Paul Berman offers a different view on Iraq and leftism

[Ned]

Originally posted by Theben

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.

If you're using a scale that only incorporates personal freedom vs. state/societal security. Most people also include a host of other social issues, as well as economics. But you knew that; just chose to ignore it.

That is what makes this "complicated" as the spectrum is issue-specific.

If one simply focuses on the relationship of the state to corporations - the more state intervention the farther left one is.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The left believes in equality. The right doesn't. It's that simple. Economic freedom has nothing to do with it.

I could equally say that the right believes in liberty and the left doesn't.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo

There's no perfect way to divide left and right, so it's better to go with tradition rather than using some crazy scale that no one else uses (except apparantly Sava and Ned ). Communists and anarchists and social democrats are on the left, while fascists and libertarians and feudalists are on the right.

Ramo, you define the right here by aggregating people who have no beliefs in common.

If you define the spectrum by reference to liberty and equality, the tradeoffs work somewhat well. But then we are confronted by fascism that denies both liberty and equality. They confound this scale.

[Ramo]

Except you'd be wrong.

[Ramo]

There's no good way to describe the left-right scale. Kid's answer is probably as good an answer as you can find (the left believes in equality, the right doesn't).

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
There's no good way to describe the left-right scale. Kid's answer is probably as good an answer as you can find (the left believes in equality, the right doesn't).

I think the right (in the US) believes in Jefferson's words, "All men are created equal..." We strive for equal opportunity. We provide a social safety net because of our "Christianity." But, more than anything else, we believe in liberty.

As I said, we tolerate business regulation as necessary. But we go only so far as necessary.

The left seems to want to have total government control of business and to use it as tool to further their social goals.

The Nazis were not different in this, except perhaps in their goals.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
That is what makes this "complicated" as the spectrum is issue-specific.

If one simply focuses on the relationship of the state to corporations - the more state intervention the farther left one is.

The US government intervened to save the S&L mess -- does it mean that the US is on the left?

[Ramo]

I think the right (in the US) believes in Jefferson's words, "All men are created equal..." We strive for equal opportunity. We provide a social safety net because of our "Christianity." But, more than anything else, we believe in liberty.

Shrub is one of the most authoritarian presidents in recent history. He's certainly more authoritarian than Clinton. So much for the right's apprecation for liberty....

The left seems to want to have total government control of business and to use it as tool to further their social goals.

Eh? Who on the left is arguing for "total government control of business" besides a handful of commies?

The Nazis were not different in this, except perhaps in their goals.

No, they didn't want "total government control of business" either. Industrialists were basically running the NSDAP. The gov't was subservient to businesses, through attacking strikers and the like. In fact, Nazi Germany was one of the last major countries to start nationalizing businesses in WWII. Hitler is firmly on the right.

[Berzerker]

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.

But that is no guarantee WMD would not be handed off to people like Al Qaida by a vengeful Saddam on his deathbed. And apparently Al Qaida was already using northern Iraq as a training base.

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.

Is that your proof for the assertion that capitalism created Saddam's Iraq?

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.

First, **** democracy! And since when does capitalism either require or end up with corporations controlling a nation's resources? Corporations didn't even exist when the US was created and capitalism was the prevalent economic system. It's when the state favors corporations that they can end up controlling an inordinate amount of national resources. Look at who has owned land throughout US history and you'll see the biggest land owners got special treatment.

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.

The American Revolution was not fought by socio-economic (class warfare) change.

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.

And? Damn near every government that has ever existed made use of a state/business relationship. And the "nationalism" of Nazi Germany was race based, i.e., the superior Aryan race... But yes, fascism makes use of a nationalistic fervor (racism) combined with state control of the economy and corporate favoritism. George Bush didn't invent economic policy in this country...

Kid -

He was just a capitalist with more power.

Are you related to Pax? It isn't capitalism when a dictator can walk up and confiscate your business and profits, Saddam has more in common with you socialists.

The left believes in equality. The right doesn't. It's that simple. Economic freedom has nothing to do with it.

Economic freedom has everything to do with it, that's where the inequity of nature reveals itself - when people are free to make money and keep it. The left wants "equality", i.e., they want the exclusive power to steal from everyone else and hand out the stolen loot as they see fit. If the left really believed in equality, they wouldn't mind if they occasionally lost that power to other people with a different viewpoint. Yes, the equality advocated by the left requires everyone else's equal status as servant to the whims of leftists.

Ramo -

There's no perfect way to divide left and right, so it's better to go with tradition rather than using some crazy scale that no one else uses (except apparantly Sava and Ned ). Communists and anarchists and social democrats are on the left, while fascists and libertarians and feudalists are on the right.

But that scale is crazy, it places autocrats on both sides of the spectrum.

Primarily, the strengthening of police powers, escalating the war on drugs, more corporate welfare, more protectionism, rounding up, locking up, and kicking out immigrants, more military spending and war. Which can characterize a mild version of fascism pretty well.

Oh c'mon, 9/11 does factor into this. If you were prez and were getting blamed for 9/11 and would get blamed again should another attack succeed, you sure would try to strengthen security measures. And according to that logic, Clinton was more fascistic than Reagan because more people were jailed for drugs under Slick Willie. And I haven't seen any dramatic increase in the drug war, seems more like business as usual. Yes, Bush has proven himself to be even more liberal with our money than Clinton, but if that's how you want to define fascism, have at it.

There's no good way to describe the left-right scale. Kid's answer is probably as good an answer as you can find (the left believes in equality, the right doesn't).

And conversely, the left does not believe in freedom and the libertarian right does. Leftists can't have it both ways...

Liberal? His agenda seems pretty conservative to me.

Spending is through the roof, Bush is very liberal with our money.

Theben -

If you're using a scale that only incorporates personal freedom vs. state/societal security. Most people also include a host of other social issues, as well as economics. But you knew that; just chose to ignore it.

Where did I say that? Social and economic issues are about personal freedom. I define a left winger as someone who has the mindset that they have the authority to use the state to dictate other people's personal behavior including contractual freedom. How far left they are depends on how often (and the nature of intrusions) they want to exercise that authority, but the fact they have the mindset to begin with makes them left wing.

Ned -

The more economic freedom one has, the more one is on the right. Fascism and socialism are very close in practice. The former still allows some competition. The latter provides state monopolies. This does not place the two on opposite ends of the spectrum, but very close to each other.

Yup, and the reason why we see a false dichotomy of placing socialism and fascism on opposite sides by some of the people in this thread is partly because the fascists and socialists were enemies. Hell, that doesn't mean they were ideological opponents, it merely means they were competitors for power. The simple fact they were in that competition for power shows they are related ideologies. True right wingers don't want power to compel others to do as told, they want it to prevent leftists from telling them to do as told.

We have found in practice that totally unregualted capitalism leads to enormous abuse. Thus we tolerate regulation to prevent the abuse.

Where did we find that? You cite the abuse and I'll show you someone engaging in behavior anti-thetical to capitalism. Many on the left like to point to power hungry business people as if every business owner is a capitalist, but what we see are left wingers and business owners trying to use the state to subvert the marketplace. There are two reasons why a business owner gives money to politicians, to get laws passed screwing competitors or to protect themselves from competitors trying to buy politicians who will screw them. Bill Gates gave plenty of money to politicians in the state of Washington but he made the mistake of not buying off Congress, that's why Microsoft got into trouble with the feds and politicians like Orrin Hatch who were bought off by competitors.

Communism, in its idealic form, is on the right as well.

That's true according to Christopher Hitchens, idealic communism would see a "withering away" of the state.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The left believes in equality. The right doesn't. It's that simple. Economic freedom has nothing to do with it.

Equality of what?

[Berzerker]

UR -

The US government intervened to save the S&L mess -- does it mean that the US is on the left?

That sure was a left wing response to the failure of a left wing policy. The catalyst for the S&L scam was the increase in federal insurance from $40k to $100k per account early in Reagan's first term, i.e., you guys running the S&L's go ahead and play around with people's money and the taxpayers will cover your a$$es if you screw up. If private insurance companies were insuring the S&L industry that would not have happened, they would have kept a close eye on what the S&L's were doing and the flood of building construction in the SW would have triggered a bunch of hoots and hollers from insurance company risk analysts.

And what happened during the election of "88 between Dukakis and Bush? The scandal was growing and Dukakis wanted to make it a campaign issue but he was told to shut up by his own party. So the politicians waited until after the election to announce how they just screwed the taxpayers out of ~$500 billion...

Ramo -

Shrub is one of the most authoritarian presidents in recent history. He's certainly more authoritarian than Clinton. So much for the right's apprecation for liberty....

You think Shrub's supporters are right wing? I think they're left wing, they just don't always agree with liberals about whose money and freedom to steal. But they do agree with liberals that Americans exist to pay for their ideology...

Eh? Who on the left is arguing for "total government control of business" besides a handful of commies?

One can believe in the premise that the state has the authority, if needed, to have total control without exercising total control.
If leftists want control, they'll take it via the state. The only thing stopping them are right wingers.

No, they didn't want "total government control of business" either.

Actually, yes, Hitler did want total control and he damn near had it.

Industrialists were basically running the NSDAP. The gov't was subservient to businesses, through attacking strikers and the like. In fact, Nazi Germany was one of the last major countries to start nationalizing businesses in WWII. Hitler is firmly on the right.

The fact Hitler and industrialists shared enemies doesn't mean they were friends. It was people like Krupp who prevented Hitler from getting total control. You're assertion is akin to accusing the Swiss of controlling the Nazis because they had some financial leverage deterring an invasion.

[Ramo]

But that scale is crazy, it places autocrats on both sides of the spectrum.

That isn't crazy, it's reality.

Oh c'mon, 9/11 does factor into this. If you were prez and were getting blamed for 9/11 and would get blamed again should another attack succeed, you sure would try to strengthen security measures.

I wouldn't be President in the first place. But if I were I certainly wouldn't detain over a thousand immigrants without cause for several months without ever charging (and I woudn't use it as an excuse to start a mass-deportation).

And according to that logic, Clinton was more fascistic than Reagan because more people were jailed for drugs under Slick Willie.

Ronnie was far more authoritarian than Slick Willy. Shrub manages to be even more authoritarian than Ronnie.

And I haven't seen any dramatic increase in the drug war, seems more like business as usual.

I was primarily referring to the prosecution of the drug war in foreign places, such as Colombia and Bolivia (bombing coca fields and the like). But there's a noticable increase domestically as well. The new head of the DEA for instance is insane.

Yes, Bush has proven himself to be even more liberal with our money than Clinton, but if that's how you want to define fascism, have at it.

Fascists are generally big spenders. And liberals and conservatives both can spend a lot (look at Reagan).

And conversely, the left does not believe in freedom and the libertarian right does. Leftists can't have it both ways...

Some of the left believes in freedom from the state, just as some of the right does. It's not a determining issue as equality is.

Spending is through the roof, Bush is very liberal with our money.

Which demonstrates that high spending can be conservative.

Equality of what?

It varies among the left: economic control is the primary issue among socialists, income/wealth is the primary issue among social democrats.

[Berzerker]

Equality of what?

Good question, socialism = equality is illogical on it's face... The socialists want the power to impose their ideology on others. That power by definition cannot be shared equally for socialism to work.

[Ramo]

You think Shrub's supporters are right wing? I think they're left wing, they just don't always agree with liberals about whose money and freedom to steal. But they do agree with liberals that Americans exist to pay for their ideology..

That's because you have that strange idea that advocating greater government power mean one's more left.

One can believe in the premise that the state has the authority, if needed, to have total control without exercising total control.
If leftists want control, they'll take it via the state. The only thing stopping them are right wingers.

1. Once again, the point was that no one taken seriously on the left wants total control.
2. Wouldn't the entire US gov't be left-wing according to your scale?

Actually, yes, Hitler did want total control and he damn near had it.

Regardless of what he personally wanted, the Nazi Party didn't want it.

The fact Hitler and industrialists shared enemies doesn't mean they were friends. It was people like Krupp who prevented Hitler from getting total control. You're assertion is akin to accusing the Swiss of controlling the Nazis because they had some financial leverage deterring an invasion.

The Party was run by industrialists. It doesn't make sense to say that the government was in total control of business when business was in control of government.

[Ramo]

Good question, socialism = equality is illogical on it's face... The socialists want the power to impose their ideology on others. That power by definition cannot be shared equally for socialism to work.

I don't. Many do not. And there isn't anything "illogical" about state-socialists who want to impose socialism by force, and then distribute power to the workers.