The Left simply loves dictators

[Q Classic]

Who were you on the smac boards?

My memory's foggy. I know I've always been QCubed...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Bite me.

Actually sorry never was on the Firaxis boards simply a lurker. I was and have always been Ogie Oglethorpe here at poly.

[Ned]

Let me add a few thoughts.

Capitalism is not an economic ideology. Capitalism is the RESULT of political and economic freedom. The ideology involved is the freedom vs. state control.

Leftism, in contrast, is an economic ideology that calls for economic equality as a necessity for social justice. It places this end above all else, including freedom.

When I say I am a rightist, I say I stand for freedom.

When you say that you are a leftist, I hear that you are willing to strip away all freedoms if that is what it takes to achieve your economic and social ends.

Leftists are particularly blind to the consequences of their ideology: authoritarianism.

Fascism is another ideology that places the nation above the individual. It essentially is a racist ideology that suppresses freedoms of all sorts. It has little to do with economics and to that extent is neither left nor right on the economic-social justice scale. It is not a far-right ideology in this sense.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Bite me.

Actually sorry never was on the Firaxis boards simply a lurker. I was and have always been Ogie Oglethorpe here at poly.

I'd bite you, but I have rabies.

Incidentally, I've always known you as Ogie, so~

It would explain why I can't quite remember you from the Firaxis boards, though, the only people I remember from the SMAC boards are Victor and Imran.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Leftists are particularly blind to the consequences of their ideology: authoritarianism.

And rightists are blind to the consequences of their ideology: lack of freedom to control the means of production.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Course all that I previously said is balanced somewhat by the left here having there own kidaverse.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


And rightists are blind to the consequences of their ideology: lack of freedom to control the means of production.

The right favors the rule of law. To the extent one man can abuse another by power or trickery or force, the law will protect him.

The left cares more about results than the rule of law. Thus the left is particularly fond of sham trials followed by quick executions and/or the gulag.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Course all that I previously said is balanced somewhat by the left here having there own kidaverse.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Arrian

And do you feel that line of reasoning has merit?

You also went on to note that Fascists were also very pro-big-business (with the caveat that the industries were in line with the state).

If only people played Vickie more. Or read more 19th c history. Opposition to free markets and liberalism wasnt always socialist. And there was statism as nationalism. See Lizt, Spengler and "prussian socialism" etc. Why I said on economics they were "centrist"

"The Nazis did call themselves National Socialists. This was probably roughly as apt as the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea.""

actually it had to do with early factions in the party that were more "left" (pure aryan workers are better than rich mixed blood upper class, Brits are eevil for beating Germany AND for being imperialist) than Hitler. Intraparty Nazi politics was ugly, but if youre interested in the name, thats where you have to go.

"I also agree with your point that a simple Left/Right spectrum is woefully limited. But hey, both Ned and Hitchens seemed content to use it."

Ned is being silly. Hitch is not describing the history of 20th century politics, but is making a point about some particular people on the left he doesnt like. And hes affirming the kind of left he DOES like (see the Euston manifesto stuff)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
The right favors the rule of law. To the extent one man can abuse another by power or trickery or force, the law will protect him.

The law protects your control over the means of production. So yeah, you favor the law.

The left cares more about results than the rule of law. Thus the left is particularly fond of sham trials followed by quick executions and/or the gulag.

And you all eat babies.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious

The law protects your control over the means of production. So yeah, you favor the law.


And you all eat babies.

So the left says just before they round up the righties and execute them for cannibalism rather than their real crime, opposing the left.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ned
Let me add a few thoughts.

Capitalism is not an economic ideology. Capitalism is the RESULT of political and economic freedom. The ideology involved is the freedom vs. state control.

capitalism antedates political, and to some degree, economic freedom. Capitalism was emerging in the late middle ages.

lefttism, in contrast, is an economic ideology that calls for economic equality as a necessity for social justice. It places this end above all else, including freedom.

any ideology that places one thing above all else, is extremism. The moderate form of any POV balances different goals.

When I say I am a rightist, I say I stand for freedom.

Fine, but thats not what the word has meant since it was invented over 200 years ago.

When you say that you are a leftist, I hear that you are willing to strip away all freedoms if that is what it takes to achieve your economic and social ends.

No, those are radicals. Or commies.

Leftists are particularly blind to the consequences of their ideology: authoritarianism.

Obviously not all are. Like Hitchens, for ex.

Fascism is another ideology that places the nation above the individual. It essentially is a racist ideology that suppresses freedoms of all sorts. It has little to do with economics and to that extent is neither left nor right on the economic-social justice scale. It is not a far-right ideology in this sense.

But thats not the sense in which right emerged.


You are taking classical liberalism, which put freedom and lawfulness above all, and confusing it with the "right" What happened, historically, is that there werent enough voters whose class interests led them to support liberals, for them to maintain power (at least in Europe, and in different form, in the US) so the liberals had to ally with either the nationalist-religious right, or with the socialist left. In most european countries this led to a split - a classic example is Germany, where the liberals split into "right" National Liberals and "left" Progressives.

Her in the USA, where both traditionalist right, and socialist left were much weaker, liberals came to control BOTH political parties. The GOP is the business National Liberals, and the Dems are the Progressives. But of course the Dems have Social Democratic elements, and the GOP has a traditional religious element, which has become more "conscious" these last few decades, as its issues have been challenged.

Indeed, Id say that on many issues the Social Democratic elements of the Dem party are more "moderate" than the hardcore "Progressive" elements.


It would all be much easier to discuss this if everyone played Victoria.

[Ned]

LotM, Hitchens says the left should sign that manifesto even though it, to him, is conservative. Now, if you read it, the manifesto is all about democracy and freedom. Now, when I say I favor freedom, even Hitchens would agree that such a position is now on the right.

Which illustrates my point that leftism today is an authoritarian ideology in that it is willing to go to any extreme, in practice, to achieve its economic/social agenda.

[Victor Galis]

Re: The Left simply loves dictators

[SIZE=1] The “Euston Manifesto” keeps it simple. It prefers democratic pluralism, at any price, to theocracy. It raises an eyebrow at the enslavement of the female half of the population and the burial alive of homosexuals.

I fail to see how that is a choice. Democracy in the Middle East would lead to theocracy right now. Look at what happened in Palestine. We're not so excited about democracy there anymore, now are we?

And yes if it makes you happy, I identify with the left, and I prefer a dictator like Mubarak to the theocracy under the Muslim Brotherhood that Egypt would be if it were a real democracy.

I see what is generally called democracy in the West as having two distinct components: Liberty and representation. By the first I refer to what we view as our rights, other than the ability to chose who governs us. The latter refers to the ability to chose who governs us. Now you might say that those two always go together, but they most certainly don't. Lynch mobs work on majority rule, but have no regard for the rights of the victims. Likewise, it is possible to have free elections result in governments that abuse their people (mainly minorities thereof). Theoretically you could have an autharitarian regime where you'd be free to speak your mind and do anything short of plotting the downfall of the government. There's not very many examples of this as there are of bad democracies.

I actually find myself as time goes on being more of a monarchist. (Don't tell my neighbors.)

It would explain why I can't quite remember you from the Firaxis boards, though, the only people I remember from the SMAC boards are Victor and Imran.

Wasn't Imran more conservative then?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
LotM, Hitchens says the left should sign that manifesto even though it, to him, is conservative. Now, if you read it, the manifesto is all about democracy and freedom. Now, when I say I favor freedom, even Hitchens would agree that such a position is now on the right.

Which illustrates my point that leftism today is an authoritarian ideology in that it is willing to go to any extreme, in practice, to achieve its economic/social agenda.

he doesnt say its conservative. he says its the most conservative thing hes ever signed. Hes not saying its on the right. Hes saying the manifesto is obvious, basic, moderate, common sense. In the past he only signed leftist manifestos, cause there was NO need to sign anything so obvious and common sense. It would be like signing a manifesto saying the sky is blue. But now, it is necessary to do so.

You are thoroughly misreading Hitch, Im afraid.