to clarify, assuming you've read it.


OH YEAH YOUR CHART IS STILL THE MOST ILLOGICAL THING I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!!!!!!

And I will "still" ask you to make a substantial remark concerning it, to which I can reply reasonably; rather than indignant vitriol, which isn't particularly constructive. Thanks.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
If you asked a nazi if he sees himself as leftist or socialist, I think he would say a clear NO.

Unless he has at least enough education on the matter to be familiar with what his self-imposed title, Nazi, is a short form for; eh?


[QUOTE]Originally posted by chen zhen
[B]Skinheads would kill for being called Marxists.

Marxism isn't the only kind of socialism; not the only kind of political ideology which follows leftist models of state and citizen.

Just because two groups oppose one another doesn't mean they're not both leftist (or rightist!).

[chen zhen]

Unless he has at least enough education on the matter to be familiar with what his self-imposed title, Nazi, is a short form for; eh?

You think that a well-educated Nazi would think himself more as leftist? Think again.


Marxism isn't the only kind of socialism; not the only kind of political ideology which follows leftist models of state and citizen.

Leftism does not equal socialism, no. But socialism is based on Marxism.

I have found out a peculiarity about your views. What you have been saying so far, is that fascism=leftist, Nazism=leftism, Wolfowitz=leftist, Bush government=leftist.. it goes on.
What, then, do you define as rightism? If you also begin calling conservatism leftism, then what is back to be rightism? If everything in the end is really leftism in your views, that would also mean that you, yourself, is leftist.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
You think that a well-educated Nazi would think himself more as leftist?

What I'm referring to here is that Nazi stands for [National] Socialism.


Bush government=leftist

Aspects of the Bush government have their foundation in leftist ideology. Specifically, the neoconservative movement. I offered up some reasonable references for this. This isn't true of the entire government; almost everyone would agree Powell is an exception, and I happen to think Bush himself is another one.


If you also begin calling conservatism leftism, then what is back to be rightism?

No, I begin by calling neoconservatism leftism. Totally different.


If everything in the end is really leftism in your views, that would also mean that you, yourself, is leftist.

That's not my view.

Will answer the last question when I have a moment next.

[chen zhen]

"If you also begin calling conservatism leftism, then what is back to be rightism?"

This was a hypothetical question.


Aspects of the Bush government have their foundation in leftist ideology. Specifically, the neoconservative movement. I offered up some reasonable references for this. This isn't true of the entire government; almost everyone would agree Powell is an exception, and I happen to think Bush himself is another one.

Most of the Bush-governments political decisions are typically conservative/liberalist, as for environmental issues, economical theories ("if the rich get a bigger tax-cut, then the effect will dripple down the system"), etc.
I have yet to see a typical left-wing political decision made by the Bush-government. Please elaborate.



Will answer the last question when I have a moment next.

Fine-o.:)

[Christopher M]

Chen Zhen,

I'm getting the impression you haven't looked at those links regarding the history of neoconservatism. That's ok; but it would explain alot. Also, it seems to me you're not concieving government the same way I am. In my view, the government is a collection of groups with very different ideologies, who sometimes will agree and sometimes disagree with one another, and no one of them has the copywrite on good ideas - any one group is sometimes going to do things an objective observer thinks is good, and some things that seem bad. This is really quite complicated once you try to grasp it. Most people, it seems to me, concieve of government as a ****genous entity. That's ok; maybe I'm wrong; but if you don't at least understand where I'm coming from (even if you disagree) than obviously you won't understand what I'm saying.

As a simple, on-topic, and concrete example of this: the neoconservatives were strongly against the tax cut you brought up.

As for rightism/leftism, we have to start off with something very simple, but utterly necessary. We have to realize that all legitimate polical systems are proposed solutions to the same problems. Most people fall into the trap of really thinking people with different ideas than them are literally evil, destructive, selfish, subversive, etc. If you can't get past this, then you'll never be able to make any assessment whatsoever of political ideas (maybe that's why the world is so screwed up!).

Very simply, two main problems face government: foreign policy and domestic policy.

Lets start with foreign policy. This can be thought of as "How do we concieve of national borders?" National borders are concepts which effect the movement of things: cultural things, political things, and financial things. So you can think of it as three kinds of conceptual borders lying on top of geographic borders.

Relative to moderate vs extreme views and so on, leftist foreign policy basically concieves of financial borders as strong, and political borders as weak. Rightist foreign policy is the opposite: weak financial borders, strong political borders. Culture is a bit more complicated...

You can think of the reason for this as coming from underlying ideology. The rightist model is following a conceptual free market; the leftist model is following a concept of human striving as universal.

Following this concept, leftists believe that just as human striving is universal, so too would be the ideal environment for human striving. This is why political borders are weak: insofar as it is politics which indicates the environment (collective/state and so on).

Conversely, following the free market, rightists believe the ideal environment for striving will not be the same everywhere. Hence, strong political borders.

Returning to financial borders, we can see the rightist model calls for weak ones, such that the productivity of each country, which [they believe] is maximized according to their unique needs, can be redistributed so that the world as a whole has everything it needs. Conversely, strong financial borders in the leftist model maintain the ambiguous property rights of the "collective", while preventing interference (through redistribution) from nations following different (not ideal) models.

It's very important to recognize here that these are different ways of viewing the world, but within each perspective, there's a variety of possibilities. For instance, in the above, consider that political beliefs can espouse a great variety of "ideal models," and as such be quite different from one another, yet still follow the leftist (contra the rightist) view of foreign policy.

This leftist view, btw, is called supernationalism because it is largely based upon the idea of an authority that supersedes an individual nation. In other words, it follows the belief that there are laws written in one place which apply to all places. Conversely, the rightist view is called isolationism, insofar as the fundamental idea is the autonomy of each nation.

Concerning domestic policy, the basic problem of domestic policy can be concieved like this: imagine a country can produce 10 widgits a year, but there are 20 possible widgits that could be made - how do we decide what widgits get made? In short, rightist models answer "the people" and leftist models answer "the state." This post is long enough; I'll elaborate on that point later.

[chen zhen]

I did read the neo-con. link.
I guess the european and american ideas of left and right is different. Most of the ideas you came forward with as being leftist, is from my POV very rightist.
That could also explain why we have been going past each other most of the time.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
Most of the ideas you came forward with as being leftist, is from my POV very rightist.

Perhaps if you explained your position, it would be more constructive a remark. Devoid of any reasoning, I'm tempted to conclude you're reacting based upon your conditioning to accepted or reject certain words, rather than upon any real assessment of political ideology; in other words, that you're confused to the point of being incorrect.

For instance, there are alot of people who are interested in supernationalist approaches to labor law. They phrase this interest as "closing down the oppression of sweat-shops." Because of this phrasing, this stance is taken not to be a matter of political ideology, but simply a matter of right versus wrong. Because of this, essentially no one who supports this view thinks of themselves as supernationalist - even though they're making laws from their home country which they expect to hold providence across the world. The main thing that gets people confused here is that they don't realize that everyone thinks their views are the right ones. So they tend to accept any of their own views "because it's right", whereas someone else following the same model but with a different view is taken to be following a different model "because they're wrong." Obviously, this is quite silly: the neocons think they're right too.

This goes back to the previous point that every approach is going to have both pros and cons. If you're like most people, you've been conditioned to react negatively to the word supernationalist; so much so that you don't even recognize when you are avidly supporting it as an ideology. That's why I said the first step to assessing political ideology is understanding them all to be proposed solutions to same problems, with pros and cons of their own.

Going back to domestic issues; following the idea of universal human striving and universal environment, there is a corrosponding leftist idea of universal work and universal reward. This requires a mechanism - the state, to appropriate not just your productivity, but the very concept of productivity by appropriating what you produce, and telling you what you can and can't produce. This is essential in order to redistribute the productivity, such that each citizen will have equal reward; as well as to make sure that the needs of the country are met. In short, the state decides which 10 widgits get made.

The rightist decides that it is inherently and unacceptably oppressive to have the state make these decisions. Moreover, they believe the state is inefficient and making these decisions (where inefficient means wasted productivity relative to work done). So in place of the state they substitute the free market.

Summarizing these two positions we can note simply that the leftist model emphasizes the power being in the hands of the state, whereas the rightist model emphasizes it being in the hands of the individual.

This is enough to understand why the right favors tax cuts and the left favors tax hikes: tax is simply a word that means "productivity appropriated from the individual by the state." Higher taxes simply means more of the nation's productivity in the hands of the state: in other words, more cases where the state chooses which 10 widgits get made.

[bodhitree]

I understand your reaction to hearing something very different than what the media tells you; however, you've given me nothing here which I could use to reply constructively. Perhaps you would like to read the links on this topic allready provided, and/or offer some sort of substantial comment.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush is going on Right wing eliteism...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It might be helpfull if you didn't state your opinion as to how models work as if it's fact, let alone the intentions of the proponents of those models. This approach causes alot of confusion.

Regarding the tax break, I'll reiterate again to distinguish between various elements within the administration. This was, in fact, the very topic of the thread; so I'm not sure how else to clarify, assuming you've read it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH YEAH YOUR CHART IS STILL THE MOST ILLOGICAL THING I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And I will "still" ask you to make a substantial remark concerning it, to which I can reply reasonably; rather than indignant vitriol, which isn't particularly constructive. Thanks.
Christopher M


Dude

I did make these remarks already and they were substancial but here we go again. Bush, thinking of overturning Roe v Wade(Right wing anti abortion), The eliteist tax cut for the rich(lefties are for more tax and more social programs by ideology, Right wing is for unregulated economy), trying to end affirmitive action(social program left),Trying to pack the supreme court with ultra concervative Justices! If these things sound lefty to you, well then I really feel bad for you. Read the post again and pay attention this time.

Nazis are not socialist in any way! May be nationalist but they are two completely different things! Communists were killed in concentration camps! a quote from Lennin "Workers and oppressed of the world unite", not our race is pure. The enemy of socialism is the capitolist, the enemy of the fasciast is the different race, nationality, tribe, religion, ect.

[chen zhen]

nationalism is not part of socialist ideology.
"World-wide revolution", all workers freed from oppresion, u know.

[bodhitree]

Yes Chen exactly.
According to Marx the revolution was going to be world wide. The revolution went beyond boundries, race, religion.

[bodhitree]

:)

[chen zhen]

...While fascism is based on some idea of extreme nationalism, and also on a race that should be superior. Fascism is used today as a term to describe right-wing reactionary authoritarian regimes, no matter if they are based on conservatism or not.
The word fascism was first used by Mussolini, which, yes, was a Marxist in his youth. But fascism is still not based on marxist/socialist ideology.(Mussolini tried to exterminate the socialist left from italy.)
Still, there was a huge difference between Mussolini's fascism & Hitler's National Socialism. mussolini used the analogy of Italians as a superior race, (to ingage in romantic nationalism, based on the country's glorious past), but did in fact not hate the jews. In the beginning, he actually had fascist brown-shirt legions, comprised of only zionist jews. Only later did he make racist laws against jews, because Hitler insisted upon it.
just a little history-lesson...:p

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by bodhitree
Bush, thinking of...

I've been quite explicit about calling the neocons leftist. Replying with remarks proving other groups to be rightist really doesn't challenge that at all now does it?


Nazis are not socialist in any way!

Well, they're socialists by name. That's at least one way.


nationalism is not part of socialist ideology.
"World-wide revolution", all workers freed from oppresion, u know.

I seem to recall Hitler was a little active in revolution beyond the borders of his country; don't you?

[chen zhen]

That was to A:"take back" former german territories in the east, B: to destroy the (jewish-led..in their POV) Soviet Union, as well as C: to become a superpower in europe. Other reasons too, but nothing revolutionary in any way.

[Christopher M]

So they wanted to change the nature of the state, how it relates to it's citizens, and how it relates to other states, on an international level; but it's not a revolution because... they had reasons for what they wanted to change? :confused:

So does this imply Marxists didn't have any reasons for their proposed revolution? :confused:

[chen zhen]

International revolution in the communist sense meant that the communist movements in all countries would make an internal revolution, so that all countries in the world in the end would be one, big socialist community, wothout borders.
The Nazis invaded other countries, because it would strengthen their own power-position in all ways, and to show the world, that the "aryan race would conquer all", and to destroy all opposition.
The nature of this way was to strengthen the German "reich" exclusively, and the socialist was to benefit all the oppressed workers in the world, through overthrowin the capitalist rulers.
Major diferences.

[Christopher M]

If the only difference is what individuals are in power, I don't see any difference at all.

Is a revolution a revolution if whites do it but if blacks do it? If Catholics do it but not if Buddhists do it? If men do it but not if women do it? If left-handed people do it but not if right-handed people do it?

That doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

[chen zhen]

Don't you see the major differences in methods, ideology, and end-results?

[Christopher M]

Yes. That doesn't mean one isn't a revolution.

[shaolin kungfu]

doesn't a revolution come from within the state? What karl marx(probably) meant was that oppressed workers and such around the world would effect change from within their own country. This is very different from nazi's and the like conquering countries that are not theirs, and forcing the people into slave labor.

[Christopher M]

That's not what Marx meant though.

[chen zhen]

Socialism=revolution from within the country.

Nazism(what they did)=conquer other states, and force the population to be the german's underdogs, and slaves. in reality it is like imperialism in it's old incarnations.

[Christopher M]

Are you trying to tell me that the communist Soviets, Chinese, etc weren't expansionist?

[chen zhen]

No.
The Soviet Union did get large influence to the eastern-european nations after WW2, and they invaded Afghanistan to save the crumbeled communist government there. China annectated Tibet.
These are examples of communist expansion (not in accordance to marxism), but it is still different from nazist expansionism.

[Christopher M]

So what's the difference then?

[chen zhen]

I have already explained it.
Socialist revolution=internal revolution in all countries, to free the workers class from oppression, and to create a non-class world.
Nazi "revolution"= to conquer other countries, to strengthen the nazist state, and make the "aryan race" the rulers of the world, which would create a society of people who are more superior than others, and this would not eliminate the classes, but create new ones. The "lesser races" would then be the ones working (as slaves) for the nazist state.

[Christopher M]

I'm sorry, other than you calling it different things, what exactly is the difference here?

[chen zhen]

I'll answer later. i need other things than politics in my head, now...:o
;)

[chen zhen]

Article on Neocons. (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j110102.html)
It seems like they are trying to redefine traditional politics in the US totally.

[Christopher M]

Very great article.

The juxtaposition he and Buchanan make between "traditional conservatism" and "imperialism", which they point out is present both in the neocons and the left, is exactly what I've been getting at here.

Also, he notes that the anti-neocons should greet the "old right" as the greatest opposition to the neocons, but instead (imho, due to a simple misunderstanding as to what "old right" means), they turn them into enemies. He seems to imply that this is a ploy being used to exterminate any ideological alternative to "imperialism." Important stuff to consider!

BTW, this is exactly why I'm interested in getting people to realize what "neocon" and "old right" actually mean.