NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, WTF mates? I thought all communists were liberals, and all liberals were left wing. I've heard neo-liberal=conservitive=right wing and neo-con=liberal=left wing. Then I learned nazi is short for national socialist, and I've always thought socialists were essentually low-level communists and that would mean that the nazis are left wing. Which would mean America is in fact a libaral nation, and the media (except for fox news) is biased to the right. I'm REALLY confused.

Liberalism is the belief that liberty is the most important aspect of society, it is not inherently left-wing.

and the nazis were actually right-wing their "socialism" translated roughly to "the state controls everything, off to the camps with you".

not all commies are liberals in fact, very few are. Stalin DEFINETELY was not.

Liberalism is the belief that liberty is the most important aspect of society, it is not inherently left-wing.

and the nazis were actually right-wing their "socialism" translated roughly to "the state controls everything, off to the camps with you".

not all commies are liberals in fact, very few are. Stalin DEFINETELY was not.

So... the whole conservitins calling liberals "Commies" is just due to anti-communist sentiment?

So... the whole conservitins calling liberals "Commies" is just due to anti-communist sentiment?

Anti-liberal sentiment.

Welcome to the crazy world of political labels 2006.

BTW. Fascists/Nazis are authoritarian centerists. They usually range from -2 to +2 on the economic scale. The BNP party in the UK would be a -1 on the economic scale.

I'm a weird label: I'm Liberal(social), Socialist & Green.

So... the whole conservitins calling liberals "Commies" is just due to anti-communist sentiment?

Yes, its just to make them look bad.

So... the whole conservitins calling liberals "Commies" is just due to anti-communist sentiment?

Just a smear campaign against liberals, most(not all) liberals in the US tend to be left-leaning, and communists are as left as you can get conservatives just connect the dots. The difference is that almost 100% of communism is authoritarian- meaning the state has almost absolute power over the people it rules, but liberals and leftist liberals believe that the people deserve the power as well as liberty.

Neo-con's are just short of fascist, and I really don't know what the hell Neo-liberals are supposed to be. National Socialism was really Fascism, and wasn't socialist at all, and Communism in almost every context it's been practiced has actually been fascism that calls itself communism.

The Nazis and the Soviets both called themself socialist, but neither really were. Both were highly fascist.

The difference is that almost 100% of communism is authoritarian- meaning the state has almost absolute power over the people it rules,

Which version of communism is that?

Ok, there is a general spectrum that can be adhered too.

The farthest right you can get is facism, and the farthest left is communism.

Plus the whole liberals not at all related too communists is complete, utter bullshit. Though not nearly close too authotarian, Liberals perfer too grant the federal goverment more freedom, and power. They believe in a goverment enforced (and consequently goverment defined) liberty. They also, beleive in many other ideals, that would define them as granting the goverment more power.

Dont get me wrong. Conservatives can just as easily grant the goverment more power. Im just saying, the US Republican party, and most conservative parties are against goverment intervention (free trade vs fair trade) Nazis were not socialist in the least bit. The German socialists were imprisoned upon them coming too power. They were facists pure and simple, in whoch the state dictates, defines, and controlls, literally everything.

Neo-con's are just short of fascist, and I really don't know what the hell Neo-liberals are supposed to be. National Socialism was really Fascism, and wasn't socialist at all, and Communism in almost every context it's been practiced has actually been fascism that calls itself communism.

The Nazis and the Soviets both called themself socialist, but neither really were. Both were highly fascist.

Neo-cons are fascist because of their support of corporate welfare and the belief of Corpratism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism).

Which version of communism is that?

He means totalitarianism/statism. Unfortuntly they have been brainwashed into belivieng that is the only form of socialism/communism their is.

Ok, there is a general spectrum that can be adhered too.

The farthest right you can get is facism, and the farthest left is communism.

Plus the whole liberals not at all related too communists is complete, utter bullshit. Though not nearly close too authotarian, Liberals perfer too grant the federal goverment more freedom, and power. They believe in a goverment enforced (and consequently goverment defined) liberty. They also, beleive in many other ideals, that would define them as granting the goverment more power.

Dont get me wrong. Conservatives can just as easily grant the goverment more power. Im just saying, the US Republican party, and most conservative parties are against goverment intervention (free trade vs fair trade) Nazis were not socialist in the least bit. The German socialists were imprisoned upon them coming too power. They were facists pure and simple, in whoch the state dictates, defines, and controlls, literally everything.

And thats the only important kind of goverment intervention to be against right? Not preventing the stripping of basic civil liberties?:rolleyes: Get with it the political line up isn't two deminsional, its a grid of two lines. You got Authoritarian and Libertarian and on the other axis Socalist and Lazie Fair.

[QUOTE=Cyrian space;11741603]Neo-con's are just short of fascist, and I really don't know what the hell Neo-liberals are supposed to be. QUOTE]


Neo-liberals are the economists of the neo-cons. Reagon and his Reagonomics being the base point. Bush's economic policy - pulled back welfare state, laissez-faire governmental style - is neo-liberal.

Interesting to note that classical liberalism is essentially a right-wing concept: Liberals like Adam Smith invented Capitalism.

Famous American liberal William Sumner in the 1890s said of social equality and the Welfare state: "The drunkard in the gutter is where he ought to be"


Amazing then that conservative America throths at the mouth over 'liberals' they dont have a damn clue what the word means...

Oh and in Britain the third political party is the Liberal Democrats - a centrist party....

learn to spell political...

don't look at it as "left" and "right" wing. There is way more to it than that...look at it more in the style of the political compass.

Which version of communism is that?

bolshivism, as well as maoism, and really almost very form of communism that has come to power as of yet.

He means totalitarianism/statism.

Then he is not talking about any extreme leftist ideology I can think of, except perhaps the more authoritarian Leninist sects.

bolshivism, as well as maoism, and really almost very form of communism that has come to power as of yet.

You do realize that genuine Communists have always maintained that "the people deserve the power as well as liberty"?

Indeed, the entire premise behind modern Communism is the empowerment of the people against the capitalist ruling class - radical egalitarian democracy.

The fact that Stalin and Mao failed to adhere to that principle demonstrates merely that they were not Communists.

The farthest right you can get is facism, and the farthest left is communism.

:confused:

that doesn't even make any sense.

:confused:

that doesn't even make any sense.

Nor does the traditional political spectrum.

You do realize that genuine Communists have always maintained that "the people deserve the power as well as liberty"?

Indeed, the entire premise behind modern Communism is the empowerment of the people against the capitalist ruling class - radical egalitarian democracy.

The fact that Stalin and Mao failed to adhere to that principle demonstrates merely that they were not Communists.

Then apparently there have been no communist states as of yet....

bolshivism, as well as maoism, and really almost very form of communism that has come to power as of yet.

:( Bolshivism/lenninism/marxism/maoism is only one form of socialism/communism. It came from extreme poverty in imperial Russia when they tried to reinstate serfdom. Their was a short period before when Russia was actually liberal. The same in China which until the 20's was ruled by an 2000 year old monarchy that was deeply bureaucratic and reduced the government to a halt. Both Russia and China was shaped by the 1930's and 40's when totalitarianism theatened world. (Including Hitler & Mussolini)

Then he is not talking about any extreme leftist ideology I can think of, except perhaps the more authoritarian Leninist sects.

I'm decidly not a Marxist. Marxism in theory is great but right now is impossible less we have Star Trek-like technology. Anarcho-communism & Libertarian Socialism are the best way to build a true left world.

-SNIP-

I believe an extreme leftist state could potentially be democratic and/or liberal, I am just highly skeptical there ever will be one.

What is the difference between "liberal" and "libertarian"? Is the latter a sub-set of the former?

I'm decidly not a Marxist. Marxism in theory is great but right now is impossible less we have Star Trek-like technology.

I'm not a Marxist, but why do you say so?

Anarcho-communism & Libertarian Socialism are the best way to build a true left world.

I am roughly an anarcho-communist; I have come to this position from two distinct perspectives whose differences have serious implications for the proper form of such a society.

I am no longer certain that a "true left world" will be all that much of an improvement over the current mess.

I'm not a Marxist, but why do you say so?



I am roughly an anarcho-communist; I have come to this position from two distinct perspectives whose differences have serious implications for the proper form of such a society.

I am no longer certain that a "true left world" will be all that much of an improvement over the current mess.


Perhaps then you're an anarcho-capitalist...;)

I'm not a Marxist, but why do you say so?



I am roughly an anarcho-communist; I have come to this position from two distinct perspectives whose differences have serious implications for the proper form of such a society.

I am no longer certain that a "true left world" will be all that much of an improvement over the current mess.
I believe an extreme leftist state could potentially be democratic and/or liberal, I am just highly skeptical there ever will be one.

Cause it's used as a pejorative label from the far-right to denote that being a Marxist is akin to being a called a Hitlerist or Stalinist.

I agree with both of you on the last part. I doubt it will ever happen in my lifetime but I have hope for the future. Sohern it will better when you erradicate globalist capitalism.

Perhaps then you're an anarcho-capitalist...;)

Capitalism is a disgusting, vile, perverse, despicable economic system based upon the elitist tyranny of the rich minority and the brutal exploitation of everyone else. It sacrifices human dignity and freedom on the altar of wealth maximization, and, in its very best forms, pretends to benevolence by offering us the "compensation" of cheap junk.

No, thank you.

Sohern it will better when you erradicate globalist capitalism.

In some ways, sure... more people will be fed, for instance. The most severe injustices will be curtailed.

But will people be any freer?

Capitalism is a disgusting, vile, perverse, despicable economic system based upon the elitist tyranny of the rich minority and the brutal exploitation of everyone else. It sacrifices human dignity and freedom on the altar of wealth maximization, and, in its very best forms, pretends to benevolence by offering us the "compensation" of cheap junk.

No, thank you.

I agree. However, anarcho-capitalism is an extreme form of anarcho-syndacalysm (bad spelling) which in turn is part of anarcho-communism. The difference being that the lefty world you said was sadly out of reach would not exist: rather money would be phased out in favour of a kind of "get what you grab" existence....

Not my political viewpoint you understand...

I agree. However, anarcho-capitalism is an extreme form of anarcho-syndacalysm (bad spelling) which in turn is part of anarcho-communism.

Anarcho-syndicalism has nothing to do with "anarcho"-capitalism.

"Anarcho"-capitalism is the privatization of the state (which its advocates mistake for the elimination of the state.)

It will be freer if it is done is smaller groups than larger nations. I believe in the "village" approach to socialism. What the need is faith in it's own ability to build a better society. We have to stop this defeatistism in our world. We have come so far in such a short time. We can go further if we work together, come together as a people.

And yes I am a hippie!

Anarcho-syndicalism has nothing to do with "anarcho"-capitalism.

"Anarcho"-capitalism is the privatization of the state (which its advocates mistake for the elimination of the state.)


Personally I'm an evolutionary socialist - but for arguments sake, I'm pretty positive the term anarcho-syndicalist is used in conjunction with both anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism. Within anarcho-communism I've heard it used to describe the eventual situation once true collectivisation has taken place, in which trade and commerce become a part of nature, money disappearing etc...I've heard it used by the others as a term to describe the process you describe above (I agree with that summarisation actually) - the syndicalisation of society through 'true' capitalism and individualisation. A collection of interlinked individuals if you will.........

Then again you sound pretty positive, I could be wrong and like I say, nothing to do with my own viewpoint.

Personally I'm an evolutionary socialist

We've been waiting long enough.

but for arguments sake, I'm pretty positive the term anarcho-syndicalist is used in conjunction with both anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism. Within anarcho-communism I've heard it used to describe the eventual situation once true collectivisation has taken place, in which trade and commerce become a part of nature, money disappearing etc...I've heard it used by the others as a term to describe the process you describe above (I agree with that summarisation actually) - the syndicalisation of society through 'true' capitalism and individualisation. A collection of interlinked individuals if you will.........

Anarcho-syndicalism involves the overthrow of capitalism by the trade unions, and its replacement with a socialist economy run by worker self-management.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

"Anarcho"-capitalism rejects all forms of socialism, preferring to maintain the private ownership of the means of production. It is incompatible with all varieties of left-wing anarchism.

It will be freer if it is done is smaller groups than larger nations.

Yes, that is a move forward.

I believe in the "village" approach to socialism.

And how will you get the population of the world to return to villages?

What the need is faith in it's own ability to build a better society. We have to stop this defeatistism in our world.

What we need is reason. Its dictates merit attention, even if they are unpleasant.

How do you intend to bring about this better society? What elements of it will make it better than what we have today?

Capitalism is a disgusting, vile, perverse, despicable economic system based upon the elitist tyranny of the rich minority and the brutal exploitation of everyone else. It sacrifices human dignity and freedom on the altar of wealth maximization, and, in its very best forms, pretends to benevolence by offering us the "compensation" of cheap junk.

No, thank you.

... Which is why I love it.

Yes, that is a move forward.



And how will you get the population of the world to return to villages? I wish I knew. I do think that the population will decline in the future and people with live in smaller groups.



What we need is reason. Its dictates merit attention, even if they are unpleasant.

How do you intend to bring about this better society? What elements of it will make it better than what we have today?

Reason, faith and logic can work hand in hand together to build what ever we wanted. It's just getting people together.

We've been waiting long enough.



Anarcho-syndicalism involves the overthrow of capitalism by the trade unions, and its replacement with a socialist economy run by worker self-management.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

"Anarcho"-capitalism rejects all forms of socialism, preferring to maintain the private ownership of the means of production. It is incompatible with all varieties of left-wing anarchism.


I stand happily corrected.

As to evolution versus revolution, I used to date a Trotskyist and I'm very much afeared that come a bloody revolution she may end up in power...not seriously.

I struggle to come to terms with the concept of revolution within socialism. I believe it is possible to achieve social justice, equality of opportunity etc through democratic means: however, it is becoming less and less likely. I struggle in my country with my beliefs as the vast, disenfranchised, apathetic working classes seem unable to break free of Tony Blair's incredible privatising and charismatic smile. Oh well...

As to evolution versus revolution, I used to date a Trotskyist and I'm very much afeared that come a bloody revolution she may end up in power...not seriously.

Eh? Who said anything about a Leninist revolution?

I struggle to come to terms with the concept of revolution within socialism. I believe it is possible to achieve social justice, equality of opportunity etc through democratic means: however, it is becoming less and less likely.

A revolution can be (and must be, if it is to lead to socialism) perfectly democratic. "Evolution" involves submission to the leadership of political parties; its means are incompatible with its ends, and as such it will always result in stagnation.

Which does not mean that we should not vote tactically when appropriate, merely that there are better things to do than spend our time and effort worrying about elections.

Eh? Who said anything about a Leninist revolution?



A revolution can be (and must be, if it is to lead to socialism) perfectly democratic. "Evolution" involves submission to the leadership of political parties; its means are incompatible with its ends, and as such it will always result in stagnation.

Which does not mean that we should not vote tactically when appropriate, merely that there are better things to do than spend our time and effort worrying about elections.



I did say not seriously and I used the word bloody which must act as some form of disclaimer - the above dialogue would indicate that you aren't talking about a Leninist revolution.

Interesting on Evolution as a term meaning submission. Between 1945 and 1974 the British Labour Party functioned as a true party for the Social Democrat/socialist. Would you class them as Evolutionary? They had the machinations of a party but were based heavily within the unions and gave us many things - the NHS for example. Would you suggest that this can never happen again?

Interesting on Evolution as a term meaning submission.

That is not the definition, merely the practice.

Between 1945 and 1974 the British Labour Party functioned as a true party for the Social Democrat/socialist.

It didn't abolish capitalism; thus, it was not socialist.

"Social democrat" no longer means socialist.

Would you class them as Evolutionary?

Yes.

They had the machinations of a party but were based heavily within the unions and gave us many things - the NHS for example. Would you suggest that this can never happen again?

No, I wouldn't; I would suggest that nationalized industries with statist systems of management in the context of the maintenance of capitalist tyranny is not even close to the sort of model I want to see advanced.

Capitalism is a disgusting, vile, perverse, despicable economic system based upon the elitist tyranny of the rich minority and the brutal exploitation of everyone else. It sacrifices human dignity and freedom on the altar of wealth maximization, and, in its very best forms, pretends to benevolence by offering us the "compensation" of cheap junk.

No, thank you.

What color is the sky in your world? All of the socialism/communism/whateverism in the world fails and stagnates countries. Get used to it.

That is not the definition, merely the practice.



It didn't abolish capitalism; thus, it was not socialist.

"Social democrat" no longer means socialist.



Yes.



No, I wouldn't; I would suggest that nationalized industries with statist systems of management in the context of the maintenance of capitalist tyranny is not even close to the sort of model I want to see advanced.


Interesting. I think you'd like this guy, even if you won't neccessarily agree with him. I'm going to sign off now but I must say It's been enlightening - and I mean that.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Benn

So... the whole conservitins calling liberals "Commies" is just due to anti-communist sentiment?
Due to McCarthyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism), to be precise.

Nor does the traditional political spectrum.
I don't think you understand.

communism is an economic system, last time I checked facism was not an economic system.

how do you have a line from left to right with communism on one end and facism on the other.

it doesn't make any sense at all. what if you were a facist communist?

Facsism isn't a ecenomic system. It's a form of government.

"Anarcho"-capitalism is a misnomer. Property is authority and therefore "anarcho"-capitalism isn't even close to Anarchism. A better name for it would be Non-statist capitalism.

The difference is that almost 100% of communism is authoritarian- meaning the state has almost absolute power over the people it rules, but liberals and leftist liberals believe that the people deserve the power as well as liberty.

It depends. There are shitloads of different kinds of communism. Marxism-Leninism, anarcho-communism (most NS communists seem to lean in this direction), Marxism, council communism, Titoism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism, just plain generic "communism," etc.

Just a smear campaign against liberals, most(not all) liberals in the US tend to be left-leaning, and communists are as left as you can get conservatives just connect the dots. The difference is that almost 100% of communism is authoritarian- meaning the state has almost absolute power over the people it rules, but liberals and leftist liberals believe that the people deserve the power as well as liberty.

I love it when people call something a smear campaign and then promote their own agenda. Libertarians believe in liberty, liberals believe in liberty in some areas and not in others.

Ok, WTF mates? I thought all communists were liberals, and all liberals were left wing. I've heard neo-liberal=conservitive=right wing and neo-con=liberal=left wing. Then I learned nazi is short for national socialist, and I've always thought socialists were essentually low-level communists and that would mean that the nazis are left wing. Which would mean America is in fact a libaral nation, and the media (except for fox news) is biased to the right. I'm REALLY confused.

Welcome to the grown-up world, kid. It gets worse for about the next 50 or 60 years, and then, mercifully, you get to forget all about it. :p

All these labels are useless, as nobody agrees on them, except political scientists and related academics. We here at NSG definitely do not agree. Even the political compass is a gross simplification of a very complex system. It is better to debate by issue rather than attempt to pigeonhole ideas or people into these cumbersome labels.

Well, communism and socialism, defined by Marx, are a little bit different to the real exitsing communist states.

First, Marx wanted to create communistic states. The workes should get all the power and control the economy. the only problem is, that this never worked.

Socialism was a kind of Utopia. Marx thought, that after sometime, when where are no more capitalists, everyone could decide, how much he works. Everyone should work for his own wealth. In fact, this would be very liberal - but I can't remeber any states, which have installed real socialism.

National Socialism wasn't socialism, mainly because the industry was still property of private persons. Although, there were some similarities between Hitler-Germany and the Sovjetunion with Stailn. They both had a strong leader and a cult, which was almost religious. Both were very nationalistic, expansionistic and opponents of the regime were imprisoned and murderd in KZs or Gulags. The Sovjetunion didn't have a racist regime, but it was anti-semitic as well in these days.

Politicaly, there were no big differences, they were only economical.