Leftist ideas of socialism promoted by right wing authoritarian regimes to increase control of production under aegis of protection of the populace.
Not leftist in themselves.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Somebody just kill me.
Somebody just kill me.Follow
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Queen bodhisattva wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
While I realize that you have no idea what the ACLU actually does, they really aren't.
Right nothing says left win like litterally defending *****.
Given that the ***** were a left wing organization, I'm not seeing a contradiction here. I'm assuming you were trying to be sarcastic and just failing miserably. But with you, who knows?
Lets continue down this road.
I am sure you attempts to link the **** party to liberalism will be about as amusing and slightly sickening in its ignorance as your claims on date rape.
Sure. Bullet points from the National Socialist agenda:
[li]
Hmmm... Any of these sound familiar? They should. They're very common liberal agenda items. Public education for all regardless of economic status. Public health care for all regardless of economic status. Public pension plan for retirement. Wealth redistrubution. Breaking up of large corporate interests. Abolishment of non-labor income (those evil wealthy people who make money out of money instead of working with their hands for it, right?). Condemnation of materialism (also known as accumulation of wealth and an economy based on such).
It was completely Liberal. It was completely left wing. it was *also* authoritarian and included ideas about who could be a citizen and such and who could own a newspaper. But those things do not *also* make it a Liberal movement. Certainly, it was presented to the people as a movement to improve the fortunes of the commmon man. To be truely "right wing" they would have achieved power through a direct military action whether supported by the people or not. That's not how it happened. Hitler rose to power largely as a result of a Liberal platform that appealed to the average person, while not sounding too much like Communism. About the only twist he put in was that instead of "the people" taking control of the means of production, in Hitler's version the state did it instead.
No matter how you slice it though, it was left leaning and hit pretty much every single Liberal talking point. Heck, he's pretty much hit every single one that Liberals here in the US talk about today. Are you now going to argue that *they* aren't left wing either? Cause that's a pretty nutty argument.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
All of those bullet points only applied to Aryan Germans.
Which only goes to further solidify my statements claim.
Which only goes to further solidify my statements claim.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Queen bodhisattva wrote:
Leftist ideas of socialism promoted by right wing authoritarian regimes to increase control of production under aegis of protection of the populace.
You do realize how silly this argument is, right?
I personally always love it when people defend failed historical liberal/socialist movements by arguing that the ideas were good, but it was "evil leaders" who corrupted them and turned them into something bad.
Um. Has it occured to you that conservatives dislike socialism specifically because it's incredibly easy for someone to use it to gain power and misuse the power they gain? And given that, your argument isn't a refutation of anything. It's a confirmation of what we conservatives already know. Socialism is dangerous because it requires a degree of power granted to the government that can easily be abused. Period. It's not that we want poor people to suffer, or the elderly to have a harder time, or for people to go hungry. It's that we recognize that in order to "fix" those things, Liberal movements will hand too much power to the government. Power which will eventually be abused.
It's just funny because when you counter with an argument like your's, it only shows me how much Liberals just don't get it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
What you have with the **** party is a right wing authoritarian party espousing certain and select left wing ideals (that at that point in time in Germany were center or center left compared to the increasing power of bolshevik communists) in order to secure public support.
The Liberal party of Canada had fiscally conservative ideas on budgets. By your line of reasoning they are therefore conservative.
The conservative party of ontario ran a public healthcare system therefore they are Liberal?
You basically are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.
The Liberal party of Canada had fiscally conservative ideas on budgets. By your line of reasoning they are therefore conservative.
The conservative party of ontario ran a public healthcare system therefore they are Liberal?
You basically are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Calling the ***** leftist because they have socialist tenets but authoritarian rule completely ignores the fact that the political spectrum is a diamond, not a line.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=5&e=5
***** fall under "Statist," which is neither purely left nor right.
trickybeck wrote:
Calling the ***** leftist because they have socialist tenets but authoritarian rule completely ignores the fact that the political spectrum is a diamond, not a line.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=5&e=5
***** fall under "Statist," which is neither purely left nor right.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=5&e=5
***** fall under "Statist," which is neither purely left nor right.
As much as Gbaji loves it when people try to defend failed.. yadda yadda, I'm equally amused when people are so enamoured by the "us or them" ideal that they have to pigeonhole any such movement. Always into the hole they don't reside in, naturally.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
trickybeck wrote:
Calling the ***** leftist because they have socialist tenets but authoritarian rule completely ignores the fact that the political spectrum is a diamond, not a line.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=5&e=5
***** fall under "Statist," which is neither purely left nor right.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=5&e=5
***** fall under "Statist," which is neither purely left nor right.
Were my examples via canadian politics to unaccessible?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Queen bodhisattva wrote:
Were my examples via canadian politics to unaccessible?
Political Compass says:
Economic Left/Right: -3.75 (Leftist)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82 (Libertarian)
Which puts me in with Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Go figure.
Politopia says that I am an economic centrist with slight Libertarian leanings.
World's Smallest Political Quiz also says I'm Centrist with a strong Liberal bent.
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 60%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 30%.
Edited, Thu May 25 01:35:01 2006 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Ah. Gotta love revisonist history.
Stop using terms you clearly don't understand. Embarassing for all of us really.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Does the ACLU give money to candidates? Compare to, say, the NRA.
ACLU defends one right to speak, not caring of the politically accepted populist* movement is of the day. Many of the founders came right out of the Social and Anti-war movements of WWI. Not all of ACLU's history is pretty by modern standards, but should be view in the history of the time period.
This isn't the first time the ACLU has had problems with the view points of important members. Just reading about Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman will make one thing all of the ACLU is Leftist or Socialist in political leanings.
Felix Adler was an member of the original board and so as an Ethical Humanist, I have long had an interest in ACLU's history. Many of my political views tend towards socialism, but with prices set by market forces. I like to think of Populist movements as like the PAPlum, so many baby bloomers were raise on.
This isn't the first time the ACLU has had problems with the view points of important members. Just reading about Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman will make one thing all of the ACLU is Leftist or Socialist in political leanings.
Felix Adler was an member of the original board and so as an Ethical Humanist, I have long had an interest in ACLU's history. Many of my political views tend towards socialism, but with prices set by market forces. I like to think of Populist movements as like the PAPlum, so many baby bloomers were raise on.
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
trickybeck wrote:
Calling the ***** leftist because they have socialist tenets but authoritarian rule completely ignores the fact that the political spectrum is a diamond, not a line.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=5&e=5
***** fall under "Statist," which is neither purely left nor right.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=5&e=5
***** fall under "Statist," which is neither purely left nor right.
Well. Let's be honest. "left" and "right" are relative terms, are they not? And incidentally, terms that get used and abused in many different ways depending on who's using them and in what context.
To say that the ***** were 'statist' and therefore neither left wing nor right wing is somewhat pointless. Smash started this entire argument by making a statement that presumed that since the ACLU defends ****'s that it *cant* be left wing. Does the diamond support Smash's statement? I don't think so.
I'm well aware of the diamond method of measuring political positions. However, I'm also well aware that most people *do* phrase things in a distinct "left v right" manner. And it certainly seemed that Smash was attempting to do so, since his argument *only* makes sense if you assume that ****'s are "right wing", right?
More to the point, here in the US, we have two major parties. Democrat and Republican. Those two parties, rightly or wrongly, are often also labeled "left" and "right" respectively. Interestingly enough, if you simply rotate the diamond you linked 45 degrees clockwise, you'll find that the "left" and "right" in the square thus produced match up pretty well with the Democrat and Republican parties in the US *and* match up with how most people think in terms of "left" and "right" in terms of US politics.
Smash certainly seemed to be trying to argue a strict "left versus right" argument with regards to the ACLU. I simply responded to that by applying the ****'s into the "side" of politics they best fit in the context we're talking about (US politics, right?). Clearly, if the **** agenda were being pushed today, it would be from within the Democrat party. Not the Republican.
Again. Most of the confusion over terms like left and right arise from the fact that they're used to mean different things. The diamond itself isn't accurate in a classical sense. We get the terms "left" and "right" from the seating arrangements of French Parliment after their revolution. Originally, it refered to those who wanted to maintain status quo (seated on the right), and those who wanted to make major changes (seated on the left). Coincidentally, the status quo in France prior to the revolution was an authoritarian, class based system, while the primary change being fought for was a Liberalist agenda (not at all to be confused with "Liberal" by the way). Interestingly enough, those classical liberalists that made up the "left" back then are what we today call Libertarians. Yet, the diamond doesn't put them left or right, and by my assessment of our political parties, they tend to be positioned to the right (in fact, libertarians are often called a "far right" position in the US).
Um. But we don't live in post-revolution France. We live in the US (or at least the ACLU exists within the US, so this needs to be framed in the context of US politics). Thus, it's inaccurate to take left and right to mean what they meant then. And it's inaccurate to blindly take the diamond definitions (since they're broad and don't actually match how most people use the terms). So, call me silly, but I used "left" in the context of "ideas that are pushed by those typically labeled "left" in US politics. And guess what? Big government (statism) is an attribute generally called "left" in the US. So are pro-labor arguments. And anti-business arguments. It just so happens that those on the "left" end up being statist, but they are statist nonetheless.
Or am I the only one who remembers Smash arguing strongly that we should have a 50% tax, provide all citizens with free education, housing, and medical care, and that it should be the government that decides how much any given job or good should be worth in our economy? If that's not statist, I'm not sure what is...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Let me also add that I have some serious reservations about the diamond methodology of measuring "left" and "right" in our political spectrum. And not just in the fact that 250 years ago, "left" was where the top is in the diamon, and "right" was where the bottom is (so basically, the whole thing rotated 90 degrees sometime between when those terms were first coined and when someone came up with the diamond), and not just in the fact that at least in the context of US political parties, the diamond should actually be rotated yet another 45 degrees clockwise, but also in the fact that the very terms "economic issues" and "personal issues" are a bit vague.
The problem is that we can't say what the scale of "personal issues" means. Nor can we say what the scale of "economic issues" means. Does someone at the 100% economic issues mean he simply cares about the economy the most? But in what way? Does he support massive government intervention and control in order to keep the economy working as well as possible? Or the exact opposite? Or does it even measure "state economy" at all? Maybe the guy at 100% cares the most about personal economic opportunity? And if that's the case, then how does that bode in the broader sense? Same problem applies to personal issues.
From the way the diamond is drawn it appears that those "issues" are measured in terms of "freedom from state control". So a 0,0 means that the state has absolute control both in terms of someone's personal life and his economic future (hence, being completely statist). While a 100,100 argues that the state have no control over either (libertarian).
Those two seem to work ok, but we get into some problems when we look at conservative and liberal positions. Is it accurate to say that one is 100% about economic freedom from the state, but 0% personal freedom from the state if one is a far right conservative? Is that even possible? After all, assuming that 100% economic freedom also includes the ability of any individual to succeed in the economy without interference from the government, how is that possible without also having a degree of personal freedom? The only way we can resolve this is if we define "economic issues" as a broader "state economy" rather then an economy free from the state. In that case, we can have a condition in which the needs of improving the GNP to the maximum possible can be achieved at the expense of people's personal freedoms (for example in a state where your job is picked for you based on where you'd be best, and you have no choice in the matter). But that's a different definition then the one that defines statism.
Same deal with the liberal side. Is it actually possible to have 100% personal freedom but not have any freedom from the government in terms of economics? Interestingly enough, it does seem like some liberals think so, but I don't. This would seem to tie into the idea that you can have strict government control over the economy, tax high, reduce economic opportunity, but provide services and whatnot to "the people" allowing them to pursue whatever things they want. But my personal belief is that there's fundamentally no way for a state to have that much control over the economy and not end up having to reduce personal freedoms as well. I think there are a lot of liberals who believe otherwise, but I simply can't see how it's possible. You give the government that much control over your economics, and it'll have to intrude into your personal life as well.
Dunno. I have a sneaking suspicion that the diamond was cooked up by a group of libertarians in order to "score" themselves at the best on both scales. It's not really accurate for anything else though...
The problem is that we can't say what the scale of "personal issues" means. Nor can we say what the scale of "economic issues" means. Does someone at the 100% economic issues mean he simply cares about the economy the most? But in what way? Does he support massive government intervention and control in order to keep the economy working as well as possible? Or the exact opposite? Or does it even measure "state economy" at all? Maybe the guy at 100% cares the most about personal economic opportunity? And if that's the case, then how does that bode in the broader sense? Same problem applies to personal issues.
From the way the diamond is drawn it appears that those "issues" are measured in terms of "freedom from state control". So a 0,0 means that the state has absolute control both in terms of someone's personal life and his economic future (hence, being completely statist). While a 100,100 argues that the state have no control over either (libertarian).
Those two seem to work ok, but we get into some problems when we look at conservative and liberal positions. Is it accurate to say that one is 100% about economic freedom from the state, but 0% personal freedom from the state if one is a far right conservative? Is that even possible? After all, assuming that 100% economic freedom also includes the ability of any individual to succeed in the economy without interference from the government, how is that possible without also having a degree of personal freedom? The only way we can resolve this is if we define "economic issues" as a broader "state economy" rather then an economy free from the state. In that case, we can have a condition in which the needs of improving the GNP to the maximum possible can be achieved at the expense of people's personal freedoms (for example in a state where your job is picked for you based on where you'd be best, and you have no choice in the matter). But that's a different definition then the one that defines statism.
Same deal with the liberal side. Is it actually possible to have 100% personal freedom but not have any freedom from the government in terms of economics? Interestingly enough, it does seem like some liberals think so, but I don't. This would seem to tie into the idea that you can have strict government control over the economy, tax high, reduce economic opportunity, but provide services and whatnot to "the people" allowing them to pursue whatever things they want. But my personal belief is that there's fundamentally no way for a state to have that much control over the economy and not end up having to reduce personal freedoms as well. I think there are a lot of liberals who believe otherwise, but I simply can't see how it's possible. You give the government that much control over your economics, and it'll have to intrude into your personal life as well.
Dunno. I have a sneaking suspicion that the diamond was cooked up by a group of libertarians in order to "score" themselves at the best on both scales. It's not really accurate for anything else though...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 258
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (258)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Somebody just kill me.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC