All Hail the Glorious People's Revolution in Vietnam!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrFun


You must have cross-posted.

Actually I'm trying to point out who has control of the economy so that he might understand, but I like your thinking Mr. Fun.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


LIBERALS in this country are not communists. I wish that were true.

No you wouldn't - unless, of course, you were a member of the elite .

Ned's fantasies about that everyone with socialistic views has to be communists has nothing to with real life wich many eorupean countries can prove - we have lots of socialists here but only a very few has wet dreams of introducing a dictatorship - actually, the danish communist party died a couple of years ago due to lack of members, and most important, no more money from Soviet when it collapsed.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Never mind the nagging trend that people on the left of the economic axis tend to be lessauthoritarian on social issues.

This can be observed even in our own 'Poly. Just unearth a Political Compass thread, and you'll see the correlation between economic rightwingerness and social authoritarianism.

True that. There is a different axis related to personal liberty. On this axis, the more control over personal liberty the more one moves to the right. This is the exact inverse of the economic liberty axis.

There is yet another axis that relates to political freedom. Here the ultimate political freedom appears to be anarchy and as one imposes more control one moves to toward totalitarianism.

Both fascism and communism tend to be totalitarian. Even so,authoritarian governments are not necessarily left or right on the economic political axis, although it is hard to imagine how a free market could exist in a totalitarian state.

Back to the economic political axis: I would place a completely free market, free from all regulation, at the extreme right of the political spectrum, and a completely controlled market toward the left of the political spectrum. Fascism clearly controls many aspects of an economy that we do not see in free-market economies. This includes regulation of profits and wages, and control of major company boards by government-appointed directors. In France, this is known of socialism. In Germany is known as fascism. But in truth they are the same thing. The only substantial difference between Nazi Germany and socialist France is the level of political democracy. But as we can see the degree of political democracy is not necessarily coincident with the degree to which business is controlled by the government.

We also see similarities between fascism and socialism in government programs designed to help people. Nazi Germany for example introduced universal health care, autobahns and the Volkswagen, and provided vacations for the working man that they had never experienced before. Certainly, Nazi Germany had all the hallmarks of a quasi-socialist state, a yet we called it fascist.

I think that fascism and socialism or very close to each other even though they say that they are not the same thing at all. This is why I call fascism a form of leftist government.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun



News flash -- capitalism is a form of economic coercion, exploitation, and control. And this is the same with communism.

Any economic system relies on some form of coercion, exploitation, and control. The only fundamental variations, is how discrete are the means of the people who are at the top of the system.

Mr. Fun, you think of capitalism is private control over people while I think of capitalism as a result of free markets. Regardless, you would agree as we impose more government controls on a free market to reduce the abuse of power by the wealthy, one moves to the left, not to the right.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


No you wouldn't - unless, of course, you were a member of the elite .

Ned's fantasies about that everyone with socialistic views has to be communists has nothing to with real life wich many eorupean countries can prove - we have lots of socialists here but only a very few has wet dreams of introducing a dictatorship - actually, the danish communist party died a couple of years ago due to lack of members, and most important, no more money from Soviet when it collapsed.

The problem with this, Blackcat, is that most commies today say they also favor democracy. So what is a democratic commie?

A socialist?

[Bosh]

although it is hard to imagine how a free market could exist in a totalitarian state.

How does free market = right-wing? You can have everything from fuedalism to corporatism that are right-wing but not free market-oriented.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If it hadn't been for Perot, we'd probably have whoever President Quayle's VP was as Prez now.

Oh bull****. I'm surprised you'd repeat this oft-told lie of the right.

http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

"Analysis: Perot's vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bushís victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s ñ Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257. But such a result obviously would have made the race a good deal closer."

Exit polls confirmed that Perot's voters were evenly split on the question of who they would vote for otherwise, Clinton or Bush Sr. All Perot did was ensure that Clinton wouldn't get a majority of the popular vote.

Clinton's electoral strategy was what won him that election, and he would have done it with or without Perot. Did we forget that Bush Sr. had 30% approval ratings in 1992?

[Ted Striker]

Clinton

Hitting it

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
The problem with this, Blackcat, is that most commies today say they also favor democracy. So what is a democratic commie?

A Marxist... a true Marxist, at any rate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is why I call fascism a form of leftist government.

That's because you have no clue what Fascism actually is. Nationalism is not a leftist trait.

[Sandman]

Fascism isn't an economic ideology. They're into promoting family, the military and the nation, as well as destroying individualism and perceived deviance.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Sandman
Fascism isn't an economic ideology. They're into promoting family, the military and the nation, as well as destroying individualism and perceived deviance.

Well there is fascist-style Corporatism, which is vaguely similar to Asian Tiger-style economics (ie government economic intervention in a dedicedly un-leftist manner).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A Marxist... a true Marxist, at any rate.

Thank you Imran. You are a scholar and a gentleman. I owe you a beer.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sandman
Fascism isn't an economic ideology.

Just because it isn't one doesn't mean it doesn't have one. As Bosh mentions, they are corporatists, but less controling of capital and far more controling of labor.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Mr. Fun, you think of capitalism is private control over people while I think of capitalism as a result of free markets.

Those two aren't mutually exclusive, and you haven't argued against his point.

Regardless, you would agree as we impose more government controls on a free market to reduce the abuse of power by the wealthy, one moves to the left, not to the right.

Exactly, because being on the left means freedom for those who have been oppressed. That's why we don't equate small government with freedom.