Paul Berman offers a different view on Iraq and leftism

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ramo
They have everything to do with his domestic economic policy. How do you suppose Hitler responded to strikes or trade unionism? Why do you think commies were his main ideological enemies? The point is even better demonstrated by Mussolini.

Mussolini was right of Hitler... plus, it was possible to still have the same economic policies as Hitler, BUT, not use government power as brutally as he did. You are confusing USE of government power with economic policy.

That being said, these things aren't exact.

Free-trade isn't a complete economic ideology. I'm for free-trade and on the far-left (being an anarcho-syndicalist).

I misread free-trade for free-market...

it's difficult to say free-trade vs corporatism... on the scale of economics left/right, they have ranges, some free-trade policies can be left of corporatist policies, and likewise, some corporatist policies can be left of free-trade.

These scales are just general tools to help generalize where a particular person or group stands without analyzing their entire record or policies.

[Ramo]

Nevermind, forget I said anything. You're too confused.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ramo
Nevermind, forget I said anything. You're too confused.

if by confused, you mean ENLIGHTENED... then you are correct.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
So where does a free tradist rate in comparision to say a corporatist? More right or more left?

The're both right. Corporatist is like a modern mercantilist. Even though Adam Smith was classical liberal, that's not the same thing as modern liberal.

[Pax]

How do the policies of President Bush differ from those of Mr. Hitler?

From my understanding Fascism combines Nationalism with government and business working hand in hand.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
How do the policies of President Bush differ from those of Mr. Hitler?

From my understanding Fascism combines Nationalism with government and business working hand in hand.

Hitler had complete control over business. Bush just subsidizes business.

[Ramo]

A good case can be made that Shrub's politics are moderately fascist.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker




You're right, Saddam was a benevolent ruler trying to save the Iraqi people from the evils of capitalism.

Iraq is the way it is because this world is ruled by the capitalist. The Iraqi people have never been liberated. Only their rulers have changed.

[Berzerker]

Iraq is the way it is because this world is ruled by the capitalist.

Iraq wasn't ruled by a capitalist. According to that "logic", the USA and every other "capitalist" country should look like Iraq.

The Iraqi people have never been liberated. Only their rulers have changed.

That remains to be seen, the US won't leave (hopefully) until it is satisfied the likes of Al Qaida can't gain a new country to operate out of... But the US isn't going to "run" the country for long...

Ramo -

For instance, your scale would put anarchists on the right and fascists on the left.

That's where they belong, it is illogical for anarchistic libertarians and your brand of anarchism to sit on opposite sides of the spectrum. Fascism is dictatorial, so why would it be on the same side as anarchists? If the left end is totalitarianism, fascism can't be found on the right side. If you want to put anarchism at the left end, then the right end is totalitarian. Contrary to Sava's critique of the left/right spectrum, it does make sense and only makes sense when totalitarianism is at one end and anarchism is at the other. Of course, that doesn't really help us identify all the people in between but most people are authoritarian on some issues and anarchistic on others... But the mindset of a person who presumes to have an authoritarian mandate to deprive others of their freedom even if on a handfull of issues shows an authoritarian streak...

[Berzerker]

A good case can be made that Shrub's politics are moderately fascist.

What has changed between him and Clinton? Not much, lower taxes and more spending. Sounds moderately liberal...

[Pax]

If we, the U.S. wanted to make sure Al Qaida could not use Iraq as a base for Operations we should not have invaded.

IRAQ IS THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE OF CAPITALISTS. All of these of these countries were controlled by the Colonial powers and set up not according to the wishes of the people but according to the wishes of the colonial powers. This a guarantee for a rebellion. Unless the Iraq is empowered with self determination then all we will end up doing is pushing the reset button to revolution.

Capitalism and free markets are not the same as democracy and Freedom. Just because corporations hace control of a nations resource does not a free people make.

Stability for the U.S. did not come from the barrel of a gun but from socioeconomic change that gave members of society increasing levels of imagined or actual freedom.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's way to complicated to explain. So complicated that any attempt to describe it would be wrong.

You're mean -- but in a cool way.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap The problem with the war in Iraq is not that it happened, but HOW it happened, when it happened.

Today we have an occupation regime in Iraq itching to get out, unsure how to go about, now at this point, about 8 months late calling for UN help, and a situation in the ground which has a good chance of devolving into civil war due to the rush job of this war.

That has always and shall always be MY critique of this war..sadly, no one here has ever engaged that specific critique.

I think you'll find that plenty of people, both those who didn't support the war and those who did, have criticisms of how the lead up to war was handled - including me. Bush did a piss poor job of trying to convince other nations of ending the regime of a brutal, mass murdering dictator and he (and powell) did a half assed job of doing so. His timing, is certainly questionable in hindsight, as if he had worked diplomatically for another month or few he could have gotten the support and help from some of the countries that had been on the sidelines, like Canada and so on. And his planing for the aftermath of the war was sorely lacking in both political debate and substance.

However, based on my experience, there are also a lot of people who have far more simplistic reasoning for being against the war (eg, "War=bad, Peace=good"), and even worse, individuals who simply oppose issues because Bush supports them. (Then again, plenty of supporters of the war have simmilarly simplstic reasoning).

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
Your scale is still wrong.

Hitler and Mussolini (and fascists in general) were corporatists, and most people would agree that they are on the far-right.

And, where are libertarians?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Iraq wasn't ruled by a capitalist.

He was just a capitalist with more power.