The Dems Give Up On RepublicansFollow

I swear, anymore it seems that anyone to the left of Joseph McCarthy is now considered a socialist liberal marxist ****!

You right wingers wouldn't recognize a socialist if one bit you in the ***.

They were both. The problem is that the word fascism has taken on its own meaning over the decades since WW2, so it's harder for most people today to understand that a fascist state could certainly contain a number of socialist ideas. In fact a number of the core tenants of fascism are pretty directly related to those of socialism. Most notably is the concept of the strength of "the people" unifying the state. Fascism grew in Italy out of labor movements, so this is not surprising at all. They didn't associate themselves with the international focus many socialists of the day had (open borders), but that does not preclude their larger ideology being the fruit of the same tree so to speak.


A lot of the confusion comes from labels as well. You associate socialism with "left wing". You associate fascism with authoritarianism, which you label as "right wing". Thus, you conclude that fascism and socialism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum and therefore must be in opposition to each other. Which is really just a result of failing to understand that authoritarianism isn't really confined or even defined as "right wing" at all. The right wing is the status quo, slow change, etc. The left wing is the advocates for change. Either or both may be authoritarian. And in the case of Europe in the early 20th century, a whole lot of left wing movements were quite authoritarian.

Later Liberal historians have gone to great lengths to try to jigger the definitions so that the communist revolutions in Russia and China, and the Fascist movements in Germany, Italy, and Spain weren't really leftist movements at all, but somehow right wing movements which clothed themselves in left wing rhetoric and language. It's quite amusing really...

Later Liberal historians have gone to great lengths to try to jigger the definitions so that the communist revolutions in Russia and China, and the Fascist movements in Germany, Italy, and Spain weren't really leftist movements at all, but somehow right wing movements which clothed themselves in left wing rhetoric and language. It's quite amusing really...

Yeah, no. Still having this delusion years later? No one, *in the world* who's actually studied the **** Party believes it had anything *at all* to do with Socialism. If they claim to, they're lying for some reason or other.

The problem is this: You have no idea what the word "Socialism" means, and pretty much ascribe any negative connotation possible to it. Because, you see, you're a sucker.

All old news, of course.

Socialism has failed many times. Democracy has failed many times. Fascism has failed many times.

The revolutions in China and the former USSR were both Socialist in nature. Both devolved into authoritarian regimes. The ascent of the **** Party occurred not through revolution, but through democratic processes. It devolved into an authoritarian regime.

There is no Utopian magic bullet form of government that prevents power from corrupting human beings and magically avoids authoritarianism.

Grow the fuck up.

Not that I agree that the **** party was socialist in general but, really, the things that made the ***** evil: the strident jingoism, the expansionist military policy, the national purity and xenophobia, etc are hallmarks closer to the modern right wing than to the left. Shit, I'll embrace some stupid piece of economic policy the ***** had as left wing knowing that the Republican voting, flag-worshipping, "Bomb the Arabs!" yahoo rabidly screaming about how the dirty fucking Mexicans are destroying America's culture and values is much closer to the evil the **** party personified than some zany Leftist who wants to see universal health care.

Edited, Aug 19th 2009 8:52pm by Jophiel

None of those things have anything at all to do with the modern right wing Joph.

See. That's the problem. Those on the left love to assume that all the "bad things" are right wing. Convenient, I suppose. And this assumption colors everything else. They interpret everything those on the right do within this assumption. We've seen it on these boards over and over. Oh. You oppose gay marriage. You must do so because you hate gay people! Um... No. You oppose socialized medicine. Well... You must hate poor people! Um... No. See the pattern? You project reasons for conservative positions and judge us based on those assumptions instead of our own statements.


Those things you listed are "bad things" which can be present on both left and right. What distinguishes the left from the right is status quo versus change. Period. In modern US parlance, this means conservative versus liberal, which more correctly means classical-liberalism versus social-liberalism. Neither of those automatically include any of those things you listed. However, a whole lot of those things which the "left" in the US today believes in were part of the **** agenda. Um... You want to know how many things they have in common with modern US conservatives? Zero.


US conservatives are defined by their desire for small and local government over large and federal government. We are defined by a desire to protect individual liberties to the greatest degree possible. US Liberals are defined by their desire to promote a greater social "good" by utilizing a larger federal government with greater direct control and influence over the individuals in that society. That is at the core of our political differences. Every single other thing is just window dressing.


Guess which one of those ideologies the ****'s were closer to? Yup. They believed in creating a greater social "good". Of course, they defined "good" as one in which pure aryan germans ran things, but that's ultimately just in the details, isn't it? In terms of the effect on personal liberties, it doesn't matter that much if big government is used to provide free food and housing and education to the masses, or if it's used to place undesirables into death camps. Both believe that the end goal they are pursuing is worth the "cost" to the people.

Once you step outside of the details of a given position and look just at how the government uses power (and how much it has), you'll get what I'm talking about.




Again. You're acting on an emotional moral assessment of the actions. I'm looking at the pattern with which a government obtains and uses power. Your assessment is purely subjective. What is "good"? To the German people in the mid 30s, what the ***** were doing was "good". Heck. It was "great".

Their example is why it's dangerous to rely solely on subjective interpretations of the good or bad of a government's actions by those who are wrapped up in the issues of the moment. Whether or not we provide free medical care doesn't really make us "good" or "bad". That's purely subjective. But we can say absolutely to what degree our government controls us and how much personal liberty we posses.


Obviously, you're going to disagree. But that's what makes you a liberal and me a conservative. To me, the most important thing is personal liberty. To you, it's that the government does "good things" on behalf of it's citizens. We're literally measuring with different yardsticks...

Well, there's really no reason to read further if that's honestly your opinion. Sure, if it makes you feel better to think that none of those has anything to do with the current Republican party and its followers, then by all means tell yourself that.

Ignores what? He took the "evil" aspects of the **** party, said "Nah, those things don't really count... let's talk about big government instead!" and does that.

When you ask people why the ***** were evil, no one says "They liked big government!" Rather they talk about the whole scapegoating other races (and putting them in ovens), racial purity and imperialism thing. The blind devotion to national symbols over rational thought. The sweeping hatred. If you want to ignore which party in the US contains the folks who protest immigration, try to connect the immigrant population directly to the unemployment rate, demand a national language, stereotype entire religions and advocate bombing people based on their faith, display irrational devotion to symbols and cloth, etc...

Well, sure. "Big government". That's what was wrong with the *****... "big government". Oh, yeah, and they had "Socialist" right in their name!

Congratulations on "winning" the argument, though.

Edited, Aug 19th 2009 11:45pm by Jophiel

Talk about ******* child of ******* children

What the fuck do the ***** have to do with any of this? Is this really the level of debate Republicans have fallen to?

It's pretty pathetic. But I guess it's a good indication of the intellectual debate within the Republican party. When your ideologues are people like Palin, Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, then I guess you can't expect much better.

It doesn't have to be this way. You could be disussing policy details. You could be discussing the real implications of having a public option. You could be looking at countries that already have a public option, examining the myriad of differences between countries like the UK, France, Canada, or the Netherlands, and see which one would be most appropriate for the US. You could, in other words, conduct an honest and serious debate, instead of talking about ***** and death panels and communism, which have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at stake.

In a way, though, it's probably a good sign. The fact Republicans focus so much on non-existant issues is probably a strong indication that there isn't much wrong the reform itself. If the Bill really was terrible, they wouldn't need to invent things to complain about.

I don't believe that you are representative of the modern right wing, gbaji. I believe that you practice apologetics on it's behalf for some sort of psychological solidarity, or are perhaps just cherry picking what the "modern right wing" is, but the prominent voice of right wing politics which I have heard espoused in the news and speeches for the past 12 years is not yours.

And frankly? You should take that as a compliment.

If the Candian Healthcare system is so much better than the U.S. then why does this happen?


http://freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/1319/





Edited, Aug 20th 2009 3:37pm by ThiefX