LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Guinness]

Question: How many times have each of you repeated the exact same ideas in this thread?

This one and many others... now kindly return to your video game if it isn't for you...

[doublem]

Guinness, I'm going to define libertarian as it is meant outside the U.S. or left libertarianism like Noam Chomsky is. Looks like you aren't on the side of liberty anymore.

[Shyster]

"The simplistic and harmful labeling of Nazis as right-wing ignores any sort of nuance and is ultimately boneheaded. We can't cheapen what Nazism was by giving it a crude label like 'right-wing.'

"Besides, everybody knows they were all lefties."

I never said that. I said only that racism is not right-wing, and if you take away racism from the Nazi platform, what you're left with sure looks like socialsm. I am also not saying that the labeling of Nazis as right-wing lacks nuance or any such crap. I'm saying it's wrong.

If you don't want Nazis on the left, fine. Explain, then, exactly what makes them right wing. I already gave a list of their beliefs from their own party platform, and none of those planks would come from a conservative/libertarian. Land redistribution? Nope. Welfare expansion? Nope. "Communalization of the great warehouses?" Nope. Nationalization of businesses? Nope. What, then?

[Guinness]

Guinness, I'm going to define libertarian as it is meant outside the U.S. or left libertarianism like Noam Chomsky is. Looks like you aren't on the side of liberty anymore.

I adhere to a principle of individual liberty. I don't give a flying F what you call it. Nor should you care where upon an accurate political spectrum your beliefs lie -- they are what they are, right? It's not my problem if they're uncomfortably close to some philosophies that you find abhorrent. That's your issue to wrangle with...

[doublem]

Haven't right wing guys been calling Obama a Nazi? Nazism takes on right wing ideology becasue it is largely fascist. They had extreme views of nationalism, militarism, corporatism, and had a strong hatred of communism. Communism wanted to create a classless society, but the fascists wanted to have different classes. Marxists advocate solidarity between members of the working class (regardless of nation) and believe that conflict between different classes is a positive force. Fascism and Nazism hold the reverse view; they advocate solidarity between members of the same nation (regardless of class), and believe that conflict between different nations is a positive force. from wiki.

This line of the debate left the station a page and a half ago...

If Nazism and Communism are both on the left, who is on the right?

Very simple. National Socialists/Fascists and Communists are leftists/statists, and libertarians/anarchists are rightists.

Kind of sucks that you're stuck with the fascists, doesn't it?

Where is democracy on that chart? Isn't that a very black and white world to you?

[doublem]

Guinness, I'm going to define libertarian as it is meant outside the U.S. or left libertarianism like Noam Chomsky is. Looks like you aren't on the side of liberty anymore.

I adhere to a principle of individual liberty. I don't give a flying F what you call it. Nor should you care where upon an accurate political spectrum your beliefs lie -- they are what they are, right? It's not my problem if they're uncomfortably close to some philosophies that you find abhorrent. That's your issue to wrangle with...

The only reason I care is becasue it makes a debate impossible when the words have no meaning. I don't know how my beliefs can be considered either communist or fascist, but whatever. I just want to know where democracy is?

[HomerPenguin]

I never said that. I said only that racism is not right-wing, and if you take away racism from the Nazi platform, what you're left with sure looks like socialsm. I am also not saying that the labeling of Nazis as right-wing lacks nuance or any such crap. I'm saying it's wrong.

I see. So crude, ham-fisted definitions are OK as long as you get to do the defining.

If you don't want Nazis on the left, fine. Explain, then, exactly what makes them right wing. I already gave a list of their beliefs from their own party platform, and none of those planks would come from a conservative/libertarian.

You realize that the equalization of "conservative" with "libertarian" is not actually workable in any historical context, right? It might possibly work in the context of late-20th and early-21st century America, but even there I have my doubts.

Land redistribution? Nope. Welfare expansion? Nope. "Communalization of the great warehouses?" Nope. Nationalization of businesses? Nope. What, then?

I already did list a number of tenets that aren't left-wing by any definition I know of, but they went unanswered. Note that I'm not the one trying to pigeon-hole the Nazis here, you are.

[HomerPenguin]

Again if you define the "left" as absolute governmental hegemony over society and the "right" as absolute individual liberty, these nuances between fascist and socialist are insignificant. I ask you - what is the point of differentiating between one manifestation of absolutist government and another? Because one is more corporatist and the other is more collectivist doesn't appreciably change the impact on the individual - in each case he/she is subjugated. Or, in other words, neither system acknowledges his/her right to exist, which is contradictory to imperical evidence.

OK you got me. If all goodness is on the right and all evil is on the left then I'm a rightie.

But if you redefine "right" to mean "the complete eradication of all life on earth" and "left" to mean "free puppies for all," then I'm definitely a leftist.

[Idoit40fans]

Question: How many times have each of you repeated the exact same ideas in this thread?

This one and many others... now kindly return to your video game if it isn't for you...

lulz. SO what you're saying is that there is 38 pages of repetition? I suspected as much.

Also, I already played through my video games once, it would be pointless to do the same thing over and over again.

[HomerPenguin]

And yet again I ask: why adhere to an inaccurate dogma just because it's "the way it's always been"?

Because most English speakers, in trying to converse over issues like this, are going to refer to terms the way they've commonly been used over time.

I'm fine with however you want to define the terms - you want to call libertarians radical centrists... whatever. Socialists are leftists and Fascists are rightists? Okay. I see this as pretty inaccruate, in that it assumes that individual liberty somehow lies between two statist extremes, where in actuality, it is the polar opposite of both modes of authoritarianism. It doesn't essentially change the debate -- it more accurately defines it, but it doesn't essentially change it.

Then why are you guys so gung-ho to put the Nazis on the left? And please note that I've not once tried to stick them wholly on the right. I reserve terms like that for people like Dick Cheney, who is an unrestrained authoritarian without a particular ideology beyond that.

[Guinness]

Where is democracy on that chart? Isn't that a very black and white world to you?

Mob rule? Where do you think democracy falls on that chart?

[Shyster]

Okey dokey, I'll go first.

"Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented,"
-That plank was a sub-compent of the racism. Racism is not right-wing or left wing. Left0 Right0 Neutral1

"The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity,"
-I'll give you that one, although the "Christianity" plank really another attack against non-Christians (guess who?). Left0 Right1 Neutral1

"Abolition of taxes on land"
-But the abolition of taxes only follows the seizure and redistribution of land to the poor. Socialist policy. Left1 Right1 Neutral1

"The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically."
-The next sentence says “The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.” They mean that citizens have an obligation to work for the betterment of the state. Compete opposite of right-wing. Left2 Right1 Neutral1

"Legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands."
That was another attack on the Jews. Racism is neutral. In the alternative, both left and right have been guilty of censorship the past (hello communism), so it also belongs to neither. Left2 Right1 Neutral2

I score your cited examples as 2 Left, 1 Right, 2 Neutral/Neither. Hardly an overwhelming example of right-wing behavior. Your turn.

[Guinness]

Again if you define the "left" as absolute governmental hegemony over society and the "right" as absolute individual liberty, these nuances between fascist and socialist are insignificant. I ask you - what is the point of differentiating between one manifestation of absolutist government and another? Because one is more corporatist and the other is more collectivist doesn't appreciably change the impact on the individual - in each case he/she is subjugated. Or, in other words, neither system acknowledges his/her right to exist, which is contradictory to imperical evidence.

OK you got me. If all goodness is on the right and all evil is on the left then I'm a rightie.

But if you redefine "right" to mean "the complete eradication of all life on earth" and "left" to mean "free puppies for all," then I'm definitely a leftist.

Okay. If you want to define goodness as right and evil as left, cool. It's appropriately defined as authoritarianism is left and liberty is right... And yet still, the substance of the debate is unchanged -- more accurately defined in my terms, but still unchanged.

[HomerPenguin]

It's appropriately defined as authoritarianism is left and liberty is right...

And there's the problem in a nutshell. Who made that the "appropriate" definition? Isn't the "pro-liberty" position classically liberal? Or are we decoupling "left" and "liberal" too? Why so hung up on which direction we're going?

[Guinness]

Question: How many times have each of you repeated the exact same ideas in this thread?

This one and many others... now kindly return to your video game if it isn't for you...

lulz. SO what you're saying is that there is 38 pages of repetition? I suspected as much.

One may think so, perhaps.

Also, I already played through my video games once, it would be pointless to do the same thing over and over again.

And yet you do anyway, don't you?

[Shyster]

And yet you do anyway, don't you?

He's just scared that all the political arguers might catch up to his mighty post count.

[Guinness]

And there's the problem in a nutshell. Who made that the "appropriate" definition? Isn't the "pro-liberty" position classically liberal? Or are we decoupling "left" and "liberal" too? Why so hung up on which direction we're going?

We're really overly examining this, aren't we? Alright - I submit. I'm a radical centrist. I've got authoritarians all around me. To the left there are socialist-authoritarians and to the right there are fascist-authoritarians. You leftists-authoritarians don't want do be associated with rightist-authoritarians. I can understand that. From where I sit, there is precious little difference.

[doublem]

Question: How many times have each of you repeated the exact same ideas in this thread?

This one and many others... now kindly return to your video game if it isn't for you...

lulz. SO what you're saying is that there is 38 pages of repetition? I suspected as much.

Also, I already played through my video games once, it would be pointless to do the same thing over and over again.

Question: Why are you LGP's internet tough guy?

[Guinness]

And yet you do anyway, don't you?

He's just scared that all the political arguers might catch up to his mighty post count.

Speaking of which... I just made, "AHL'er"!!

I owe it all to the NHR forum.

[HomerPenguin]

"Abolition of taxes on land"
-But the abolition of taxes only follows the seizure and redistribution of land to the poor.

Who said anything about redistributing land to the poor? The tenet talks about land reform "suitable to our needs." In practice Nazi land policy resembled feudalism more than it did anything we'd recognize today.

"The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically."
-The next sentence says “The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.” They mean that citizens have an obligation to work for the betterment of the state.

And, again, in communism ultimately there is no state. Working toward the betterment of the state apparatus is not communist.

I score your cited examples as 2 Left, 1 Right, 2 Neutral/Neither.

Disappointing. I bet if you tried a little harder you could make them all "left."

[Guinness]

I reserve terms like that for people like Dick Cheney, who is an unrestrained authoritarian without a particular ideology beyond that.

Well, gee, that's awfully serendipitous, isn't it? I certainly don't disagree with you... however it creates an awfully convenient chasm between an ideology you espouse and Dick Cheney who you rightfully abhor, doesn't it?

[Ron`]

What evidence do you have? If someone doesn't agree with your point, it's easy to point the finger on them and ask what evidence they have on why their point is right. I haven't seen you provide anything worthwhile to be called "evidence."

This is what my "wikipedia" post was about....

Amen... if you can't find a media link no matter how incredulous it can't be fact....

[doublem]

What evidence do you have? If someone doesn't agree with your point, it's easy to point the finger on them and ask what evidence they have on why their point is right. I haven't seen you provide anything worthwhile to be called "evidence."

This is what my "wikipedia" post was about....

Amen... if you can't find a media link no matter how incredulous it can't be fact....

Wiki does have links now.

[Shyster]

Who said anything about redistributing land to the poor? The tenet talks about land reform "suitable to our needs." In practice Nazi land policy resembled feudalism more than it did anything we'd recognize today.

Cite? I know from other sources (i.e. Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State by Gotz Aly) where that land went, and “our needs” wasn’t anything a conservative would consider legitimate. Typically, it meant taking land from murdered Jews, Poles, and other minorities and handing it over to disaffected members of the Volk.

and, again, in communism ultimately there is no state. Working toward the betterment of the state apparatus is not communist.

I’m scoring left/right, not relating to communism. Socialism certainly has a state, and the commies never really got past theirs, eh?

Disappointing. I bet if you tried a little harder you could make them all "left."

Explain how they are right then. What about the other planks I cited? How are they right-wing?

[Ron`]

Second, my niece was attending a PUBLIC and therefore STATE (read: govt) FUNDED school. She came home one day to tell us that she was taught that President Obama is our savior. Sounds like indoctrination to me.

I'm not saying that is mandated curriculum by the state, but it sure was taught at a school funded by them.

I'd be interested to know if that was really what was said or if there was a context to it. I'm not saying that some teachers say dumb things, but sometimes kids go home and say something completely different than what was said by a teacher. Did your niece's parents question the teacher about this?

Look, my college age kids were indoctrinated in the same fashion, they voted for the saviour. Now they both realize what a mistake it was to believe what was sold to them. Not that the other choice was better necessarily, but a complete pack of lies....