NationStates Jolt Archive

Please take a look at the emory university article. This link might not work as I have not done a ling before.http://brain-terminal.com/

Edit: The emory article is below a little you have to scrolll down a bit to get it.

Brain terminal, how appropriate.

Ok. What's the purpose of the thread? The left is ebil?

Have you even bothered to check source and reconsider if this is a person qualified to act as a journalist?

From further down:

It used to be that leftists would be outraged by such a thing. After all, they claim to sympathize with the oppressed. But these days, when women are killed for being the victims of rape, or when gays are executed for being who they are, leftists first must look into who is doing the killing. If it’s a Muslim doing the killing, then for some reason, it is excusable.

Obviously this guy is a bias machine and he is writing an anti-left, pro-right blog with no moral standards and even left journalistic understanding. I doubt he even bothered to verify a single source before he started his hate-mongering crusade.

Have you even bothered to check source and reconsider if this is a person qualified to act as a journalist?

From further down:



Obviously this guy is a bias machine and he is writing an anti-left, pro-right blog with no moral standards and even left journalistic understanding. I doubt he even bothered to verify a single source before he started his hate-mongering crusade.

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

is it your contention that the left should stop hating fascism and racism and stupidity and blatant hypocrisy?

is it your contention that the left should stop hating fascism and racism and stupidity and blatant hypocrisy?

Perhaps it's time to realize that the "Left" is fascism and racism and stupidity and blatant hypocrisy.

Perhaps it's time to realize that the "Left" is fascism and racism and stupidity and blatant hypocrisy.

yes, perhaps it is. now if only there were some reason to do so...

Perhaps it's time to realize that the "Left" is fascism and racism and stupidity and blatant hypocrisy.

Well that's a snappy comeback. Not real accurate or intelligent, but snappy! :D

is it your contention that the left should stop hating fascism and racism and stupidity and blatant hypocrisy?

On a side note, I think both nazism and fascism is to count as left. Both political system supports a strong state, in the case of nazism also restrictions on corporations. Not to mention that nazism is a shortening of "National Socialism" and that the name of Adolf Hitlers party was "National Socialist German Workers' Party".

Obviously this guy is a bias machine and he is writing an anti-left, pro-right blog with no moral standards and even left journalistic understanding. I doubt he even bothered to verify a single source before he started his hate-mongering crusade.

Yup. Looks very much like "Oh, let's make up lots of unsourced statements about how leftists support murder and rape! After all, some idiot or other is bound to believe it!"

That "Diversity Facilitation Training" handbook is a mite bit disturbing. The author, for example, classifies racism as something that can only be associated with White folks. It's really kind of weird.

http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/3d0208922083e5d59664be8371ab5f0f.pdf?PHPSESSID=f26d2c86bd597e305009b1f7bab5b6a5

On a side note, I think both nazism and fascism is to count as left. Both political system supports a strong state, in the case of nazism also restrictions on corporations. Not to mention that nazism is a shortening of "National Socialism" and that the name of Adolf Hitlers party was "National Socialist German Workers' Party".

Uh, wrong. Neither fit neatly into a broad classification of left or right. Nazism for instance was very anti-personal freedom, for that matter so was Fascism, which is a right winger position.

Uh, wrong. Neither fit neatly into a broad classification of left or right. Nazism for instance was very anti-personal freedom, for that matter so was Fascism, which is a right winger position.

A fact that highlights the absurdity of our current political classification system. Merely a creation of the political oppositionalism of the eighteen-hundreds.

Uh, wrong. Neither fit neatly into a broad classification of left or right. Nazism for instance was very anti-personal freedom, for that matter so was Fascism, which is a right winger position.

If I remember right, the Soviet Union was also "very anti-personal freedom". And how is fascism a right wing position? But I agree that they are hard to classify.

If I remember right, the Soviet Union was also "very anti-personal freedom". And how is fascism a right wing position? But I agree that they are hard to classify.

The problem is people see the USSR had a communist system and automatically assumes that to be "left". It's not specifically. There's nothing in the typically liberal ideology that allows for dictatorships and racism.

Uh, wrong. Neither fit neatly into a broad classification of left or right. Nazism for instance was very anti-personal freedom, for that matter so was Fascism, which is a right winger position.

If you look at what the Nazis did, the legislation they passed-it was all the handbook of the American Liberal. Social security, the sacred cow of the left, was initiated by the Nazis, anti-tobacco legislation started with the Nazis. The Holocaust-well, there is one political party which advocates the slaughter of their political opposition, then claims they were joking and the remark should be ignored and not apologized for. The only difference between the American Left and the Nazis is choice of targets. Everything else is identical.

If you look at what the Nazis did, the legislation they passed-it was all the handbook of the American Liberal. Social security, the sacred cow of the left, was initiated by the Nazis, anti-tobacco legislation started with the Nazis. The Holocaust-well, there is one political party which advocates the slaughter of their political opposition, then claims they were joking and the remark should be ignored and not apologized for. The only difference between the American Left and the Nazis is choice of targets. Everything else is identical.

402 posts and you've already shown you absolutely cannot be taken seriously. Shame that.

I'd reply to the morons that believe Nazism, Fascism and "hatred" is left-wing, but it dawned on me that for me to waste my skills on them would be tossing pearls before swine.

The only difference between the American Left and the Nazis is choice of targets. Everything else is identical.

Social security, anti-tobacco-ism (how is this liberal?) and holocausts existed long before Nazism

however if we follow this silly train of thought we arrive at immigration policy's, secret police, the governments power to do anything it pleases and lets not forget a knee jerk reaction to anything resembling socialism hmmm

The problem is people see the USSR had a communist system and automatically assumes that to be "left". It's not specifically. There's nothing in the typically liberal ideology that allows for dictatorships and racism.

True, but the Soviet Union was still on the left wing. There are several grades of "left", and communism is one of them. So is, in my opinion, also nazism and fascism. Tragically, I don´t think anyone can be completely neutral on that issue.

On a side note, I think both nazism and fascism is to count as left. Both political system supports a strong state, in the case of nazism also restrictions on corporations. Not to mention that nazism is a shortening of "National Socialism" and that the name of Adolf Hitlers party was "National Socialist German Workers' Party".

That's not true. Left and right is defined by a "lockeian-hobbesian" dichotomy. Fascism is the furthest progression of the hobbesian view of human nature as fundamentally evil and unreasonable. Communism is the furthest left state and fascism is the furthest right. Restriction on personal freedoms is the negative progression from left to right, whereas economic liberty runs the opposite way (generally).

It's not fair to call Liberals "unrealistic". The difference between the two is that liberals have decided that human suffering should not be an element to weigh. The reason that unreasonable liberals are hesitant to attack the "crazy" middle east makes perfect sense: We are not fighting any one country, and the only real way to make terrorism to go away is genocide, which is the primary reason that Saddam Hussein (not a good man in any sense) had to resort to it to keep the disaster (thanks to the British coalescing) known as Iraq under control. Every one terrorist we kill only exacerbates the problem. To quote my hero, George Carlin: "The Crazed Fundamentalists Will Win." In short, we're going to lose. It's why Gandhi won: we won't violate our laws to defeat them. They simply have far more motivation than the US. I don't see US citizens strapping bombs to themselves and blowing the bajesus out of buildings or vehicles. We're far too comfy in our jet skis and safe suburban neighborhoods.

Oh, stop reading Ann Coulter: she fabricates much of her evidence. I can tell some of you have pulled points from what she says. Just be conscientious of the validity of your sources.

If you look at what the Nazis did, the legislation they passed-it was all the handbook of the American Liberal. Social security, the sacred cow of the left, was initiated by the Nazis, anti-tobacco legislation started with the Nazis. The Holocaust-well, there is one political party which advocates the slaughter of their political opposition, then claims they were joking and the remark should be ignored and not apologized for. The only difference between the American Left and the Nazis is choice of targets. Everything else is identical.

and the Nazis had one of the most efficient economies ever. But liberals don't. It's not the same at all. Read up.

On a side note, I think both nazism and fascism is to count as left. Both political system supports a strong state, in the case of nazism also restrictions on corporations.

except that a strong state is not a defining feature of the left. in fact, except for the ridiculously marginal sincere libertarian right, the only support for not-so-strong states is to be found on the left.

Not to mention that nazism is a shortening of "National Socialism" and that the name of Adolf Hitlers party was "National Socialist German Workers' Party".

i give you the democratic people's republic of (north) korea. name-based argument refuted.

True, but the Soviet Union was still on the left wing.

Questionable at best.

What features, specifically, made the Soviet Union "left wing"?

...

obvious troll is obvious

On a side note, I think both nazism and fascism is to count as left. Both political system supports a strong state, in the case of nazism also restrictions on corporations. Not to mention that nazism is a shortening of "National Socialism" and that the name of Adolf Hitlers party was "National Socialist German Workers' Party".

so that means people on the far right support Anarchy? No. That's a sect of leftism. You're getting statists and leftists confused.

True, but the Soviet Union was still on the left wing.

so what your saying is if a few despots control all the nations wealth its left wing...

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production.

but I think all the wealth of a nation being concentrated in a hands of a few sounds awfully familiar ;)

There are several grades of "left", and communism is one of them.

USSR =/= Communism

unless the Soviet Union was little more than a collection of communes I don't think you can use such a term

On a side note, I think both nazism and fascism is to count as left. Both political system supports a strong state, in the case of nazism also restrictions on corporations. Not to mention that nazism is a shortening of "National Socialism" and that the name of Adolf Hitlers party was "National Socialist German Workers' Party".

Hitler was a right hardliner. Authoritarian. The "Socialist" was to reach a wider audience.

except that a strong state is not a defining feature of the left. in fact, except for the ridiculously marginal sincere libertarian right, the only support for not-so-strong states is to be found on the left.

True, but that depends on what degree of "leftism" we are talking about. Communism, for example, supports a strong state. Liberal-leftists, on the other hand, may not support it.




i give you the democratic people's republic of (north) korea. name-based argument refuted.

True in some cases.


Questionable at best.

What features, specifically, made the Soviet Union "left wing"?


Calling themselves communists?


so what your saying is if a few despots control all the nations wealth its left wing...


In some cases, that is. Not saying that all "left" governments is despots.


but I think all the wealth of a nation being concentrated in a hands of a few sounds awfully familiar


Of course. It´s just a matter of what you call it.


USSR =/= Communism

unless the Soviet Union was little more than a collection of communes I don't think you can use such a term


True, but noting that all "communist" governments have been dictatorships.


Hitler was a right hardliner. Authoritarian. The "Socialist" was to reach a wider audience.


Of course, but some socialist countries have also been authoritarian. It´s wrong to say only "right-wing" countries are that.

Calling themselves communists?

So if the Soviet Union had called itself a libertarian capitalist paradise, would you have said that that was its ideology?

In some cases, that is. Not saying that all "left" governments is despots.

so despotism and socialism must be very confusing subjects for you then?

Of course. It´s just a matter of what you call it.

If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck

True, but noting that all "communist" governments have been dictatorships.

Paris Commune?

Of course, but some socialist countries have also been authoritarian. It´s wrong to say only "right-wing" countries are that.

ah but have you noticed that the extreme right wing countries tend to be very iffy with power.

just look at the British government now that we have a right wing government :p

Questionable at best.

What features, specifically, made the Soviet Union "left wing"?

You could argue that under Lenin a far left gender policy was put under place, with heavy encouragement of free love. Divorce became rapidly easier for instance, and women were encouraged to work. Same with racial issues. Lenin still of course was hideously authoritarian, especially with his red terror.

Economically, you could argue that the government was a statist collective economy, which can be called left wing (huge government), and they were aiming for an eventual abashment of state implementing full communism (or so the Bolsheviks say).

So if the Soviet Union had called itself a libertarian capitalist paradise, would you have said that that was its ideology?

No, because almost everything they did (nationalisation of all industry, collective equal redistribution etc..) was not at all libertarian.

so despotism and socialism must be very confusing subjects for you then?

Nah, I tend to view all politicians as a separate race. Politicians are always politicians. Socialism or right-wingism, they are all the same.



If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck


True.




Paris Commune?


The exception which confirms the rule.



ah but have you noticed that the extreme right wing countries tend to be very iffy with power.

just look at the British government now that we have a right wing government :p

Like I said, all politicians are all the same.


So if the Soviet Union had called itself a libertarian capitalist paradise, would you have said that that was its ideology?


All ideologies is just a way to get power. Don´t matter what you call it.

True, but that depends on what degree of "leftism" we are talking about. Communism, for example, supports a strong state. Liberal-leftists, on the other hand, may not support it.

i don't know that it has anything much to do with 'degree'. at least not in the way you are thinking. we've got weaker-than-the-standard-right-winger-state center left liberals, and raging anti-state anarcho-commies.

True in some cases.

if it is ever true that names are misleading, then that fact must always undermine the use of names as independent arguments for identifying an ideology.

i don't know that it has anything much to do with 'degree'. at least not in the way you are thinking. we've got weaker-than-the-standard-right-winger-state center left liberals, and raging anti-state anarcho-commies.

Still a sort of degree. Not that my spectrum is either especially accurate nor neutral. I don´t think anyones is.



if it is ever true that names are misleading, then that fact must always undermine the use of names as independent arguments for identifying an ideology.

There goes that argument. Oh dear.

No, because almost everything they did (nationalisation of all industry, collective equal redistribution etc..) was not at all libertarian.

interestingly, those two things actually could be libertarian. not capitalist, of course, but certainly within the domain of libertarian ideas.

Still a sort of degree.

degree of what?

interestingly, those two things actually could be libertarian. not capitalist, of course, but certainly within the domain of libertarian ideas.

Hmm... not sure. How do you figure that?

degree of what?

The left-right political spectrum.

You could argue that under Lenin a far left gender policy was put under place,

"Far left gender policy" is far, far, more radical than anything Lenin implemented.

with heavy encouragement of free love.

Not really. Lenin was personally rather conservative, and didn't like the idea of free love.

He did eliminate many of the old restrictions on sexual activity, though. Still, that's a standard liberal stance (both left-liberal and free market liberal), and hardly qualifies as "far left."

Divorce became rapidly easier for instance, and women were encouraged to work.

True. Which, like the removal of prohibitions on homosexuality and abortion (among other things), only goes to show: the genuinely left-wing aspects of the Soviet Union were the best.

It's only insofar as the Soviet Union was not left-wing, that it was not a "dictatorship of the proletariat" but a vanguardist party dictatorship over the proletariat, that its horrific tyranny and atrocities took place.

Lenin still of course was hideously authoritarian, especially with his red terror.

For what it's worth, I tend to think of Lenin as a leftist. Lenin's Soviet Union was left-wing, though far too authoritarian for my tastes. The same might reasonably be said about, say, Castro and Cuba.

But, say, Stalin? Not really. Especially since he rolled back many of Lenin's reforms.

Economically, you could argue that the government was a statist collective economy,

"Collective" is meaningless, and "statist" has nothing to do with the Left.

Leftism is about equality, about destroying or at least weakening class society. Because free-market capitalism (itself dependent on state power) generates large inequalities, leftists advocate government intervention to reduce them. We do not advocate government intervention on principle, nor do we necessarily align ourselves with present systems of political organization.

For instance, most people are reasonable enough to grant that subsidies to corporations are not left-wing... even if they are statist.

and they were aiming for an eventual abashment of state implementing full communism (or so the Bolsheviks say).

And if they had done it, or even made meaningful, substantive steps towards it, they would perhaps deserve the title of left-wing.

No, because almost everything they did (nationalisation of all industry, collective equal redistribution etc..)

Wait, when was the Soviet Union inclined towards "equal redistribution"?

Economic equality hardly applied between, say, high-level officials and the average worker.

was not at all libertarian.

No, but dictatorial/oligarchical control of the economy is not socialist or left-wing either.

On a side note, I think both nazism and fascism is to count as left. Both political system supports a strong state, in the case of nazism also restrictions on corporations. Not to mention that nazism is a shortening of "National Socialism" and that the name of Adolf Hitlers party was "National Socialist German Workers' Party".

To say that National Socialism was a Leftist Party is highly innacurate. The kinds of controls exerted by the Nazi Party on Corporations could not be compared to those exerted by other contemporary Socialist regimes of the day. Countries which were more socialist around the time period include Republican Spain, Labour Britain, India, New Zealand...

Hitler is most accurately described as centrist, although he was definitely more left wing than most modern 'Left' parties in places like Britain, which have been influenced by the prevailing Neo-liberal economic theories.

The exception which confirms the rule.

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

All ideologies is just a way to get power. Don´t matter what you call it.

Anarchism.

To say that National Socialism was a Leftist Party is highly innacurate. The kinds of controls exerted by the Nazi Party on Corporations could not be compared to those exerted by other contemporary Socialist regimes of the day. Countries which were more socialist around the time period include Republican Spain, Labour Britain, India, New Zealand...

Hitler is most accurately described as centrist, although he was definitely more left wing than most modern 'Left' parties in places like Britain, which have been influenced by the prevailing Neo-liberal economic theories.

Still, how much economic control is needed for a party to be considered left-wing? Saying that others were more socialist doesn´t exclude Hitler being a sort of "leftist".

A fact that highlights the absurdity of our current political classification system. Merely a creation of the political oppositionalism of the eighteen-hundreds.

Exactly. Left/right is a rediculously contrived way to classify political perceptions. There is no really meaning in these especially for classification large complex sociopolitical economies.

For the record: Left/right is an incredibly innaccurate way to split politics. If you chose to split politics that way I can prove that eveyone is left, and everyone is right AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.

That having been said, communist dictatorship (Soviets) =/= Socalist democratic paradice (Socialists) =/= Libritarian anarchist state (Libritarian Right) =/= Religious Theocracy (Religious Right) =/= Cooperate rule (Corporate Conservative) =/= Facist Ruler =/= Athens Style Democracy =/= Roman Republic =/= American Democracy =/= Constitutional parliament =/= Monarchy =/= Despotisim =/= Rule By Acidemia (The University Left)... Well, you get the idea

Anyway the left means something very differnet to Europeans then to Americans.

I invoke Gideion's law. Communists and Nazies have been mentioned. Lock this thread

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


Mind if I call you a grammar-nazi?



Anarchism.


Cynicism. Anarchism is also one of those ideologies.

The left-right political spectrum.

in what sense does the desired strength of state correlate to degree of leftism?

On a side note, I think both nazism and fascism is to count as left. Both political system supports a strong state, in the case of nazism also restrictions on corporations. Not to mention that nazism is a shortening of "National Socialism" and that the name of Adolf Hitlers party was "National Socialist German Workers' Party".


The Marxist Left,the only left,doesn't support a strong state,it support the death of the state and a classless society.We support that the working class must take the state and use against the capitalists,as they use the state.So,no we don't support a strong state.
If I create a party,Socialist Workers Party and start killing people,that means that killing people is Left???

Nationalsocialism,Nazism,had nothing to do with Marxist socialism,internationalism,equality and solidarity among people.It exploided German people when they were dissapointed by their economy and the Great War,and they took the power by a coup.

No,totally different to the Left.

Still, how much economic control is needed for a party to be considered left-wing? Saying that others were more socialist doesn´t exclude Hitler being a sort of "leftist".

economic control in the abstract isn't a defining feature of anything, except perhaps hierarchy.

Mind if I call you a grammar-nazi?

No, because I am... but that point has nothing to do with grammar.

If you make a universal statement ("All cats are black") and someone presents a counter-example ("Here is a white cat") the counter-example in no way strengthens the justification for the original rule.

Cynicism. Anarchism is also one of those ideologies.

Why do you object to people seizing power?

Nazies and Communists have come up, and been compatared to sides in this debate.

But some of us really are communists... if of a slightly different variety....

I invoke Gidions law. Nazies and Communists have come up, and been compatared to sides in this debate. Lock this thread. :headbang:

The Marxist Left,the only left

What planet are you on?

:rolleyes:

"Far left gender policy" is far, far, more radical than anything Lenin implemented.


Well, it seemed pretty radical, more radical then even standard western policies.


Not really. Lenin was personally rather conservative, and didn't like the idea of free love.


Yes, he was personally. But he did at least initially fully allow Alexandra Kollontai (who also happened to be one of the first ever female ministers) to promote and free love and feminism.


He did eliminate many of the old restrictions on sexual activity, though. Still, that's a standard liberal stance (both left-liberal and free market liberal), and hardly qualifies as "far left."


Maybe not, but thats still left wing none the less.


True. Which, like the removal of prohibitions on homosexuality and abortion (among other things), only goes to show: the genuinely left-wing aspects of the Soviet Union were the best.


Well, actually the easy divorce policy left hundreds of thousands of incredibly poor single mothers because the husbands would just leave without being forced to pay financial support.


It's only insofar as the Soviet Union was not left-wing, that it was not a "dictatorship of the proletariat" but a vanguardist party dictatorship over the proletariat, that its horrific tyranny and atrocities took place.

For what it's worth, I tend to think of Lenin as a leftist. Lenin's Soviet Union was left-wing, though far too authoritarian for my tastes. The same might reasonably be said about, say, Castro and Cuba.

But, say, Stalin? Not really. Especially since he rolled back many of Lenin's reforms.


Agreed.


"Collective" is meaningless, and "statist" has nothing to do with the Left.


Well, big government is generally associated with the left.


Leftism is about equality, about destroying or at least weakening class society.

Do you support Lenins style of class war? (attacking and assualting and even killing many of the middle class and aristocricy)


Because free-market capitalism (itself dependent on state power) generates large inequalities, leftists advocate government intervention to reduce them. We do not advocate government intervention on principle, nor do we necessarily align ourselves with present systems of political organization.


Well, many people advocate economic intervention even in principle and identify themselves as left.


For instance, most people are reasonable enough to grant that subsidies to corporations are not left-wing... even if they are statist.


True.


And if they had done it, or even made meaningful, substantive steps towards it, they would perhaps deserve the title of left-wing.


So if you fail at what you try to do, your not left wing?


Wait, when was the Soviet Union inclined towards "equal redistribution"?

Economic equality hardly applied between, say, high-level officials and the average worker.


Well yeah, the high ranking government workers were much richer. But everyone else was fucked equally, wealth was distributed equally to all non high ranking workers equally regardless of the skill of the work. Housing was also allocated to them which were all generally of equal size.


No, but dictatorial/oligarchical control of the economy is not socialist or left-wing either.

But as I said before, many people advocate this and call themselves left wing. Who is to say they aren't?

Hmm... not sure. How do you figure that?

there is an old argument about liberty requiring equality. essentially, trying to have one without the other necessarily results in its own negation. and so it has been common for libertarians to struggle for things like socialization of the major institutions that dominate our lives and for more equal distributions of wealth and power.

Perhaps you should all consider the possibility that the terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" themselves are inadequate to describe the political spectrum, since there are MORE THAN TWO SIDES on every issue.

The problem with trying to decide whether a given historical government was "left" or "right" is that the political terms "left" and "right" themselves mean different things to different people.

And in any case, neither left not right can be associated with weak or strong government. Some leftists favor authoritarian government (Leninists), others favor no government at all (anarcho-communists). Some rightists favor authoritarian government (Pinochet-style ultra-conservatives), other rightists favor very small government (libertarians).

If we are to define "left" and "right" at all, I prefer to define a "leftist" as a person who believes in social and economic equality. Thus both Soviet Leninists and anarcho-communists are leftists because they want to promote equality, but fascism and Nazism are right-wing because they believe that different races or nations are inherently unequal.

Who says the left is full of hate?

I can think of a lot of things that my left hand LOVES to do...:)

in what sense does the desired strength of state correlate to degree of leftism?

In my paranoid mind.


The Marxist Left,the only left,doesn't support a strong state,it support the death of the state and a classless society.We support that the working class must take the state and use against the capitalists,as they use the state.So,no we don't support a strong state.

Good idea. Too bad it doesn´t work in real life.


If I create a party,Socialist Workers Party and start killing people,that means that killing people is Left???

That means you consider yourself a leftist who like to kill people.



Nationalsocialism,Nazism,had nothing to do with Marxist socialism,internationalism,equality and solidarity among people.It exploided German people when they were dissapointed by their economy and the Great War,and they took the power by a coup.

No,totally different to the Left.


Just what the Communists did to the Russians in World War One. Politics as politics.


No, because I am... but that point has nothing to do with grammar.

If you make a universal statement ("All cats are black") and someone presents a counter-example ("Here is a white cat") the counter-example in no way strengthens the justification for the original rule.


I rest my case.


Why do you object to people seizing power?


I don´t. I want to seize power myself. If you can´t crush the system, make use of the system.


economic control in the abstract isn't a defining feature of anything, except perhaps hierarchy.


Which in turn is the base of all politics.

hey Z, would you mind doing full attributions when quoting multiple people in a single reply? you previous post makes it look as though i'm a deranged leninist (which i'm not) and soheran (which i'd be ok with)

Well, it seemed pretty radical, more radical then even standard western policies.

In 1917, maybe.

(Hmm, that begs another question: "left-wing" by the standards of what time period?)

Well, big government is generally associated with the left.

Stupidly.

Do you support Lenins style of class war? (attacking and assualting and even killing many of the middle class and aristocricy)

No.

Well, many people advocate economic intervention even in principle

"In principle" means something very different from "on principle."

Virtually no one advocates state intervention "on principle"--it's pretty much self-contradictory to do so, actually.

So if you fail at what you try to do, your not left wing?

No. But if you don't actually try, that's a different story.

Well yeah, the high ranking government workers were much richer.

Doesn't sound very left-wing, then.

many people advocate this and call themselves left wing.

Names?

The Soviet Union always claimed it was democratic.

hey Z, would you mind doing full attributions when quoting multiple people in a single reply? you previous post makes it look as though i'm a deranged leninist (which i'm not) and soheran (which i'd be ok with)

Very well. Will do that.

I rest my case.

Forgive me for supporting rational argument.

Which in turn is the base of all politics.

So it is impossible to hold the political position "I oppose hierarchy"?

Explain.

In my paranoid mind.

i'm actually interested in how you are using the terms. like, how would you rank the following on whatever scale of degrees of leftism you have in mind?

leninism
anarcho-communism
social democracy
democratic socialism
social liberalism

Which in turn is the base of all politics.

how so? and if true, then how could it have anything to do with leftness and rightness?

All ideologies is just a way to get power. Don´t matter what you call it.

What a strange thing to say! Wrong, even.

In my paranoid mind.



Good idea. Too bad it doesn´t work in real life.



That means you consider yourself a leftist who like to kill people.




Just what the Communists did to the Russians in World War One. Politics as politics.



I rest my case.



I don´t. I want to seize power myself. If you can´t crush the system, make use of the system.



Which in turn is the base of all politics.



It works in real life,it has worked and will work again.Paris Commune,Russian revolution until the Civil War,Zapatistas(who immediately destroyed the state).So it works.

My friend,the "communists" didn't exist in the War.And they didn't make a coup,but a revolution,they helped the Soviet(the Councils) to seize power from the capitalists and the Soviets elected mostly Bolshevicks,some anarchists and some Socialist-Revolutionaries,much away from the myth of the coup of the Bolshevicks.The elections took place every six months and everyone was elected.Tell my,in your country have you elected any minister???

It works in real life,it has worked and will work again.Paris Commune,Russian revolution until the Civil War,Zapatistas(who immediately destroyed the state).So it works.

My friend,the "communists" didn't exist in the War.And they didn't make a coup,but a revolution,they helped the Soviet(the Councils) to seize power from the capitalists and the Soviets elected mostly Bolshevicks,some anarchists and some Socialist-Revolutionaries,much away from the myth of the coup of the Bolshevicks.The elections took place every six months and everyone was elected.Tell my,in your country have you elected any minister???

Eh, I do live in a democratic country after all. It´s called Sweden, do it exist in your dimension?

There’s nothing in the typically liberal ideology that allows for dictatorships and racism.
There’s nothing in ‘typical liberal ideology’, a promotion of individual’s rights over the community’s, that is necessarily left-wing or right-wing.

One can subscribe both to a liberal stance on personal and political freedoms and to either right or left-wing economic views.

So wait a minute.....


I'm a "Socialist" (ie. leftist). So because I believe in equality for all, no matter their race, gender, sexual preference, etc., that makes me a facist, racist and what not?






Please. You conservative's need to really take a better look at the world.

When you have an argument with a Rightist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Rightist response to challenge is mere abuse.

So wait a minute.....


I'm a "Socialist" (ie. leftist). So because I believe in equality for all, no matter their race, gender, sexual preference, etc., that makes me a facist, racist and what not?






Please. You conservative's need to really take a better look at the world.

Not conservative. Centrist.

i'm actually interested in how you are using the terms. like, how would you rank the following on whatever scale of degrees of leftism you have in mind?

leninism
anarcho-communism
social democracy
democratic socialism
social liberalism


Like that, I suppose. My brain is running on half power for the moment being.



how so? and if true, then how could it have anything to do with leftness and rightness?

True. There goes another argument. *waves it goodbye*

Excellent. Another poster adopting the House of Cards defense.
"Hey, you knocked over my house of cards! You're a meanie!"

[QUOTE=Of course, but some socialist countries have also been authoritarian. It´s wrong to say only "right-wing" countries are that.[/QUOTE]

But the idea of Fascism, an authoritarian, non god-based monarchy is very much a righty idea. You can come up with way more rightist authoritarian governments than left ones. Spain, Italy (they called themselves right) and even the silver shirts thought that way. Then you have all of the CIA backed dictatorships through the cold war. There are quite a few.

By the way, the reason why liberals get so angry is because of (just a thought) HUAC. I don't think there have been many times in recent history where right thinkers have been discriminated against for their views.

Very well. Will do that.

as for Hitler, when fascist, authoritarian corporatocracies are considered left wing then all of intellectual enlightenment will be dead. Are you taking a course is how to argue losing points? If I call my party the "free love party" and I kill everyone who enters the building does that make me loving? The Reich stag called itself the Socialist Workers party to promote propaganda for widespread support. They were neither socialist or pro-worker. For the love of humanity...

Eh, I do live in a democratic country after all. It´s called Sweden, do it exist in your dimension?

In your democratic country,Sweden,do you elect the ministers,the priminster,the heads of the departments or have you been asked to confirm or reject the laws or the political desicions that you goverment takes???

I know this is my first post on this thread, and have only read the first couple pages so I may be stating something someone already mentioned.

If anything I wouldn't consider this article left-bashing. At least the last time I turned on the news, all the leftist complain about how the right is forcing opinions onto people. The whole point of this guy's rant is that some issues, including racism, shouldn't be forced views. If I'm wildly mistaken, someone let me know how.

Like that, I suppose.

but that ordering puts strength of the state all over the map, rather than following any clear trend.

Not conservative. Centrist.

In Scandinavia maybe.

But then, the parties here in Denmark all talk about welfare, except for one or two, who can't get the numbers to add up making them rather hopeless as economically liberal parties.

but that ordering puts strength of the state all over the map, rather than following any clear trend.

And means, depending on which direction he was going, that either anarcho-communism is to the right of social democracy or social democracy is to the left of democratic socialism... neither of which makes any sense.

And means, depending on which direction he was going, that either anarcho-communism is to the right of social democracy or social democracy is to the left of democratic socialism... neither of which makes any sense.

I usually don´t make any sense. Perfectly normal.


as for Hitler, when fascist, authoritarian corporatocracies are considered left wing then all of intellectual enlightenment will be dead. Are you taking a course is how to argue losing points? If I call my party the "free love party" and I kill everyone who enters the building does that make me loving? The Reich stag called itself the Socialist Workers party to promote propaganda for widespread support. They were neither socialist or pro-worker. For the love of humanity...


All politicians do that. And some fascist states can be considered leftist, others can be considered rightist.


Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.


Some of these attributes can be considered "leftist" and some "rightist". Fascism is a mixture of both.

Some of these attributes can be considered "leftist" and some "rightist". Fascism is a mixture of both.

Well, from what you've put up, it goes something like this (generally):

nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.
Neither, neither, right, neither, right, right, neither, left, neither.

3-1, Fascism is to the right and usually quite extreme as well.

All ideologies is just a way to get power. Don´t matter what you call it.


Anarchism.


Um...biker gangs?



Duh.

Neither, neither, right, neither, right, right, neither, left, neither.

3-1, Fascism is to the right and usually quite extreme as well.

But if you make 3 rights, you are going left.

But if you make 3 rights, you are going left.

If you make three rights and a left you're going backwards :D

Well, from what you've put up, it goes something like this (generally):


Neither, neither, right, neither, right, right, neither, left, neither.

3-1, Fascism is to the right and usually quite extreme as well.

Is militarism just for the "rightist" states? What about North Korea?

there is an old argument about liberty requiring equality.

Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive.

When you have an argument with a Rightist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Rightist response to challenge is mere abuse.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes:

Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive.

if you have liberty without equality, you have some with access to the necessities of life and the necessities of success within a given society and with wealth and access to political power, and some without all that. political power is used for the benefit of those holding it, as are social and economic power. in an inequal society, all power will gravitate towards those with rather than those without. therefore those whose inequality puts them in a position of power, and thus in charge of making all sorts of decisions within society, will make decisions that benefit them. in the process of doing so, the powerful will both exclude the disempowered from that decision making and constrain their liberty in general whenever it suits them to do so.

the only way this could be otherwise is if you could show that it is not only necessarily the case that the benefit of the powerful and the benefit of the powerless are conjoined, but that the powerful never think that fucking over the lower orders would be a good idea, and that taking part in the making of decisions that rule your life is not itself a necessary component of liberty. good luck with that.

as for the other half of the alleged mutual exclusiveness, if you have equality without liberty, then you must have some people with the power over others and some without. and therefore you have inequality.

no, liberty and equality are fraternal twins. you can only have the one to the degree that you have the other, and you can only keep either of them to the degree that you restrain the ambitions of those with greater access to wealth and power. and the only way to do that in the end is to even out the access to wealth and power in society.

I usually don´t make any sense. Perfectly normal.

well could you try to tease out what you intend to mean for us? you were making a claim about the correlation of the strength of state to the degree of leftism. but this implies a chart like:
leninism-----democratic socialism-----anarcho-communism
with anarcho-communism being to the right of demsoc by virtue of being anti-state, which seems inherently weird. but if you put anarcho-communism to the left of demsoc, if not to the left of leninism (where i would put it), then you must be claiming that it wants a stronger state than demsoc, which is nonsense.

remember, you were using support for a strong state by fascism as evidence of its position on the left, so this is somewhat important to your argument.

Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive.

How so?

well could you try to tease out what you intend to mean for us? you were making a claim about the correlation of the strength of state to the degree of leftism. but this implies a chart like:
leninism-----democratic socialism-----anarcho-communism
with anarcho-communism being to the right of demsoc by virtue of being anti-state, which seems inherently weird. but if you put anarcho-communism to the left of demsoc, if not to the left of leninism (where i would put it), then you must be claiming that it wants a stronger state than demsoc, which is nonsense.

remember, you were using support for a strong state by fascism as evidence of its position on the left, so this is somewhat important to your argument.

Leninism--anarcho-communism--democratic socialism--social democracy--social liberalism.

or possibly

anarcho-communism--leninism--democratic socialism--social democracy--social liberalism.

I´m not really sure about anarcho-communism and leninism. You forgot stalinism, trotskyism, maoism,kimilsungism, communalism and religious communism, by the way.

Why is being on the left re. economic issues more 'leftist' than being on the left re. social issues?

Why is being on the left re. economic issues more 'leftist' than being on the left re. social issues?

That is the thing that gets me. Left wing means more state regulation of the economy AFAIK, but it has someone become so ingrained with liberal social ideology they are now one and the same, which is terrible. We should be as precise as possible in our language.

Left wing means more state regulation of the economy AFAIK

anarchism = no state, thus no state regulation of anything, and it's farther left than most everything.

anarchism = no state, thus no state regulation of anything, and it's farther left than most everything.

Indeed. My definition is as fault. However I would still prefer to distinct terms for economic and social positions instead of tangling them up.

That is the thing that gets me. Left wing means more state regulation of the economy AFAIK, but it has someone become so ingrained with liberal social ideology they are now one and the same, which is terrible. We should be as precise as possible in our language.


That's totally wrong.Marxism-Leninism,wants to destroye the state too,not to make the state master of the economy.In Marxism the state exists due to class war.The state is used by the dominant class to secure its power over the society.To destroye the state we must stop the causes of its existance,the different fighting-each-other classes by socialism and create one classless society.When we demand nationalization of the economy and planned economy,we don't argue for serending the politic and economic control in a parliamentary goverment or some burrocrats who work "in the name of the people".We argue for a state democratic,which will be controlled by the workers for the workers and will not exist when socialism has formed a classless society.

Questionable at best.

What features, specifically, made the Soviet Union "left wing"?



Calling themselves communists?



If I call myself a duck does that make me a bird?

If I call myself a duck does that make me a bird?

No, it makes you a witch (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Monty_Python_and_the_Holy_Grail#The_Witch).

How so?

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn explains it far better than I could ever hope to:

"Nature" (i.e., the absence of human intervention) is anything but egalitarian; if we want to establish a complete plain we have to blast the mountains away and fill the valleys; equality, thus presupposes the continuous intervention of force which, as a principle, is opposed to freedom. Liberty and equality are in essence contradictory.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn explains it far better than I could ever hope to:

"Nature" (i.e., the absence of human intervention) is anything but egalitarian; if we want to establish a complete plain we have to blast the mountains away and fill the valleys; equality, thus presupposes the continuous intervention of force which, as a principle, is opposed to freedom. Liberty and equality are in essence contradictory.

How is liberty natural? It takes a lot of human intervention to protect property rights. Animals only recognize the property rights one can protect with force.

How is liberty natural? It takes a lot of human intervention to protect property rights. Animals only recognize the property rights one can protect with force.

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

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

Its not like equality of some kind could considered a natural right. Oh wait...

Its not like equality of some kind could considered a natural right. Oh wait...

If you are equal in one thing you are unequal in another. For example, if i pay all my workers the same wage, then the ones who work harder get less money for their work than the lazy ones.

If you are equal in one thing you are unequal in another. For example, if i pay all my workers the same wage, then the ones who work harder get less money for their work than the lazy ones.

Your point?

Weird, after I posted this thread it died after 8 posts, now it's alive again.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn explains it far better than I could ever hope to:

So, if we were to cease all attempts at promoting equality, liberty would come about naturally? Or, what if we look at a case where there is obvious inequality, and examine how much liberty there is. How about pre-civil war America. Slavery abounds, blacks have no more rights than a farm animal or piece of furniture. Blatant inequality. So surely, there must have been a great deal of liberty?

Weird, after I posted this thread it died after 8 posts, now it's alive again.

It's called necromancy. ;)

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn explains it far better than I could ever hope to:

Except nature obviously involves force... and what's "natural" for humans is actually rather egalitarian.

So clearly he is referring to some other kind of "nature", probably constituting the use of organized violence and coercion (public or private) to entrench highly artificial and unnatural systems of capitalist property.

Because he equivocates and calls this "nature", he pretends that he need not justify it. Oops.

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

What, made-up arbitrary nonsense?

Explain to me how we can derive rights from "nature."

nazism
I believe the word your looking for is Fascism

So, if we were to cease all attempts at promoting equality, liberty would come about naturally? Or, what if we look at a case where there is obvious inequality, and examine how much liberty there is. How about pre-civil war America. Slavery abounds, blacks have no more rights than a farm animal or piece of furniture. Blatant inequality. So surely, there must have been a great deal of liberty?

Strawman.

I am talking about natural inequality, not man-made inequality.

And to those who believe that equality = freedom, I point you to Democratic Kampuchea, a place where everyone was equal.

For example, if i pay all my workers the same wage, then the ones who work harder get less money for their work than the lazy ones.

Only if some are made to work hard and others are permitted to be lazy. This is clearly inequality, though not inequality founded on equality of income--simply inequality founded on arbitrarily unequal treatment.

If everyone is permitted the choice, then the fact that some choose to work hard and others choose to be lazy hardly makes the distribution unequal. We are not paying them for their work, we are just paying them.

Except nature obviously involves force... and what's "natural" for humans is actually rather egalitarian.

Prove it.

So clearly he is referring to some other kind of "nature", probably constituting the use of organized violence and coercion (public or private) to entrench highly artificial and unnatural systems of capitalist property.

There is nothing unnatural about property rights.

Because he equivocates and calls this "nature", he pretends that he need not justify it. Oops.

?

What, made-up arbitrary nonsense?

Explain to me how we can derive rights from "nature."

The idea of "natural rights" is that rights do not come from governments, but are something people are born with.

And to those who believe that equality = freedom, I point you to Democratic Kampuchea, a place where everyone was equal.

You sure love your strawmen. When people say they believe in equality ask "equality of what".

I am talking about natural inequality

Inequality is pretty much always artificial. Especially in modern society.

And to those who believe that equality = freedom, I point you to Democratic Kampuchea, a place where everyone was equal.

Um... I don't know if a totalitarian regime capable of murdering anyone it chooses sounds very "equal" to me. Rather more like massive inequality in power distribution.

Strawman.

I am talking about natural inequality, not man-made inequality.

And to those who believe that equality = freedom, I point you to Democratic Kampuchea, a place where everyone was equal.

Then by all means, provide an example of natural inequality and demonstrate how any attempts to remove it would lead to less liberty.

There is nothing unnatural about property rights.

The idea of "natural rights" is that rights do not come from governments, but are something people are born with.

Prove that property is natural and that people are born with rights not granted by governments. Also prove that your version of natural rights is the right one.

Then by all means, provide an example of natural inequality and demonstrate how any attempts to remove it would lead to less liberty.

Eye-sight is one measure of natural inequality. You could go out and weaken everyone's eyesight, but that would interfere with people's rights to their eyes.

Inequality is pretty much always artificial. Especially in modern society.

How so?

Um... I don't know if a totalitarian regime capable of murdering anyone it chooses sounds very "equal" to me. Rather more like massive inequality in power distribution.

Democratic Kampuchea abolished class, private property, and money. Everyone was reduced to the lowest common denominator. Everyone was a slave. It was complete equality.

Prove that property is natural and that people are born with rights not granted by governments.

I'll get back to you on that one (remind me).

Also prove that your version of natural rights is the right one.

That's a matter of opinion, rather than a proveable fact.

Prove it.

What, that nature obviously involves force? This is almost trivially true... entities kill other entities in nature all the time.

There is nothing unnatural about property rights.

Really? So pre-agricultural foragers living in nature divided up land into individual plots, and recognized and enforced absolute rights of use and disposal over them?

The idea of property is not only unnatural, but requires severely unnatural means to enforce it: how can a capitalist guarantee his right to a factory hundreds of miles away except through organized coercion from states or state-like institutions?

The idea of "natural rights" is that rights do not come from governments, but are something people are born with.

Maybe, but then you are equivocating, because this is a very different kind of "nature" from that which you were earlier referencing.

Eye-sight is one measure of natural inequality. You could go out and weaken everyone's eyesight, but that would interfere with people's rights to their eyes.

One could also provide eyeglasses, contacts, or laser eye surgery to equalize eyesight ability.

Eye-sight is one measure of natural inequality. You could go out and weaken everyone's eyesight, but that would interfere with people's rights to their eyes.

Then giving people access to eye glasses, contact lenses, laser eye surgery and anything else which might improve their eyesight must also interfere with someone's rights? You see, I'm wearing glasses right now, and I'm having trouble working out whose rights I'm interfering with by doing so.

Democratic Kampuchea abolished class, private property, and money. Everyone was reduced to the lowest common denominator. Everyone was a slave. It was complete equality.

And that is the only way people can be equal?

How so?

Because it involves the use of massive organized coercion (the state) to protect the property of the wealthy.

Democratic Kampuchea abolished class,

Maybe the old class system. Of course, it replaced it with a new one: the hierarchy of the Khmer Rouge.

Unless "Democratic Kampuchea" was organized on the principles of radical democracy.

private property, and money.

Which only guarantees the abolition of certain kinds of inequality. Not all.

Radical political inequality, for instance, can still exist. And did in Cambodia.

Everyone was a slave.

To whom?

No, it makes you a witch (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Monty_Python_and_the_Holy_Grail#The_Witch).

No, that's if I weigh as much as a duck, because that proves I'm made of wood . . .

Really? So pre-agricultural foragers living in nature divided up land into individual plots, and recognized and enforced absolute rights of use and disposal over them?


Communal property is still property. The means of division and enforcement may be very different than the generally European standard, but they still exist. Indeed, I've done much reading on contemporary indigenous politics and the phrase "our land" is extremely common. Shoot, one group literally named their land "Our Land" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut) (in their own language, of course).

The claim to property is in the "our."


The idea of property is not only unnatural, but requires severely unnatural means to enforce it


Nonsense. Pre-agricultural hunters and gatherers made used of communal property, and many examples of such societies lack anything resembling coercive enforcement.


...how can a capitalist guarantee his right to a factory hundreds of miles away except through organized coercion from states or state-like institutions?


PJ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon) once said that there is "property," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft) and then there is "property." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_%28philosophy%29)

Communal property is still property.

Um, sort of.

Let's not argue about it. I referred explicitly to "capitalist property" initially; it is InGen Bioengineering who reduced it to simply "property rights."

Nonsense. Pre-agricultural hunters and gatherers made used of communal property, and many examples of such societies lack anything resembling coercive enforcement.

Communal property is a different case, chiefly because it does not result in a class distinction between owners and non-owners.

(Except perhaps between members of the community and non-members... but then, invaders probably would have to contend with "coercion.")

Still, how much economic control is needed for a party to be considered left-wing? Saying that others were more socialist doesn´t exclude Hitler being a sort of "leftist".

Centrist usually exert a moderate degree of economic control, much like Hitler did. I'm not saying he was right, but I'm saying he was in the middle. He was, probably fairly close in terms of economic control to the Canadian Liberal Party or the Labour Party in New Zealand. At the time this was not considered especially left of centre. While the world has seen a progressive swing since the 50s twards more right wing economies, especially in the Developed world, we must assess Hitler by what was going on at the time.

When are we going to accept that you cannot classify people into two categories? When are we going to stop this childish surface bullshit and focus on the real issues. Do you oppose gay marriage because you are a Christian, and because other Christians oppose it, or do you oppose gay marriage for some personal reason? Stop using some bullshit category to support your views. If you can't provide a valid argument to support your views (something other than "because _____ said so/does"), then you do not have the right to hold such views.

EDIT: I've read five pages, and all I see are attempts to put labels on certain ideas. What have we accomplished here? What's more important: the name or the philosophy?

Yup. Looks very much like "Oh, let's make up lots of unsourced statements about how leftists support murder and rape! After all, some idiot or other is bound to believe it!"

Brains are meant for scanning the facts and acting on them, fanatics whether it be left or right do the exact opposite! Only through moderate thinking can we the human race advance. All this political tribalistic intellectual warfare is damaging and stupid.

402 posts and you've already shown you absolutely cannot be taken seriously. Shame that.

You mean the "cold shiver down your spine" for a location wasn't enough of a hint?

When are we going to accept that you cannot classify people into two categories?

why exactly not?