Not by a hair of my chiny chin chin....

[Watchman]

Like you do with the marxist theory's?

Marxism at least has a proper theory, although "Really Existing Socialism" as the Soviets rather ambigiously called their system didn't actually have much to do with it.
Do explain where exactly I'm taking it at a face value, though. 'Cause I know for a fact I could write you a short essay on where the man was patently wrong... (Pretty much *no* serious academician these days employs Marxist theories in their pure, classical form; as with any viable school of thought, they have been adapted and modified and whatever as the discourse develops.)

Oh looky, a strawman. Let's BBQ!

The Nazis chiefly had delusions of racial supremacy, a raging case of ultranationalist militarism and copious amounts of wholly shameless opportunism. If they thought they had a reason to tell you black is white, they did - and changed it right back the next day if convenient.
Well, those guys did deny rationality having too much value. They didn't have to be consistent or make much sense...

Anyway, what you're patently missing with your original quote from Adolf is that the Nazis competed with the Communists over the support of the same populist-fodder demographic - angry, disenfranchised working class stiffs who'd just been royally screwed over by the Great Depression. Like any good populist movement both gleefully played the "fat cat capitalists suck" card for the benefit of the audience; among the major differences were that the Communists actually meant it (if you know anything at all about the economic policies of the Third Reich, you know the Nazis were quite cozy indeed with Big Business - as long as it served their purposes, anyway) and that the Nazis were wont to indentify those "fat cat capitalists" as Jews...
Yeah, they actually did think just about everything bad in the world was the work of a vast Jewish conspiracy for some reason hellbent on destroying the German race. I did say they didn't put much stock on rationality, no ?


As for Stalinism, fair enough - although it is actually pretty debatable how much anything at all that has in common with the principles of Marxist theory anymore. But the only thing that proves is that anything taken to extremes turns toxic and insane, and probably not too different from comparable fringe lunacy at the other end of the spectrum. (Well, the nutso-Lefties generally fail to play the nationalism card and instead claim everyone equally should be included in their "happy workers' paradise"; the Right-wing whackjobs conversely have a notable propensity for being exclusivist and racist.)
Probably also worth noting the USSR in peacetime was actually mostly a mellow enough place; the really bad happened chiefly on Stalin's watch. That guy seriously should be the illustration by the textbook definition of Dubious Management Practices.
Also, North Korea's "Juche" thingy is pretty crackpot even by Stalinist standards.

I'm incidentally a bit surprised nobody's brought up the Khmer Rouge yet. Probably because it's pretty seriously difficult to see where their stark lunacy had anything to do with any commonly recognised ideological framework, and because the Vietnamese came over and booted tham back into the jungles (and got flak from both the US and China for it... ).

[LittleGrizzly]

Originally Posted by seireikhaan
Again: what is the point of said exercise?

The same as every other debate we have here. To take out excess anger on other anonymous posters.

LOL!!

The funniest and truest thing you have ever said...imo

If labour are left wing then so are the tories, and there is no right wing. I don't think it is paticularly accurate to describe them as left wing, they constantly try to out right the tories whilst the tories try to out left them.

What labour is now is a big mess of left right and centerist policys. I would say the most accurate description of both the tories and labour is centerist, you can find policys between the 2 partys where they reach to thier own base and then policys where they reach to the other partys base. Even centre left is streching it imo, they are practically the same as the tory party, and they certainly aren't centre left...

The only thing left wing about labour are its history and some of its backbenchers.... and im only sure about one of those...

but the moderate right generally do not, and the moderate left often do.

I disagree entirely, the whole security appeal of labours anti terror packages is defense from the enemy, which is something right wing voters buy into far more than left wing voters... so in the case of labours authoratarinism it is actually because of moderate right reasons they are doing it...

Personally i have always put down authoritarianism down as a trait that tends to show up more in conservatives...

Considering that right wingers are arguing thats its a trait of the left and lefts arguing the reverse, maybe we both have to accept its eqaully a trait of both, im willing to accept that perhaps through my own bias i have come to my conclusion as everyone else debating this issue seems to be on the side thier bias would put them on....

ohh and frag hitler wasn't a socailist.... unless you use socailist as another word for human, which would make a lot more sense i blame humans for most of the worlds wrongs as well...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What labour is now is a big mess of left right and centerist policys.

I can deal with that.

I disagree entirely, the whole security appeal of labours anti terror packages is defense from the enemy, which is something right wing voters buy into far more than left wing voters... so in the case of labours authoratarinism it is actually because of moderate right reasons they are doing it...

Personally i have always put down authoritarianism down as a trait that tends to show up more in conservatives...

I must respectfully disagree with this. In Germany, we have Die Linke and the SPD (though the CDU isn't to my liking in that respect either, I must admit) as authoritarians, and what I would classify as the primary "freedom" party (if you can even find one in Germany these days...) is the centre-right/free market centrist FDP.

Considering that right wingers are arguing thats its a trait of the left and lefts arguing the reverse, maybe we both have to accept its eqaully a trait of both, im willing to accept that perhaps through my own bias i have come to my conclusion as everyone else debating this issue seems to be on the side thier bias would put them on....

Deal. Perhaps we can compromise and say that the extreme left, extreme right, and the muddled centrists are the most likely to slide to authoritarianism?

An interesting debate is state control, of course (not necessarily authoritarianism), in which case I would say that the moderate left is more likely to enjoy state control of things.

[Kralizec]

Left/right catagorisation has outlived its usefulness by at least three or four generations. An X-Y graph with economy and state power as seperate dimensions is a major improvement, but I particulary like the horseshoe model as it illustrates how close stalinism and fascism are in practice.

I recall someone mentioned Cuba as communist succes story, and I'll have to disagree. It managed so well during the cold war because the USSR bought their agricultural products deliberately far above the market price to support a strategicly located ally. After the USSR was disbanded Cuba lapsed into poverty. That the USA still won't trade is only one factor, and not a decisive one.

[LittleGrizzly]

Deal. Perhaps we can compromise and say that the extreme left, extreme right, and the muddled centrists are the most likely to slide to authoritarianism?

I think i mostly agree to that, i mean both right and left have thier kind of anti-authoritarian wings, libertarians which is usually right wingers and anarchists who are usually left wingers (and by anarchists i dont mean people who like rioting and starting fires) and then they both have thier controlling urges, left wingers will take more of your money but you (as a man) can marry a man and smoke some soft drugs. so both groups have thier various authoritarian urges imo. then there are thing that both cons and leftys on here disagree with but various conservatives and leftys take away various civil liberties, cons through being tough on law and order leftys through trying to be pc as two more examples

With the muddled cenerists bit i think you are on to something as well, leftys are somewhat more authoritarian naturally on economic issues and conservatives more authoritarian on socail issues, and what some centerists do (or power grabbers) is take policy's from each group to keep both happy, you can end up with them taking authoritarian stances from both sides and end up with a very authoritarian goverment which is a mix of left and right wing policys

Im glad we seem to have some agreement on the matter...

I recall someone mentioned Cuba as communist succes story, and I'll have to disagree.


Its certainly not an economic success but i think the relative success he mentioned was to do with literacy rates and the like... and even then in comparison to other latin american countrys

[InsaneApache]

Personally i have always put down authoritarianism down as a trait that tends to show up more in conservatives...

So personal responsibility is authoritarian? Buying your house is authoritarian? Belief in free trade and de-regulated markets is authoritarian? Lower taxes and smaller government is authoritarian? A belief in personal liberties and non-government interference is authoritarian?

This is what happens when you get brainwashed into the mindset of Tories = evil, left wing ideology = goodness and light. Your brain stops working.

[LittleGrizzly]

So personal responsibility is authoritarian? Buying your house is authoritarian? Belief in free trade and de-regulated markets is authoritarian? Lower taxes and smaller government is authoritarian? A belief in personal liberties and non-government interference is authoritarian?

So if i now write a list of a bunch nice left wing beliefs like charity and eradicating poverty and free health care for all and write is authoritarian ? after them will i convince you of anything ? i doubt it so im not going to bother

The buying your house is not right wing, i now of plenty of left wingers who fully support the activity of buying a house, i have never got why personal responsibility is a right wing thing, if its because someone has a bad start in life and they get into crime and then leftys blame society, leftys are not abdicating personal responsibility they are simply looking at the facts why that person got into what they did, which is entirely sensible and the only way your going to reduce crime.

Smaller goverment personal liberties and non goverment interfernce are great, this left winger thinks uk could use a whole dose more of all of them, ask yourself if the last us administration was right wing or left wing and thenk ask youraself where it came on those last 3 i said i support.... hmm maybe both sides have authoritarians and liberitarians...

you people with the mindset anything bad = left are just laughable, these power hungry people happy to surrender civil liberties on both wings to0 try and say it is soley a condition of other wing... is blind bias.....your far too intelligent for it to be a logical conlcusion you've come to

This is what happens when you get brainwashed into the mindset of Tories = evil, left wing ideology = goodness and light. Your brain stops working.

lol, i have been trying to argue its on bothn wings, you have been trying to argue it solely to the left, if you above example fits anyone perfectly it is you (with the descriptions after the equals signs swopped round)

and tbh what i know of pre labour tories (not a great deal) they were fairly libertarian, it was from various other countries i garnered my impression, don't let that get in they way of your blind bias though.... the left after all is stupid and/or evil....

[Watchman]

This is what happens when you get brainwashed into the mindset of Tories = evil, left wing ideology = goodness and light. Your brain stops working.

*cough*
Pot ?
Meet kettle.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So if i now write a list of a bunch nice left wing beliefs like charity and eradicating poverty and free health care for all and write is authoritarian ?

Hate to nitpick, but not only is charity a more right-wing ideal (rather than redistribution of wealth), but the other two can also be authoritarian depending how you go about it.

[Watchman]

I feel compelled to point out that well-managed policies of income redistribution seem to be rather more effective and reliable at reducing poverty and whatnot, though.

[LittleGrizzly]

Hate to nitpick, but not only is charity a more right-wing ideal

well i was just sticking a list of nice things, like i said i had some problems with IA's list, i wasn't actually thinking of charity as a more left wing ideal though i was more thinking in a national sense as in percentage of gdp given to aid,

though i didn't actually now that... im assuming thats american based, any info on if that continues over the atlantic as well, and maybe european vs american, just to get a broader perspective than republicans vs democrats

it also doesn't mention what charitable contributions are used to keep thier own churches going (seems a bit less charitable if the money is going towards your church or spreading your religion) not that i am trying to claim it it a left wing ideal, in terms of goverment more so but personally i wouldn't like to venture which group would be more charitable....

but the other two can also be authoritarian depending how you go about it.

well i was mainly going for a nice list like i said but to give anti authoritarian ones, soft drug legalisation and then you could mention gay marriage and abortion

[Watchman]

...and someone please explain to me how the fig free health care* does "authoritarian", please.


*- it's usually actually "subvented" rather than "free" and you have to pay some rather nominal fee, in my experience...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

...and someone please explain to me how the fig free health care* does "authoritarian", please.

The government taking more money in taxes = the government having more power over your money = more authoritarian.

[InsaneApache]

...and someone please explain to me how the fig free health care* does "authoritarian", please.


*- it's usually actually "subvented" rather than "free" and you have to pay some rather nominal fee, in my experience...

That's easy. Until recently in the UK there has been several cases of people diagnosed with cancer having all NHS (i.e. free at the point of delivery) treatment withdrawn. Why? Well because these bastards has the temerity to pay for their own cancer drugs that the NHS (i.e. free at the point of delivery) refused to pay for. That meant that everytime they saw a doctor, they had to pay. Every time they had a blood test, they had to pay. Everytime they had an X-ray or a scan, they had to pay. This was in order to prevent a 'two-tier' NHS system sneaking in through the back door. So for a political ideology these people were served with a death sentence. Very progressive and enlightened, I'm sure.

The good news is that the electorate reacted so forcefully against this form a state bullying that the whole thing was quietly dropped. After all even terminally ill cancer patients have votes.

[LittleGrizzly]

Technically it is authoritarian but there is still the freedom to choose different healthcare, its just something essential that the goverment have to take money off you for, like roads, or a police force, or an army, which conservatives usually want to take more money off you to supply like the police force, that is generally speaking so it works both ways imo.....

[Watchman]

The government taking more money in taxes = the government having more power over your money = more authoritarian.

...uh-huh...

Main Entry: au·thor·i·tar·i·an
Function: adjective
Date: 1879
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>
— authoritarian noun
— au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism \-ē-ə-ˌni-zəm\ noun

Main Entry: tax
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 14th century
1 a: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b: a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
2: a heavy demand

How about you call back when you can tell the difference between the two ? kthx.

Also, you just flunked PolSci 101.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im not sure if you saw my post but as a technicallity any extra money going to the goverment is more authoritarian for whatever nice reason its done for, the same as any expansion of military spending is more authoritarian as more money is going to the goverment

[Watchman]

That's easy. Until recently in the UK there has been several cases of people diagnosed with cancer having all NHS (i.e. free at the point of delivery) treatment withdrawn. Why? Well because these bastards has the temerity to pay for their own cancer drugs that the NHS (i.e. free at the point of delivery) refused to pay for. That meant that everytime they saw a doctor, they had to pay. Every time they had a blood test, they had to pay. Everytime they had an X-ray or a scan, they had to pay. This was in order to prevent a 'two-tier' NHS system sneaking in through the back door. So for a political ideology these people were served with a death sentence. Very progressive and enlightened, I'm sure.

The good news is that the electorate reacted so forcefully against this form a state bullying that the whole thing was quietly dropped. After all even terminally ill cancer patients have votes.

Ie. the UK public healthcare system has idiocy aplenty and is badly managed ? What hasn't been in that country since at least the Eighties ?

I don't really see the connection you're drawing between the issues here. What's pure bureaucratic that defeats the whole purpose to do with ideology here, and why are you so sure the cause would be "leftist" rather than "Thatcherite neolib" ideology anyway...?

[LittleGrizzly]

I thought IA would have been pleased this is clearly labour trying to be libertarian by saving money ;)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

How about you call back when you can tell the difference between the two ? kthx.

More authoritarian as in the government having more control [over you/your cash/your healthcare]. I'm not saying free healthcare makes a dictatorship or an authoritarian government, simply that it gives the government more control. Which it does.

[Watchman]

Except you're still free to go buy private services if you're so inclined. OTOH, the poor sods in the ghettoes can get decent healthcare too, which they wouldn't otherwise...
Why, yes, I actually do consider that worth the tax bill. Why ?

Also, please reread the definition of "authoritarian". Here, I'll even bold a key detail for you:

2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>

[InsaneApache]

Ie. the UK public healthcare system has idiocy aplenty and is badly managed ? What hasn't been in that country since at least the Eighties ?

I don't really see the connection you're drawing between the issues here. What's pure bureaucratic asshattery that defeats the whole purpose to do with ideology here, and why are you so sure the cause would be "leftist" rather than "Thatcherite neolib" ideology anyway...?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

This had nothing to do with bureaucracy and everything to do with government policy. It is a central tenet of the Labour party to resist the idea of a two tier NHS system.

I thought IA would have been pleased this is clearly labour trying to be libertarian by saving money ;)

Unable to discredit my post on how the government discriminates against the bastards who choose to pay for treatment, you thought you'd try and take the piss out of me. Well done sir.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Also, please reread the definition of "authoritarian". Here, I'll even bold a key detail for you:

A scale of authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. As in this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ical_chart.svg

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authoritarian

[Watchman]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

This had nothing to do with bureaucracy and everything to do with government policy. It is a central tenet of the Labour party to resist the idea of a two tier NHS system.

Which would then make them the idiots responsible. So ? It's not like their policies had been very "left" for a good while now from what I know of it. Heck, neither have our Social Democrats', but at least they're not *that* stupid...

Also, could you please explain to me what exactly about that was supposed to be so "lefty" in the first place ?

[InsaneApache]

I could go on about how universal healthcare is a left wing phenomenon but It's New Years and I'm off a beer.

Happy New Year guys.

[Watchman]

A scale of authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. As in this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ical_chart.svg

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authoritarian

The first link involved some annoying file format I can't be to find a program for, thanks for nuttin'.
The second ?
Basically reiterates what I already quoted from Merriam-Webster in slightly different form but the exact same content. Or are you somehow missing the qualifiers along the lines of "complete", "absolute" and "unquestioning" in the definitions...?

If you're going to roll eyes at me, please at least have a case okay ?

I could go on about how universal healthcare is a left wing phenomenon...

And that one rather fails the "universal" bit and generally sounds more like the gratuitiously asinine bean-counting so characteristic of neoliberal "efficiency".

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The first link involved some annoying file format I can't be arsed to find a program for, thanks for nuttin'.
The second ?
Basically reiterates what I already quoted from Merriam-Webster in slightly different form but the exact same content. Or are you somehow missing the qualifiers along the lines of "complete", "absolute" and "unquestioning" in the definitions...?

Alright, I'll try to make this simple.



The vertical line there is a scale. At the top, you are authoritarian (there are your "complete" and "absolute" definitions). From the halfway point up, you have authoritarian tendencies, however slight. Therefore, one can in fact be more authoritarian or less authoritarian, while still being on the authoritarian side of the scale.

Or did you miss the entire part of the debate when we were discussing the political compass?

[Watchman]

Ignored it as it was uninteresting. "tl;dr" as they say. Around here "authoritarian" has a pretty specific range of connotations, echoed by them dictionaries exhaustively quoted already, so my hackles are kind of wont to stand up when people start tossing it around casually in the context of policies they dislike.

Especially if it's right-wingers talking about left-wing social policies. I long ago reached my saturation point already with the misuse of "socialism" by Republican partisans who wouldn't recognise proper definitions of terminology if it bit their noses off, y'see.

[Mangudai]

Your lack of historical knowledge is astounding. For example:
1) The IMF has ruined much of Argentina's economy.
2) Nicaragua was completely destroyed by the US...
3) Haiti was completely destroyed by the US... multiple times...
4) Few would use North Korea as an example of a leftist government.
5) China has almost no shred of Socialism remaining.
6) See 2 and 4.
7) The Soviet Union had guaranteed jobs for everyone and there was no unemployment. With the fall of the SU this policy left and suddenly there was unemployment and subsequently poverty...

Yours is worse.

1. Argentina has gone bankrupt 16 times. They've been screwing up their economy since the 1880's. It has been ruined many times before the IMF ever got involved.
2. Panama was subject to more US imperialism than Nicaragua.
3. Like when Clinton reinstated the leftist president Aristide? The Dominican Republic has a similar history of imperialism and homegrown tyrants.
4.
5. Compare China to Taiwan circa 1970. China has been getting better the more it moves away from socialism.
6. yeah yeah
7. Your praise of the Soviet Union reveals your true colors.

Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.

In case you haven't realized this yet. Taxation can only be established and maintained by force.

[Watchman]

If you haven't realized this yet... states and cohesive societies are ultimately created and maintained by force. Namely the gov't being able to smash any domestic challenger to its authority and power should it come down to that. Files under "sovereignty".

Well, it rather handsomely beats feudalism and bandit warlords.