The Left simply loves dictators

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


This shows you know jack about capitalism. All you need for capitalism is for investors to control the means of production, the economy must be dominated by corporations in other words. The sole purpose of corporations is to maximze the profit of it's shareholders, everything else be damned. The capitalists actually don't like free markets because it forces them to compete with each other and therefore gets in the way of profit maximization, so unless there are regulations in place corporations will band together and distroy the free market and then gouge the consumer.

There is some truth in this. One of consequences of unrestrained capitalism are unfree markets -- conspiracies in restraint of trade and monopolization. The true liberal (conservative) is in favor of free markets, which is why people like me created the antitrust laws.

But I still say that capitalism is the natural result of freedom and not an ideology in and of itself.

Today's left hates corporations for an entirely different reason, of course. They would end private corporation entirely rather than rely on antitrust laws not because they favor free markets, but because they hate wealth.

[Dr Strangelove]

Ned!!!! You're taking the credit for anti-trust laws?! Did you learn nothing from the example of Al Gore? You will not do yourself justice by taking the credit for something you obviously did not do. Unless you are as old as the guy in your avatar you could not possibly have participated in the construction of the anti-trust laws.

Let us remember that purely interpreted 'left' simply refers for an anti-establishment political stance. The political meaning of the word left harks all the way back to the eighteenth century, where in Britain and France the King's party generally occupied the right hand side of the legislative hall while the opposition generally sat on the left side. Indeed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries democrats, bourgeoisie, and libertarians often sat on the left side of the hall. Unfortunately they were sometimes joined by radicals, anarchists, Jacobins, and regicides. Eventually the kingdoms fell and the democrats, bourgeoisie and libertarians moved over to the right as they became the establishment. That left the others on the left hand side of the hall, and as society changed the Jacobins, representing the "have nots" became socialists or communists.

Since the nineteenth century there have been many instances in which the "left" assumed power. Some of these regimes, such as the USSR and the PRC, have been authoritarian. There are also many instances of "right-wing" regimes that have been authoritarian. If you're my age you probably grew up with the assumption that virtually any government in South or Central America was a right-wing dictatorship. Yeah, sometimes these governments would throw a little something to the lower classes, like taking over the labor unions or setting up sham social programs, but when a regime repeatedly uses military force against the lower classes it can usually be considered a "right-wing" regime. There are still many regimes like this in the Africa and Asia still. There are countries in the world that are decidedly "left-wing" in terms of their emphasis on governmental assistance to the "have-nots" that are arguably as free as any other nation.

I think the problem is that we're trying to analyse political traits and distill them down to a single axis when that simply can't be done. There are oppressive left wing regimes and there are oppressive right wing regimes. There are free right wing regimes and there are free left wing regimes. There are at least two seperate dimensions. Heck there are really more than that.

[AnnC]

Ned, how old are you?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Ned!!!! You're taking the credit for anti-trust laws?! Did you learn nothing from the example of Al Gore? You will not do yourself justice by taking the credit for something you obviously did not do. Unless you are as old as the guy in your avatar you could not possibly have participated in the construction of the anti-trust laws.

Originally posted by AnnC
Ned, how old are you?

Did he or did he not say

Originally posted by Ned

people like me

?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Left simply loves dictators

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I'm still pleasant and cordial, dickhead .

STFU commie.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally from the OP
I believe there are three explanations for this horrid mutation of the left into a reactionary and nihilistic force.

Well, well, black is white, and war is peace, and so forth.

[Ned]

Originally posted by AnnC
Ned, how old are you?

50's.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Ned!!!! You're taking the credit for anti-trust laws?! Did you learn nothing from the example of Al Gore? You will not do yourself justice by taking the credit for something you obviously did not do. Unless you are as old as the guy in your avatar you could not possibly have participated in the construction of the anti-trust laws.

Let us remember that purely interpreted 'left' simply refers for an anti-establishment political stance. The political meaning of the word left harks all the way back to the eighteenth century, where in Britain and France the King's party generally occupied the right hand side of the legislative hall while the opposition generally sat on the left side. Indeed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries democrats, bourgeoisie, and libertarians often sat on the left side of the hall. Unfortunately they were sometimes joined by radicals, anarchists, Jacobins, and regicides. Eventually the kingdoms fell and the democrats, bourgeoisie and libertarians moved over to the right as they became the establishment. That left the others on the left hand side of the hall, and as society changed the Jacobins, representing the "have nots" became socialists or communists.

Since the nineteenth century there have been many instances in which the "left" assumed power. Some of these regimes, such as the USSR and the PRC, have been authoritarian. There are also many instances of "right-wing" regimes that have been authoritarian. If you're my age you probably grew up with the assumption that virtually any government in South or Central America was a right-wing dictatorship. Yeah, sometimes these governments would throw a little something to the lower classes, like taking over the labor unions or setting up sham social programs, but when a regime repeatedly uses military force against the lower classes it can usually be considered a "right-wing" regime. There are still many regimes like this in the Africa and Asia still. There are countries in the world that are decidedly "left-wing" in terms of their emphasis on governmental assistance to the "have-nots" that are arguably as free as any other nation.

I think the problem is that we're trying to analyse political traits and distill them down to a single axis when that simply can't be done. There are oppressive left wing regimes and there are oppressive right wing regimes. There are free right wing regimes and there are free left wing regimes. There are at least two seperate dimensions. Heck there are really more than that.

Dr. Strangelove, good post.

First, I did not claim personally to in that the antitrust laws. I said it was people "like" me, people who believed in free-trade as opposed to the left who believe in state monopolies, state price-fixing and allocated markets.

Your history lesson is well taken as it illustrates the the trend for historical Democrats to move from the left to right as the "old right" loses power. No doubt history is replete with right wing authoritarian régimes. These were not norm throughout history. Surely the Roman Empire was just one such régime.

So where is that place classic liberals, Democrats, free traders, libertarians and the like on the political spectrum? It seems to place these folks and squarely in the center historically. However, when there are no monarchists, oligarchs or other such truly active in a polity, the classic liberals, free traders, etc., become the right wing.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Should I bother clicking on his posts to read them this time?

I think yes. Ned takes his own menaing from things, and Hitchens is as reactionary as ever, but there are some good points to glean, and the Euston Manifesto is quite interesting.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
The right favors the rule of law.

The law, in all it's majesty, prevents rich and poor man alike, from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges. -- Anatolie France

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Ned

Today's left hates corporations for an entirely different reason, of course. They would end private corporation entirely rather than rely on antitrust laws not because they favor free markets, but because they hate wealth.

Hahaha... that's like saying that George Washington and the other founding fathers hated power. No, we hate the misuse of wealth.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Victor Galis



Hahaha... that's like saying that George Washington and the other founding fathers hated power. No, we hate the misuse of wealth.

Why of course.

[Flip McWho]

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

Constitutional democracy is the way to go. Constitution = Monarch.

[Dr Strangelove]

New Zeeland has a monarch? Is he a Maori?

[Kuciwalker]

Her name's Liz.