Twenty years after the wall

[Vuk]

Vuk why would you now tell us you are using specifically American modern definitions when we are talking about totalitarian regimes of 20th Century Europe?

When people talk about the left or right now adays, it is current definitons unless stated otherwise. I thought THAT was pretty obvious. We are not talking about what they were classified as then, we were talking about what they were (which we understand with our definitions).

EDIT: Also, American definitions of right and left have come to dominate media AND scholarly discussion. America is seen as the embodiment of the right in many way, so of course when you talk about the right, it is usually assumed that you are talking about the American right (the most 'rightwing' in the world).

[Rhyfelwyr]

Contrary to opinion across the ocean, American views are not reflective of those of the entire world, not today and not at any time in the past either. If we really used US definitions, nobody would ever call the BNP right-wing.

[Vuk]

Contrary to opinion across the ocean, American views are not reflective of those of the entire world, not today and not at any time in the past either. If we really used US definitions, nobody would ever call the BNP right-wing.

My point is though that America has become the most Rightwing country in the world (in the sense that it is farther from the left than other countries), and really did redefine the term. If you do not want the American right referred to as right, then please do not call us 'rightwing'. Call us gods. (or another term of your choice)

[Ironside]

When people talk about the left or right now adays, it is current definitons unless stated otherwise. I thought THAT was pretty obvious. We are not talking about what they were classified as then, we were talking about what they were (which we understand with our definitions).

EDIT: Also, American definitions of right and left have come to dominate media AND scholarly discussion. America is seen as the embodiment of the right in many way, so of course when you talk about the right, it is usually assumed that you are talking about the American right (the most 'rightwing' in the world).

It works fine and dandy when talking about today. But there's a problem when you put it in a historical context, as the meanings has changed but still lingers. For example, the social freedoms that are a highlight on the current left was quite missing in both Soviet and Nazi-Germany, making the modern left quite differently from the authorian movements seen in those countries.

As I mentioned, the left gets divided into two different movements by using that definition, where one is quite simular to libertarianism (the branches that allows private ownership that is).

EDIT: Also, American definitions of right and left have come to dominate media AND scholarly discussion. America is seen as the embodiment of the right in many way, so of course when you talk about the right, it is usually assumed that you are talking about the American right (the most 'rightwing' in the world).

That's today when some of the old movements have withered a bit. But as I mentioned Republicans are quite clearly center right, even by the old definitions, even though there's the religous right that's the right part, not the libertarians. That makes the shift not to induvidual freedom, but the party as a whole. So the right is economic freedom, but social restriction, not freedom on both.

The use of classical liberal and libertarian is only to not confuse our American friends when talking about liberalism btw, we have'nt wrecked the word liberal here yet.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Moderator's note: I take the hint about splitting this thread, but I fear there are actually four or five branching threads herein, and I am not minded to read right through again to try and track them.

Yes, I'm lazy, but when I took this job they promised me minions.



Right, back to... er... topics.

[Brenus]

“What exactly about it WAS left wing? That I would love to hear!”
Was it their massive programme of Nationalisation? Erm…No.
Was it the collectivisation of Lands? Erm… No.
Was it the huge advance in Equal Rights for Women? Erm… No.
Was it the wide spread of freedom in all Germany? Erm… No.

So, What exactly about it WAS left wing? That I would love to hear!

“gun control (something very left wing) to make sure they could not resist”: Pinochet and Franco were Commies…

“It was their support of abortion and gun control and their insistence on equality of condition rather than equality of opportunity! Oh wait, gosh darnnit, those are actually leftist social policies.”
Did you really read (or at least have vague clue) the programme of Nazi? The 3 K programme (kids, kitchen and Church)? The huge birth programme, women and men selected to have blond and blue eyes, marriage arranged between SS and specific females?
About gun control, do you know why the Soviets had so many Snipers against the Nazis? Guess… It is because all the Russian youth went for shooting training… Strange way for a gun control…
Equality? When your OFFICIAL political platform insists on GENETIC inequality as base of your ideology?

“I could say that religious persecution is a leftist policy” Hoops, Robespierre was a Commie…
The III French Republic was a Communist State (law separating Church and State: 1904)…
“You are trying to say that Hitler's attack against Jews, Slavs, etc was characteristic of the rightwing...it was not”: Dreyfus Affair, some one? Were not all the rightwing newspaper full of Anti-Semitism?

“both socialist ideologies”: Yeap. Hitler was a great reader of Marx and Engel and positively loved Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnich… And fought alongside the Spanish Republic against Franco… Guernica is just a lie…

Repeating a mistake doesn’t make it true, sorry…

“when I get back home” Have a good trip…

“Very well to point out that 1989 was not the end of history. I do, as always, disagree with your take on Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was always the most liberal, economically most developed part of European communism. Their system wasn't a card house that could fall down one moment from the next. However, 1989 did show the Yugo communists that their time was up. Simmerring subcurrents in Yugoslavia re-surfaced, and took over. Nationalism, regionalism, ancient strife. The narrative changed.
1989 marked the six hundred anniversary of Serbian struggle against the 'Turks'. This led to 'Bosnia'.
For all the faults you can point out in other countries, Serbian aggressive nationalism had a clear autonomous cause.”
I would agree to disagree.
Nationalism wasn’t the first Milosevic tool. When he started the play for power he did it as a real communist, with the Communist Party and within the Governmental Institution. Just watch his first speech in Kosovo…
No, the first to play Nationalism was the Slovenian President (well, if you write off the Croatian Spring and Alija Izetbegovic “Muslim Declaration”.
Serbian Nationalism came as an answer to the Croatian Nationalism.
Because what I describe in my answer about freedom of speech for Nazi is exactly what happened the Serbs in Croatia: Utasa Coat of Arm (Sehovnica) (ok, they inverse the Colours), Ustasa money (Kuna), Ustas rhetoric, etc.
Vukovar didn’t start when the JNA intervened (November) but when Boro Paravac launched rockets on the Village of Borovo Selo in May.

To be continued

[Caius]

Im not sure if it is going to be continuated.

Pinochet and Franco were Commies…

Pinochet was a commie? Sure, he was as commie as Stalin capitalist! Pinochet was the dictator of Chile that derrocated Salvador Allende one 11th of September thirthy-two(?) years ago. Salvador Allende was the one to put Chile to a socialist country, yet The Us did not want that and they gave money and guns to force a military coup to ensure that all the socialist rebels dissapeared.

[Brenus]

“Pinochet was a commie?” According to Vuk’s definition, yes he was…

[Brenus]

“For the American right, Nationalism really cannot exist (at least in the sense of how it does in Europe), and certainly cannot entail racism, culturalism, etc.”
So when exactly segregation was over in USA? 1956?
You know what amazed me when I went in USA: Flags every where, in front of houses, graveyards, protective clothing of the San Francisco Bridge painters, poster in US post Office (this is our flag, we are proud of it)…

“All across the states there are people of all different races, there are all different types of food, ways of living, etc. There really is no 'American' race or culture to cling too. (Unless you are going to argue that McDonalds and Walmart makes a culture, and even there, they are all around the world) Thus America cannot have Nationalism in the sense that you use the word.”
You can probably say the same things about all European Countries today…
So no movement think that burning US is an offence and that America is too much open to immigration?

“The 'American dream' is what really unites us. The belief that you CAN work and make something out of yourself without some one taking it away. The belief that no matter what social class you come from you are going to have equal opportunity and your rights will be protected. The fact that people of so many races, so many religions, so many cultures and customs can live together. The fact that is something is not right it can be fixed.”
I will give you this. The American dream is still operational…

“The fact that you can speak your mind without censorship”. Except if you are a Commie. Or anti-war few years ago…

“THAT is America.” That is a representation of America.

[Vuk]

Im not sure if it is going to be continuated.


Pinochet was a commie? Sure, he was as commie as Stalin capitalist! Pinochet was the dictator of Chile that derrocated Salvador Allende one 11th of September thirthy-two(?) years ago. Salvador Allende was the one to put Chile to a socialist country, yet The Us did not want that and they gave money and guns to force a military coup to ensure that all the socialist rebels dissapeared.

I'm sorry Caius, but I do not know anything about Pinochet. :P I do know this though, communist countries are countries who pursue communism, but the first step in that (which no communist country has ever gotten past) is first taking control of all the wealth and power in the country, so that it can then later distribute it. Of course once it has the power it won't give it up. It takes the power by the means of a socialist government. In reality, a communist country (no matter what it wanted to be) is only a socialist country. So if Pinochet wanted a socialist country, then he would have wanted the same system that communist use (even if not to the same extent). I make the difference in my mind though between those who pretend to eventually want to reach communism and those who wish to create a permenant socialist state. I do not know which Pinochet is, but unless he actively pursued communism, no, I would not call him a communist. I would call him a socialist though if he pursued socialism. It was Brenus who called him a communist, not me.