Paul Berman offers a different view on Iraq and leftism

[Ramo]

Well, I'm off to sleep. No doubt, I'll have a page of responses to make tomorrow.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

That isn't crazy, it's reality.

So craziness doesn't exist in the real world? It's crazy to place autocrats on both sides of a political spectrum designed to highlight differences. You're a left wing autocrat, no you're a right wing autocrat, no, you're a centrist autocrat...

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).

"Immigrants"? The only mass detainment I've heard of are the Afghanis suspected of being Al Qaida/Taliban fighters.

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

You just claimed Bush was fascistic because of drug arrests and I pointed out far more people were arrested under Clinton's watch than Reagan's, but you think Reagan was far more authoritarian? Did you move the goal posts?

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.

My God, US military intervention in Colombia dramatically escalated under Clinton. We haven't seen anything different from Bush...

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

So are liberals fascistic?

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.

You can't believe in "equality" and believe in freedom from the state at the same time. Look at the advocates of "equality" in this thread, they're a bunch of ~socialists who want to use the state to "re-distribute" wealth.

Which demonstrates that high spending can be conservative.

Not according to the definitions of liberal and conservative. If you think Bush's spending is conservative, how much more would he have to spend to qualify as a liberal spender? No, when the instructions for a creme tell you to spread liberally, they're not telling you to use it sparingly (conservatively)... Bush is liberal wrt spending, not conservative. So why is he a conservative?

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

How does a socialist having control over my business endeavors constitute equality between me and the socialist?
And how does a social democrat obtaining my money constitute equality between me and the social democrat?

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

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.

You aren't a socialist, you're supposed to be an anarchist. It is illogical to call that equality. If it was equality, then socialists would want their opponents to force a foreign ideology onto them. You see, we punch each other = equality. I punch you and you fear for your life and obey my commands != equality. The Golden Rule is about equality, treat others as you want to be treated. Socialists don't want others treating them to the forceful imposition of an ideology they dislike...

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

Doesn't matter to me if we identify this as left or right as long as we identify it as one or the other and don't confuse our identification by placing it alongside ideological opposites. If we were associating your brand of anarchism with fascism, would that make sense to you? No, that would be crazy... So if fascism is right wing, then anarchism is left wing. And libertarianism is closely related to anarchism, but we're called right wingers by socialists. Why the confusion? Because liberals and social conservatives don't like the fact they have so much in common and feel the need to create separation, hence left and right.

1. Once again, the point was that no one taken seriously on the left wants total control.

The commies want total control.

2. Wouldn't the entire US gov't be left-wing according to your scale?

Not at all, much of what government does is valid under libertarianism.

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

And if they did want it? Who was going to stop them?

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.

That doesn't mean the Nazis were capitalists, but you're wrong. The Nazi party was created and built by WWI veterans, the industrialists like Krupp staved off a complete Nazi takeover to maintain their own niche in the power struggle.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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

Surely you know what I mean? Intervention can be a little as requiring accurate financial statements, to wage and price controls, the controlling the Board of Directors, to outright state ownership.

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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....

So much for diverting attention.

It is well known that on the social spectrum, it appears that the more state intervention the more to the right one is. So in a way it is true that Republicans typically like economic freedom and social authoritarianism.

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

What is Howard been talking about when he talks about "re-regulating" business.

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.

Talk about living an a fantasy land.

Why is it that we always hear about corporations running the government from the left - pointing to Nazi Germany as an example? The opposite was clearly the case in Germany. The German government controlled Boards of Directors, controlled profits and set wages and prices. The Nazi party clearly controlled the German economy.

[lord of the mark]

geez, go away for a little while, and the thread goes all to hell.


Thanks to the usual suspects


Oh well, we had some good points while it lasted.

[Ned]

You're welcome, LoTM. It just seem that some here do not accept that Saddam was a national socialist in the very same sense that Hitler was a national socialist. We quickly find that we fail to communicate because we do not agree on what the words fascist, socialist, communist, etc. mean.

But, can't you see a problem in approving of socialism while condemning fascism when they are practically the same thing, with socialism being a more extreme form in that it provides for even more state control?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The commies want total control.

We want to control the economy, yes. So does Alan Greenspan.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
But, can't you see a problem in approving of socialism while condemning fascism when they are practically the same thing, with socialism being a more extreme form in that it provides for even more state control?

Fascism means complete economic and political control by the govt. Anything less than complete is not fascism. So how can socialism be more extreme. The difference is that the purpose of socialism is equality. That's why it's a left wing ideology. You all know this.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Fascism means complete economic and political control by the govt. Anything less than complete is not fascism. So how can socialism be more extreme. The difference is that the purpose of socialism is equality. That's why it's a left wing ideology. You all know this.

wrong... well not wrong... fascism and it's little brother corporatism (Mussolini said the two were one and the same) wants government control by private interests (business, corporations).

[Ned]

Kid, socialism provides for more complete control because it eliminates capitalists completely. And, despite the attempt at equality, it turns out that party members are more equal than non party members.

Besides, even under fascism, the state can be strongly pro-worker as was seen in Nazi Germany where employment was nearly 100%, wages were good, and the Nazi's provided the first universal health care to the people. There is a reason Hitler was popular.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Sava
wrong... well not wrong... fascism and it's little brother corporatism (Mussolini said the two were one and the same) wants government control by private interests (business, corporations).

Mussolini's making the rules now? Besides that, how can you compare the two as equal?

The article is interesting. While I don't fully agree with his view of the war as antifascist (at least in intent), I have seen far too many examples of the flaws in reasoning he describes both here on the internet and and in real life. In fact, we have two self-proclaimed lefties teaching here. One of them basically admits that her opinions are primarily based on a hatred of Bush and general American policy and a love for France. The other one, just makes an ass out of himself, and often finds himself sitting alone with his 'moral superiority.'

[Theben]

i think youll enjoy it - be forewarned, his socialism is more of the revisionist school - democratic socialist - anti communist school - think Michael Walzer (though MW was a dove on Iraq, IIRC)

So Berman's a Menchivek (sp?)?

In fact, we have two self-proclaimed lefties teaching here. One of them basically admits that her opinions are primarily based on a hatred of Bush and general American policy and a love for France.

Uhhh... who would that be?

[chequita guevara]

I've been thinking about this since yesterday, trying to figure out what the disparate ideologies share that qualifies them left or right. I think this is it.

Property. The further right you go, the more absolute the belief in the right of proerpty. The further left you go, the less. This is the only way you can get Stalinists and anarchists anywhere near each other on a political scale. The same goes for fascists and libertarians.

So on this scale, anarchists are the farthest to the left, while libertarians are the farthest to the right. Th further left you go, the more you believe in the right of society to interfere with private property untill you reach the socialists, where it goes from total regulation to the abolition of private property, giving way to communal and/or state property, and ultimately the abolition of property altogether.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Theben

i think youll enjoy it - be forewarned, his socialism is more of the revisionist school - democratic socialist - anti communist school - think Michael Walzer (though MW was a dove on Iraq, IIRC)

So Berman's a Menchivek (sp?)?

Worse, he's one of those 2nd International types that voted for WWI.