Nikki Haley-What was the cause of the Civil War

[*pally*]

(01-16-2024, 02:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not ignoring the reasons for the revolution, but they're not part of my argument in this regard.  As you just discussed, once in power this inferiority complex, once again, became a motivating factor.  You could be a Czarist or a Bolshevik, but at the end of the day you were still a Russian.  I think the rank and file genuinely bought into the promises of communism, but for the higher ups I think a large percentage of them just wanted to seize power.  




Absolutely, but the question was why doesn't it happen now, was it not?  At least that's what my entire answer was addressing.


True communism has never actually been tried.  

see we can agree on something!  The only thing that communism as practiced has in common with Karl Marx's vision is the name

[Dill]

(01-16-2024, 10:28 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: For what it's worth, Russia was originally on Germany's side in WW2. They only became enemies with Germany when Hitler needlessly invaded them (for Lebensraum, or "living space"), creating a two front war that ultimately ended in Germany's downfall (one of the many reasons that I think Hitler was WAY overrated in terms of his military prowess).
So, you could argue Russia was "right wing" like the other Axes of Power nations, but joined the "left" due to the betrayal by Germany.
With that said, simplifying anything to left vs right is almost always incorrect and that likely holds for WW2 as well.

Actually C-Dawg, I'll have to disagree with you on this one. 

What made a regime "right" or "left" in the years leading to WW II was not whom it sided with, but the principles under which the regime claimed to be, or was, constituted. What made Germany and Italy "right wing" were fascist policies with their principled embrace of inequality and opposition to unions and Marxism.

The US, GB and France would be liberal democracies, and so more "centrist" on the political spectrum of that time. Not "leftist" by any stretch--except maybe to some far right Nazis. 

The Soviet Union established itself as a workers state, in principled opposition to the economic basis of liberal, fascist and traditional (aristocratic) governments of the time. It was radically different from the both Axis and other Allies in this respect. 

So the USSR may have signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, and agreed to divide Poland--for temporary advantage--but it's a stretch to infer from that that it was on the side of Germany and the Axis, and so became "right wing" for that stretch of time, even while it's long-term goal was still worldwide worker's revolution as Germany's long-term goal was the destruction of "Jewish Bolshevism."  

One could argue all regimes at that time were "mixtures" somewhat. E.g., the US was a segregated nation in ways that aligned with Nazi racial politics. But recognizing that does not oversimplify or negate the usefulness of terms like "right," "left" and "center" as they have been traditionally defined and used in political science/theory. 

It's a legacy of US anti-communism that, with the rise of the New Right, the term "leftist" has been broadly applied by the RWM to most all groups and politicians designated enemies by the far right effectively eliminating any "center." A fringe practice was thus mainstreamed, and now I see many younger folks are quite familiar, even comfortable, with that loose labeling. Though when neoliberals like the Clintons and Obama are repeatedly labelled "leftist," the term's descriptive or analytic power is evacuated. That doesn't mean terms like "right," "center," and "left" can't have that power, though, if effectively defined and deployed as something other than propaganda tools.

[Dill]

(01-16-2024, 12:01 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The left vs right debate is one that almost always lacks context. What is left or right is almost always based on a person's own biases.

A libertarian will argue that "personal freedom" is a right wing concept, but a socialist will argue that "personal freedom" is left wing. Their definitions are not similar though. A libertarian thinks "personal freedom" means doing whatever they want, whenever they want without any government institution trying to control them. 

A socialist thinks "personal freedom" means freedom from the exploitation that power hierarchies create, such that each person has exactly as much freedom of will to pursue their ambitions as any other person. This second definition basically requires some sort of government intervention, as it would be extremely difficult to prevent hierarchical structures from oppressing people otherwise.

Others view leftist vs rightist as strictly a economic conversation.

Here you are putting more substance behind the terms, creating a basis for using them descriptively. 

(01-16-2024, 12:01 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The one thing about left vs right that I find fascinating is that political parties/governments will frequently masquerade as left wing governments ("The National Socialist Party," "The People's Republic of China," "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea," etc), but will NEVER masquerade as right wing governments. You'll never see a political party call themselves, "The Fascistic Party of Cambodia."

I don't know what that says about the left vs right debate or what these words actually mean, but I still find it interesting.

I don't think the National Socialist Party was masquerading as a left wing government, or left wing anything. The party was just formed before the label "fascist" had come into widespread use. And Mussolini's party did call itself the "Partito Nationale Fascista."  But the remainder of this seems insightful and probably holds for the POST-WW II world.

I think that is because fascism got such a bad name during WW II, afterwards being vilified world wide. 

In contrast, the appeal of the left has always been democratic in principle--government based upon the people's will/sovereignty. If you are the "People's Democratic Republic of X" then you are claiming your state is not founded on some aristocratic dynasty or oligarchic ruling class or racial/ethnic/religious power, but on a radical equality of citizens. The results might not be that equality, but the label is advantageous as propaganda, even if a lie.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-16-2024, 03:08 PM)pally Wrote: see we can agree on something!  The only thing that communism as practiced has in common with Karl Marx's vision is the name

Ninja emoji aside, this is true and there's a reason for it.  Because in reality it is wholly an utterly unworkable.  If a system of governance has been tried numerous times and in every instance fails (meaning not fully implemented as designed) that's because it doesn't work.  Contrast that with, for example, a democratic republic.

[Dill]

(01-15-2024, 06:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The bolded could be said about anyone in this forum.
No, it absolutely cannot.  Give me a left leaning policy you don't support.

I'm not the only one who wonders why you constantly attack "the left" and defend right wing policies,
Actually, I attack policies I disagree with, both right and left.  Examples of right wing policies I vehemently disagree with; abortion, gay rights, transgender people serving in the military, immigration, legalization of marijuana.  Could you name any left wing policies you disagree with?

First thing to be said is that you and I operate with different definitions and standards. 
E.g., your use of "leftist" aligns with Hannity and Trump's--too broad, imprecise and ideologically deployed to have analytical value (see post # 13 above).  

I consider myself an actual Leftist, though not because I generally agree with the LIBERAL policies you claim to support above. So I cannot name a "left-wing policy" that I "vehemently disagree with," like gay rights or any of the other above-mentioned policies you call "leftist." I do disagree with some fellow leftists, in that I am for a mixed economy and wouldn't want agriculture nationalized. I might disagree on specifics on a proposed green policy, but not the desire for such.  Not sure why being pro-marijuana would mark me or anyone a "leftist," any more than being anti-prohibition would. As I say, different definitions.

And different standards: If I consistently defend "left-wing" policies, then people are justified in inferring I'm a "leftist." You agree with that application for "leftists."

But if you consistently defend right-wing politics and deflect criticism from MAGA politicians, you don't agree that people are justified in calling you a "right-winger," apparently because every two months you claim that you were for gay marriage before Obama (whom you seem to think a "leftist"). You exempt yourself from the standard you apply to "leftists." 

(01-15-2024, 06:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: SSF: I refuse to be in ideological lockstep with any group, as there is zero chance any group will perfectly match my positions on every issue. 
Dill:Where did the "perfectly match" criterion come from? Who has asked you, or anyone, to be in "ideological lockstep" with any group?

Reading comprehension fail.  It's not that it's asked, it's that it's attacked if it is not given.

???  You introduced "perfectly match" and "ideological lockstep" as criteria for distinguishing positive and negative behavior. But no examples of anyone but you worrying about "lock step" etc. So apparently it's not that it's asked, but that you "feel" attacked and a demand for conformity if people disagree with your take on a topic. 

Also you the one who frequently speaks in the first person plural, rather than as an independent poster. When you do that, and claim that no one reads my posts, it sounds rather like you are positing a unified group, for whom you speak, and claiming I am not in lockstep with it as you are (though "the left" supposedly "outnumbers the right"). No one else in the forum speaks for the forum like this.

[Dill]

(01-15-2024, 06:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: but present yourself as "independent," simply because you and Luvnit, whom you often stand shoulder to shoulder with, don't "perfectly match." 

And here you actually label me a Republican, after claiming not to in this very post.  Luvnit is a self described Republican.  I probably disagree with him on more things than I disagree with you on.  But I absolutely will not allow you and your buddies to bully him simply because the left outnumbers the right here.  If he is being treated unfairly you're damned right I'll call it out.

No. I don't "actually label you a Republican" here, "after claiming not to in this very post," simply because I note that you often align yourself with a "self-described Republican." That's another wild and unwarranted inference. And you were not defending Luvnit from the terrible left-wing bullies on this list when you joined and expanded his hyperbolic attack on the New York Times for an erroneous attribution of the Gaza hospital attack. You were enthusiastically standing with him on the same ideological ground with the same ideological target--something you routinely do whether luvnit is in the neighborhood or not.

I've always properly triangulated you as a right wing "independent"--someone who routinely attacks "the left" while consistently defending and deflecting criticism from right wing politicians, all while denying partisanship or party affiliation. You are not the only one in this forum who does that, making this particular conflicted and schizophrenic positioning an interesting contemporary political phenomenon in its own right. I've argued the number of such right wing "independents" seems to have greatly increased during Bush's second term, as many supportive of right wing politics began denying party affiliation. 

(01-15-2024, 06:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not desperate for anything.  But if you think I'm going to allow you and your ilk to slap labels on me simply because it makes you feel better about being confronted on your bullshit then I will absolutely push back on it.  I've cited some very left leaning policies I am in favor of.  Perhaps you could provide me with a similar list of the right wing policies I defend.  it should be simple as you claim I do so "consistently".  I'll not be responding until after the Steelers game, so spare yourself the effort until then.

Until you become a moderator or own this forum, you will "allow" me and my ilk to ascribe right wing politics to you when you defend right wing politics and attack left, just as you ascribe left-wing politics to forum members to defend liberal politics and attack right. And you'll allow us to foreground the inconsistency. 

You've defended "right wing" positions on gun control open carry, and Trump's Muslim ban, not to mention some very illiberal Supreme Court decisions. And not just as an isolated affirmation here and there ("I'm pro choice"), but in successions of full-throated, lengthy defenses and personal attacks on those who disagree.  But politics isn't just about policy.  You claim to be pro a woman's right to choose and gay rights, etc. But you approve of Supreme Court appointments which threaten those rights and run interference for the guy who made them. Your energy in this forum goes to attacking "the left," not defending what you call "left wing policies." You empathize with right wing political actors, like Trump supporters who threaten violence if Trump is convicted, not liberal or "left" actors, like BLM. 

[CJD]

(01-16-2024, 03:10 PM)Dill Wrote: Actually C-Dawg, I'll have to disagree with you on this one. 

What made a regime "right" or "left" in the years leading to WW II was not whom it sided with, but the principles under which the regime claimed to be, or was, constituted. What made Germany and Italy "right wing" were fascist policies with their principled embrace of inequality and opposition to unions and Marxism.

The US, GB and France would be liberal democracies, and so more "centrist" on the political spectrum of that time. Not "leftist" by any stretch--except maybe to some far right Nazis. 

The Soviet Union established itself as a workers state, in principled opposition to the economic basis of liberal, fascist and traditional (aristocratic) governments of the time. It was radically different from the both Axis and other Allies in this respect. 

So the USSR may have signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, and agreed to divide Poland--for temporary advantage--but it's a stretch to infer from that that it was on the side of Germany and the Axis, and so became "right wing" for that stretch of time, even while it's long-term goal was still worldwide worker's revolution as Germany's long-term goal was the destruction of "Jewish Bolshevism."  

One could argue all regimes at that time were "mixtures" somewhat. E.g., the US was a segregated nation in ways that aligned with Nazi racial politics. But recognizing that does not oversimplify or negate the usefulness of terms like "right," "left" and "center" as they have been traditionally defined and used in political science/theory. 

It's a legacy of US anti-communism that, with the rise of the New Right, the term "leftist" has been broadly applied by the RWM to most all groups and politicians designated enemies by the far right effectively eliminating any "center." A fringe practice was thus mainstreamed, and now I see many younger folks are quite familiar, even comfortable, with that loose labeling. Though when neoliberals like the Clintons and Obama are repeatedly labelled "leftist," the term's descriptive or analytic power is evacuated. That doesn't mean terms like "right," "center," and "left" can't have that power, though, if effectively defined and deployed as something other than propaganda tools.

I am not an expert when it comes to determining what governments were left wing or right wing because, as I've said, those terms have become so nebulous and confusing, you can call anything "left wing" or "right wing" based on one small facet of the nation that is hard to verify or quantify. For example, some people genuinely claim the Nazis were left wing because they "nationalized" certain industries. That's the claim anyway. But how does a normie like myself verify that information? Every article you find on the Nazis nowadays serves one single purpose: To either associate or dissociate the Nazis from the author's personal view points. So even if the Nazis nationalized certain industries, all you'll be able to find on the internet are articles written about how that is not true (and therefore, they are not leftists) or how it is true (and therefore were technically leftists).

And that's not even getting into the discussion of...is leftism literally just nationalizing industries?

For me, I've tried to clarify what exactly I consider a good policy and that is, generally speaking, whether a policy helps those who need help the most and at what cost.

This typically makes me side with the left because, again generally speaking, the left is on the side of the "little guy," especially when it comes to people vs corporations or the needy vs the wealthy. 

And under that definition, I definitely do not like what was going on in the USSR. Does that technically make them right wing? I can't say because I feel that terminology is hard to understand at best and purposefully confusing at worst. They claimed to be communist state which should have the interest of the people at its heart, but then Stalin was a ruthless dictator that killed and imprisoned millions of people. That isn't the action of a state that I would consider "leftist" so I tend to think of the USSR as a "bad government" which I, in my own biases, tend to associate with the right, as a murderous dictator is definitively not something that is in the interest of the people/needy/vulnerable (as I believe left wing people are interested in protecting).

This may come out as gibberish, as I'm in a bit of stream of consciousness right now, but I instantly doubt any people who call themselves "leftists" who defend Stalin or anyone like him. 

I hope that makes sense, although I doubt it does.

[CJD]

(01-16-2024, 02:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In a very broad-brush way of looking at the linear political spectrum, the further left you go the more people make up the state. So, in a libertarian utopia, there is no state. Just to the left of that we have the totalitarian autocrats. Then, as we continue shifting to the left you have pure democracy on the extreme other side which is where the people are the state. This is just one aspect of the political typologies and is oversimplified, but it helps to get this sort of understanding for this discussion.

For those seeking to wrest power in a democratic society they cannot come in and outright claim that they have the power. To shift the government to the right they need to first gain the support of the people and you have to do that by appealing to the idea that you are there for them. You have to play the populism angle. We see it in every successful attempt at this and we see this in so many unsuccessful ones, as well, not pointing any fingers or naming names or anything.

SEe, but here's the thing that confuses me is that the end state of communism has been described to me as "a stateless, moneyless, classless society." So, by that definition of communism, it would be right wing because there would be no state? Communism has always been strange to me for that reason because I agree with your general broad brush stroke as well. I would phrase it more like: the further left you go, the more equal people are in the power distribution of society. The further right you go, the more hierarchies appear (whether that be governmental, corporate, wealth based, race based, gender based, class based etc).

I do agree with your second paragraph on why left wing masquerading is so popular though. In order to get the people's votes in order to gain power, you must convince those people that you are on their side. No one would listen to a group of people who say, "It is in our interest to concentrate all the power into a single group of people, me and my friends, and we would like to rule with an iron fist over you in a society in which you have no say over how your life is governed. Please vote for me this coming Tuesday so that, by this time next year, you will no longer need to vote, as we will have abolished that right by then."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-16-2024, 06:52 PM)Dill Wrote: No. I don't "actually label you a Republican" here

Yeah, you did.

Quote:Until you become a moderator or own this forum, you will "allow" me and my ilk to ascribe right wing politics to you when you defend right wing politics and attack left, just as you ascribe left-wing politics to forum members to defend liberal politics and attack right. And you'll allow us to foreground the inconsistency. 

No, I won't.

Quote:You've defended "right wing" positions on gun control open carry,

I'm actually on record as saying open carry is both stupid and pointless.

Quote:and Trump's Muslim ban,

I actually pointed out, correctly, that it wasn't a "Muslim ban".  It did not include the vast majority of Muslim nations nor did it include only Muslim majority nations.  I also correctly pointed out that he had the authority to do so.

Quote:not to mention some very illiberal Supreme Court decisions. 

Like Dobbs?  You mean by pointing out that the Roe decision was actually far more radical than the decision overturning it?  Or that claiming abortion is a Constitutional right under the 14th Amendments right to privacy was rather shoddy logic and a very shaky foundation?  Odd that you leveled no similar criticisms at Bel, who (and forgive me if I am overstating this Bel) shares an almost identical opinion.  Either way I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose.

Quote:And not just as an isolated affirmation here and there ("I'm pro choice"), but in successions of full-throated, lengthy defenses and personal attacks on those who disagree.  But politics isn't just about policy.  You claim to be pro a woman's right to choose and gay rights, etc. But you approve of Supreme Court appointments which threaten those rights and run interference for the guy who made them. Your energy in this forum goes to attacking "the left," not defending what you call "left wing policies." You empathize with right wing political actors, like Trump supporters who threaten violence if Trump is convicted, not liberal or "left" actors, like BLM. 

After your litany of failure here I reminded of Douglas Murray's statement made towards Dino's buddy, Malcolm Gladwell, while thoroughly eviscerating him during the Munk Debate in Canada. "You listen to nothing that your opponents say."  I do appreciate you taking the time to type this, as it confirmed everything I already thought about you.  You don't actually read what is said or try and comprehend it.  You simply note the author and respond based on your personal feelings about them.  It explains a lot, so again, I thank you.

[CJD]

(01-16-2024, 02:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: At their extremes both ideologies have more in common than they would like to believe.  Once you get towards the poles the behavior becomes identical, the only difference being the justification for said behavior.  It's actually one of the major flaws on this board, and a microcosm of the problem we have a society at large.  People are engaging in the exact same behavior they decry in their ideological opponents, but they are either blind to it or justify it.  See cancel culture as an example. 

I think the idea of "Power corrupts. absolute power corrupts absolutely." applies to the "extremes" argument here. I think a left wing government is possible and I think it is possible for a government to be run with the interests of the people in mind, as long as there are sufficient ways to remove and replace representatives if they begin to be corrupted. The problem occurs when a centralized group of people gain the power to run a country with the understanding that they need to run it in the interest of the people. Once they are given that power in good faith, they twist the government and its rules to maintain that power, even if it is not in the interest of the people.

Humans are imperfect animals and our cardinal sin, above all others (in my biased opinion) is greed. If you give one person too much power, especially if that power involves twisting things in a way that would gain them more power, I think corruption is almost inevitable. That is what seems to be the downfall of nearly every left wing government. Even Lenin, as flawed as he was (and I don't want this to devolve into a "was Lenin actually good or just another dictator?" question, as that is not my intent here), seemed to care at least a bit about the people of the USSR but when he died, Stalin gained power through murder and twisting of the rules and power gained in the chaos of Lenin's death and the subsequent power vacuum that left, as he did not seem to name a successor and his criticisms of Stalin as he was nearing death were apparently suppressed. If the USSR was technically a leftist government under Lenin, I think it lost any semblance of that under Stalin due to his corruption.

But that may just be my coping with how a "left wing" government went so horribly wrong. I can't say for sure.

Quote:The right was, correctly, up in arms about people being cancelled for things they did and said years, sometimes decades, ago.  Or being cancelled for having an unpopular opinion.  Yet the exact same people are now rejoicing in people losing their jobs over their stance on the war in Gaza.  Sometimes for taking down posters of hostages, sometimes for expressing their opinion on Zionism, sometimes for other reasons.  The justification is different, but the outcome and method is the exact same.  Ans you'll find no shortage of people justifying it with the shoe being on the other foot excuse.

Cancel culture is a tricky subject. Whether we like it or not, our opinions and personal views will have an impact on our work lives. If it's discovered that a CEO of a company used to be a virulent racist, customers may not want to buy that company's products anymore, which is bad for business, so that CEO may lose their job to protect the company's image and/or sales.

Smaller firings, such as actors or even regular people, are the same thing on a smaller scale. 

That's why social media was a mistake. A person's inner most beliefs or rash decisions/thoughts/actions should not be available to review 15 years later. It's just a bad ***** idea. There are too many hot button topics and, if you tweet enough, eventually you'll say something that enough people will be angry about that they may try to do harm to you (and the quickest way to harm you is to tarnish your reputation and/or income stream). I don't think this an ideological issue. I think it's just, again, a human issue. Just like there are assholes on both the left and right, there are cancelers on both the left and right.

Having a particular political ideology does not definitively make you a better or worse person (most of the time. I think we can all agree there are no "good Nazis"). There are piece of shit socialists and there are piece of shit libertarians, just like there are heart of gold socialists and libertarians.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-16-2024, 07:44 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I am not an expert when it comes to determining what governments were left wing or right wing because, as I've said, those terms have become so nebulous and confusing, you can call anything "left wing" or "right wing" based on one small facet of the nation that is hard to verify or quantify. For example, some people genuinely claim the Nazis were left wing because they "nationalized" certain industries. That's the claim anyway. But how does a normie like myself verify that information? Every article you find on the Nazis nowadays serves one single purpose: To either associate or dissociate the Nazis from the author's personal view points. So even if the Nazis nationalized certain industries, all you'll be able to find on the internet are articles written about how that is not true (and therefore, they are not leftists) or how it is true (and therefore were technically leftists).

And that's not even getting into the discussion of...is leftism literally just nationalizing industries?

For me, I've tried to clarify what exactly I consider a good policy and that is, generally speaking, whether a policy helps those who need help the most and at what cost.

This typically makes me side with the left because, again generally speaking, the left is on the side of the "little guy," especially when it comes to people vs corporations or the needy vs the wealthy. 

And under that definition, I definitely do not like what was going on in the USSR. Does that technically make them right wing? I can't say because I feel that terminology is hard to understand at best and purposefully confusing at worst. They claimed to be communist state which should have the interest of the people at its heart, but then Stalin was a ruthless dictator that killed and imprisoned millions of people. That isn't the action of a state that I would consider "leftist" so I tend to think of the USSR as a "bad government" which I, in my own biases, tend to associate with the right, as a murderous dictator is definitively not something that is in the interest of the people/needy/vulnerable (as I believe left wing people are interested in protecting).

This may come out as gibberish, as I'm in a bit of stream of consciousness right now, but I instantly doubt any people who call themselves "leftists" who defend Stalin or anyone like him. 

I hope that makes sense, although I doubt it does.

A person will tend to ascribe positions that they disagree with as opposed to their ideology, left or right.  In describing the USSR as essentially right leaning you are doing exactly that.  This is not a criticism, just boiling down what I think you're getting at here.  The way I see it is as I described earlier.  The behavior of both ideologies when you reach the extremes is basically indistinguishable, the only difference is the justification for the behavior.  That's why you're having a hard time labeling the extreme left leaning USSR as left leaning, because at the end of the day they so perfectly emulate the equally extreme right leaning Nazi government.  The only difference, again, is the justification.

[Belsnickel]

(01-16-2024, 08:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A person will tend to ascribe positions that they disagree with as opposed to their ideology, left or right.  In describing the USSR as essentially right leaning you are doing exactly that.  This is not a criticism, just boiling down what I think you're getting at here.  The way I see it is as I described earlier.  The behavior of both ideologies when you reach the extremes is basically indistinguishable, the only difference is the justification for the behavior.  That's why you're having a hard time labeling the extreme left leaning USSR as left leaning, because at the end of the day they so perfectly emulate the equally extreme right leaning Nazi government.  The only difference, again, is the justification.

The USSR may have been economically left, but they weren't politically or socially left. I think this is where the confusion always lies. There is no one single right-left spectrum. It is more like one of those spider-web looking graphs where there are like five to eight different branches and each one has a rating and creates weird shapes (I just learned it is called a radar chart by Googling "spider web looking graph thing" for the record).

[Belsnickel]

(01-16-2024, 07:57 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: SEe, but here's the thing that confuses me is that the end state of communism has been described to me as "a stateless, moneyless, classless society." So, by that definition of communism, it would be right wing because there would be no state? Communism has always been strange to me for that reason because I agree with your general broad brush stroke as well. I would phrase it more like: the further left you go, the more equal people are in the power distribution of society. The further right you go, the more hierarchies appear (whether that be governmental, corporate, wealth based, race based, gender based, class based etc).

So, what is interesting here is that libertarianism isn't only a right-wing ideology. In fact, that is a distinctly American way of viewing it. There are libertarian socialists that run counter to libertarian capitalists. I use libertarianism in the way that people in the US tend to understand the term which is on the capitalist side of the equation. Here is the distinction between communism and libertarianism, though. First, keep in mind that the "state" has different ways of being defined. I would say the "state" is the overall political body whereas another common viewpoint is the state as a centralized authority. That view is how Marxists tend to view the state. Communism's ideal is a pure democracy with no private property. Pure democracy is sometimes referred to as stateless even though, in my view, there is a government that exists because that is the people and as such there is a state. But that is a disagreement in the field and I am in the minority opinion on it. Anyway, libertarian capitalists, or American libertarianism, favors instead private property ownership and no governance, instead relying on the market interactions to determine the politics.

Politics, FYI, is just how we figure out how to live together. Everything is politics. You can never escape it. *cue evil laugh*

[CJD]

(01-16-2024, 10:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, what is interesting here is that libertarianism isn't only a right-wing ideology. In fact, that is a distinctly American way of viewing it. There are libertarian socialists that run counter to libertarian capitalists. I use libertarianism in the way that people in the US tend to understand the term which is on the capitalist side of the equation. Here is the distinction between communism and libertarianism, though. First, keep in mind that the "state" has different ways of being defined. I would say the "state" is the overall political body whereas another common viewpoint is the state as a centralized authority. That view is how Marxists tend to view the state. Communism's ideal is a pure democracy with no private property. Pure democracy is sometimes referred to as stateless even though, in my view, there is a government that exists because that is the people and as such there is a state. But that is a disagreement in the field and I am in the minority opinion on it. Anyway, libertarian capitalists, or American libertarianism, favors instead private property ownership and no governance, instead relying on the market interactions to determine the politics.

Politics, FYI, is just how we figure out how to live together. Everything is politics. You can never escape it. *cue evil laugh*

Politics are exhausting haha.

This is why I don't call myself a socialist or a communist or a liberal or anything like that, because I could never verify that I agree with every single assertion of any group. Similarly, I may not even have an opinion on every single thing or may change my opinion based on the results of a policy.

For example, I do not like cuts in taxes for the wealthy. The reason I don't like them is because they do not result in a situation that benefits the majority of people, especially those that need help the most. The idea of trickle down economics did not work and that has been shown over the years.

However, if an alternate universe existed where cutting taxes for wealthy people and corporations did result in more money trickling down to the majority of people and these tax cuts did result in a net positive happiness quotient for the people, I would not oppose them the way I do.

Basically, if right wing policies actually worked, I wouldn't be against them. It's just that all the evidence I've seen indicates that right wing policies are largely ineffective at best and actively harmful at worst. That is obviously a blanket statement and there may be a right wing policy that I agree with down the line, but I can't think of one off the top of my head, at the moment. At least not an economic one.

[Arturo Bandini]

That might explain why she's reluctant to answer this ...

[Belsnickel]

(01-17-2024, 11:33 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Basically, if right wing policies actually worked, I wouldn't be against them. It's just that all the evidence I've seen indicates that right wing policies are largely ineffective at best and actively harmful at worst. That is obviously a blanket statement and there may be a right wing policy that I agree with down the line, but I can't think of one off the top of my head, at the moment. At least not an economic one.

Well, we also have to remember that what we consider right and left wing is inherently subjective, even. The biggest example of this is when it comes to firearm regulation. In the US it is a partisan issue seen as the left favoring stronger gun control and the right opposing such measures. However, when you look at the policies themselves and understand the classical views, a more democratic society would favor firearms in the hands of the people and those that prefer a more centralized, strong man authority favor fewer firearms in the public. One of the most commonly repeated phrases from the more leftist folks is "under no pretext" which is attributed to Marx and Engels in an 1850 speech when they said:

Quote:Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

As power is consolidated in the hands of a few, however, the desire to disarm the people increases. It is for this reason that gun control is, from a pure ideological perspective, one of conservatism, but that isn't how we view it in the US or in most of the western world.

[CJD]

(01-17-2024, 11:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, we also have to remember that what we consider right and left wing is inherently subjective, even. The biggest example of this is when it comes to firearm regulation. In the US it is a partisan issue seen as the left favoring stronger gun control and the right opposing such measures. However, when you look at the policies themselves and understand the classical views, a more democratic society would favor firearms in the hands of the people and those that prefer a more centralized, strong man authority favor fewer firearms in the public. One of the most commonly repeated phrases from the more leftist folks is "under no pretext" which is attributed to Marx and Engels in an 1850 speech when they said:


As power is consolidated in the hands of a few, however, the desire to disarm the people increases. It is for this reason that gun control is, from a pure ideological perspective, one of conservatism, but that isn't how we view it in the US or in most of the western world.

gun regulation is what I was thinking of when I wrote, "at least not an economic one" as I generally don't have an issue with gun ownership. I think more controls should be placed on ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands (those of convicted felons, domestic abusers and children), but that is my only real issue.

[Dill]

(01-16-2024, 08:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I actually pointed out, correctly, that it wasn't a "Muslim ban".  It did not include the vast majority of Muslim nations nor did it include only Muslim majority nations.  I also correctly pointed out that he had the authority to do so.

Like Dobbs?  You mean by pointing out that the Roe decision was actually far more radical than the decision overturning it?  Or that claiming abortion is a Constitutional right under the 14th Amendments right to privacy was rather shoddy logic and a very shaky foundation?  Odd that you leveled no similar criticisms at Bel, who (and forgive me if I am overstating this Bel) shares an almost identical opinion.  Either way I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose.

After your litany of failure here I reminded of Douglas Murray's statement made towards Dino's buddy, Malcolm Gladwell, while thoroughly eviscerating him during the Munk Debate in Canada. "You listen to nothing that your opponents say."  I do appreciate you taking the time to type this, as it confirmed everything I already thought about you.  You don't actually read what is said or try and comprehend it.  You simply note the author and respond based on your personal feelings about them.  It explains a lot, so again, I thank you.

As I explained while you were defending the Muslim ban, it had to be continually reworked to eliminate religious criteria for banning. 
Its intent was still to stem the flow of Muslim refugees from certain countries. They took out the word "Muslim" so apparently that fooled you.
So you were definitely running interference for Trump in that discussion. Still are, it seems.

Nevermind all the Dobbs dodgery. My case was never that you don't agree with some liberal positions. 

My case is that you routinely, even obsessively, attack something you call "the left," while running interference for Trump, whom of course you are "on record" as disliking. 
You've not addressed that at all. Is it false to say you routinely attack something you call "the left"? 
 
Again, you spend a lot of time talking about how you feel about my post, without addressing the argument. Looks like your'e going to claim I don't listen, while ignoring the evidence presented. Got to run now. Maybe I'll finish this later.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-17-2024, 11:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, we also have to remember that what we consider right and left wing is inherently subjective, even. The biggest example of this is when it comes to firearm regulation. In the US it is a partisan issue seen as the left favoring stronger gun control and the right opposing such measures. However, when you look at the policies themselves and understand the classical views, a more democratic society would favor firearms in the hands of the people and those that prefer a more centralized, strong man authority favor fewer firearms in the public. One of the most commonly repeated phrases from the more leftist folks is "under no pretext" which is attributed to Marx and Engels in an 1850 speech when they said:


As power is consolidated in the hands of a few, however, the desire to disarm the people increases. It is for this reason that gun control is, from a pure ideological perspective, one of conservatism, but that isn't how we view it in the US or in most of the western world.

Oh my, you've moved this discussion on to my pet topic.  As we have discussed previously, the 2A is pretty much unique in human history.  Governments have traditionally done everything they can to keep arms out of the hands of the general populace.  This tradition continues is much of the world to varying degrees, and nowhere else is it explicitly forbidden as it is in the US Constitution.  You also correctly cite it as the moment when the Bolshevik revolution abandoned the actual principles of Marx.  Despite the assertions of men like Biden and Swallwell (and no few posters here), an armed populace is impossible to subjugate.  This is the very foundation for the 2A being introduced.  People get hung up on the no standing Army, or "what militia are you in?" (hint, it's the same one we're all in) but the crux of the 2A is to provide the common citizen with the means of resisting oppression, whatever the source.  This is why most people react vehemently against attempts to further restrict the ownership of arms.  I will add that the Dems are openly flouting the Heller decision in numerous ways, so they have no moral high ground in regard to adhering to the Constitution.

I really don't know why it became such a polarized topic in terms of "right v. left".  I have a feeling it's partly because the Dems heavily court the "minority" community which is proportionately more affected by gun violence.  

(01-17-2024, 12:18 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: gun regulation is what I was thinking of when I wrote, "at least not an economic one" as I generally don't have an issue with gun ownership. I think more controls should be placed on ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands (those of convicted felons, domestic abusers and children), but that is my only real issue.

My friend, believe me when I say there are plenty.  Most instances which prompt cries for more gun control would have been prevented if the system actually functioned as intended, or if laws already on the books had been enforced.  The Parkland shooting and the recent Maine shooter leap to mind.  If you're not a gang member, or adjacent to gang activity (meaning you associate with gang members, not live in a gang neighborhood) your chances of being shot are insanely lower than you dying in a car accident or slipping in the shower.  Freedom is messy, and some people will inevitably abuse it.  Which is why it's so frustrating to me when I hear calls for more gun control when our DA routinely charges illegal possession of a firearm as a misdemeanor.  Or refuses to charge minors who murder people as adults, and I'm talking cold blooded murder here.  Don't cry for more laws when you don't even enforce the ones already on the books.  Not you, of course, people in general.

[Dill]

(01-16-2024, 07:44 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I am not an expert when it comes to determining what governments were left wing or right wing because, as I've said, those terms have become so nebulous and confusing, you can call anything "left wing" or "right wing" based on one small facet of the nation that is hard to verify or quantify. For example, some people genuinely claim the Nazis were left wing because they "nationalized" certain industries. That's the claim anyway. But how does a normie like myself verify that information? Every article you find on the Nazis nowadays serves one single purpose: To either associate or dissociate the Nazis from the author's personal view points. So even if the Nazis nationalized certain industries, all you'll be able to find on the internet are articles written about how that is not true (and therefore, they are not leftists) or how it is true (and therefore were technically leftists).

And that's not even getting into the discussion of...is leftism literally just nationalizing industries?

For me, I've tried to clarify what exactly I consider a good policy and that is, generally speaking, whether a policy helps those who need help the most and at what cost.

This typically makes me side with the left because, again generally speaking, the left is on the side of the "little guy," especially when it comes to people vs corporations or the needy vs the wealthy. 

And under that definition, I definitely do not like what was going on in the USSR. Does that technically make them right wing? I can't say because I feel that terminology is hard to understand at best and purposefully confusing at worst. They claimed to be communist state which should have the interest of the people at its heart, but then Stalin was a ruthless dictator that killed and imprisoned millions of people. That isn't the action of a state that I would consider "leftist" so I tend to think of the USSR as a "bad government" which I, in my own biases, tend to associate with the right, as a murderous dictator is definitively not something that is in the interest of the people/needy/vulnerable (as I believe left wing people are interested in protecting).

This may come out as gibberish, as I'm in a bit of stream of consciousness right now, but I instantly doubt any people who call themselves "leftists" who defend Stalin or anyone like him. 
I hope that makes sense, although I doubt it does.

I'm headed for the airport so I don't have a lot of time to mull this over.

You are quite right that the terms "right" and "left" become nebulous and confusing if you poll their use on the internet, giving people who have actually studied history or political science and actual governments equal weight with people whose political education was largely set by hours of listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

But what if you don't do that? There is much less confusion about what is "left" and "right,"  once you start working with stable, social scientific definitions and examples. If you are doing that, then you would not be working to classify some government as right or left based on "one small facet" out of tune with the rest. Only people grinding ideological axes do that. That's why I say that segregation did not make WWII US a "right wing" regime in the sense that Mussolini's Italy was. The US was founded on and largely operated according to tenets of classical liberalism. That's its "core."

People who claim that Nazis were somehow "leftists" are deeply embedded in a right wing world view that tends to ignore traditional political typology and criteria for determining who fits where. Usually they claim "statism" as their criterion, claiming that is "leftist" and Nazis were statists, therefore . . . . The consensus of political scientists/theorists puts Nazis on the right of the spectrum because of their embrace/naturalization of race and gender hierarchies. They did not seek to "nationalize" industries; they worked with the big capitalists to control labor; though they tried to control arms production somewhat through incentive programs most historians deem unsuccessful. 

The USSR did nationalize industries to make them "the people's property" and embraced the principle of natural equality, including gender equality. They put women on the front line in WWII, some who became legendary snipers, while to the last Hitler would not allow women to fight. The USSR definitely and explicitly contested the conception of private property espoused by both liberal and fascist regimes. That's why they are typed "left." There can be "left-wing" dictatorships, though, and the USSR was one of those. Dictatorship might make a regime illiberal, but that alone cannot make it "right" or "left."  And I am a leftist who doesn't defend Stalin, but I don't claim that therefore the USSR was somehow not founded on leftist principles. 

Well gosh, got to run now.  It would be fun, though, to discuss how "Western" political typologies and definitions apply to a contemporary state like North Korea, which has Stalinist form but explicitly right wing, perhaps even fascist characteristics, which align very closely with the racial ideology of Imperial Japan. Test cases help clarify and fine tuen definitions.