A qusetion to the left

[tnwingtsun]

I have seen some good arguments from the left(here) only to see the same people that have given an intelligent post the day before turn into spout knee-jerk controversial drival.

Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened????

Really?

Because some reporter said so?

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0242/mamatas.php

Sorry,my knee just jerked.

Lets say that he did know,what now?

Lets get rid of him,once he's gone what are your left wing leaders going to do for me and my family now??

Better health care??

Great!!

At what price??

My second amendment rights have to vanish??

" Al Gore’s family has significant investments in Occidental Petroleum, which hires death squads in Colombia to protect their investments there"

There goes my ****ed knee again.

What about all of these new anti-terriorists laws that are designed to protect us but at the same time take away alot of libertys in the name of LIBERTY??

Will you turn the same blind eye when your progressive leaders that sing "Don't stop thinking about tommorow" use these new laws to destroy the same liberties that we all enjoy and expect as Americans?

Will they? They have tried before and in many cases suceeded.

Can they? Its happening before our eyes today,democrats and republicans both are guilty,denied that and you are either a FOOL
or worse you are part of what will bring this country down,if you are not in this country then you have to ask yourself,are my leaders licking their greedy chops waiting for that great satan to fall??

My question is can you tell me what your leaders are going to do about threats forigen and domestic?
And who and what is the threat?
If Bush has done so bad WHAT will your boys(and girls) do to make it better??

"But stereotyping and conflating correlation with causation and manipulating facts does nothing to tell us what those influences are. These demagogic practices discredit us."

Stan Goff on the lefts response to the DC shootings.


http://freedomroad.org/milmatters_3_easyanswers.html

I don't agree with everything Stan has to say but I like him(maybe because he responds to my e-mail) and agree with ALOT of what he says,if you side on the left and expect more to side with you have some answers,you might be suprised with thoses out there that do.

[GLW]

This stuff has NEVER been about Left or Right. To be honest, the way debate is framed in the US now days, there is not really that much difference in mainstream Left and Right. they may differ on things like abortion and such but both are pretty much equally corrupt and irresponsible.

The things that could be put on the table for alternatives WON'T be because the money interests would not get what they want.

In fact, what you are saying about offering an altenative has been pointed out by commentators following the options. Their take has been that if those in opposition to Bush and his side want to bring about a change, they have to show that they ARE different in many areas... however, they spend their time saying the same things as their opponents but in different words...and in the end, give no one any options.

However, most people in the US don't really care, they have always voted Guns and Butter....talk about about a big military and make sure that people don't feel like they are losing their money and you can get away with taking away their rights, getting them into wars, scandals, and all kinds of short sighted things. As long as you don't offend heir morals...regardless of how anything else is going. Both republicans and Democarats have been reminded of this over and over again...even back to the attacks on Andrew Jackson's wife.

No one has ever really gone wrong overestimating the stupidity of the American public.

[tnwingtsun]

"However, most people in the US don't really care"

How about the people on this forum that post how much they don't like Bush and what he does???

They care enough to gripe which is my point,instead of complaining and sounding like a b i t c h tell me what you would do in his place.

This is not towards you GDL,you make good points,I am referring to the posters here that gripe and moan at every press release
that questions the Presidents handling of policy or affaires.

How would the ANTI-BUSH members of this forum go about running this country??

Because after all,ya'll constantly remind us how not to run the country.

[David Jamieson]

How would the ANTI-BUSH members of this forum go about running this country??

what country? I'm not living in the USA, I don't like Bush's politics (or lack of them).

But of my american cousins, I know this. If you cannot question your government, then what exactly is it you are standing up for?

cheers

[tnwingtsun]

Thanks Kung lek,

I agree with you,I don't like all that Bush does either,my main
point is to the folks that are against his policys that say nothing
when the people they back cross the line and screw up,the double standard is what chaps my arse,if you're going to back the right thing,it should have no party lines.

[mantis108]

If it is okay to be shot at all because of a lie? To die while living a made believe story? This is all worth it because ...? I just feel sorry for those who gave their life for a (fill in the blanks) Commander in Chief. Perhaps that's the military culture that being a good soldier is to take order even if the order is FUBAR and especially when the order is FUBAR. Don't think just do or die. Tough age to be an American. :(

Mantis108

[GLW]

You paint with an awfully broad brush.

There are those of us out here that DO NOT like the current administrations actions and policies AND we DO vote for candidates that represent our desires as well as holding those elected officials accountable for their actions.

However, in some cases, there is not much that will be apparent. For example, if you live where I live, you have folks like Kay Bailey Hutchinson for a senator and Tom Delay for a congressman. Dealy was a joke in congress when elected but has managed to weasel his way to a lot of power. He hasn't changed from the joke days...he just is good and weaseling in such a way that he can get away with a lot.

The two senators from Texas - ineffectual at best. Not a leader in the bunch.

So...you vote and hold them accountable...but sometimes, it simply doesn't do any good.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
But of my american cousins, I know this. If you cannot question your government, then what exactly is it you are standing up for?

A good question. But doesn't it happen to be the case that they can question their government? So, by your own logic here, haven't you just defended their "standing up"?

[David Jamieson]

A good question. But doesn't it happen to be the case that they can question their government? So, by your own logic here, haven't you just defended their "standing up"?

Yes, people can question their government. So, to tell them it is wrong, detrimental to the cause, or casting a tainted view from elsewhere is coming from those who would not have them question the big picture and the government.

The governments (not just american) of the west will withold information, spread misinformation and propogate lies in order to not be questioned about the truth.

In some cases they will out and out deny the publics right to ask question (see G8 summit meetings, World Trade organization meetings, etc etc(not to mention that beauty from the american **** cheney in regards to the closed door enron hearings)

So, in these days and times, what sort of government are we getting in the west?

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Yes, people can question their government. So, to tell them it is wrong, detrimental to the cause, or casting a tainted view from elsewhere is coming from those who would not have them question the big picture and the government.

In some cases.

Or, in other cases, people could just be wrong, detrimental to some cause, or casting a tainted view from elsewhere.

Being able to question the government doesn't mean every "questioning the government" is right, constructive, or pure.


The governments (not just american) of the west will withold information, spread misinformation and propogate lies in order to not be questioned about the truth.

Right. So will the governments of the east, south, and north; right?


So, in these days and times, what sort of government are we getting in the west?

If by "so" you mean "with respect to the denial of the public right to ask questions", it seems to me we're getting, relatively speaking, an extraordinarily open government. Insofar as I personally favor open governments, this strikes me as a favorable trend.

[David Jamieson]

perhaps 'west' isn't a good term anymore.

I'll rephrase that to 'first world' governments.

Second world governments and third world governments not withstanding.

I am of the opinion that there is far to much seperation between constituents voices and elected officials actions and allignments regarding bill and laws.

Once an official is in, it seems they are more concerned with the party line than representing their constituents and if they are for representing their constituents, they are often times unable to act in favour of what their constituents want because of what the overall party states.

anyway, our current system, in canada, is highly innefficient and wasteful of tax dollars. It's not unlikely that the corridors of power else where are similar in disfunctionality.

I personally think it's time for a new model, the whole greco-roman thing doesn't seem to work anymore on a large scale.

cheers

[GLW]

"Once an official is in, it seems they are more concerned with the party line than representing their constituents and if they are for representing their constituents, they are often times unable to act in favour of what their constituents want because of what the overall party states."

That depends on WHO their constituents REALLY are.

If they are the people that elected them, then many of those elected officials do an abysmal job.

However, to an alarming number of those 'elected' officials, if you look at what they do, their constituents are really the lobbyists and contributors to their campaigns and NOT the people they are supposed to work for.

Now, I am not sure if this has gotten worse in the last few decades or if it has just gotten to be more open because they don't have to worry anymore.

Either way, the "government for the people" thing is not working very well.

[Christopher M]

To Kung Lek,

I could not agree more.

Considering models of representational democracy, one axis we can analyze can be thought of as party-lines versus grass-roots. In a party-lines system, there is a mechanism in place to ensure that all MPs of a given party generally vote the same way (eg. party whip). We should keep in mind that "towing the party line" isn't a critique: some models of government have that as a central concept. So in a party-lines system, you vote for a party, and the "power" is centralized within the state. Conversely, in a grass-roots system, the above-mentioned mechanism doesn't exist, and MPs within one party may vote very differently: following the idea of representing their constituency. So the emphasis is on having the "power" not state-centralized, and on candidate rather than party.

That said, and if your post here is accurate about your sentiments, I'm really curious about your leftist leanings.
The reason I say I'm curious is that grass-roots systems are characteristic of rightist political groups, whereas party-lines systems are characteristically leftist.

This is why, for example, the Reform party in Canada had the following in it's platform: eliminate party whip and associated mechanics, have MPs live in their constituency rather than in Ottawa, and allow citizens the right to make a "recall" referendum against the prime minister at any time.

Canada, quite reasonably, could have had the system you seem to be calling for here, had more people been aware of these things and, as you seem to be, supportive of them.

[David Jamieson]

That's an interesting point you bring up regarding the reform party (which is now called the Canadian Alliance party).

Yes, their original agenda was rightist and grass roots, but that all fell away with the glitz and glamour that is Ottawa :rolleyes: lol

Their (the alliance party) first leader was one Preston Manning and he was all about staying in his constituency and even remarked during his campaign that he would not take up residence in the official opposition house 'stornoway' should he be elected as leader of the opposition (I think he knew he was never gonna make PM on a rightist platform in this socialist/communist/democratic soup sandwhich we call Canada).

Anyway, long story short, he dumped that idea promptly upon election and started living in the opposition digs after his election.

the alliance party wanted to change the conservative paradigm in canada and only managed to muddy it's own image as being nothing more than an ecclectic collection of people everywhere from the extreme right (read fascists) to the conservatives that were embarrassed by the Mulroney era. Infighting has completely tarnished their outward image now and they will be generating far less votes because of the outrageous blunders of their previous leader a Mr. Stockwell Day.

The Progressive conservative party(14 seats) (how's that for an oxymoronic name :D) has never recovered since and the only real power in Canada is with the Liberal party, which isn't to different from the early conservatives pre mulroney these days,,,go figure.

The New Democratic party(15 seats) is regarded as too socialist, the alliance is fragmented and the conservatives hardly exist at all!
Then there is Quebec, who's provincial government keeps calling for a redo on their seperatist referrendums once every few years because they just can't seem to get that yes vote they want every time they call a referendum. It's pretty tiring after 30 or so years of the same old same old. The Bloc Quebecois however has become very powerful and currently sits as a controling party(34 seats) in the House of commons. We have 5 parties in the House right now with the canadian alliance as opposition and the other three sitting... looking on...

All four lower parties combined do not have enough seats to out vote the liberal party which has a whopping 171 seats! Talk about lopsided! Not really a democratic process at all anymore and the whole country is effectively run by a party that at least 1/2 the country no longer wants in (if not more) under the current zeitgeist.

I'll tell ya, if shrub knew just how commie canada was, we'd have jarheads roaming the streets and giving us the 'joys of freedom' as they liberated us from our totalitarian shackles. hahahahaha.

seriously..:(

cheers

[Christopher M]

Yes, I agree completely... except your remark about fascism, which is extreme leftism, not extremist rightism (which is anarchism).

That said, perhaps there is hope with Harper holding the CRAP reigns. He was the one who wrote their initial grass-roots policies, and subsequently left the party following disagreements with Manning. As you alluded, Manning was a populist - he believed he had to bend to popular opinion in order to get power, and only then he would be useful. Harper, at least then, was an idealogue - he believe he should put forth his position, stick to it, and let the voters judge him.

Personally, I hope he's still an ideologue, still believes in the policy book he wrote, and is able to do something with the mess he has been handed. As much as I disagree with some of their specific policies, I so strongly support their overall model of government, that it trumps everything else. The extraodinary thing about the grass-roots vision is it allows co-existance of a variety of political positions, and through that, enables a consideration of each. In other words, going grass-roots doesn't stick you with the other baggage a grass-roots party has (as going party-line does), as change and voter responsiveness is "hard-wired" into their model.

... on the other hand, I also think and hope Martin will be a big improvement.

[David Jamieson]

I have to disagree on the point of facism being leftist, it is in actuality and by definition 'right wing authoritarianism'.

The extreme left is communism, the extreme right is facist dictatorship.

Anarchy belongs to neither viewpoint and is opposed to any form of laws or rules in it's truest form and instead relies on the individual to do the principled thing.

Conservatism is right leaning as Liberalism is left leaning. Perhaps this is why it is hard to see the differences in these two and glaring in those parties that lean a little more to one or the other ideologies.

Because the right wants less government it usually translates more to the idea of less social services while maintaining the same tax base! It's still government and collection of monies from the populace.

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
I have to disagree on the point of facism being leftist

That's ok; I think most people would.


it is...by definition 'right wing authoritarianism'.

Not according to any dictionaries I can currently access. For example, dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/) says fascism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism) is "a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

The same page reminds us of some important historical details, such as that the founder of fascism proper was Mussolini, and the most [in]famous fascists were the Nazis. In both cases, of course, these were socialist movements.

Perhaps we could consider the key principles suggested in that definition.

For instance, "centralization of authority." We've allready discussed on this thread how this is characteristic of leftism rather than rightism. Of course, while we were talking about fairly moderate differences in position, we should keep in mind that this centralization becomes extreme as you travel further to the left, as in the case of communism which you mentioned.

Consider "stringent socioeconomic controls." Again we should note that this is a leftist idea. Recall that rightist models follow the doctrine of the free market.


Anarchy belongs to neither viewpoint and is opposed to any form of laws or rules in it's truest form and instead relies on the individual to do the principled thing.

Right, except for the part about how it belongs to neither viewpoint. Consider, for example, the step from the Conservatives to the Reform party. Now consider the step from the Reform party to the Libertarians. One more step and you would find Anarchism. In each case, the idea that the state should not intervene becomes more and more central, and sociological control is left in the hands of the citizens.


Because the right wants less government it usually translates more to the idea of less social services while maintaining the same tax base!

I'm not sure where you got that idea. Rightism tends to talk quite alot about cutting taxes. Recently, we've been exposed to this quite alot through the Bush administration. Returning to some previous topics, we could remark that another part of the Reform platform was a flat income tax rate (which would be, of course, a significant cut).

Perhaps this has clarified the thoughts behind my remark a little.

[David Jamieson]

from dictionary.com


fascist

adj : relating to or characteristic of fascism; "fascist propaganda" [syn: fascistic] n : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views

The national socialism that was Hitlers blend of socialism and fascism. An anomoly to be sure. Mussolini was in no way a socialist. He was on a fully full on Caesar fantasy trip.

Interestingly enough, for all you conspiracy theory fans, the root of the word fascist is the latin 'fasces' meaning 'bundle' and is meaning the bundle of rods that caesar carried which was the symbol of absolute power. So, on the conspiracy thing, consider the thirteen arrows bundled in the eagles talon on the great seal of the united states....then consider this little quote...


The bundle of arrows is reminiscent of the "fasces," a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax blade that was borne before Roman magistrates as an emblem of official power. In fact, the bundle of arrows in Charles Thomson's original drawing of the Great Seal depicts them in alignment very similar to a fasces. :D good thing that olive branch is in there too!

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
"an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views"

Interesting. On the other hand, not surprising; I allready pointed out that I felt most people used the word in this way. For myself, I will place more value in a systematic analysis (as of the type I have offered above) rather than linguistic convention (particularly if the convention, as in this case, turns out to be inconsistent and self-contradictory). If you agree, but still feel fascism properly is a description of rightism, perhaps you would offer up your own analysis, or find fault in mine.


Mussolini was in no way a socialist.

Well, his roots were in the Socialist Party proper. While he did indeed separate from them, oppose them, and hold some different beliefs, it does not follow (and I do not believe) that this means he ceased being a socialist in the general sense.

In example, you seem to accept that the Nazis were socialist, yet they were explicitly fashioned after Mussolini's Fascist Party; wouldn't this indicate you believe the FP to be, in the general sense, socialist as well? If we're not sure, we can "ask" Mussolini himself, who had this to say on the topic: "I am and always will be a socialist."(1 (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/benito_mussolini.htm))


The national socialism that was Hitlers blend of socialism and fascism. An anomoly to be sure.

Since we've discussed the two classic fascists and found them (I presume you'd agree, subsequent to reading the first part of this post) to be explicitly socialist, it's hard to believe your claim that it's an anomoly. Perhaps some examples supporting your position might be useful.

[chen zhen]

"The same page reminds us of some important historical details, such as that the founder of fascism proper was Mussolini, and the most [in]famous fascists were the Nazis. In both cases, of course, these were socialist movements."

I just found it odd that Hitler would hate Communism(which is extreme-left) & the Social-Democratic movement as much as he did, if this was a fact.

Nazism is Socialism in the sense that it emphazises organised labour, and a strong sense of social brotherhood. It is though bound together by concepts of the "Nation" and "The Superior Race", which is contrary to the Socialist/marxist doctrines, that says that the proletariat should be the rulers, with no classes in society (fascism parts people up in classes, depending on their race), and that socialism should be the ultimate social doctrine, transcending both race & national borders (as all is equal, as they say). Both extremes have had Dictators, obviously, but in orthodox socialism, there should be no rulers. In fascism, it is part of the ideology.

Paradoxically, anarchism has become the main ideology behind extreme left-wing groups in both europe & north america.

[tnwingtsun]

"The extreme left is communism, the extreme right is facist dictatorship."


Indeed two roads to the same place on the mountain top,Communism producing two of historys most brutal dictators,
Mao and Stalin,toss in Kim il Sung,facist because if they quack like a duck,well......

On the other hand you have the extreme right,Pat Roberson,asking money from old people.

[ZIM]

"Fascism is generally born by revolution out of the collapse of monarchism. Fascism's theory of power is organized around the `Fuehrerprinzip', the absolute leader regarded as the incarnation of the national will.

But...and this is a big but...there were important difference between revolutionary Fascism (the Italo/German/Baathist variety) and the more reactionary sort native to Spain and Japan.

The Italo/German/Baathist varieties were radical, modernist ideologies and not (as commonly assumed) conservative or traditionalist ones; in fact, all three of these examples faced serious early threats from cultural-conservative monarchists (or in Baathism's case, from theocrats).

But Japanese and Spanish Fascism were a bit different; they were actually pro-monarchist, conservative in essence, aimed at reasserting the power relationships of premodern Spain and Japan. In fact, Spanish Fascism was mostly about Francisco Franco's reactionary instincts."

link (http://armedndangerous.blogspot.com/2003_04_20_armedndangerous_archive.html)

Good points, just thinking about them... definitely many varieties of fascism around in history, some left some right.

[TonyM.]

"First crucifiction, then he has to spend saturdays with Pat Robertson." whew!

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
I just found it odd that Hitler would hate Communism(which is extreme-left) & the Social-Democratic movement as much as he did, if this was a fact.

Do you find it equally odd that Trotsky and Stalin oppose one another? I think the viewpoint you're basing this idea on, that the world can simply be cut into two opposing camps, is seductive; but simply incorrect.


[Nazism] is... contrary to the Socialist/marxist doctrines

It's opposed to some Marxist ideas, yes. Just as Trotskyism is opposed to some Stalinist ideas. This doesn't change that they all adhere to the tenets of socialism.

[chen zhen]

Do you find it equally odd that Trotsky and Stalin oppose one another? I think the viewpoint you're basing this idea on, that the world can simply be cut into two opposing camps, is seductive; but simply incorrect.

I don't claim that the world can be divided into 2 different camps, because this is contrary to reality itself. People are individuals. BUT; when we're discussing the political right and left, and their differences, we have to deal with dividing, since this is what political ideologies does themselves.


It's opposed to some Marxist ideas, yes. Just as Trotskyism is opposed to some Stalinist ideas. This doesn't change that they all adhere to the tenets of socialism.

i have already discussed the difference between socialism & fascism. But you can't say to SOME socialist ideas, because if socialism supports a certain view, then I doubt they would support another view which would be opposing the former, because then the ideology would be opposing itself, and then it would, rightly, not be called an individual ideology.
The issue of Stalinism & Trotskyism should not be dealt with, as this is a question of sectarianism, and we're discussing the differences between fascism & socialism. But I guess you used it merely as an example to proove a point.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
when we're discussing the political right and left, and their differences, we have to deal with dividing, since this is what political ideologies does themselves.

Sure. But isn't your original point, that it would be surprising for Nazism to be leftist since it opposes Communism, still completely invalid. Isn't the Trotsky-Stalin example powerfull enough to prove this?


i have already discussed the difference between socialism & fascism.

No you haven't. You've discussed the differences between one model of socialism and another (fascism). For instance, you seem to be applying Trotskyist ideas of [anti-]nationalism as if they're universal to socialism; but of course, Stalin had a very different model of nationalism. So is Stalin a rightist? Or can non-Trotskyist models of nationalism exist in socialism? Surely the latter is the case. To emphasize in summary: it seems like you've discussed the differences of one model of socialism with another.


The issue of Stalinism & Trotskyism should not be dealt with, as this is a question of sectarianism, and we're discussing the differences between fascism & socialism.

I'm sorry, I don't understand "sectarianism" here. Why shouldn't Stalinism and Trotskyism be addressed? Surely they are both accepted as socialist models, yet they violently oppose one another, and differ on issues which you claim are fundamental to socialism. So it seems like they're an extraodinary example to clarify some issues here.

[chen zhen]

Hitler opposed marxism/Socialism, communism, and social-democratism because he saw them as, yes, jewish inventions, because most of the founding-fathers of these ideologies where jewish (Marx, trotskij, others). We obviously knew that Antisemitism was one of the pillars of nazism, and he saw the Soviet Union as the Ultimate world-headquarters for the "jewish world control". That's why he wanted to attack & destroy the soviet Union, because he equalled jew=socialism.

That is one of the main reasons why your standpoint that leftism(socialism..?)=fascism is not true.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
That is one of the main reasons why your standpoint that leftism(socialism..?)=fascism is not true.

I don't follow your logic here, perhaps you could clarify.

It seems to me that you have pointed out a reason why Hitler would oppose communism, regardless of political leanings. Then you seem to conclude that this is proof that his opposition is because of political leanings. It seems to me that this conclusion simply doesn't follow.


Hitler opposed marxism/Socialism

Hitler didn't oppose socialism in the general sense. Remember, Nazi stood for National Socialist. It was an emulation of Mussolini, who came from the Socialist party, and remarks "I am and always will be a socialist." This has been discussed allready, right?

[David Jamieson]

Marx, Trotsky and Lennin were socialists. They did have leanings towards a nationalistic front, but at the core, they were socialist in tehir ideals.

Stalin was not a socialist by any stretch except for maybe and outward threadbare garment of socialism because of his riding Lennins coat tales.

Stalin was decidely a fascist dictator in actions.

Hitlers Nationalist Socialist party was barely socialist in ideal and again, He was a fascist in reality whiile trying to feed the people with Nationalism driven by a quasi-socialist model (in actuality, his brand of socialism was for aryans only according to his own perspective and idea of what an aryan is (which he wasn't himself even by his own def!) He went so far as to publicly have himself recognized as an official aryan, hahahaha.

These guys are not the best examples of thought leadership in the true system of socialism.

Trotsky and Lennin and Marx are perhaps better examples and they were not the brutal dictatorial leaders that their followers were (Stalin on down through to Gorbachov) as far as russian socialism is concerned.

Anyway, these dictators were not socialists in a purist sense and instead were wolves in sheeps clothing attempting to sell fascist ideals as socialism. They darn near got away with it too!

there are so many brands associated with political thinking, it gets staggering to think of them all. No line of thought politically is purist anymore.

Here in Canada, we are supposed to be a democratic/nationalist/monarchy/capitalist society, but dependent on who gets into power, the model changes from leader to leader and it all stays under the same banner.

The same with the United states. Supposed to be a democratic republic, but depending on the big picture will ebb and flow through ideologies as required while attempting to remain in the definition of what is acceptable to the populace. In the States there is also the power of each individual state which can at times veto the federal law in practice though that may not be so from the official standpoint. (Segregationists, et al etc etc)

Canada has the same issues with Provincial governments which do not 100% adhere to the model exacted by the federal government.

But, it can be noted that we are at least not dictatorships and if we want to throw someone out of office, it is a process, but it can be done without violence in the streets. Not true of 2nd and 3rd world nations.

The systems at play are blended solutions pieced together to satisfy the need of the people. Universal healthcare for instance is a socialist ideal. Where Licensing of vehicles, drivers etc is a nationalist ideal. Income tax, or taxing in general is something that fits in any model from communist to capitalist.

What it comes down to ultimately is the few have power over the many. This is not much different than a form of aristocracy where the wealthy control the destiny of a nation and it's people. Absolutely true of western countries, eastern countries, southern countries and northern countries. There has never been a case of true power being bestowed upon the people in western history and there has always been a choke point of power. People are taught to by into the power model at an early age and don't know any different or any better until they undertake study of the subject.

IMO, there is no difference except in name between a King and a President, a regent and a prime minister, the rest are quite obvious that they all adhere to an ancient model of wealth=power and he who holds the wealth holds the power.

cheers

[Christopher M]

Kung Lek - If you want to, as a matter of semantics, declare a priori that as soon as a socialist movement becomes fascist, it's no longer socialist, that's perfectly fine.

My problem is that you seem to use this concept to conclude that fascism is rightist, which clearly doesn't follow.

If fascism is an exclusionary criteria for socialism, then they are simply both models of leftism. That's completely fine; I'd agree to that completely. In fact, that's what I originally said (and contrary to your remark, which started this, that fascism is rightism).

[TonyM.]

Of cource, all robber baron industrialists are socialist.

[tnwingtsun]

Which would explain how pre Hitler Germany went from a qusai-democratic republic to a qusai-socialist model before becoming a full blown dictatorship.

Most do not make that leap straight into being a dictatorship
without first having the firm chains of socialistic(qusai or not) bondage in place.

[David Jamieson]

Chris-

I have to reiterate, by name and definition, facism is a right wing ideology. There's no escaping it buddy, it is the extreme right.

I know that you as a person of the right wing minded, perhaps a little softer and more bent towards conservatism. At it's extreme end, the right wing is facism. It is not socialism and is contrary to socialism.

I have never heard of any poli-sci musings that put facism in the left.

cheers

[chen zhen]

KL, watch out when discussing with him.. he's tough. He won't give so easily. ;)

Just read through the discussion in the lies/Al Franklin thread at Other Related Arts. It's basically the same discussion.

[Christopher M]

Could you provide an argument defending this view? Or could you find a fault in any of the arguments I've put forward? Or ask for an elaboration on them if they weren't clear? Or could you verify that you're taking the relativist stance that words mean whatever people say they mean, regardless of underlying structure? Could you also verify here that you're calling Stalin a right-winger? Thanks.

[David Jamieson]

Stalin was a totalitarian dictator, it is historically documented that once he got rid of those who opposed him, he ran essentially a fascist government in the guise of Lenin's communism. In practice, what the USSR did was by no means even related to marxism, which is what communism is based upon. THere are no countries that have practiced true marxism, but an extremely *******ized version, if that!

I would suggest you do a search on right wing ideologies. IN each and most every instance you will find Fascism on the right and not on the left.

Since we started this discussion regarding facism I have checked and checked again, it is not leftist by any measure of the word.

If someone uses one political vehicle to bring about another, it does not mean that the secondary is related to the primary. It just means they 'eased' a populace into another practice that fit the rulers leanings.

Hitler is a terrible example of socialism, as is Stalin. These men were absolute dictators and not socialist leaders. they never intended to use socialism except where it fit into their grand schemes of world domination. they subscribed to their own personal paradigms and anyone who opposed them was destroyed or an attempt to destroy them was made.

Even Trotsky had to hide out from Stalins assassins in Mexico!
Hardly the efforts of likemindedness wouldn't you say?

Anyway, do the searches and look at what there is about the fascist ideology that alligns it with conservatism at it's extreme end. You'd be surprised at how similar they are at the base.

BTW- in regards to the anarchists remarks you made, I think you are confusing Libertarians with anarchists. Libertarians are the ones who call for less government while anarchists want NO form of government whatsoever. Conservatives want strong central authority. Liberals want more of a collectivism model and democratic socialists are not far off from the liberal model, ergo, liberals and socialists can be considered left wing. Anarchists and Libertarians are in the middle (ie: the middle being the 'anti-governement model which includes seperatists), conservatives and fascists are on the right... now let the dance begin!:D

cheers

[chen zhen]

I think Christopher M is the only person I have ever talked to in my lifetime, who would consider fascism as left-wing. I don't think you (CM) know anyone either, who would think this. But of course, if you have, I would like to hear.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Stalin was a totalitarian dictator, it is historically documented that once he got rid of those who opposed him, he ran essentially a fascist government in the guise of Lenin's communism.

Right. And?


In practice, what the USSR did was by no means even related to marxism, which is what communism is based upon.

Right. And? Surely you don't define "rightism" as "anything but Marxism." You admit yourself Marxism hasn't ever actually existed.


I would suggest you do a search on right wing ideologies.

I'll ask again: please can you indicate to me whether or not you are a relativist: does a word mean to you what people use it to mean, regardless of structure? Do you derive meaning from the dictates of the status quo?

I'm working from a structutalist perspective: that words have an actual meaning which we can determine by analyzing their relationships. If you're working from a relativist perspective, then this completely explains our difference of opinion.


If someone uses one political vehicle to bring about another, it does not mean that the secondary is related to the primary.

Right. Nor does it mean it's not related to the primary.


Hitler is a terrible example of socialism as is Stalin. These men were absolute dictators and not socialist leaders. they never intended to use socialism except where it fit into their grand schemes of world domination. they subscribed to their own personal paradigms and anyone who opposed them was destroyed or an attempt to destroy them was made.

How is this any different from Trotsky? I mean, other than that you might be sympathetic to Trotsky.


Anyway, do the searches and look at what there is about the fascist ideology that alligns it with conservatism

I've done the searches. Please, please, please don't tell me to educate myself, at which point I'll agree with you. Put forth an argument. By what standard is fascism not leftist. I'm waiting for this.

[David Jamieson]

Fascism is not leftist because it is not collectivism. It is authoritarian.

Facism places all the power into one person's hands.

Collectivism gives people equality and a share of power and goods. That is democratic socialism and liberalism.

Fascism is a central authoritive power seat, this is the conservative model as well.

There you go, fascism is not left wing.

cheers

[chen zhen]

By what standard is fascism not leftist. I'm waiting for this.

You use a way of argument, which is irritating. It is like asking: why, by what means is the moon not made out of green cheese? The answerer will know that the moon is not made of cheese, but he will be trapped, because he can come with enough reasonable arguments for why this should not be the case, but you will be asking the same question again and again. Know what I mean?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
I think Christopher M is the only person I have ever talked to in my lifetime, who would consider fascism as left-wing. I don't think you (CM) know anyone either, who would think this. But of course, if you have, I would like to hear.

Googling for fascism + socialism gives 64,000 results, the bulk of which discuss this topic to one degree or another. I presume you can do this for yourself - actually I'm a little curious as to why you wouldn't do this before making such a claim. Nonetheless, here's three links from the first page of that Google search which don't just refer to this idea, but make it their explicit thesis.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anticom/messages/1601?viscount=100
http://www.coastalpost.com/95/10/15.htm
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

[chen zhen]

The links you posted (2 of them) is articles pointing to the similarities between socialism & fascism. That I have also done myself (as well as shown the differences), but it does not say that fascism= extreme left, which was the main issue. You have not prooved this yet.

Actually, the first link have some statements (from a messageboard) which goes both aginst and for your theory of fascism=socialism. I quote:

"Capitalism and fascism are similar because they
both revolve around the concept of care only for
ourselves and to hell with everyone else."<br><br>The
difference is that based on individualism and the
non-aggression principle while fascism, just like socialism, is
based on collectivism and coercion.
"

"Fascism and socialism are both forms of statism.
Both demand that the individual live for the state
rather than himself. I doesn't matter whether it's the
proletariat or the master race that is in charge of you- it's
still collectivism."

"Socialism is total collectivism. Fascism and capitalism is based on the
individualism of a person or of a group of persons."

But this does not proove that fascism=leftism.
The name of the forum it comes from is called "communism=death", which whatever much it may be true, is biased to a certain extent.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Fascism... is not collectivism. It is authoritarian.

Right. Just like leftism.

Perhaps you're getting confused about the differences in the semantics used by these different models and their actual implementations.

For instance, the socialism you're talking about regards property ownership as absurd, and concieved of the state as the collective principle of the population. That's semantics/theory. In implementation this results in a state which owns everything and makes all the decisions. In other words, authoritarianism.

Fascism has a different set of semantics. It talks alot about property rights. However, like socialism it concieves of the state as the collective principle of the population. Different semantics/theory. Same implementation: a state which owns everything and makes all the decisions.

Let's contrast this with rightism. It shares the fascist semantics about property rights, but comes to a very different conclusion: that they belong to the citizen, not the state. This is the opposite of authoritarianism.

I think this is where people get confused. They associate models with similar semantics, rather than models with similar implementations.


Facism places all the power into one person's hands.

Fascism places all the power in the state's hands, as does socialism. People choose as a matter of semantics, to concieve of the fascist state as different than the communist state. But are they? Fascist states have never been about a single decision-maker, but rather have supported the idea of immense beurocracy. On the other side, as much lipservice has gone into the beurocracy of the communist states, they've been as much under a single ruler as the fascists (consider the influence of Stalin or Trotsky as individuals). Again, one has to be carefull to differentiate between differences in semantics and differences in reality.


Collectivism gives people equality and a share of power and goods. That is democratic socialism and liberalism.

Um... every political model has the goal of giving their citizens the ideal situation. They vary in how they do this. The socialist models, akin to the fascist models, concieve of the best way of doing this as having the state be the one who owns the property and makes the decisions. The conservative models concieve of the best way of doing this as having the citizens own the property and make the decisions.


Fascism is a central authoritive power seat, this is the conservative model as well.

You failed to offer any reasoning here. I think I addressed the philosophy of conservatism above though.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
The links you posted is articles pointing to the similarities between socialism & fascism... but it does not say that fascism= extreme left, which was the main issue.

Perhaps you did not read them closely. From the first article (second link): "Properly understood, fascism and communism were, as the Soviet and German labels openly declared, actually the same thing." From the second article (third link): "Taken in full historical context, with full consideration of philosophic principle, socialism and fascism are essentially the same."

That's pretty straight-forward, I think.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
by what means is the moon not made out of green cheese?

Cheese is a product of the milk industry, large chunks of rock are a product of solar system changes, the moon is a participant in the solar system not the milk industry, therefore we should conclude the moon is a large chunk of rock rather than a piece of cheese.

You seem to be suggesting that if someone believes something to be true, that's all the reason they need, and questioning them on it is subversive. It's ok; lots of people believe this. If this is your perspective, you must believe my belief is as legitimate as yours. However, you seem not to. Perhaps something is wrong here.

[David Jamieson]

Fascism places all the power in the state's hands, as does socialism

ding ding ding.... this is not true.

Facism is almost always manifested in the form of totalitarian dictatorship. IE: it is the states, so long as the state is embodied by the dictator. Hitler's brand for instance allowed for private property, but only if you met the criteria of his nationalistic sentiments. Meaning, if you were white uptight and outta sight, you could have a piece of the pie (kinda like the fatalist model of the greeks - Honour and shame) but if you were anything other than white in skin colour and of genetic descent of the teutons, you were less than human.

Politics are the greatest arena for sophists ever. Facists being the ultimate sophists. Or wolves in sheeps clothing, extremely dangerous to the many, extremely dangerous to the development of a healthy and fair country.

Conservatism as an ideology plays towards the idea that if you can screw someone out of their land and belongings according to the law of the land then all power to you. There are far to many examples of this to even start listing them.

Liberalism as an ideology plays towards the ideas of tolerating any and everyone, so long as the good of everyone is whats at hand.

Conservatives could care less about the homeless, or the impoverished in general unless they are stealing form the coprporations to feed themselves. At the point of the conservative putting down the impoverished for their misdeeds of bread theft to feed themselves is when conservatism becomes facism.

The links you posted were hardly worth considering. The message board was a hodge podge of pre-conceived notions, the second link was akin to an uneducated rant and the third while not bad, was not on solid ground and instead was a lot of ifs and musimg premises.

I would still say that this does not put facism to the left. Geez, there are similarities between democrats, liberals and conservatives, why? because they all walk the line closer to teh centre.

It is the extreme wings, wherein the politicos cast all issues into teh hues of black and white where we see the birth of outright communism and outright facism. These lines of thinking are primitive in a political sense and a humanistic sense and frankly it is good that people do not (for the most part) buy into those iseologies.

People can be liberal with right leanings and vice versa now, especially in the first world nations. As time progresses, we as a species learn more and more about ourselves and what is the correct way of going about things.

A one world government for instance will never fly simply because of cultural differences. As much as some facists would love it and even some socialists would like it. It must always remain fragmented yet accepting and tolerant in order for it to work.

You can't push an american way of life onto iraqis for instance, They, as a people do not agree with the fun****etal tenets because of the direct conflict between a Christian based society and an islamic based society. Hear comes religion now (which is the base for a lot of political thinking IE: 'faith based initiatives)

anyway, a cultural ideom is based on the core belief system hich is built by the dominant religious thought of a society. It's all maleable of course, to a degree, but the hard conflicts in ideology must be hidden from teh populace to prevent a backlash which can lead to uprising and ultimately revolution which in turn will take the country back to a state where it needs new tenets developed and generational learning restructured.

the machinery that is the state is so heavy, it works to feed itsef nowadays. People pay taxes without even knowing what those tax dollars are paying for, especialy in a federalist view. People are provided with services they don't even want! People are being governed to death with rules and laws that bind natural processes such as sexuality and parenthood. This is quite contrary to many individualistic lines of thinking.

My line of thinking is that You must take responsibility for your own actions and in order to have laws taken out, you must be honest at your root.

I guess I'm a bit of a libertarian that way with liberal leanings.

there is only so much pie to go around, wealth and power are definitely finite. To have someone give up power without a fight is almost impossible. People go so far as to rig elections and have people killed to hold the reigns of power and ultimately their own personal wealth.

In truth, this is where the problem lies. But I suppose it could change. I hope it does. I hat to think of billions in bondaged service to the few. THat just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Hitler's brand for instance allowed for private property, but only if you met the criteria of his nationalistic sentiments.

Right, you could have what the state allowed you to have, following that you met their criteria for having that specific thing. Just like in Marxism. Did they have different criteria? Sure. That doesn't mean one of them is rightism, which doesn't have a different criteria, but an entirely different system.


A one world government for instance will never fly simply because of cultural differences. As much as some facists would love it and even some socialists would like it.

"One world government" is a fundamental principle of Marxism. Surely you're aware of this. Again we find the socialists and fascists aligned.

I'm not going to reply to your absurd remarks about conservativism, as they didn't seem to have anything to do with what we were discussing. I'll suggest though, that you haven't the foggiest idea what conservatism is, which quite likely explains your beliefs here.


The links you posted were hardly worth considering.

Ok. Don't tell me you've researched this and can't find anyone agreeing with me though. Tell me the truth: that you refuse to consider anyone who agrees with me.

[David Jamieson]

Ok. Don't tell me you've researched this and can't find anyone agreeing with me though. Tell me the truth: that you refuse to consider anyone who agrees with me.

lol

In fact I have found instances of opinions that cast facism and socialism in the same light because of some inherent ideological similarities on their surfaces, such as function of the state.

It is not that I refuse to consider your P.O.V or those that are like minded.
I do consider it, I have to in order to discuss, converse or argue about it.
On the point of facism=socialism, I find your P.O.V conflicting with mine and that yours is in a decidely small minority of published views, either pre-concieved notions or principle based.

cheers

[tnwingtsun]

If you both hold fascism to be the extreme end of conservativism

then WHAT would you consider to be the extreme end of liberalism???

I for one(and I'm sure many others) agree with what chris is saying,and might add he does it with brilliance.

If liberalism is in fact what the status quote describes it to be then it is indeed a contradition of its own terms.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
It is not that I refuse to consider your P.O.V or those that are like minded

No, it's just that you "consider" them while laboring under such overtly silly, transparently biased, and plainly delusional preconceptions as "conservatives could care less about the homeless, or the impoverished in general unless they are stealing form the corporations to feed themselves."

[GLW]

The extreme end of liberalism is sometimes thought to be anarchy.

Other times it it total collectivism...

[David Jamieson]

the extreme end of liberalism is absolute collectivism, or Marxism to the letter I would suppose. Not really anarchy, because the liberal ideology still calls for a form of government.

Chris, I only hold to the ideas that are made apparent by the actions and words of those who represent those factions of political thought.

When I say Conservatives don't care about those things, I mean it. I am saying it from an eyewitness perspective so to speak.

Our conservative parties here do nothing for the social welfare unless there is a profit to be had. It is the conservative mindset that pushes ideas of 2 tiered healthcare in canada, 1 level for the poor and another level for the wealthy, i feel they should both have access to the whole schlamiel.

They also have through various policies and practices brought into being institutionalized poverty in my country which didn't exist before th Mulroney era when everyone had access and homelessness was barely an issue at all, if at all. The conservative government here in Canada has been a huge detriment to the people as a whole while fattening up the corporate sector.

These days, there is so much conservative thought prevailing in Canada, that the leading party is almost indistinguishable from the conservatives and they are the liberal party!

There are very few honourable people in politics anymore...if any.

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
When I say Conservatives don't care about those things, I mean it.

I know you do, and that's the scary thing. You're completely sold on this delusion.
In fact, what you ascribe to conservatism is not conservative ideology, but your interpretation of conservative ideology, which you then critique them for (even though they don't hold it).
I'll explain: as an example, Canadian conservatives don't, in fact, suggest a two-tier health system. Just like the liberals, they want a health system which ideally serves the citizens. (1) It's their belief that this is accomplished through partial privitization. Implicitly, what you have done is critiqued their model: by suggesting that you believe it will result in a two-tier health system. There's nothing wrong with this so far; of course, it's quite possible that the conservative model isn't the ideal one (just as it's possible that the liberal model isn't).
But you don't stop there; and here is where you go wrong. You don't critique conservatism for offering forward models which you believe don't happen to work; you critique them for motivations which you ascribe to them by assuming they don't even want the models to work. Quite simply: you ascribe them these motivations because you don't like them, then you defend not liking them based upon the alleged presense of these motivations. This is completely circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning like this serves an important role: as a defense against having to question your own beliefs. It's used extensively by all sorts of power structures to bind adherents to them, because it operates not by providing reasons to favor a certain model through discussion, but by preempting discussion alltogether.
The irony here is, for all your talk about fascism, you've just provided an extraordinary illustration of one of the primary psychosocial mechanisms by which fascism gains and maintains power.

(1) See social policies 34 through 36 in the Canadian Alliance policy book, under the heading "Ensuring that timely, quality and sustainable health care is available to every Canadian regardless of financial means."

[Merryprankster]

Right and Left are insufficient labels, but I've got to agree with Kung Lek here.

Fascism is a rightist authoritarian government. Socialism, as we have experienced it, has been leftist authoritarian.

I refer not to practice, but ideological roots. While it is true they wound up in the same place, I would argue that their ideological bases are a bit different. I would argue that their mechanical similarities exist because their means (authoritarian) require those mechanics. Dictatorships of any sort require the same workings. The Taliban regime could hardly be said to be Socialist but it was sure as heck authoritarian--and held more in common in practice with the USSR and Fascism as a result, although those in power would have probably violently disagreed with each other.

As far as Kung Lek being delusional on a couple of fronts, I gotta agree with Chris M. Chris, remember that conversation about belief preservation? Does it surprise you that such tendencies exist on more than one front? :D

[David Jamieson]

There is nothing delusional about it, and by the way, the health care act in canada was penned by Another Manning familiy member way back in teh fifties and was brought into law in the late 1950's.

It was that exact model that you seem to thinnk the alliance has magically come up with. In actuality, it was penned by the new democrats (a socialist party). The conservative have not to date penned any legislation that has to do with the welfare of the people other than to remove some of the benefits!

Chris, conservatism by it's very nature is capitalistic and focussed on the prosperous. It does not put effort into the overall well being of everyone and has serious leaning towards the business sector and it's interests and frankly spends most of it's time and energy in that area.

Of course, social services are not even on the radar screen for the conservative party here, or for your average conservative thinker anywhere.

I see conservative politics in their extreme as plain old bad, greedy, and money centric politics. I think a huge amount of people would share this thought with me.

Don't feel bad about it, I don't feel bad that you could give a hoot about the general populace and are supportive of the hawkish and greedy tenets of conservatism. It's just the way it is. There are people like you who think that facism is leftist, and there are people who would disagree with you revisionist and protectionist thinking.

You likely think this way because you know that ultimately facism is evil and god forbid it should be associated with your precious right wing. :D

I am fully aware that outright communism is associated with extreme liberalism. I have to say that it is easier for me to live with that aspect than facism. At least full out communism can be kept in check more easily because it is not practiced insidiously and transparently as the more facist ideals are.

btw- do you remember shrubs comment "This would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship". Amazing! AND REVEALING.

It is this line of thinking that effectively brought down the conservative power in Canada. They are so weak now, they are barely a political party at all. As for Mr.Harper and the Alliance, we shall see if they eventually get there house in order. Probably not in time for elections proper this fall. We will likely again have another Liberal majority here, which as far as I am concerned beats conservatism on any given day.

Cheers

[chen zhen]

then WHAT would you consider to be the extreme end of liberalism???

I'm not really familiar with the american concept of liberalism, but in europe the word liberalism is used for the polito-economical ideology, that is associated with privatisation of corporations and firms, and also the buying out of health-care, public transportation, the educational system among others to private corporate firms, so that the state will have less (economical) problems on it's hands. this is also called minimalism, which essentially is a capitalist ideology, and usually allies themselves with conservative parties (as they have in the current danish government, which calls themselves a "right-wing government"). In the US, conservatism and liberalist ideologies are both represented mostly in the Republican party.
To go to the original question, then I don't know what the extreme end of liberalism is. If i knew what the american concept of liberalism is, then maybe I could answer.

[GLW]

My statement on the extreme end had to do with either political or philosophical...and depended on your viewpoint...

Politically, it would be collectivisim...

Philosophically, if you take the acceptance of all viewpoints and actions to an extreme, anything is acceptable and no government would work...and you get anarchy...

But you are right about it typically being Collectivism...

Looking at it, I don't care for extremes in any case.

Such folks make an idea or opinion and then look for information that supports that idea (when they look at all). As opposed to looking for information and then making a decision...

In all cases, you WILL make mistakes...but in the case of the extremist, it won't matter...you just rewrite the rules to make it NOT a mistake.

[KC Elbows]

Hell, I'm in America, and I'm unclear whether there even is an accepted American definition of right and left. I mean, the whole concept of right in american government doesn't seem to equate to seeking small government, so it seems to me that the american right is right in only the sort of relativist way that Chris was talking about, only by changing the definition. I'll assume that other countries still exhibit the actual behavior, and that the definition isn't merely being made obsolete by sticking with structure and not usage.

It just seems that the left(just as much a meaningless term in the modern US, IMO) is not as supportive of business, and at the extreme would just be less so, which makes it sort of difficult to be fascist. But again, in practice, the american left blows just as many CEO's per election as the right. I am aware that most of this post is meaningless to the discussion at this point, since we're not really discussing specifically US politics anymore, but I just don't see how a structure based definition applies in the US anymore in any way that doesn't just lead to more problems because the parties themselves seem to apply usage based definitions in their "party lines", and gave up the structure based ones, because those definitions don't sound as good preceeded by expletives.

Mostly just babbling. If this were a vote, I'd say far right=fascist using the common US usage of "right" and "conservative", but using the already archaic thanks to television older definitions, my answer is Whigs, though I can no longer remember the question due to having caught typhoid aboard a steamer during my brief tour of the congo. However, I did manage to come back with a stylish new snuff box and a powdered wig to go with my out of use terminology. Kurtz says hello to everyone.

Mostly kidding, I recognize that the old definitions have a function, whereas the new ones are pretty much meaningless. Unfortunately, I think you'll find that usage beats function in language quite often. Especially with the actual conservatives and liberals calling themselves anything but. The same people who fight this tooth and nail are usually telling people how they are "betwixt" a rock and a hard place. And that's just sad. :D

[Merryprankster]

caught typhoid aboard a steamer during my brief tour of the congo.

Was it a Cleveland Steamer? And just how long have you been nicknaming your boyfriend "Congo?"

Does he know about this?

[KC Elbows]

I should expect such digressions from a gay miscreant such as yourself! The moxy of you modern folk!

[Merryprankster]

Hey, you brought it up mister powdered wig guy.

[KC Elbows]

You clearly haven't the civility to appreciate the luxuries of snuff and powered wigs. Much less Congo.

[tnwingtsun]

Kung lek,

Would you like to see Canada have a pure socialist goverment??

If you would,why?If not why?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Fascism is a rightist authoritarian government. Socialism, as we have experienced it, has been leftist authoritarian... I refer not to practice, but ideological roots. While it is true they wound up in the same place, I would argue that their ideological bases are a bit different.

If only things were simple, huh? I think I understand what you're saying here: does it get back to my observation that fascist and conservative ideology use the same semantics?


Originally posted by KC Elbows
I mean, the whole concept of right in american government doesn't seem to equate to seeking small government, so it seems to me that the american right is right in only the sort of relativist way that Chris was talking about, only by changing the definition.

Right; which is another of the significant complications at play here. Contemporary American Republicanism is dominated by the neoconservative movement whose ideological roots are in communism, not conservatism. As such, the Republican party is becoming a major source of classically socialist ideas such as supernationalism and big government.


Originally posted by Kung Lek
Chris, conservatism by it's very nature is capitalistic and focussed on the prosperous.

Observe the mechanics at play here. Opposing ideologies are not just different solutions to universal problems (even inherently flawed solutions) - they are inherently subversive, destructive, and downright evil, as is anyone who considers them. Here again is "preempting discussion." Same tactic used by the much-maligned McCarthyists going in the other direction.


I don't feel bad that you could give a hoot about the general populace and are supportive of the hawkish and greedy tenets of conservatism.

Again, observe the mechanics. How are people with different ideas percieved? Not different, not even flawed or ignorant - but evil. Again "preempting discussion." Again, compare to tactics used by fascist movements such as the Nazis.

The great modern myth is that terrible things happen because evil people do them. This is how terrible things happen; because relatively decent people let themselves concieve of the world in these terms.

[Budokan]

Get used to it, Limbaugh Licker, the liberals in this country aren't going away. Now go masturbate with the flag and drool over your autographed picture of Savage.

:p

[tnwingtsun]

Hey Hoover,I'm glad you showed up,if anyone can give a good answer you can:rolleyes:

[Merryprankster]

Chris M,

Yes, exactly. They use the same semantics because the mechanics of their power structure are identical--centralized, autocratic, authoritarian. Secret police around every corner...

But, their ideological underpinnings are largely different. Socialism emphasizes everybody's "sameness." Fascism emphasizes everbody's differences. Think about it. In the Berlin games, Hitler wanted to show the world that the Aryan RACE was supreme (thank you Jesse Owens...). Soviet and Eastern Bloc athletes, however, were exalted as examples of how the Communist SYSTEM was superior. Fascist systems didn't plan their economies as I recall, the way that Communists did, etc...

As I see it, the problem is one of context. Democracy in one of its variant forms vs. Autocracy. A leftist democrat is going to have a very different vision of rights and government involvement than a leftist authoritarian.

Here's what I consider to be a far more accurate representation than the left right thing. Nice littl quiz to go with it too.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I come out just to the left and and south of center. Which is more or less where I figured I'd be.

[David Jamieson]

Wouldn't you know it, according to the questions they asked and how i answered them (this of course is indicative of nothing), I fall into the left leaning libertarian category at compass.

Somewhere in and around Ghandi! yeesh, I don't really agree with Ghandi that much in actuality. He was a seperatist and a bit of a prude. Sure, he did some good stuff, but ultimately he broke India into 2 divided factions of Hindus vs. muslims and that problem is now, more than ever a major problem for the world, seeing as they are both Nuclear capable countries.

He did manage to end British colonialism through peaceful protest (if you can actually call it that, what with the rioting and deaths and all)

cheers

[TonyM.]

Gandi when questioned about his religion responded that he was a Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddist. I'm not positive, but I think you could be refering to the actions of Indira Gandi.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Yes, exactly. They use the same semantics because the mechanics of their power structure are identical--centralized, autocratic, authoritarian. Secret police around every corner...

I meant that fascists and rightists use the same semantics, as opposed to communists. For instance, consider whether or not property rights are considered an absurd concept.


But, their ideological underpinnings are largely different. Socialism emphasizes everybody's "sameness." Fascism emphasizes everbody's differences.

Right, absolutely. But, as you noted in the last post, don't they end up in the same place? Make the same conclusions, despite having different arguments?


A leftist democrat is going to have a very different vision of rights and government involvement than a leftist authoritarian.

Of course, as there's a wide variety of ways in which leftist ideology can impact your political or social beliefs. Regardless of the difference between two leftists, they will still, relative to any rightist, emphasize traditionally leftist ideas such as supernationalism and state-based power, right? Your "leftist democrat" might have a different idea as to how the state is composed than your "leftist authoritarian", and he may have different values for the state's behaviour (and he may be more moderate), but he still (taking into account his moderatism or lack thereof as the case may be) concieves of the general role of the state, and it's relationship with it's citizens, and it's relationship with other states, in the same way. Right?

Let me know if some illustrations would be helpfull here.

[Merryprankster]

Chris M--do you have this funny feeling that we're not disagreeing with each other at all...

My only point was that your preference for authoritarian government or individual freedom plays more of a role in how the government is structured and your day to day life than whether you are "right" or "left."

Thus Fascism is rightist and Communism, leftist--but BOTH are authoritarian.

Sorry about misinterpreting your semantics comment. Whoops.

You are correct that a leftist democrat and a leftist authoritarian--at least the way I mean it--will work from more or less the same leftist principles. However, they will disagree violently on the mechanics of how that can best become reality...

In essence, to equate the liberal left with Communism is a fallacy as well as trying to argue that the far right are Fascists.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
My only point was that your preference for authoritarian government or individual freedom plays more of a role in how the government is structured and your day to day life than whether you are "right" or "left."

But isn't leftist, even moderate leftist, ideology inherently biased towards authoritarianism?

It's leftist ideology which dictates the state tells citizens who they can or can't hire, private religious organizations who they can and can't marry, private citizens in other countries how much they must pay employees, and which emphasizes appropriation of the private citizen's productivity to redistribute to other citizens.

Now, I've chosen these examples on purpose: because I assume most people think they are good ideas, or at least think this of a few of them. Now, regardless of whether or not they are good ideas, aren't they still authoritarian?

Surely something doesn't cease being authoritarian because someone thinks it's a good idea? Surely any authoritarian movement, even the ones you feel are the most inhumane and destructive, were led and supported by people who thought they were good ideas?

[Merryprankster]

Chris,

I tend to agree with the political compass website--right and left are economic identities--the role of the state in commerce. Authoritarian and libertarian are social identities--the role of the state in your life. If it means anything, I came to the conclusions myself, but they've got it all written out--why reinvent the wheel? Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery...

You can have a government that is laissez faire and quite authoritarian in other ways.

You can also have a government that is very hands on in commerce that doesn't intrude much on day to day life.

It seems to me that serves our purposes far better than discussing right and left as encompassing terms.

[Christopher M]

You don't think the social and economic aspects are related?

What is a government doing with economic change if not inducing social change?

[Merryprankster]

Of course they're related, and of course there are some social impacts. But just because there are impacts doesn't automatically make it authoritarian - or libertarian on the other side of the coin.

You can be socially free and have leftist views or socially restrictive with rightist views - or vice versa.

You're trying to equate "leftist" with "authoritarian," or tending towards authoritarian and it just doesn't work, IMO.

You can be leftist without destroying a person's right to choose how to live their lives.

[Christopher M]

No, no; I'm just trying to understand your perspective.

If your productivity is being appropriated by the state, who chooses what to do with it (economic), and the only thing they can do with it is social control (social), then isn't social control directly proportional to economic control?

Is the distinction you're making a system where the state necessarily appropriates your productivity, but allows you to decide what is done with it, now that it's been appropriated?

[Merryprankster]

Fundamentally, that is the distinction I am making.

A Soviet style, centrally planned economy was also a soviet style, centrally planned society. Bread lines, rationed food, what job you held, etc. They locked you into a path and that's the one you took.

However, that need not be the case. You could have a government that levies fairly hefty taxes, tightly regulates business transactions and plays a very active role in all aspects of the economy, including employment rates and money supply. It may heavily subsidize certain segments of the market.

Yet, the citizenry can still select this government. Consumer spending is discretionary, and you could choose what job you take, your education level, what doctor you see, what car to buy etc. Whether to smoke or not...You still have your social freedoms intact.

So I don't see that leftist and authoritarian are synonymous or even favor each other, out of necessity.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Yet, the citizenry can still select this government.

I understand you here; it's the other differences I'm still confused about.

Leaving aside this point, do we agree that what makes the communist model authoritarian is that they appropriate your productivity for redistribution according to their designs?

Again, following the idea that social control is directly proportional to economic control; as the only thing a government can do with economic control is inact social control (or waste money or wage war; should we ignore these for sake of discussion?).

Doesn't it follow that the difference between what you propose and full-blown communism is a matter of degree? Less economic control; hence less social control. And, of course, a matter of values - what it is the state decides to do with what it has appropriated.


Consumer spending is discretionary, and you could choose what job you take, your education level, what doctor you see, what car to buy etc. Whether to smoke or not...You still have your social freedoms intact.

Well, consumer spending is discretionary only insofar as it is restricted by the government's appropriation of some amount of your purchasing power, and insofar as it operates within the limits which are defined by "tightly regulated business transactions", "heavily subsidized market segments" and so on. I mean, the functional meaning of these things is to effect consumer spending, right? And aren't these things exactly "planned economy", differing only in scale from a full-blown planned economy?

Similarly, what job you take is discretionary only insofar as it operates within the various state controls there; ditto education; ditto doctor; ditto car, and so on.

Can we still smoke? Your government takes bits of your productivity and applies it to stop some people from smoking, doesn't it?

[Merryprankster]

Leaving aside this point, do we agree that what makes the communist model authoritarian is that they appropriate your productivity for redistribution according to their designs?

Yup.


Again, following the idea that social control is directly proportional to economic control; as the only thing a government can do with economic control is inact social control (or waste money or wage war; should we ignore these for sake of discussion?).

Actually, you claimed that social control is directly proportional to economic control. I disagree. I believe that while the two are related, they are certainly not directly proportional. I can have a great deal of economic involvement and exceptionally libertarian policies w/respect to social regulation.


Doesn't it follow that the difference between what you propose and full-blown communism is a matter of degree? Less economic control; hence less social control.

You're equating economic regulation with social regulation. I don't agree.


And, of course, a matter of values - what it is the state decides to do with what it has appropriated.

Right. But that's an issue of authoritarian vs libertarian--not right vs left.


Well, consumer spending is discretionary only insofar as it is restricted by the government's appropriation of some amount of your purchasing power, and insofar as it operates within the limits which are defined by "tightly regulated business transactions", "heavily subsidized market segments" and so on. I mean, the functional meaning of these things is to effect consumer spending, right? And aren't these things exactly "planned economy", differing only in scale from a full-blown planned economy?

Influence does not equal choice control. I cannot force a person to buy chicken if they don't want it in a socially liberal society. In an authoritarian society, you won't have a choice.


Similarly, what job you take is discretionary only insofar as it operates within the various state controls there; ditto education; ditto doctor; ditto car, and so on.

Authoritarian vs. Libertarian--not right vs. left.


Can we still smoke? Your government takes bits of your productivity and applies it to stop some people from smoking, doesn't it?

It applies it to influence some people to stop smoking. But it doesn't force them to stop. They still have that choice.

However, once again, that's an issue of authoritarian vs. libertarian, not right vs. left.

ANY government of course, possesses some degree of authority or it's useless. We have to discuss this within those boundaries--complete absence of authority is simply anarchy--and there's not really any point discussing this stuff in that context, is there?

It's more appropriate to me to suggest that any government tends towards the authoritarian rather than left or right tend towards authoritarian. But that's because I define left and right in solely economic terms....