Why is Rand called a "fascist"?
7/4
only read a little of her, but I don't see how she could be possibly
called that. A political fascist wants to destroy individuality, not
exalt it. And a fascist would not rail against collectivism since the
very word fascist means a group bound together, like the Roman fasces
symbol (a bundle of sticks bound together representing the concept of
"united we stand"). And not all fascists are right-wing.
dog
--
I've got the thing that's called Nader love. I've got a wave in the
air...Nader love. -- A. Levine
Ralph Nader ought to be on The Simpsons because he is so hot and sexy.
-- dog
"An ethical skinhead shan't kick, stomp, punch, pound, flog, flay,
riddle with bullets or boil alive anyone who doesn't bother them first."
bush_kicking_left_wing_ass
<canis...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com> wrote:
>Anyone who calls her that must not have read any of her stuff. I've
>only read a little of her, but I don't see how she could be possibly
>called that. A political fascist wants to destroy individuality, not
>exalt it. And a fascist would not rail against collectivism since the
>very word fascist means a group bound together, like the Roman fasces
>symbol (a bundle of sticks bound together representing the concept of
>"united we stand"). And not all fascists are right-wing.
>
>dog
She was called that because that's what the loonie tune collectivist
left calls everyone that disagrees with their socialist views.
Benrand
<canis...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com> wrote:
>Anyone who calls her that must not have read any of her stuff.
There's your answer...who would call her that and why?
Fascists call her that. And Neil for that matter, brainless lefty rock
critics called Rush a fascist band for 2112.
Atlas Shrugged spells out that mindset quite well.
Nigel Tufnel
"7/4" <canis...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com> wrote in message
news:3D5B1E...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com...
7/4
>
> I heard Peart was called a fascist for "the Trees".
...what in the name of all the hells? Who on earth said that? That
doesn't even remotely make sense.
Ethan
<canis...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com> wrote:
>Nigel Tufnel wrote:
>>
>> I heard Peart was called a fascist for "the Trees".
>
>...what in the name of all the hells? Who on earth said that? That
>doesn't even remotely make sense.
>
Back around 82 or so there was an unbelievably brutal savaging of Rush
by "critic" J. Kordosh in Creem magazine. (For you kiddies, this was
at a time before Creem basically became a cheesy Circus. At this time
Creem took itself very seriously; trying to be Rolling Stone).
Kordosh interviewed Alex (who he liked, I think saying something like
"this guy must take some kind of normal pills or something"), and Neil
(I seem to remember the interview actually devolving into an
argument). It was Kordosh's opinion that Neil was a fascist.
The interview has to be read to be believed, it's brutal.
I also seem to recall a British mag (NME, Sounds?) interviewing Peart
in the late '70s. Things started well, then during the interview
things fell apart. I think the fascist name calling was used here as
well.
Personally, I don't get the whole thing. Wouldn't 2112 and the Trees
be _anti_-fascist?
Vrem
70's.
I struggle to find any relation between Rush lyrics and fascism too. If
anything I find Pearts lyrics very apolitical (is there such a word?) and he
doesn't seem to subscribe to any political view with vigour. Anyway it just
wouldn't make sense for the lyrics to be extreme right wing philosophy
because Geddy is Jewish and his parents were survivors of the nazi
concentration camps. I don't think they could possibly talk to each other
let alone be in a band together for all these years if Peart was a closet
Nazi.
"Ethan" <ety...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3d5b50c1...@news.east.cox.net...
der
They see fascism as the opposite of socialism and so see anti socialist as
fascist.
Objectivism is opposed to both socialism AND fascism.
"7/4" <canis...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com> wrote in message
news:3D5B1E...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com...
7/4
>
> Because thick heads can't see that fascism is an extreme form of socialism.
>
> They see fascism as the opposite of socialism and so see anti socialist as
> fascist.
Have they thought about the full name of the Nazi regime (National
*Socialist* et cetera et cetera)?
>
> Objectivism is opposed to both socialism AND fascism.
Does objectivism mean the same thing as individualism? Communism,
socialism and fascism are all forms of collectivism. Obviously the
Soviet Union was, and China is, fascist even though they call themselves
communist societies. And of course all those Latin American, African
and Asian third-world countries are run by fascist governments.
I still believe all three of these forms of collectivism can be
successful on a small scale, as in religious communes (communism), and
intracultural eugenics (fascism), and I can't think of a socialist
example right now (there may not be one, that was what I was trying to
find out with that socialism thread) but they never seem to work on a
national scale because there will always be somebody who doesn't want to
be a herd animal.
7/4
>
> I think it was a NME journo that called Rush crypto-fascists back in the
> 70's.
>
> I struggle to find any relation between Rush lyrics and fascism too. If
> anything I find Pearts lyrics very apolitical (is there such a word?)
Yes, that word exists and I agree that they are, except to the extent
that he castigates oppressive forms of government (i.e., fascist
governments).
and he
> doesn't seem to subscribe to any political view with vigour. Anyway it just
> wouldn't make sense for the lyrics to be extreme right wing philosophy
> because Geddy is Jewish and his parents were survivors of the nazi
> concentration camps. I don't think they could possibly talk to each other
> let alone be in a band together for all these years if Peart was a closet Nazi.
Well, I sure don't think Peart is any kind of bigot, because he is a
member of Artists Against Racism (something that some of the posters in
AMR always seem to forget when they blame this group or that group for
some fuck-up, like the people who blamed the demise of MTVX on blacks--I
knew it was coming but I sure didn't expect it in a Rush ng).
And he obviously knows that all humans are not only one species but one
subspecies. (There's a lot more diversity in domestic dogs than there
is in Homo sapiens.)
Brian
politically conservative (Neil, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Michael
Savage) get called fascist. I think the radical left wingers are more
fascist than these folks.
<canis...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com> wrote in message
news:3D5B1E...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com...
The Professor
news:3D5B1E...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com...
> Anyone who calls her that must not have read any of her stuff. I've
> only read a little of her, but I don't see how she could be possibly
> called that. A political fascist wants to destroy individuality, not
> exalt it. And a fascist would not rail against collectivism since the
> very word fascist means a group bound together, like the Roman fasces
> symbol (a bundle of sticks bound together representing the concept of
> "united we stand"). And not all fascists are right-wing.
All very good questions Dog. The answer is that there are those who think
that anyone who exalts the individual above the collective and sings the
praises of capitalism is a "fascist" for reasons that aren't clear to me
either. Evidently, if you move far enough right you're a fascist,
regardless of the actual content of your ideas.
Most of those folks likely never read any Rand other than what other people
told them.
The Professor (that charge of fascism was leveled against Rush too, you
know)
7/4
>
> It is sad how people in the entertainment and news business who are
> politically conservative (Neil, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Michael
> Savage) get called fascist.
I didn't know Neil was politically conservative. I thought he was
another politically bizarre misfit (looking in a mirror at this
description) who doesn't align himself with any political movement
precisely because he is *so* individualistic. Nowhere is the dreamer or
the misfit so alone. And Arnold, whom I've admired for years because he
cares about kids, is obviously conservative but he sure ain't
bigoted/prejudiced. He's somebody else I'd love to meet. (Dunno about
the other two you mentioned.)
I think the radical left wingers are more
> fascist than these folks.
They are.
http://www.peta.org
http://www.hsus.org
http://militantleftwingveganAMRtroll.org
Pet ownership is not slavery, and meat-eating is not murder. (I killed
probably 20 flies yesterday--according to PeTA, I am the equivalent of
Adolf Hitler. I get really sick of these left-wing bunny-fuckers
comparing human exploitation of other animals with murder, slavery, the
Holocaust, etc. and trying to suppress--or physically attack--anyone who
eats a steak, drinks milk, or wears leather. I can think of at least
one in this ng I'd like to meet in person and see if they are as
"courageous" fighting in a pit with a carnivorous, pet-owning,
leather-booted skinhead as they are trolling Usenet.)
7/4
>
> "7/4" <canis...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com> wrote in message
> news:3D5B1E...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com...
> > Anyone who calls her that must not have read any of her stuff.
And not all fascists are right-wing.
>
> All very good questions Dog. The answer is that there are those who think
> that anyone who exalts the individual above the collective and sings the
> praises of capitalism is a "fascist" for reasons that aren't clear to me
> either.
Anyone who believes that must not know the etymology of the word
fascist, because it quite clearly implies a group of something *bound
together*, in other words, a collective.
Evidently, if you move far enough right you're a fascist,
> regardless of the actual content of your ideas.
Why is the term "fascist" only used for right-wingers? Many, many
radical-left organizations, like Animal Liberation Front, are not only
fascists, they are terrorists.
>
> Most of those folks likely never read any Rand other than what other people
> told them.
>
> The Professor (that charge of fascism was leveled against Rush too, you
> know)
Yeah, that was what I thought was really dumb when I found that out from
this article:
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/01/03/cover-mack.shtml
I believe in *some* fascist doctrine, specifically eugenics (and for
everyone who goes into a conniption fit when they see the E-word,
breeding animals or plants is also a form of eugenics) for the future of
black Americans' existence. But I think fascism ought to be practiced
(if at all) on a small intracultural scale, not a national and certainly
not a global scale. And fascists aren't necessarily racist or
religionist either. Mussolini, while hardly a role model, said Hitler
was an idiot for his racism and antisemitism. (That makes more sense
than killing off half the people in every occupied European country--the
more people in your society you *keep alive*, the more you can exploit
for the good of the collective. White supremacists don't seem to
realize that Hitler caused the destruction of a great deal of the "white
homeland", i.e. Europe.)
Scott Erb
"Brian" <brian_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ajg5gr$1bj3i8$1...@ID-153628.news.dfncis.de...
> It is sad how people in the entertainment and news business who are
> politically conservative (Neil, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis,
Michael
> Savage) get called fascist. I think the radical left wingers are more
> fascist than these folks.
Terms like 'fascist' and 'socialist' are abused by people on all sides,
usually to just insult an opponent rather than make a real point.
Fascism is an irrationalist ideology that focuses on emotional connection to
the traditions, culture, or leader of a state. It is intensely
nationalist, and opposed to both communism and socialism. It is the idea
that power creates truth, and power is really all that matters. It is
anti-intellectual, with the idea that people need connection with a greater
whole to be satisfied -- and if they achieve that, the whole can awesome
power.
As much as I find Rand way off, she's definitely not a fascist. I have
heard that Savage guy on the radio though, and he comes closer at times --
he often uses rhetoric and abuses logic in ways that remind me of how the
Nazis used rhetoric, especially in 'defending the culture' and opposing
foreigners. Still, I wouldn't label him fascist, though he's closer than
the others. I certainly don't see fascism from the radical left. Most on
the left are not even socialist, and the radicals on the left are closer to
socialism, which has very different antithetical philosophical roots than
fascism. Reality usually doesn't follow any pure ideology, I find
ideological orthodoxy of any sort to be the biggest error along those lines.
Brian
That was a well thought out response. It is good to see people with
different views express themselves intelligently. I for one am a fan of
Michael Savage but he does go just a tad far on some issues.
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:xMO69.13355$Ep6.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Scott Erb
> Scott,
>
> That was a well thought out response. It is good to see people with
> different views express themselves intelligently. I for one am a fan of
> Michael Savage but he does go just a tad far on some issues.
If he didn't, I doubt he'd succeed in his field. I disagree with him, but
I'll listen to him. Rush Limbaugh just bores me within two minutes.
Of course, most of the time when I commute I have Rush on -- the band, in my
CD player -- but sometimes check out talk radio types. There's some guy
"Lionel" I think, I just heard, who seems pretty interesting and isn't
overtly political.
Brian
Illegal Immigrants but he does go off on tangents at times. Rush Limbaugh is
really dull now. I'd rather listen to Bill O'Reilly.
Yes..I usually just have RUSH in the player and listening to them!
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9XP69.13452$Ep6.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
zach
>
> They see fascism as the opposite of socialism and so see anti socialist as
> fascist.
>
> Objectivism is opposed to both socialism AND fascism.
There seems to be a lot of confusion here. Please go to:
Daniel McConnell
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, 7/4 wrote:
> I believe in *some* fascist doctrine, specifically eugenics (and for
> everyone who goes into a conniption fit when they see the E-word,
> breeding animals or plants is also a form of eugenics) for the future of
> black Americans' existence. But I think fascism ought to be practiced
Does this mean you are against inter-racial marriages?
7/4
Certainly not, I'm a mutt. Fascist doesn't mean racist. I just think
black Americans who are dumb enough to commit violent crimes and prey on
innocent people (the primary recipients of black crime are BLACK PEOPLE,
but that statistic is rarely quoted in the media) should be culled, and
I think black American hard-drug addicts should be sterilized so they
won't have a hundred unwanted miserable kids.
I think this only about the group to which *I* belong, black Americans
(which is an example of collectivist herd-animal thinking), what other
ethnicities/races/nationalities want to do with each other's genes is
their own business. And since humans are all one species who cares who
they marry (as long as they marry their own species)? There are
attractive men in all groups, so why limit one's choices?
mixed breed
Scott D. Erb
zach wrote:
There is a whole myriad of possible political beliefs. We humans like to put
things into linear dichotomies (political science theories that try to do more
offer multidimensional models that get confusing and still leave a lot out). The
reality is that one can be anti-communist, anti-fascist, and anti-capitalist all
at the same time, and there are probably perspectives and ideas we haven't
thought about yet.
The possibilities are as varied as we can imagine.
7/4
>
> Scott,
>
> That was a well thought out response. It is good to see people with
> different views express themselves intelligently. I for one am a fan of
> Michael Savage but he does go just a tad far on some issues.
>
I finally realized who Michael "Savage" (his real last name is
Wiener--I'm not kidding) is. I consider him a self-hating bigot who
wants to suck up to other bigots (he's Jewish, even though he does stuff
like playing Nazi marching songs on a Jewish Holy Day), but he is
certainly entitled to his opinions. I just don't listen to him.
Scott D. Erb
zach wrote:
Well, I did it and on the Economic Left-Right I was -2.00, and on the
authoritarian left-right I was -8.15.
That puts me (no surprise) in the Left-Libertarian quadrant. Anyone else want to
try it? See if there is any consistency among Rush fans?
Steven Hunter
and despise her for her philosophy, or those who simply misunderstand her.
Most of the time, her criticism comes from whiny liberals who are too caught
up in idealism and the notion that "with love, we can save the world". Well,
sorry... the world cannot be "saved" (whatever the hell that means), but we
can make it a better place for more people - which means freedom. Ayn Rand
is one of the most articulate advocates for human freedom that I have read,
so to suggest that she is a fascist is nonsense - and whoever says she is,
knows better.
Steven W. Hunter
___________________
"His mind is not for rent, to any god or government."
"7/4" <canis...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com> wrote in message
news:3D5B1E...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com...
The Professor
> Fascism is an irrationalist ideology that focuses on emotional connection
to
> the traditions, culture, or leader of a state. It is intensely
> nationalist, and opposed to both communism and socialism. It is the idea
> that power creates truth, and power is really all that matters. It is
> anti-intellectual, with the idea that people need connection with a
greater
> whole to be satisfied -- and if they achieve that, the whole can awesome
> power.
Is it *really* opposed to communism and socialism, or just their
internationalist aspirations? If you look at the National Socialist German
Workers Party platforms in the 20s, they look awfully "socialist" in the
sense that they share many of the means and ends of socialists, but simply
wish to apply them to the fatherland alone. That is, "nation" is more
important than "class."
Their fierce nationalism allows them to be opposed to elements of socialism,
despite, in my view, actually buying many of its core claims, and opposed to
capitalism, which as all good socialists have recognized, is relentlessly
international as well.
It's also worth noting that in the Nazi case, Jews could be an easy target
because they were frequently capitalists and frequently involved in the
socialist movement. Hatred of the Jews was then, as it is now in so many
parts of the world, a hatred of cosmopolitanism. Both socialism and
capitalism promised cosmopolitanism, and fascism, as a form of nationalism,
opposed that.
The Professor (a few thoughts)
The Professor
Try this one too: http://www.politopia.com/
The Professor (friends of mine)
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D5BFA9C...@worldnet.att.net...
Pete
I'm approximately -3.0 on both.
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D5BFA9C...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
7/4
>
>
> Terms like 'fascist' and 'socialist' are abused by people on all sides,
> usually to just insult an opponent rather than make a real point.
No kidding. Many people associate fascism with racism, but a fascist
need not be racist. There are still a lot of Argentinian and other
South American fascists, and though some of them must be racist, many
are not (I went to SFSU with one, and I was really surprised that anyone
would admit to fascist beliefs in San Francisco in the 1990s. That was
what got me reading all that fascist and nationalist (also not
synonymous) literature in the mid to late 90s. My fascist beliefs are
purely genetics-based and come partially from the fact that I've been
breeding plants and animals (rodents, mainly; dogs, once) since I was a
kid and I know that humans are bound, so to speak, by the same natural
laws as every other terran organism. Mendel's experiments on pea plants
will work the same way with any other plant, and with any animals that
reproduce sexually.
> Fascism is an irrationalist ideology that focuses on emotional connection to
> the traditions, culture, or leader of a state. It is intensely
> nationalist, and opposed to both communism and socialism. It is the idea
> that power creates truth, and power is really all that matters. It is
> anti-intellectual, with the idea that people need connection with a greater
> whole to be satisfied -- and if they achieve that, the whole can awesome
> power.
It's basically another herd animal ideology, which of course is not
rational (but may be instinctive). I *know* some of my beliefs about
improving the lot of black Americans are just reactionary and I doubt
many people in Western society would be willing to go along with them
(though some people would). A herd of musk-oxen when attacked by a pack
of wolves will stand in a circle with the calves in the center and the
adults' horns facing outward. That is a lower-animal analogy of human
fascism, "strength in numbers", "united we stand". Many herd animals do
something similar when attacked. I'll scan a picture of a Roman
fasces. It's a bundle of sticks tightly bound, representing the
collective (herd), with an ax head wedged into it, representing the
power of the collective.
>
> As much as I find Rand way off, she's definitely not a fascist. I have
> heard that Savage guy on the radio though, and he comes closer at times --
> he often uses rhetoric and abuses logic in ways that remind me of how the
> Nazis used rhetoric, especially in 'defending the culture' and opposing
> foreigners. Still, I wouldn't label him fascist, though he's closer than
> the others.
I'd just call him a bandwagon-jumper who tells bigoted whites (who don't
know he's Jewish) what they want to hear. He's the talk-radio
equivalent of a black cop, Ward Coonerly, or Clarence Uncle Thomas, a
self-hating bigot who sucks up to people who would admit they hate "his
kind" if he didn't lick their asses, and uses his position to take out
his self-hate on "his own kind". (Black cops are even dumber than black
criminals. Many of them don't even act human. They act like what they
are, big dumb illiterate pigs. But they act surprised when the white
cops they work with treat them just like the "niggers" they are trying
so unsuccessfully not to be. They expect white cops and white people in
general to accept and respect them just because they have a badge and a
gun. They must have never seen Blazing Saddles, huh huh.)
7/4
> >
> > http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Still in the middle of it, but I thought it was intriguing that this
statement was included:
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
That is another herd animal/fascist belief with which I agree, and of
course it's also found in the Bible.
Benrand
I see Arafat is worth a billion dollars.
The Professor
news:3D5C20...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com...
>
> I'd just call him a bandwagon-jumper who tells bigoted whites (who don't
> know he's Jewish) what they want to hear. He's the talk-radio
> equivalent of a black cop, Ward Coonerly, or Clarence Uncle Thomas, a
> self-hating bigot who sucks up to people who would admit they hate "his
> kind" if he didn't lick their asses, and uses his position to take out
> his self-hate on "his own kind".
Care to clarify how that applies to Connerly or Thomas? Or is being a black
conservative a contradiction in terms? (Either you're not really a
conservative or you're not "really" black.)
The Professor (hmmm?)
DJ
news:3D5BFA9C...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> That puts me (no surprise) in the Left-Libertarian quadrant. Anyone else
want to
> try it? See if there is any consistency among Rush fans?
Near the middle ... Left = -1.62 ... Libertarian = -2.36
DJ
Benrand
<sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>"7/4" <canis...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com> wrote in message
>news:3D5C20...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com...
>>
>> I'd just call him a bandwagon-jumper who tells bigoted whites (who don't
>> know he's Jewish) what they want to hear. He's the talk-radio
>> equivalent of a black cop, Ward Coonerly, or Clarence Uncle Thomas, a
>> self-hating bigot who sucks up to people who would admit they hate "his
>> kind" if he didn't lick their asses, and uses his position to take out
>> his self-hate on "his own kind".
'COONERLY"???
Hmmm, one who calls Connerly a suck up but then uses a foul epithet to
smear him with.
Logical.
>
>Care to clarify how that applies to Connerly or Thomas? Or is being a black
>conservative a contradiction in terms? (Either you're not really a
>conservative or you're not "really" black.)
>
I saw Lani GUinier say that THomas isn't black.
Evidently, being black also has something to do with ideology, you are
only legitimately black if you are a psychotic lefitst like Lani
Guinier or Michael Erid "Altars of WHiteness" Dyson, a really foul
guy.
>The Professor (hmmm?)
>
7/4
>
> > http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>
> Well, I did it and on the Economic Left-Right I was -2.00, and on the
> authoritarian left-right I was -8.15.
>
> That puts me (no surprise) in the Left-Libertarian quadrant. Anyone else want to
> try it? See if there is any consistency among Rush fans?
Now this is weird:
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.79
I'm in that same quadrant. As (I think) I said previously, my fascist
views do not extend outside of the "collective" to which I belong.
The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the
opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal
socialism),
That's what I've said all along.
and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned
economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)
Never thought about that (never had occasion to).
The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not
take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of
Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party,
This is the first time I've ever heard any of the above called
neo-liberal, let alone anarchist. But if Rand was anarchist, obviously
she couldn't be politically fascist (I have no idea about her views on
heredity).
which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal
positions on most social issues.
"Law of the jungle right-wing" describes some of my sociopolitical
views, mostly on crime and protection, though not many of my economic
ones. I was also surprised to see this survey imply ("jungle") that
humans are just another species of animal.
Significantly physically disabled people should not be
allowed to reproduce
This is horseshit of the highest order. Who more likely has a better
combination of genes--Stephen Hawking, whose body barely functions but
his mind is beyond the capacity of most humans; or (dunno any of their
names) the average WWF/WWE wrestler, whose body may be superior to most
people's but who may not even have a mind? If I were a breeder, and
people were bred like livestock, I'd rather breed with Stephen Hawking
than a physically superior dumb ox. The human mind/brain is the single
most important feature that (usually) distinguishes us from the rest of
the animal kingdom.
Jews surely have to take some of the responsibility
for their persecution over the past 2000 years.
*WHY* do so many people believe this? Jews have been persecuted for a
lot longer than that, according to the Bible. Why are Jews always the
primary religion that gets singled out for extermination? Religion
doesn't even exist on a physical level, so why do people obsess over it
and kill other people because of it?
John Shafto
> Kinda cool test! there were some questions I never really thought about.
> I'm approximately -3.0 on both.
I found the questions almost regularly setting up false dichotomies,
or based on bad premises, forcing one to choose between two bads.
This undoubtedly to stuff you in one place or the other, based on
the author's preconceived misconceptions. The degrees of agreement
or disagreement in the answers are an illusion of more flexibility than
there really is in the test.
In any poll, the wording of the questions is critical.
I see the same kinds of poll bias in the media's polls
all the time.
7/4
That's what most people seem to believe, that all blacks are liberal
about everything. Coonerly and Uncle Thomas both used and benefited
from affirmative action, but their GOP slavemasters have them on a short
chain: they do everything possible to keep anyone else from using it.
But they are nothing but blackface mistrel puppets. The people behind
the drive to eliminate affirmative action are mainly rich white GOPers,
but they have to use a negro on a chain so they won't be accused of
being racist. Why couldn't Pete Wilson himself have run that
Proposition 209 campaign? Why did he need Coonerly to be his "good boy"
mouthpiece? And why was skin color the only issue mentioned in the
campaign? Caucasian women have been the primary beneficiaries of
affirmative action for like 20 years, but all you hear about is "reverse
racism" because that is guaranteed to fire up the reactionary (often
uneducated) whites who will vote for anything they think will do harm to
them big bad niggas.
Most American blacks over say, 40 (who have lived through segregation
long enough to remember it) are "liberal" on human rights issues, but
"conservative" on moral, some economic and social issues. (Most of
these people are probably also JudeoChristian--just about all the
generation just before me in my family is Christian or Jewish and they
tend to have that dichotomy.)
When I wear the Stars and Stripes, I get praised by older blacks and
called an Aunt Jemima by dumb kids my own age for being proud of my
country. When I wear a rock music t-shirt the same sort of thing
happens. I've been accused of wanting to be white because I love rock
music and the USA. Well, the first man to die for his country in the
Revolutionary War was a black American, Crispus Attucks. I could put up
a nearly endless list of black American inventors, scientists, political
leaders, artists, writers, et cetera, who have contributed as much to
the United States as any white American, yet loving the United States is
"not wanting to be black". Fuck that, I'm proud to be a black American
who loves rock music. If I were a fascist dictator, they'd be some of
the ones I'd cull (fortunately, I am not).
7/4
>
> 'COONERLY"???
>
> Hmmm, one who calls Connerly a suck up but then uses a foul epithet to
> smear him with.
>
> Logical.
Yes, COONERLY. What's foul about that? Blacks call other blacks who
act like refugees from a minstrel show or In Living Color, "coons". Did
you object to that Blazing Saddles thread? I've probably used the word
"nigger" more than any white person on this ng. *Words* do not offend
me. *Context* makes the difference. Did you also see my post saying I
can laugh at racists? The words "fuck" and "fat" don't offend me
either, but if somebody came up to me on the street and said, "Fuck you
fat nigger", I would probably kick every part of their body within
kicking reach. But I laughed my ass off at Blazing Saddles, which has
an old white hag doing essentially just that to the black sheriff.
> I saw Lani GUinier say that THomas isn't black.
>
> Evidently, being black also has something to do with ideology, you are
> only legitimately black if you are a psychotic lefitst like Lani
> Guinier
Why is Lani Guinier "psychotic"? Has she been diagnosed as such? (And
before somebody jumps on this, I have not. When I took the MMPI I was
diagnosed with major depression, anxiety and panic disorder, and the
shrink said that I wasn't "psychotic"--there is a scientific definition
of that, and it does not equal "left-wing".)
or Michael Erid "Altars of WHiteness" Dyson, a really foul
> guy.
Well, a lot of whites think so. (I don't even know who Michael Erid
"Altars of WHiteness" Dyson is, and I don't think I want to if he's a
racist.) Why are black racists always called leftist by whites? The
only difference between the Nation of Islam and the Ku Klux Klan is that
one is black and Muslim and the other is white and Christian. Farracoon
and Tom Metzger have joined forces on certain projects because they both
hate Jews, I guess--"the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Now are you going to call my use of the name "Farracoon" "foul"? I've
used it before in this ng and nobody complained. Probably not, because
he's not a good little slave like Coonerly. What he is is a black
Nazi. He certainly isn't liberal, because he believes in racial
separation, subjugation of women, and a uniformed robot army, all
authoritarian right-wing causes.
7/4
Has anyone else noticed the number of apparent Rushian references in
that poll? Some of the statements sound like song themes or summaries:
Many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money
and contribute nothing to their society. (The Big Money, of course.)
The businessman and the manufacturer are more
important than the writer and the artist. (Closer to the Heart.)
Some people are naturally unlucky. (Freewill, which I still don't
believe in.)
And there are probably a few I missed.
Ellen
>> http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>Well, I did it and on the Economic Left-Right I was -2.00, and on the
>authoritarian left-right I was -8.15.
>
>That puts me (no surprise) in the Left-Libertarian quadrant. Anyone else
>want to
>try it? See if there is any consistency among Rush fans?
Economic Left/Right: -2.12 (almost a Rush sighting)
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -5.18
Ellen
"Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above
blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it." -Mark Twain
http://www.homestead.com/emarie2112
7/4
>
>
> I found the questions almost regularly setting up false dichotomies,
> or based on bad premises, forcing one to choose between two bads.
> This undoubtedly to stuff you in one place or the other, based on
> the author's preconceived misconceptions. The degrees of agreement
> or disagreement in the answers are an illusion of more flexibility than
> there really is in the test.
That is one thing I didn't really care for. That is pretty much how
I've felt on Election Day for the last thirteen years.
>
> In any poll, the wording of the questions is critical.
> I see the same kinds of poll bias in the media's polls
> all the time.
No person is truly unbiased. That one is not unbiased doesn't mean that
one is a *bigot*. A biased person can simply be uninformed. Most
people think all pit bull-type dogs want to feed on human flesh because
that is what they have had pounded into their heads by the Humane
Society of the United States and PeTA over the years. I know for a fact
that it isn't the case because I've met thousands of them that are not
in the least aggressive toward humans.
When you get beaten over the head with something long enough eventually
it'll make a dent.
John Shafto
> Anyone who calls her that must not have read any of her stuff.
Rand (and Neil by extension, for having the gaul to agree and
even credit her to some degree) had a rhetorical style (and from
what I hear, personality) that was absolutely brutal. She was an
extremely intelligent woman, something that was not generally
highly regarded during her lifetime, and once she made up her
mind, she was 'take no prisoners' afterward. Of course, many
people are that way, but she had something most don't, she had
it all thought through, down to the very detailed philosopical level.
I have seen a few of her 50s-70s TV interviews and discussions,
and you can see in her eyes (and responses) how quick and
consistent her mind was. I think she worked very hard to get it
that way, and she valued it(herself) very highly.
Anyway, I don't think her cock-sure attitude in writing, and
moral certainty on issues that most haven't fully thought out
(so see as merely opinions), made her come across as intellectual
as she really was. She offended a lot of people (left and right), and
still does. So, smear is par for the course with her, but then maybe
she expected that, and her style/attitude was a preconceived response.
I think she was trying to shout over the background noise.
Whenever I have read Rand I often find myself laughing at her
rhetorical style, she was just so in your face the whole time.
Maybe that is where the 'fascist' charge comes from, some people
think that anyone who is so sure of themselves must be 'fascist'.
Nevermind that she never advocated a heck of a lot less government
force than anyone of her detractors. She absolutely believed people
should consider and take her view though, just because it was best for them.
BTW, I also find Rand's positions in many classical and enlightenment
philosophers writings; Such as Epicurius, Aristotle, Locke, Hume, and
others. Rand just tried to put it all together consistently. I think her
epistemology of conceptualism was the most unique, if understated,
part of her system/writings.
Mike Smith
>
> Does objectivism mean the same thing as individualism?
Depends on how you spell it. ^_^
With a lower-case "o", "objectivism" basically means the opposite of
subjectivism - believing that the universe is objective, knowable, not
dependent on the observer, etc.
When spelled with an upper-case "O", it's generally taken to mean "the
philosophy of Ayn Rand". Certainly Objectivism tends to be individualistic
in nature.
--
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
news:ulo9sjb...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I found the questions almost regularly setting up false dichotomies,
> or based on bad premises, forcing one to choose between two bads.
> This undoubtedly to stuff you in one place or the other, based on
> the author's preconceived misconceptions. The degrees of agreement
> or disagreement in the answers are an illusion of more flexibility than
> there really is in the test.
Yes, I was annoyed by this as well. Generally they were questions that set
up the implicit assumption that corporations will always do their very best
to destroy "the common man". Answer one way, you're a big-business fascist;
answer the other way, you're a Molotov cocktail-throwing anarchist.
--
Mike Smith
Benrand
<canis...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com> wrote:
>Benrand wrote:
>>
>> 'COONERLY"???
>>
>> Hmmm, one who calls Connerly a suck up but then uses a foul epithet to
>> smear him with.
>>
>> Logical.
>
>Yes, COONERLY. What's foul about that? Blacks call other blacks who
>act like refugees from a minstrel show or In Living Color, "coons". Did
>you object to that Blazing Saddles thread? I've probably used the word
>"nigger" more than any white person on this ng. *Words* do not offend
>me. *Context* makes the difference. Did you also see my post saying I
>can laugh at racists? The words "fuck" and "fat" don't offend me
>either, but if somebody came up to me on the street and said, "Fuck you
>fat nigger", I would probably kick every part of their body within
>kicking reach. But I laughed my ass off at Blazing Saddles, which has
>an old white hag doing essentially just that to the black sheriff.
>
You're black? It's still a disgusting racial epithet. I don't go
around calling Italians "wops" and "dagos". If I did, it'd be with
humor.
Not as invective.
>
>> I saw Lani GUinier say that THomas isn't black.
>>
>> Evidently, being black also has something to do with ideology, you are
>> only legitimately black if you are a psychotic lefitst like Lani
>> Guinier
>
>Why is Lani Guinier "psychotic"? Has she been diagnosed as such? (And
>before somebody jumps on this, I have not. When I took the MMPI I was
>diagnosed with major depression, anxiety and panic disorder, and the
>shrink said that I wasn't "psychotic"--there is a scientific definition
>of that, and it does not equal "left-wing".)
>
WHen a woman is as wild eyed and loud and angry as her, I'd call her
psychotic.
> or Michael Erid "Altars of WHiteness" Dyson, a really foul
>> guy.
>
Michael Eric Dyson, my mistyping.
BLack racists seem to get into Marxism, from my experience. That is
the philosophy of leftists.
See: Cornel West and Marable Manning, two black Marxist intellectuals.
>Well, a lot of whites think so. (I don't even know who Michael Erid
>"Altars of WHiteness" Dyson is, and I don't think I want to if he's a
>racist.) Why are black racists always called leftist by whites? The
>only difference between the Nation of Islam and the Ku Klux Klan is that
>one is black and Muslim and the other is white and Christian. Farracoon
>and Tom Metzger have joined forces on certain projects because they both
>hate Jews, I guess--"the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
>
>Now are you going to call my use of the name "Farracoon" "foul"? I've
>used it before in this ng and nobody complained. Probably not, because
>he's not a good little slave like Coonerly. What he is is a black
>Nazi. He certainly isn't liberal, because he believes in racial
>separation, subjugation of women, and a uniformed robot army, all
>authoritarian right-wing causes.
>
Calling blacks slaves is foul.
>dog
The Professor
news:7s9olusg7c4hbkns9...@4ax.com...
Quoting someone who recently said: "but then uses a foul epithet to
smear him with.
Logical."
You can't even play by your own rules, so even if I happen to agree with
some of what you've said, you do a disservice to good arguments by your own
name-calling.
The Professor (sheesh)
ironcladlou
> You're black? It's still a disgusting racial epithet. I don't go
> around calling Italians "wops" and "dagos". If I did, it'd be with
> humor.
I call the British Limeys on a regular basis. And don't get me started on
the Irish ;)
--
ironcladlou, keeper of faq, bringer of poop humor
http://www.altmusicrush.com/
"His world is under observation - we monitor his station
Under faces and the places where he traces points of view" - Rush,
'Digital Man'
The Professor
> The Professor wrote:
> >
> > "7/4" <canis...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D5C20...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com...
> > >
> > > I'd just call him a bandwagon-jumper who tells bigoted whites (who
don't
> > > know he's Jewish) what they want to hear. He's the talk-radio
> > > equivalent of a black cop, Ward Coonerly, or Clarence Uncle Thomas, a
> > > self-hating bigot who sucks up to people who would admit they hate
"his
> > > kind" if he didn't lick their asses, and uses his position to take out
> > > his self-hate on "his own kind".
> >
> > Care to clarify how that applies to Connerly or Thomas? Or is being a
black
> > conservative a contradiction in terms? (Either you're not really a
> > conservative or you're not "really" black.)
>
> That's what most people seem to believe, that all blacks are liberal
> about everything. Coonerly and Uncle Thomas both used and benefited
> from affirmative action, but their GOP slavemasters have them on a short
> chain: they do everything possible to keep anyone else from using it.
> But they are nothing but blackface mistrel puppets. The people behind
> the drive to eliminate affirmative action are mainly rich white GOPers,
> but they have to use a negro on a chain so they won't be accused of
> being racist.
Sorry Dog, but I can't go here. A very close friend of mine knows Thomas
personally, and I know other people who know him and respect him, and I find
that characterization of him to be really offensive. It's not about race,
it's about integrity. What you're doing is questioning the integrity of his
beliefs, and I that's just wrong. You can disagree with him, you can think
he's wrong on the facts, but why go here? Why paint him as the lackey of
white Republicans?
Walter Williams, another well-known black conservative, is a former
professor of mine. He's no white-boy's lackey, and he'd promptly kick your
ass if you suggested it to him. Why isn't it possible that he and CT really
passionately and sincerely believe that the policies they support are the
best for black America? They could be wrong (and if so, make the argument),
but why question their integrity?
Why couldn't Pete Wilson himself have run that
> Proposition 209 campaign? Why did he need Coonerly to be his "good boy"
> mouthpiece? And why was skin color the only issue mentioned in the
> campaign? Caucasian women have been the primary beneficiaries of
> affirmative action for like 20 years, but all you hear about is "reverse
> racism" because that is guaranteed to fire up the reactionary (often
> uneducated) whites who will vote for anything they think will do harm to
> them big bad niggas.
Actually middle-class blacks have benefitted a good deal. The folks who
really need the help haven't. Why is it a problem for CT to say "get rid of
AA because it hasn't help those who need it the most?" What if he says "get
rid of minimum wage laws because they harm young African-American males the
most?" Is he just a mouthpiece then?
Given your own politcal idiosyncracies, I'm surprised to hear you use so
much invective against two guys who are trying to stake out some
individualistic territory.
The Professor (still somewhat befuddled by this turn)
The Professor
> Scott D. Erb wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.politicalcompass.org/
> >
> > Well, I did it and on the Economic Left-Right I was -2.00, and on the
> > authoritarian left-right I was -8.15.
> >
> > That puts me (no surprise) in the Left-Libertarian quadrant. Anyone
else want to
> > try it? See if there is any consistency among Rush fans?
>
> The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the
> opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal
> socialism),
>
> That's what I've said all along.
>
> and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned
> economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)
>
> Never thought about that (never had occasion to).
>
> The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not
> take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of
> Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party,
>
> This is the first time I've ever heard any of the above called
> neo-liberal, let alone anarchist. But if Rand was anarchist, obviously
> she couldn't be politically fascist (I have no idea about her views on
> heredity).
She wasn't an anarchist, and hated libertarians who were. Murray Rothbard,
the foremost American libertarian theorist of the 20th century was indeed an
anarchist, and many other libertarians are as well. I would include myself
in that group, at least at a philosophical level.
> which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal
> positions on most social issues.
>
> "Law of the jungle right-wing" describes some of my sociopolitical
> views, mostly on crime and protection, though not many of my economic
> ones. I was also surprised to see this survey imply ("jungle") that
> humans are just another species of animal.
That is a completely loaded characterization of "right wing economics."
Completely loaded. Seems to reveal something about the site, I'd say.
The Professor (try www.politopia.com)
Benrand
<sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
What? "Foul"?
Yes, sheesh alright...
>
>The Professor (sheesh)
>
>
>
>
Benrand
THomas credits Rand as one of his influences.
>Walter Williams, another well-known black conservative, is a former
>professor of mine. He's no white-boy's lackey, and he'd promptly kick your
>ass if you suggested it to him. Why isn't it possible that he and CT really
>passionately and sincerely believe that the policies they support are the
>best for black America? They could be wrong (and if so, make the argument),
>but why question their integrity?
>
Walter WIlliams is the man. Amazing he can still smile and have humor.
7/4
>
> >
> > That's what most people seem to believe, that all blacks are liberal
> > about everything. Coonerly and Uncle Thomas both used and benefited
> > from affirmative action, but their GOP slavemasters have them on a short
> > chain: they do everything possible to keep anyone else from using it.
> > But they are nothing but blackface mistrel puppets. The people behind
> > the drive to eliminate affirmative action are mainly rich white GOPers,
> > but they have to use a negro on a chain so they won't be accused of
> > being racist.
>
> Sorry Dog, but I can't go here. A very close friend of mine knows Thomas
> personally, and I know other people who know him and respect him, and I find
> that characterization of him to be really offensive.
Why? Why are you offended by anything? Especially something *I'd*
say? You seem like somebody who wouldn't let somebody else's political
opinion bother you, especially somebody who is as politically abnormal
as I am. And I said I have fascist views about black Americans because
I am one. Besides, you know by now that I handle most politically
charged topics with the subtlety of a jackhammer. I'm not at all
diplomatic when speaking or writing about certain subjects. I couldn't
possibly be a politician. "Insufficient tact?" That's putting it
mildly.
It's not about race,
> it's about integrity.
Then why didn't Bush Sr appoint a white judge who was equally
qualified? And why didn't quota/affirmative action-opponents jump on
this obvious instance of a racial quota?
What you're doing is questioning the integrity of his
> beliefs, and I that's just wrong. You can disagree with him, you can think
> he's wrong on the facts, but why go here? Why paint him as the lackey of
> white Republicans?
Because he impresses me as being that.
Since you like this person, I'll leave him alone from now on in this
ng. I truly hate him, and Coonerly too. I am not questioning the
integrity of his beliefs. It seems to me that he doesn't have any. He
does what Scalia does, or tells him to do. Why did he get that job in
the first place? As a black quota filler to replace Marshall.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION! QUOTAS! Couldn't Bush have appointed a white guy
who would do the job as well? I personally would have preferred that he
had done so or appointed a white woman, rather than this person. Then
it wouldn't appear as though he had picked him just because of his skin
color. (It may not be obvious to whites in the US how a lot of
non-whites feel about this subject because whites are the majority.
Obviously every group has a different experience. I am not saying they
are racist for not being able to see this, they probably haven't had any
reason to notice it.)
>
> Walter Williams, another well-known black conservative, is a former
> professor of mine. He's no white-boy's lackey, and he'd promptly kick your
> ass if you suggested it to him.
I never suggested that (or mentioned Walter Williams at all), but if he
tried to kick my ass he'd find it a *lot* harder than he thought to do
so. If he's interested in challenging me, I'd gladly fight him (?). I
don't know why you brought him up, I wasn't even thinking about him
because he has no effect on me.
Why isn't it possible that he and CT really
> passionately and sincerely believe that the policies they support are the
> best for black America? They could be wrong (and if so, make the argument),
> but why question their integrity?
It's possible, but unlikely. Because I know too many people just like
them, who claw their way to the top by sticking their claws into the
backs of other blacks while grinning for their masters. I grew up with
people like them. I went to school with them. I worked with them, and
for them. Again, because a member of any majority sees things from a
different view than a member of any minority, many US whites may not be
able to identify a real Uncle Tom, or Tio Taco, or Banana.
>
> Why couldn't Pete Wilson himself have run that
> > Proposition 209 campaign? Why did he need Coonerly to be his "good boy"
> > mouthpiece? And why was skin color the only issue mentioned in the
> > campaign? Caucasian women have been the primary beneficiaries of
> > affirmative action for like 20 years, but all you hear about is "reverse
> > racism" because that is guaranteed to fire up the reactionary (often
> > uneducated) whites who will vote for anything they think will do harm to
> > them big bad niggas.
>
> Actually middle-class blacks have benefitted a good deal.
Not in the last couple of decades. We've been *blamed* for it, but not
a whole lot of us have benefited from it since about 1980. Many white
women came forward when Coonerly was playing the race card for Pete
"Helmet Law" Wilson and admitted that they had gotten their jobs because
of affirmative action. So why wasn't *gender* played up as much as
*race*?
Nobody in my family has ever used affirmative action, and all of us are
middle class. None of us believe in basing acceptance into a school or
job on *skin color*, any more than we do on hair color. I was accepted
into UCLA before Coonerly came on the scene, and I just chose not to go
because of the location. But I think low-income people (INCLUDING
WHITES, and I've said this before) could benefit from it if it were
based on class and/or gender. I'm pretty sure I have gotten the
absolute shittiest job I ever had (a delivery monkey) just because of my
skin color, even though that certainly wasn't my intent. Haven't you
noticed disproportionate numbers of blacks and Latinos (and Asians in
some places) in shitty dumb-animal jobs like security guards? I think
people hire many of those big stupid ebonics-speakin' ghetto homeboys
for these jobs precisely because the employer feels that stereotypical
"big black guy" (or Sapphire-esque, ball-bustin' black cunt) will be
more threatening. What these employers really want is a Rottweiler.
They ought to hire one, the dog would be more intelligent than some of
these other black animals they *do* hire.
Incidentally, it was while I was on that job that I encountered a lot of
these kissasses. They were subservient to their white masters but
wielded the whip on us delivery lackeys just like any good overseer.
You put a person of this type in a position of power, he will most
definitely abuse it. (Ask anyone who's been molested by airport
monkeys.) So I can recognise one when I see one, because I've
encountered far more of them than I ever wished to.
The folks who
> really need the help haven't. Why is it a problem for CT to say "get rid of
> AA because it hasn't help those who need it the most?" What if he says "get
> rid of minimum wage laws because they harm young African-American males the
> most?" Is he just a mouthpiece then?
Do they? I wouldn't know. Would he say that? Unlikely. Why does he
always have to be the one who speaks up on racial issues? Can't the
white guys speak for themselves?
(I'm not too happy about "his" opinions on California's Compassionate
Use Act, either. One of the clubs I used to work at was shut down
because of the Supreme Court's medical-mj ruling.)
>
> Given your own politcal idiosyncracies, I'm surprised to hear you use so
> much invective against two guys who are trying to stake out some
> individualistic territory.
They would probably try to have me lynched, and they sure wouldn't
respect my right to have those political idiosyncrasies, so why can't I
speak up against them?
I've used invective against a lot of politicians I dislike. So have
many people in this ng. Why do white conservatives always get upset
when blacks dislike some black conservative? When a white person posts
something about a white politician they dislike (for whatever reason),
why don't these same people get upset?
I can be and usually am viciously critical of people in my own group who
act as though they need to be subservient to another group (whether "my
group" is blacks, women, Gen Xers, pill poppers or whatever).
I don't talk about J.C. Watts or any of these other "black
conservatives" because they have no effect on me. Somebody pushing a
law that affects California college students and women trying to get
hired obviously does, and a Supreme Court justice obviously affects me
like it affects every other American citizen.
Okay, we have different viewpoints on these people. They don't seem
like individuals to me. They seem like caricatures from a Keenen Ivory
Wayans movie, and they seem like each other. These two are just
repeating a pattern that has shown up throughout black American
history. There are several names for them, but since you are offended
by them, I won't repeat them.
As I said before, I'm surprised you would be offended by anything, let
alone what somebody on Usenet thinks. (Can we still talk to each
other?) I'll leave those two alone on this group, just because I
respect *you* (and like you, though I don't understand the basis for
your comment about Walter Williams kicking my ass. I'd like to see him
try).
7/4
>
> You're black?
Yes. I've made jokes about it in this ng about ten thousand times.
http://www.pitbulls.com/sevenfour/ringfist.gif
That arm and hand are definitely melanistically gifted. And they belong
to me.
It's still a disgusting racial epithet. I don't go
> around calling Italians "wops" and "dagos". If I did, it'd be with
> humor.
Why is it disgusting? Are you offended by Blazing Saddles? That movie
uses an even "worse" word (NIGGER, ooh, I said the N-word), and a whole
lot of others, throughout its ninety or so minutes. Actions offend me,
words don't.
>
> Not as invective.
I call blacks all sorts of names, both as humor and as invective.
Didn't you see me refer to myself as "Deputy Spade"? I think people are
entitled to be critical of their own group, and use whatever epithets
they feel like using about their own group. I wouldn't tell the kind of
jokes Mel Brooks tells about Jews, but I would tell the kind of jokes
Pryor or Foxx told about blacks. (I think Chris Rock just does it as a
gimmick because he thinks it's "offensive".)
> >
> >Why is Lani Guinier "psychotic"? Has she been diagnosed as such?
>
> WHen a woman is as wild eyed and loud and angry as her, I'd call her
> psychotic.
That you would call her that doesn't mean she is.
Just a woman? Or if a man was as "wild eyed and loud and angry", would
you call him psychotic? Say a white guy? Like Michael Wiener/Savage?
He is even more "wild eyed and loud and angry" than she is.
>
> > or Michael Erid "Altars of WHiteness" Dyson, a really foul
> >> guy.
> >
>
> Michael Eric Dyson, my mistyping.
I wasn't paying attention to your typing. I don't pay attention to
insignficant stuff like that. And I still don't know who he is.
>
> BLack racists seem to get into Marxism, from my experience.
That might be your experience, but do you know a lot of black people?
Do you know a lot of black racists? I've known far too many of them,
and most of them are racist against *other blacks*. They prey on them.
Gangsta rappers, black thieves, and black crack/heroin pushers are an
example of this. The ones who are racist against whites are usually
right-wing Nation of Islam Farrakhan slaves. The Nation of Islam IS A
RIGHT-WING RACIST ORGANIZATION. Farracoon is nothing but a Nazi in
Islamic blackface. I feel sorry for the young people who take him
seriously because they don't know they have anything better to follow.
>
> See: Cornel West and Marable Manning, two black Marxist intellectuals.
I know who Cornel West is, but I don't see why he's *racist*, though he
may be Marxist--I don't know or care. The other one I've never heard
of.
> >
> >Now are you going to call my use of the name "Farracoon" "foul"? I've
> >used it before in this ng and nobody complained. Probably not, because
> >he's not a good little slave like Coonerly. What he is is a black
> >Nazi. He certainly isn't liberal, because he believes in racial
> >separation, subjugation of women, and a uniformed robot army, all
> >authoritarian right-wing causes.
> >
>
> Calling blacks slaves is foul.
Anyone who is under the control of another person is a slave, no matter
what color they are. Why is it foul to call blacks slaves? When I had
that shitty job I was a wage slave. Most of the blacks brought to the
United States were brought here as slaves. What about those Sudanese
barbarians, who still buy and sell human beings? They are slave
traders, and the people they sell are slaves, black ones.
In case you haven't figured it out by now, I don't think the human
species is particularly appealing. But I don't hate or judge people
*because* of something as superficial as skin color, or what they wear,
or what music they like, or whatever. If you skin a bunch of humans
they all look basically the same. I judge people because of what they
*do*. People judge me all the time because of my appearance and my
sociopolitical views (which I freely admit are fucked-up) and I don't
care anymore. If I offend somebody that I respect (and there aren't
many people that I do), I will try to correct it, but I have finally
realized that nobody (particularly a FREAK) can avoid offending *some*
person who is sensitive to this or that topic. There are six billion of
us in this world and I am just one of them, so presumably SOMEBODY is
going to dislike me or what I have to say.
7/4
>
> "7/4" <> wrote
> > Anyone who calls her that must not have read any of her stuff.
>
> Rand (and Neil by extension, for having the gaul to agree and
> even credit her to some degree) had a rhetorical style (and from
> what I hear, personality) that was absolutely brutal.
Am I reading this post or looking into a mirror?
> I have seen a few of her 50s-70s TV interviews and discussions,
> and you can see in her eyes (and responses) how quick and
> consistent her mind was. I think she worked very hard to get it
> that way, and she valued it(herself) very highly.
Have you seen the Donahue interview with her from IIRC the early 80s
just before she died? Her steadiness looked as though it came naturally
to me, maybe she did practice a lot, but she was what I would call
hypnotic and charismatic.
>
> Anyway, I don't think her cock-sure attitude in writing, and
> moral certainty on issues that most haven't fully thought out
> (so see as merely opinions), made her come across as intellectual
> as she really was.
She was obviously a genius.
She offended a lot of people (left and right), and
> still does.
The mirror again! Welcome to the club.
So, smear is par for the course with her, but then maybe
> she expected that, and her style/attitude was a preconceived response.
> I think she was trying to shout over the background noise.
> Whenever I have read Rand I often find myself laughing at her
> rhetorical style, she was just so in your face the whole time.
That is definitely something I liked about The Fountainhead, and about
that Donahue interview. She was as about as subtle as a chainsaw.
> Maybe that is where the 'fascist' charge comes from, some people
> think that anyone who is so sure of themselves must be 'fascist'.
> Nevermind that she never advocated a heck of a lot less government
> force than anyone of her detractors. She absolutely believed people
> should consider and take her view though, just because it was best for them.
That could be seen as fascist, to believe that everyone should believe
as she did, but I think she genuinely believed she was doing good for
the human species. I still couldn't put a label on her
sociopolitically, and I wouldn't try.
John Shafto
> John Shafto wrote, among other things, but this is what stuck out:
> > think that anyone who is so sure of themselves must be 'fascist'.
> > Nevermind that she never advocated a heck of a lot less government
> > force than anyone of her detractors. She absolutely believed people
> > should consider and take her view though, just because it was best for them.
>
> That could be seen as fascist, to believe that everyone should believe
> as she did, but I think she genuinely believed she was doing good for
> the human species. I still couldn't put a label on her
> sociopolitically, and I wouldn't try.
I blew the second-to-last sentence with a negative there. :)
It should have read, "Nevermind that she advocated a heck of a lot
less government than [most] of her detractors."
(Also should say [most] there instead, the individualist anarchists
like Rothbard were also offended by her, and became something
of detractors as well, as the Prof pointed out.)
Scott Erb
"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message
news:utU69.40142$vg.91...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:xMO69.13355$Ep6.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Fascism is an irrationalist ideology that focuses on emotional
connection
> to
> > the traditions, culture, or leader of a state. It is intensely
> > nationalist, and opposed to both communism and socialism. It is the
idea
> > that power creates truth, and power is really all that matters. It is
> > anti-intellectual, with the idea that people need connection with a
> greater
> > whole to be satisfied -- and if they achieve that, the whole can awesome
> > power.
>
> Is it *really* opposed to communism and socialism, or just their
> internationalist aspirations?
Well, they fought communists, considered them the evil facing Germany, made
alliance with right wing and conservative parties, had support of many
German business leaders, and didn't run a planned centralized economy (until
the war when they went to the traditional war economy -- even then, it
wasn't the kind of centralized bureaucracy the Soviet Union had).
Philosophically, their ideological roots are polar opposites. Marxism was
an objectivist ideology which tried to use reason and science to understand
the true laws of history and economics. He was wrong, of course, but the
emphasis was on reason and science -- rationality. Fascism was irrational,
rejected that approach, and focused on power and will, with emotion not
reason the key. There was indeed the nationalist-internationalist split,
but fascism was anti-intellectual, while communism was the darling of
intellectuals even more than workers. Communism wanted a classless
egalitarian society. fascism believed that class differences were natural,
and emotional commitment to the leader, party or state would be enough to
satisfy the lower classes, they didn't need or deserve material improvement.
Theres more. They were both dictatorial and brutal, and the tactics used to
enforce that dictatorial power were often similar. But the ideologies are
not.
> If you look at the National Socialist
German
> Workers Party platforms in the 20s, they look awfully "socialist" in the
> sense that they share many of the means and ends of socialists, but simply
> wish to apply them to the fatherland alone. That is, "nation" is more
> important than "class."
You can't really look at their platform to find out what they really wanted.
Their platform was an act of propaganda. Look at the name they took --
National Socialist -- they put the term socialist in there (sort of like
East Germany used 'German Democratic Republic') as a propaganda tool to try
to appeal to workers. There was even a left wing of the party which in the
20's took the socialist aspirations seriously -- they were liquidated as
Hitler came to power. A good and fascinating description of this and in
general Germany (specifically Berlin) in the 1920s is Otto Friedrich's
"Before the Deluge."
> Their fierce nationalism allows them to be opposed to elements of
socialism,
> despite, in my view, actually buying many of its core claims, and opposed
to
> capitalism, which as all good socialists have recognized, is relentlessly
> international as well.
They shared some elements with socialism, and of course they grew out of
conservatism and right wing/nationalist thought (and conservatives, for much
different reasons, opposed liberalism and capitalism). It's a
multidimensional diverse world, political ideologies. People tend to group
things together more than they should, and try to fit politics on simplistic
axes when its actually extremely varied.
> It's also worth noting that in the Nazi case, Jews could be an easy target
> because they were frequently capitalists and frequently involved in the
> socialist movement.
Not to mention frequent long term victims of bigotry and discrimination.
Ironically, Germany gave Jews more freedom to move to high positions, and
was more tolerant of Jews than many other countries in Europe. The Kaiser
visited Israel before WWI, and one reason Hitler could use the Jews as
targets is that Germany had been relatively tolerant. It's also interesting
how groups suffering discrimination (be it the religious dissidents in
Britain that ended up starting the industrial revolution, or Jews in
Germany) often place more emphasis on education and success.
> Hatred of the Jews was then, as it is now in so many
> parts of the world, a hatred of cosmopolitanism.
More often I think it was pure centuries long bigotry.
>Both socialism and
> capitalism promised cosmopolitanism, and fascism, as a form of
nationalism,
> opposed that.
Yeah -- it was a reaction to modernism, using conservative themes to
introduce something that actually was anti-conservative as well as
anti-liberal and anti-socialist. It denied rationality, it scoffed at
science and reason, and said, "there is no truth but power and will."
Scott Erb
"Ellen" <emari...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20020815185111...@mb-fy.aol.com...
> >From: "Scott D. Erb" scot...@worldnet.att.net
>
> >> http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>
> >Well, I did it and on the Economic Left-Right I was -2.00, and on the
> >authoritarian left-right I was -8.15.
> >
> >That puts me (no surprise) in the Left-Libertarian quadrant. Anyone else
> >want to
> >try it? See if there is any consistency among Rush fans?
>
> Economic Left/Right: -2.12 (almost a Rush sighting)
> Authoritarian/Libertarian: -5.18
Gee, why am I not surprised that we have similar scores? Though on the
non-economic libertarian scale my -8.15 seems pretty extreme. I have no
idea how accurate that kind of thing is, but it was a fun change of pace...
Scott Erb
"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message
> Scott,
>
> Try this one too: http://www.politopia.com/
I'm in the South West. Interesting. The questions were often policy
questions where my answer wouldn't be my first choice, I think the other
quiz got more to values. But who knows? The results were probably similar.
Daniel McConnell
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, 7/4 wrote:
> Daniel McConnell wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, 7/4 wrote:
> >
> > > I believe in *some* fascist doctrine, specifically eugenics (and for
> > > everyone who goes into a conniption fit when they see the E-word,
> > > breeding animals or plants is also a form of eugenics) for the future of
> > > black Americans' existence. But I think fascism ought to be practiced
> >
> > Does this mean you are against inter-racial marriages?
>
> Certainly not, I'm a mutt. Fascist doesn't mean racist. I just think
> black Americans who are dumb enough to commit violent crimes and prey on
> innocent people (the primary recipients of black crime are BLACK PEOPLE,
> but that statistic is rarely quoted in the media) should be culled, and
> I think black American hard-drug addicts should be sterilized so they
> won't have a hundred unwanted miserable kids.
>
OK - just was curious about how you applied Eugenics wrt black people.
(one interpretation would be that you don't want black americans to be
homogenized within whites, as could happen through sufficient generations
of inter-racial coupling)
> I think this only about the group to which *I* belong, black Americans
> (which is an example of collectivist herd-animal thinking), what other
> ethnicities/races/nationalities want to do with each other's genes is
> their own business. And since humans are all one species who cares who
> they marry (as long as they marry their own species)? There are
> attractive men in all groups, so why limit one's choices?
>
Yup, well I certainly agree, being engaged to someone who has pretty much
the same skin tone as yours, from what I've seen in your pics.
Daniel McConnell
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, The Professor wrote:
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:xMO69.13355$Ep6.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Fascism is an irrationalist ideology that focuses on emotional connection
> to
> > the traditions, culture, or leader of a state. It is intensely
> > nationalist, and opposed to both communism and socialism. It is the idea
> > that power creates truth, and power is really all that matters. It is
> > anti-intellectual, with the idea that people need connection with a
> greater
> > whole to be satisfied -- and if they achieve that, the whole can awesome
> > power.
>
> Is it *really* opposed to communism and socialism, or just their
> internationalist aspirations? If you look at the National Socialist German
I had the same thought when I read Scott's post, but I recalled something
I learned way back in high school gov't class (which may or may not even
be correct - who can trust a high school gov't teacher? - heh)
But what I learned was that the left/right spectrum was really more of a
circle and if you go too far in the extreme in either way, there's not
alot of difference. Thus, while you can say that fascism is extreme
rightism and communism/collectivism is extreme left (and in that way are
opposed), both are the same in many ways.
Extreme nationalism = collectivism
Daniel McConnell
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, 7/4 wrote:
> Scott D. Erb wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.politicalcompass.org/
> >
> > Well, I did it and on the Economic Left-Right I was -2.00, and on the
> > authoritarian left-right I was -8.15.
> >
> > That puts me (no surprise) in the Left-Libertarian quadrant. Anyone else want to
> > try it? See if there is any consistency among Rush fans?
>
> Now this is weird:
>
> Economic Left/Right: -6.75
> Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.79
>
> I'm in that same quadrant. As (I think) I said previously, my fascist
> views do not extend outside of the "collective" to which I belong.
>
Nice quiz. I like that I come out real close to Ghandi. It makes sense
to me.
I'm Economic Left/Right -1.50 (fairly centrist it seems, not as leftist
as Ghandi)
Auth/Libertarian -5.49 (scale is 0 to 10 right? so I'm halfway to
anarchism, about right, I'd say)
results are consistent with The Worlds Smallest Political Quiz
Daniel McConnell
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, 7/4 wrote:
> Scott D. Erb wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>
> Has anyone else noticed the number of apparent Rushian references in
> that poll? Some of the statements sound like song themes or summaries:
>
> Many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money
> and contribute nothing to their society. (The Big Money, of course.)
>
> The businessman and the manufacturer are more
> important than the writer and the artist. (Closer to the Heart.)
>
> Some people are naturally unlucky. (Freewill, which I still don't
> believe in.)
>
> And there are probably a few I missed.
>
There was mention of Ayn Rand
Daniel McConnell
On 15 Aug 2002, Ellen wrote:
> >From: "Scott D. Erb" scot...@worldnet.att.net
>
> >> http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>
> >Well, I did it and on the Economic Left-Right I was -2.00, and on the
> >authoritarian left-right I was -8.15.
> >
> >That puts me (no surprise) in the Left-Libertarian quadrant. Anyone else
> >want to
> >try it? See if there is any consistency among Rush fans?
>
> Economic Left/Right: -2.12 (almost a Rush sighting)
> Authoritarian/Libertarian: -5.18
>
We very nearly overlap
John Shafto
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020816...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...
The problem with that circle scale, or any scale really that limits the
spectrum between "extreme right" and "extreme left (in common parlance)
is that one must fall somewhere between the Nazis and the Commies.
Certainly not a place where I want to be, but that false dichotomy has
worked wonderfully for statists of all stripes these last 100 or so years.
No one wants to be "extreme", so limit the spectrum, and declare
"moderate" the best place to be (sounds reasonable), and there they will go.
Thought your teacher might have just been trying to put the Nazis and
Commies next to each other on the scale, where they belong.
The political line should be from [true] anarchism to totalitarianism,
with each desired use of state (economic or social) moving one some
measure further up the line. But the social/economic split can be
instructive, and leave people with a greater understanding of what
their pols really represent.
Keep in mind also that a negative score on the right/left axis of that
quiz makes one something of an economic authoritarian, and economics
is really just human interaction and behavior. Control people's economic
behavior and you control them socially (and vice versa). The corners of
that grid are impossible political positions. There cannot be 100% social
freedom with 0% economic freedom (or vice versa), those two elements
of political freedom are really inseperable in practice.
It's no wonder that of the two statist parties in most "liberal" countries, one
represents social liberty/economic statism, while the other represents
economic liberty/social statism. This way, no matter who wins, we
all lose, because their liberty sides are more often than not just
window dressing and rhetoric.
(Some of the Dems have realized the awaking in this area and started calling
themselves "fiscal conservatives and social liberals" for the upcoming
elections, but listen closely to what they really mean by 'fiscal conservativism',
or even 'social liberalism' for that matter. :)
Daniel McConnell
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, John Shafto wrote:
> Keep in mind also that a negative score on the right/left axis of that
> quiz makes one something of an economic authoritarian, and economics
> is really just human interaction and behavior. Control people's economic
> behavior and you control them socially (and vice versa). The corners of
> that grid are impossible political positions. There cannot be 100% social
> freedom with 0% economic freedom (or vice versa), those two elements
> of political freedom are really inseperable in practice.
>
I think maybe you mean that 2 of those corners are impossible, because 2
of them are possible, it seems: 100% social freedom (anarchy) and 100%
economic freedom (far right wing, on that scale), but we don't see alot of
people in politics advocating that. Also, 0% social freedom
(authoritarianism/totalitarianism) and 0% economic freedom
(communism)...this sounds like Stalin.
> It's no wonder that of the two statist parties in most "liberal" countries, one
> represents social liberty/economic statism, while the other represents
> economic liberty/social statism. This way, no matter who wins, we
> all lose, because their liberty sides are more often than not just
> window dressing and rhetoric.
>
I think maybe you are too pessimistic. I would generally fall on the
social liberty/economic statism side (and my lower left quadrant score on
the quiz confirms this, although I was probably not statistically left of
center on the economic scale), and I can assure you my social liberty
attitudes are not just window dressing for a subversive communistic
agenda - because its my social liberties attitudes that I feel much more
strongly about (hence my stronger score on the social scale -5.49).
This is also why I get annoyed by people who call liberals "communists",
because I consider myself a liberal (in the same quad as Ghandi, its
probably true), but certainly am not communist. It seems to me that it
reflects only paranoia that the social liberty positions of these people,
are as you say, just window dressing - and window dressing implies its
there to cover up something more insidious or subversive, and in this
case, its communism. I think if put like that, its quite over-stated.
> (Some of the Dems have realized the awaking in this area and started calling
> themselves "fiscal conservatives and social liberals" for the upcoming
> elections, but listen closely to what they really mean by 'fiscal conservativism',
> or even 'social liberalism' for that matter. :)
>
see above - it just sounds like you won't trust a dem, not matter what.
(for that matter, I agree there are some dems whose ideas about social
liberty are quite appalling and whose economic ideas are too far left, but
not nearly all, and not this dem)
blane
extreme of liberalism. Now are all conservatives fascist? No. Are all
fascists conservative? Yes, in the extreme.
Usually these names are a smear tactic so deftly used these days by
conservatives when painting somebody with the "L" word (liberal).
Fascist- see Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Tom Delay.
Brian wrote:
> It is sad how people in the entertainment and news business who are
> politically conservative (Neil, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Michael
> Savage) get called fascist. I think the radical left wingers are more
> fascist than these folks.
>
> <canis...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com> wrote in message
> news:3D5B1E...@altmusicrushanyspammershere.com...
>
7/4
>
> > > Does this mean you are against inter-racial marriages?
> >
> > Certainly not, I'm a mutt. Fascist doesn't mean racist. I just think
> > black Americans who are dumb enough to commit violent crimes and prey on
> > innocent people (the primary recipients of black crime are BLACK PEOPLE,
> > but that statistic is rarely quoted in the media) should be culled, and
> > I think black American hard-drug addicts should be sterilized so they
> > won't have a hundred unwanted miserable kids.
> >
>
> OK - just was curious about how you applied Eugenics wrt black people.
> (one interpretation would be that you don't want black americans to be
> homogenized within whites, as could happen through sufficient generations
> of inter-racial coupling)
Well, most black Americans are mutts already, and that makes for a wide
variety of appearances and types among us. I've seen black Americans
who were almost as black as Indians (from India) and I've seen black
Americans (not necessarily albinos) who were whiter than Americans with
far more European blood. This is unique to blacks in the Americas, I
don't think blacks on other continents are as varied in appearance,
perhaps because a lot of us have some Native American genetics (as I
mentioned, I've got Creek and Cherokee genes, as well as Celtic and
perhaps Anglo/Saxon, but I consider myself black because, well, I AM).
My eugenicist (is that a word?) thinking applies to people's behavioral
characteristics, not their superficial characteristics.
>
> > I think this only about the group to which *I* belong, black Americans
> > (which is an example of collectivist herd-animal thinking), what other
> > ethnicities/races/nationalities want to do with each other's genes is
> > their own business. And since humans are all one species who cares who
> > they marry (as long as they marry their own species)? There are
> > attractive men in all groups, so why limit one's choices?
> >
>
> Yup, well I certainly agree, being engaged to someone who has pretty much
> the same skin tone as yours, from what I've seen in your pics.
Wow, that's pretty cool. One thing I really like about black American
genetics is the enormous diversity in appearance within the category of
"black American", like the diversity within the category of "domestic
dog" and that diversity in type (in both species) is due to mating with
a variety of individuals. (Sorry about all these bestial comparisons.
It's impossible for me NOT to think of humans in the same terms I think
of the rest of the animal kingdom.)
dog (hey, Led Zeppelin wrote a song about me)
Max C. Webster III
>dog (hey, Led Zeppelin wrote a song about me)
Do you have a purple umbrella, a fifty-cent hat, and an aged Cadillac?
- Max -
=======
Or perhaps a tadpole in a jar, eh?
John Shafto
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, John Shafto wrote:
>
> > Keep in mind also that a negative score on the right/left axis of that
> > quiz makes one something of an economic authoritarian, and economics
> > is really just human interaction and behavior. Control people's economic
> > behavior and you control them socially (and vice versa). The corners of
> > that grid are impossible political positions. There cannot be 100% social
> > freedom with 0% economic freedom (or vice versa), those two elements
> > of political freedom are really inseperable in practice.
> >
>
> I think maybe you mean that 2 of those corners are impossible, because 2
> of them are possible, it seems: 100% social freedom (anarchy) and 100%
> economic freedom (far right wing, on that scale), but we don't see alot of
> people in politics advocating that. Also, 0% social freedom
> (authoritarianism/totalitarianism) and 0% economic freedom
> (communism)...this sounds like Stalin.
Yes.
> > It's no wonder that of the two statist parties in most "liberal" countries, one
> > represents social liberty/economic statism, while the other represents
> > economic liberty/social statism. This way, no matter who wins, we
> > all lose, because their liberty sides are more often than not just
> > window dressing and rhetoric.
> >
>
> I think maybe you are too pessimistic. I would generally fall on the
> social liberty/economic statism side (and my lower left quadrant score on
> the quiz confirms this,
I think that was what the quiz was more or less designed to do,
convince people economic authoritarianism is good, and make
them feel good about believing in it. Just as many would argue the
Libertarian Party version of that quiz ("The World's Smallest") is
pretty much designed to place most people on top of it's tipped
square. Further, their placing Gandhi over there as an example
of the most favored position is indicative as well (what a nice man),
while calling Ayn Rand and "anarchist", and calling freer economics
"law of the jungle right wing" :).
> although I was probably not statistically left of
> center on the economic scale), and I can assure you my social liberty
> attitudes are not just window dressing for a subversive communistic
> agenda - because its my social liberties attitudes that I feel much more
> strongly about (hence my stronger score on the social scale -5.49).
> This is also why I get annoyed by people who call liberals "communists",
> because I consider myself a liberal (in the same quad as Ghandi, its
> probably true), but certainly am not communist. It seems to me that it
> reflects only paranoia that the social liberty positions of these people,
> are as you say, just window dressing - and window dressing implies its
> there to cover up something more insidious or subversive, and in this
> case, its communism. I think if put like that, its quite over-stated.
I was referring more to politicians and political hacks than individual
left-liberals, with the window dressing comment. I know many left-liberals,
and I agree that their concern is primarily with social liberty. They usually
envision the right as a bunch of authoritarians, just as the right so often
views the left as a bunch of authoritarians, that is what we are all supposed
to think. The state can't progress it's power without bad guys and a cause. :)
Most regular people in this country are quite liberal (in the true sense),
and they move "left" or "right" based on what other people tell them is the
side most conducive to their liberty. Trouble is, it's a sham, liberty is not in
the game in DC much at all (left or right). With very few exceptions.
Growing the bureacracy and politician's "accomplishments" are there is
to the game.
> > (Some of the Dems have realized the awaking in this area and started calling
> > themselves "fiscal conservatives and social liberals" for the upcoming
> > elections, but listen closely to what they really mean by 'fiscal conservativism',
> > or even 'social liberalism' for that matter. :)
> >
>
> see above - it just sounds like you won't trust a dem, not matter what.
I can see the Dems voting records, and hear their twisted rhetoric,
it is more often dishonest than the some of the libertarian Republicans,
but not more so than "moderate" Republicans. I think it is time
for a new party, but doubt that will happen, so would like to see both
parties get in a competition over who can be the most [truely] liberal,
rather than who has the best idea for new government programs,
or social engineering tax/social incentives, or who can land that
next big federal program for their state (thereby compromising the
closer local power people have over their state/local govts).
> (for that matter, I agree there are some dems whose ideas about social
> liberty are quite appalling and whose economic ideas are too far left, but
> not nearly all, and not this dem)
Voting records, and rhetoric of the hacks, speaks volumes to me.
There are seldom good arguments in politics anymore (I watch C-Span
from time to time also), only dogma, mantras, talking points, and trying
to fuck with people's perceptions.
Sad really (but there is always hope, because the pols usually get
smacked eventually, one way or another.)
John Shafto
>
> Try this one too: http://www.politopia.com/
>
> The Professor (friends of mine)
Surprise, surprise, my star was touching Ayn Rand's name,
way up there in the North West (just SE of Anarchoville). :)
California sure would be about in the right place if that were the states.
I like the format much better, more straight forward, less emotional.
Having to agree or disagree with a single statement is much
more limiting (manipulative).
That would be the right format for such a test, but it needs some
more questions, and even more answers/choices in a few places.
John Shafto
> 7/4" <> wrote
> > "Law of the jungle right-wing" describes some of my sociopolitical
> > views, mostly on crime and protection, though not many of my economic
> > ones. I was also surprised to see this survey imply ("jungle") that
> > humans are just another species of animal.
>
> That is a completely loaded characterization of "right wing economics."
> Completely loaded. Seems to reveal something about the site, I'd say.
Apparently, free people are a bunch of animals!
No manners at all, none. :)
(Jefferson's opponents called him an "Anarchist" too.)
Daniel McConnell
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, John Shafto wrote:
I agree, and I prefer it to the other 2 tests posted here.
Interestingly, I came out the same on this one as on the other two, more
or less.
I'm sitting fairly center on the N/S line, regarding economic issues.
Actually, I'm about even with George W on that dimension (whoda thunk it).
On this dimension, I'm a little less left than the other political quiz,
but if the other one has leftist biases, then this could be about right -
I'm still fairly centrist anyway.
And on the "personal freedoms" dimensions, I'm fairly west of center, a
little more than Drew Carey (?) and not as far as Ayn Rand. Really about
halfway out, matching the other quiz nearly exactly.
I wonder where I'd be if I'd answered the immigration question
differently...I answered B (increase current regulations)...I'm not sure
how I really feel about that one though, a difficult one...part of me
wants to answer E (pretty much wide open borders) and be progressive, but
with terrorists running around, I don't think so.
7/4
My damn hat cost $45 (it's a Magritte/Clockwork Orange/stereotypical
British bowler).
(Actually, I can't stand Zep, but I like some Plant songs that I didn't
know were Plant till I saw them on VH-1 Classic.)
Canis melas
The Professor
news:70110B7D89189883.81F4F67A...@lp.airnews.net...
> Actually fascism is the extreme of conservatism just as communism is the
> extreme of liberalism. Now are all conservatives fascist? No. Are all
> fascists conservative? Yes, in the extreme.
>
> Usually these names are a smear tactic so deftly used these days by
> conservatives when painting somebody with the "L" word (liberal).
>
> Fascist- see Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Tom Delay.
And why leave off Lenin and Stalin if you are going to include Mao and Pol
Pot? They all go together, although I'd rather lump ALL of them as
totalitarians than break them out by fascist or communist. After all,
calling most of those mass murders communist is an insult to Marx.
And as much as I dislike him, Tom DeLay is NOT a fascist. Very
conservative, yes, but not a fascist.
The Professor (if he's a fascist, Paul Wellstone is a Stalinist)
Scott Erb
"Daniel McConnell" <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020816...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...
>
>
heh-heh, no one comes close to my -8.15 on the authoritarian/libertarian
scale. But my -2.0 on the left/right economic scale is pretty similar to a
lot of people's.
Scott Erb
"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:ulqdkdj...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> The problem with that circle scale, or any scale really that limits the
> spectrum between "extreme right" and "extreme left (in common parlance)
> is that one must fall somewhere between the Nazis and the Commies.
I still say politics is multi-dimensional, and all our 'scales' are
artifacts that simplify to make things easier to understand, but don't
really explain the whole picture.
> Certainly not a place where I want to be, but that false dichotomy has
> worked wonderfully for statists of all stripes these last 100 or so years.
> No one wants to be "extreme", so limit the spectrum, and declare
> "moderate" the best place to be (sounds reasonable), and there they will
go.
> Thought your teacher might have just been trying to put the Nazis and
> Commies next to each other on the scale, where they belong.
They are very different ideologically and philosophically, as I've
explained. They had similarities as well, as each thought their particular
view of reality should be the one all followed. One can recognize those
similarities, but can't ignore the differences.
> The political line should be from [true] anarchism to totalitarianism,
There is no one dichotomous political line. There is no one ideology of
anarchism (most anarchists are leftists, anarcho-capitalism is a minority
amongst anarchists, for instance). Totalitarianism can have many different
ideological forms.
> with each desired use of state (economic or social) moving one some
Not every one of these focuses on the "state." The "state" is a recent
construction (the modern sovereign nation-state coming into existence after
the thirty years war in 1648), but the issues of power go way back. Power
is the main issue, and power can be used to oppress and deny liberty by both
state and non-state actors.
> measure further up the line. But the social/economic split can be
> instructive, and leave people with a greater understanding of what
> their pols really represent.
>
> Keep in mind also that a negative score on the right/left axis of that
> quiz makes one something of an economic authoritarian, and economics
> is really just human interaction and behavior. Control people's economic
> behavior and you control them socially (and vice versa).
But left-libertarians believe that capitalism is more controlling and
limiting of freedom because those with money and power are able to make the
calls. Government must regulate and limit that in order to grant more
economic freedom to average folk. You may disagree with that belief, but
disagreement with the belief doesn't make the belief wrong. That's the
ideological difference -- each side wants to maximize freedom and limit
power by the those who can abuse power.
>The corners of
> that grid are impossible political positions. There cannot be 100% social
> freedom with 0% economic freedom (or vice versa), those two elements
> of political freedom are really inseperable in practice.
There is no agreement on what economic freedom is. Pure capitalism is seen
by some as economic freedom, others see it as a way the wealthy and powerful
can oppress and limit the economic freedom of the weak working class. So
there is no clear distinction, these are real differences that have no
obvious answer or solution.
> It's no wonder that of the two statist parties in most "liberal"
countries, one
> represents social liberty/economic statism, while the other represents
> economic liberty/social statism. This way, no matter who wins, we
> all lose, because their liberty sides are more often than not just
> window dressing and rhetoric.
But the ultra-capitalists can be accused of having liberty skewed to those
with wealth and power. Most people left and right share basic ideals. But
they disagree on how reality operates, and how these ideals are defined.
And, so far, no one has found a way to conclusively and scientifically
settle these disputes.
Tommy Paine
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I'm -6.5 on economic left/right and -6.00 on
authoritarian/libertarian.
No surprise there :)
---------------------------------
"The simple believeth every word:
but the prudent man looketh well
to his going."
Pr.14:15
Mike Smith
news:ulqnjql...@corp.supernews.com...
> "The Professor" <> wrote
> >
>
> > Try this one too: http://www.politopia.com/
> >
> > The Professor (friends of mine)
>
> Surprise, surprise, my star was touching Ayn Rand's name,
> way up there in the North West (just SE of Anarchoville). :)
Howdy, neighbor. (Surprise, surprise.)
--
Mike Smith
There are perhaps 5% of the population that simply *can't* think.
There are another 5% who *can*, and *do*.
The remaining 90% *can* think, but *don't*.
-- R. A. Heinlein
Jim Geiger
Yep. :)
________________________________
Jim Geiger - back among the living
my band page:
John Shafto
>
> And as much as I dislike him, Tom DeLay is NOT a fascist. Very
> conservative, yes, but not a fascist.
>
> The Professor (if he's a fascist, Paul Wellstone is a Stalinist)
Blah, they're all fascists!
Wellstone's grandparents even moved to MN from Stalin's Russia,
I think they were planted here... :)
(hail the nation state!)
John Shafto
>
> "John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
> news:ulqdkdj...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > The problem with that circle scale, or any scale really that limits the
> > spectrum between "extreme right" and "extreme left (in common parlance)
> > is that one must fall somewhere between the Nazis and the Commies.
>
> I still say politics is multi-dimensional, and all our 'scales' are
> artifacts that simplify to make things easier to understand, but don't
> really explain the whole picture.
IOW, you don't understand politics.
> > Certainly not a place where I want to be, but that false dichotomy has
> > worked wonderfully for statists of all stripes these last 100 or so years.
> > No one wants to be "extreme", so limit the spectrum, and declare
> > "moderate" the best place to be (sounds reasonable), and there they will
> go.
> > Thought your teacher might have just been trying to put the Nazis and
> > Commies next to each other on the scale, where they belong.
>
> They are very different ideologically and philosophically, as I've
> explained.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
> They had similarities as well, as each thought their particular
> view of reality should be the one all followed. One can recognize those
> similarities, but can't ignore the differences.
The differences are largely irrelevant, they are non essential
characterictics. The commies and fascists hated each other
because they were two sides of the same coin fighting for
power in the same region. They blew the differences way
out of proportion in order to differentiate themselves, but to
true liberal Americans of the time, they all looked like a bunch
of raving lunatics, with a fundamentally similar philosophy.
Mussolini was a leader in the commie party, Hitler also learned
his economics from Marx. A totalitarian is a totalitarian is a totalitarian.
The differences are preserved by modern statist hacks who want us
all to fall somewhere between the two shades of totalitarianism,
in short, they want us all to support totalitarianism.
> > The political line should be from [true] anarchism to totalitarianism,
>
> There is no one dichotomous political line. There is no one ideology of
> anarchism (most anarchists are leftists, anarcho-capitalism is a minority
> amongst anarchists, for instance). Totalitarianism can have many different
> ideological forms.
Anarchy is anarchy, and "left-anarchists" want nothing even close
to anarchy. I have debated countless left anarchists, and there
economic plans always come out in the end (only they avoid calling
their coercive collectivist visions "states").
I don't care about the means to the end of totalitarianism,
it is what it is, and regardless whether the state uses social statism,
economic statism, or some mix of the two, the end is the same.
Total social AND economic control of the people by the state.
> > with each desired use of state (economic or social) moving one some
>
> Not every one of these focuses on the "state." The "state" is a recent
> construction (the modern sovereign nation-state coming into existence after
> the thirty years war in 1648), but the issues of power go way back. Power
> is the main issue, and power can be used to oppress and deny liberty by both
> state and non-state actors.
"Non state actors" who opress do so entirely by using the state's
power, in fact they are merely tools of the state. The state always
has the upper hand, but they do make pacts, because they can,
because we give them too much power. Keep in mind, I think the
state should be used to prevent rights violations and initiations
of force, but most of economic 'left' seems to see anyone having
more than anyone else as some kind of force, intrinsically. We all
have a right to resond to force with force, that is why we created
states (and support collective power), but when the state becomes
a legalized criminal, throwing morality out the window for their own
ends, there is a problem. The state has become the thugs we
hired them to protect us from.
> > measure further up the line. But the social/economic split can be
> > instructive, and leave people with a greater understanding of what
> > their pols really represent.
> >
> > Keep in mind also that a negative score on the right/left axis of that
> > quiz makes one something of an economic authoritarian, and economics
> > is really just human interaction and behavior. Control people's economic
> > behavior and you control them socially (and vice versa).
>
> But left-libertarians believe that capitalism is more controlling and
> limiting of freedom because those with money and power are able to make the
> calls.
What calls? You mean a few have more control of our out of control
government? Surprise surprise. Statists made their bed by growing the
government, now they must lie in it. They should have listened to
Tommy Jefferson. Instead they advocate more state to fix the problems
they created by growing the state into too many areas that have nothing
to do with people's legitimate rights of action (life, liberty, and property).
> Government must regulate and limit that in order to grant more
> economic freedom to average folk.
Baaahahaha! :)
I'm average folk, and they take at least half my labor away from me.
No private company does that without giving me something in return,
and only if I want what they have to offer.
> You may disagree with that belief, but disagreement with the belief
> doesn't make the belief wrong.
No, but if you would like, I (and several others here) can tell you
why that belief is wrong. Economically, morally, and otherwise.
> That's the ideological difference -- each side wants to maximize
> freedom and limit power by the those who can abuse power.
The first trick is to realize who really has the power, who's 'business'
has grown more than any other ever, who's books have never been
balanced, who has and causes more monopolies than anyone else.
Yes my friend, look no further than your beloved state. They would
prefer you didn't of course, they want you to fear people in civil
society, like yourself, and it appears you do.
> >The corners of
> > that grid are impossible political positions. There cannot be 100% social
> > freedom with 0% economic freedom (or vice versa), those two elements
> > of political freedom are really inseperable in practice.
>
> There is no agreement on what economic freedom is.
Agreement doesn't make something right, reason does.
> Pure capitalism is seen by some as economic freedom, others
> see it as a way the wealthy and powerful can oppress and limit the
> economic freedom of the weak working class. So there is no clear
> distinction, these are real differences that have no obvious answer
> or solution.
I have some answers, which may or may not be obvious to
those who fear to see them.
> > It's no wonder that of the two statist parties in most "liberal"
> countries, one
> > represents social liberty/economic statism, while the other represents
> > economic liberty/social statism. This way, no matter who wins, we
> > all lose, because their liberty sides are more often than not just
> > window dressing and rhetoric.
>
> But the ultra-capitalists can be accused of having liberty skewed to those
> with wealth and power.
Sure, they can be accused of anything.
> Most people left and right share basic ideals. But
> they disagree on how reality operates, and how these ideals are defined.
> And, so far, no one has found a way to conclusively and scientifically
> settle these disputes.
Jefferson, Madison, Von Mises, Hayek, and Ayn Rand (among others)
came pretty damn close.
Scott Erb
"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:9Ri79.15517$Ke2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
> > news:ulqdkdj...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > The problem with that circle scale, or any scale really that limits
the
> > > spectrum between "extreme right" and "extreme left (in common
parlance)
> > > is that one must fall somewhere between the Nazis and the Commies.
> >
> > I still say politics is multi-dimensional, and all our 'scales' are
> > artifacts that simplify to make things easier to understand, but don't
> > really explain the whole picture.
>
> IOW, you don't understand politics.
Why do you say that? That's the way politics is understood by most, that's
how it's taught. That's what the text books say, that's what the scholars
say. I should know: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb
That doesn't mean all these texts and experts aren't wrong -- perhaps they
are. But you can't just assert it.
> > > Certainly not a place where I want to be, but that false dichotomy has
> > > worked wonderfully for statists of all stripes these last 100 or so
years.
> > > No one wants to be "extreme", so limit the spectrum, and declare
> > > "moderate" the best place to be (sounds reasonable), and there they
will
> > go.
> > > Thought your teacher might have just been trying to put the Nazis and
> > > Commies next to each other on the scale, where they belong.
> >
> > They are very different ideologically and philosophically, as I've
> > explained.
>
> I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
Would you like me to point you to texts on political ideology that claim
otherwise? I made the argument on how they were different earlier in this
thread. Can you refute it?
> > They had similarities as well, as each thought their particular
> > view of reality should be the one all followed. One can recognize those
> > similarities, but can't ignore the differences.
>
> The differences are largely irrelevant, they are non essential
> characterictics.
Again, you need to do more than assert it. The differences are real and
deep, as I explained earlier in the thread. You need to refute that rather
than assert.
> The commies and fascists hated each other
> because they were two sides of the same coin fighting for
> power in the same region. They blew the differences way
> out of proportion in order to differentiate themselves, but to
> true liberal Americans of the time, they all looked like a bunch
> of raving lunatics, with a fundamentally similar philosophy.
> Mussolini was a leader in the commie party, Hitler also learned
> his economics from Marx. A totalitarian is a totalitarian is a
totalitarian.
> The differences are preserved by modern statist hacks who want us
> all to fall somewhere between the two shades of totalitarianism,
> in short, they want us all to support totalitarianism.
You're making a lot of wild assertions (especially the "Hitler learned his
economics from Marx" bit -- that's totally absurd and wrong). Where are you
getting this? Do you know how far you are from the accepted historical
view? And you're doing this only via assertion, no evidence or argument.
That dog don't hunt.
The rest of your post is also misguided, but, again, I have to answer it
later since I really am running out of time this morning!
Scott Erb
"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:9Ri79.15517$Ke2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
>
> to anarchy.
Again an assertion.
> I have debated countless left anarchists, and there
> economic plans always come out in the end (only they avoid calling
> their coercive collectivist visions "states").
And capitalists anarchists either have a naive faith that the market will
work like magic, or that power exercised by 'government' is somehow the only
problem. Government is people. People organizing to have power. People
will do that no matter what the context, and the irony of a pure anarchy is
that unless you have a culture that accepts it and makes it work, it will
devolve into some kind of governance system. At least, all the evidence
from history, psychology, and social science suggest that. It would be an
unstable system, unless again you had cultural beliefs that would reinforce
it.
> I don't care about the means to the end of totalitarianism,
> it is what it is, and regardless whether the state uses social statism,
> economic statism, or some mix of the two, the end is the same.
> Total social AND economic control of the people by the state.
Which Communism had, but fascism does not. Fascism is different.
> > > with each desired use of state (economic or social) moving one some
> >
> > Not every one of these focuses on the "state." The "state" is a recent
> > construction (the modern sovereign nation-state coming into existence
after
> > the thirty years war in 1648), but the issues of power go way back.
Power
> > is the main issue, and power can be used to oppress and deny liberty by
both
> > state and non-state actors.
>
> "Non state actors" who opress do so entirely by using the state's
> power, in fact they are merely tools of the state.
You're wrong. That's the fallacy of "trying to blame everything on
government." The fact governments exist mean you can always find a way to
interpret reality to blame government for an outcome, that is analysis that
is NOT objective, and designed to promote your particular bias. It is
sloppy reasoning.
The reality is that even when there is NO EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT (no rule of
law) actors emerge that grab power and use force to try to expand power and
abuse others. Mafia gangs, or street gangs -- all nascent forms of
governance but not states. That's what happens in real world anarchies.
>The state always
> has the upper hand, but they do make pacts, because they can,
> because we give them too much power. Keep in mind, I think the
> state should be used to prevent rights violations and initiations
> of force, but most of economic 'left' seems to see anyone having
> more than anyone else as some kind of force, intrinsically. We all
But that's the crux then -- you think the state should do some things to
create a system that you believe will work better. Others think the state
should do other things. The fact is that neither side can simply assume
they are right (each often does, humans are very good at having faith in
that which they believe, even to the point of convincing themselves they are
infallible and have found 'the way'), and therefore the only solution to the
problem is political. Social science, philosophy and even art and poetry
can provide evidence and ways to try to convincne, but nothing can give a
"right answer" -- at least, no one has accomplished that yet.
My view: democracy is the best path (a democratic republic) because we can
hold the use of power by the state accountable to the people, and we can
correct mistakes as we go (eliminate slavery, give women the right to vote,
etc.) I think anything else would devolve into a type of authoritarianism
or revolution. Democracies aren't easy to establish, they also rely on a
culture of compromise and tolerance of different views. But once
established, history suggests strongly that they are more effective than
anything else. They work.
> have a right to resond to force with force, that is why we created
> states (and support collective power), but when the state becomes
> a legalized criminal, throwing morality out the window for their own
> ends, there is a problem. The state has become the thugs we
> hired them to protect us from.
That's why we need strong democratic oversight, and a strong voice for the
people. I do think the problem in the US is the state is too big -- I'd
prefer ten or twelve little countries at least, all with decentralized forms
of decision making, openness, and strong oversight. But we're not
impotent -- people still vote, they still do have oversight and can impact
the state. If people really hated taxation, they could vote to eliminate
it.
> > But left-libertarians believe that capitalism is more controlling and
> > limiting of freedom because those with money and power are able to make
the
> > calls.
>
> What calls? You mean a few have more control of our out of control
> government? Surprise surprise. Statists made their bed by growing the
> government, now they must lie in it.
Go back to when factories had caches of arms, and would beat up those who
dare strike, and use force to control whole towns. Power is the problem.
Power is exercised and can be abused by humans -- humans are humans if in
government or in business, and at least in government we can have laws and
oversight.
> They should have listened to
> Tommy Jefferson. Instead they advocate more state to fix the problems
> they created by growing the state into too many areas that have nothing
> to do with people's legitimate rights of action (life, liberty, and
>property).
There is disagreement on what those rights mean and how best to protect
them -- or even if those three rights are all there should be. You can't
just assert a view and expect all others to agree!
> > Government must regulate and limit that in order to grant more
> > economic freedom to average folk.
>
> Baaahahaha! :)
>
> I'm average folk, and they take at least half my labor away from me.
> No private company does that without giving me something in return,
> and only if I want what they have to offer.
That is your perspective -- vote on it, argue for your position, but the US
has achieved the economic growth (as has western Europe) of the last fifty
years in an era of active government support for infrastructure and social
stability. Absent that, half your labor now might be 100 times what your
labor would get you in a different context. The stability and efficacy of
markets and economic relations requires rule of law and stability.
> > You may disagree with that belief, but disagreement with the belief
> > doesn't make the belief wrong.
>
> No, but if you would like, I (and several others here) can tell you
> why that belief is wrong. Economically, morally, and otherwise.
I've seen all those arguments, analyzed them, and found them wanting. Give
your best shot, and I'll deal fairly with your argument and show you why I
do not find it compelling.
> > That's the ideological difference -- each side wants to maximize
> > freedom and limit power by the those who can abuse power.
>
> The first trick is to realize who really has the power, who's 'business'
> has grown more than any other ever, who's books have never been
> balanced, who has and causes more monopolies than anyone else.
> Yes my friend, look no further than your beloved state. They would
> prefer you didn't of course, they want you to fear people in civil
> society, like yourself, and it appears you do.
You really have a very biased understanding of reality -- you seem to
imagine negative traits to those who don't share your perspective (they are
afraid -- you imagine they live in fear and somehow don't see what seems
clear to you). That is often a sign of 'true believerism' -- when someone
'coverts' to an ideology so fully that they start thinking they are able to
see and understand things that most people don't. It's a sense of
superiority which reinforces their belief. It leads to seeing those who
don't share the belief as somehow inferior -- sheep, fearful, weak.
Most people are not that. Most people have a reasonable understanding of
the situation. They just don't have the same approach you do to analyzing
and interpreting it. Now, I'm not a patriot nor do I love any state. As I
said, I'd prefer decentralized governance. But I do think that given the
current state of culture and society, government is inevitable. It's form
can be many things -- but the most successful and stable form is some kind
of democratic republic based on respecting individual rights and
guaranteeing participation.
> > >The corners of
> > > that grid are impossible political positions. There cannot be 100%
social
> > > freedom with 0% economic freedom (or vice versa), those two elements
> > > of political freedom are really inseperable in practice.
> >
> > There is no agreement on what economic freedom is.
>
> Agreement doesn't make something right, reason does.
Reason can be used to make a lot of things seem right, depending on your
starting assumptions and definitions. Argument is important because a lot
of people get caught up in their own belief that they have reasoned
correctly when they haven't -- or when they haven't considered that their
initial assumptions and definitions might be wrong. Argument helps people
reflect on their reasoning and improve it, often changing their view as they
see where they have made errors, or if something is more convincing. Avoid
people who try to deny the legitimacy of that endeavor, or who want to
control how terms are defined and the parameters of debate. They are
usually trying to defend a view based solely on their definitions and
assumptions, not wanting to question them. If you choose the right
definitions and assumptions you can pre-program your reasoning to give you
almost any answer you want.
> > Pure capitalism is seen by some as economic freedom, others
> > see it as a way the wealthy and powerful can oppress and limit the
> > economic freedom of the weak working class. So there is no clear
> > distinction, these are real differences that have no obvious answer
> > or solution.
>
> I have some answers, which may or may not be obvious to
> those who fear to see them.
It's so easy to dismiss generations of scholars and citizens by just saying
that they 'fear' an answer. Very convenient. But wrong. Most of us don't
'fear' these issues, we just don't necessarily buy your faith.
> > Most people left and right share basic ideals. But
> > they disagree on how reality operates, and how these ideals are defined.
> > And, so far, no one has found a way to conclusively and scientifically
> > settle these disputes.
>
> Jefferson, Madison, Von Mises, Hayek, and Ayn Rand (among others)
> came pretty damn close.
Your opinion is noted. I disagree completely. You have a perspective, a
belief system through which you are interpreting all of these issues. Learn
to question it and think critically about it -- don't just use it like a
religion to interpret the world and criticize others.
The Professor
>
> > I don't care about the means to the end of totalitarianism,
> > it is what it is, and regardless whether the state uses social statism,
> > economic statism, or some mix of the two, the end is the same.
> > Total social AND economic control of the people by the state.
>
> Which Communism had, but fascism does not. Fascism is different.
Actually, I'd deny that the communists ever HAD total "control." The point
is that total control of the economy (and the culture, I'd add) is simply
impossible. One can aspire to it, one can make it part of one's ideology,
but it simply cannot be achieved, neither by one person alone, one party
alone, or the people in a democracy.
In the following sense, I do think communists and fascists shared much:
they both distrusted the market, and profoundly so. Their solutions were
marginally different, but they did share a belief that strong state
intervention was necessary and could be effective toward their ends.
Fascists tended to at least preserve *nominal* private property, while
communists/socialists did not, but in reality, much of the actual *power*
(as distinct from control) rested in the hands of the state. Still, even
with a great deal of power, both kinds of regimes were subject to many
undesirable (from their point of view) unintended consequences, hence their
inability to deliver the goods.
De jure, fascism preserved some notion of private property, but de facto it
was meaningless. THAT is what, in my view, they share.
<snip>
> >
> > Jefferson, Madison, Von Mises, Hayek, and Ayn Rand (among others)
> > came pretty damn close.
>
> Your opinion is noted. I disagree completely. You have a perspective, a
> belief system through which you are interpreting all of these issues.
Learn
> to question it and think critically about it -- don't just use it like a
> religion to interpret the world and criticize others.
Recognizing the contingent nature of social scientific claims, I'd like to
see the argument that refutes Mises and Hayek's arguments about the
impossibility of economic planning, whether by a small group or
democratically. (Rand gets tossed out mainly because she contributed
nothing original on this issue.) You disagreed with him Scott, and I'd like
to hear the argument against the Mises-Hayek critique of planning. I know
this literature inside out (and in fact have contributed to it) and I've yet
to see an adequate response.
In the end, if one does not trust the market, some form of planning is the
alternative. The planning might be attempted democratically, so I'm not
saying the alternative to a market is some form of dictatorship or one-party
rule. What I am saying is that *successful* economic planning is not
possible. There is plenty of theory and plenty of history to support that
claim, and I've yet to see an effective counter-argument.
The Professor (it's lunch time)
Scott Erb
"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message
news:9xu79.46071$vg.11...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:sJt79.16232$Ke2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > > I don't care about the means to the end of totalitarianism,
> > > it is what it is, and regardless whether the state uses social
statism,
> > > economic statism, or some mix of the two, the end is the same.
> > > Total social AND economic control of the people by the state.
> >
> > Which Communism had, but fascism does not. Fascism is different.
>
> Actually, I'd deny that the communists ever HAD total "control." The
point
> is that total control of the economy (and the culture, I'd add) is simply
> impossible. One can aspire to it, one can make it part of one's ideology,
> but it simply cannot be achieved, neither by one person alone, one party
> alone, or the people in a democracy.
>
> In the following sense, I do think communists and fascists shared much:
> they both distrusted the market, and profoundly so.
As do traditional conservatives and some other ideologies. Few trust the
market as much as you do ;-)
> Their solutions were
> marginally different, but they did share a belief that strong state
> intervention was necessary and could be effective toward their ends.
I don't think that's exactly right. The fascists didn't see the economy as
the reason for the state, they were into grandeur and national tradition.
As such they had no problem with markets, business, and all -- as long as
the were motivated and served the "nation." Communists saw economic theory
as their main focus, with distribution and control of the markets necessary
to try to achieve their egalitarian goals. Fascists had no desire for
egalitarianism, they believed all humans had different abilities and a
different role to play, and it was proper some be very rich and others poor.
Social welfare would be necessary only to the extent it could keep the poor
from wanting to revolt or strike (Bismarck's view as well).
> Fascists tended to at least preserve *nominal* private property, while
> communists/socialists did not, but in reality, much of the actual *power*
> (as distinct from control) rested in the hands of the state.
Fascists often had a web of little fiefdoms in terms of state power, while
communism was more centralized. Economic power in fascism often wasn't in
the hands of the state, but since the state had brute police and military
power, that kept those who had economic power from using it in ways that
would anger the state (often with bribes and kickbacks to officials, much
like third world states today).
>Still, even
> with a great deal of power, both kinds of regimes were subject to many
> undesirable (from their point of view) unintended consequences, hence
their
> inability to deliver the goods.
Fascism did OK at first -- but in an unsustainable way. If Hitler hadn't
gone to war, the negative consequences of his economic policies would have
hit by the early forties. It is odd that the VW that Hitler was influential
in designing (watching over Ferdinand Porsche's work) did so well on the
market -- I think it was the number one selling model of the last century.
One wonders how the world might be different if Hitler had gone into auto
design or something like that...
> De jure, fascism preserved some notion of private property, but de facto
it
> was meaningless. THAT is what, in my view, they share.
Meaningless? I wouldn't go that war. It was limited -- but clever folk
could get away with a lot if they knew who to bribe and had the right
contacts.
> Recognizing the contingent nature of social scientific claims, I'd like to
> see the argument that refutes Mises and Hayek's arguments about the
> impossibility of economic planning, whether by a small group or
> democratically. (Rand gets tossed out mainly because she contributed
> nothing original on this issue.) You disagreed with him Scott, and I'd
like
> to hear the argument against the Mises-Hayek critique of planning. I know
> this literature inside out (and in fact have contributed to it) and I've
yet
> to see an adequate response.
It's been awhile since I read Hayek, I don't know the specifics of his
argument enough to give a detailed response. I certainly agree (based on
the characteristics of bureaucracies) that any kind of centralized planning
is going to be riddled with inefficiencies, and hence economic policy should
be specific and not over ambitious.
> In the end, if one does not trust the market, some form of planning is the
> alternative.
I think there is no perfect system, but the mixed economy has shown the
capacity to do very well, if managed well. I see no reason to think a
pure market economy would do better -- especially not in dealing with things
like social justice and ethics.
>The planning might be attempted democratically, so I'm not
> saying the alternative to a market is some form of dictatorship or
one-party
> rule. What I am saying is that *successful* economic planning is not
> possible. There is plenty of theory and plenty of history to support that
> claim, and I've yet to see an effective counter-argument.
The reality to me is that a market with coherent and rational regulations
works best.
Scott Erb
"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message
news:9xu79.46071$vg.11...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> news:sJt79.16232$Ke2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > > I don't care about the means to the end of totalitarianism,
> > > it is what it is, and regardless whether the state uses social
statism,
> > > economic statism, or some mix of the two, the end is the same.
> > > Total social AND economic control of the people by the state.
> >
> > Which Communism had, but fascism does not. Fascism is different.
>
> Actually, I'd deny that the communists ever HAD total "control." The
point
> is that total control of the economy (and the culture, I'd add) is simply
> impossible. One can aspire to it, one can make it part of one's ideology,
> but it simply cannot be achieved, neither by one person alone, one party
> alone, or the people in a democracy.
>
> In the following sense, I do think communists and fascists shared much:
> they both distrusted the market, and profoundly so.
As do traditional conservatives and some other ideologies. Few trust the
market as much as you do ;-)
> Their solutions were
> marginally different, but they did share a belief that strong state
> intervention was necessary and could be effective toward their ends.
I don't think that's exactly right. The fascists didn't see the economy as
the reason for the state, they were into grandeur and national tradition.
As such they had no problem with markets, business, and all -- as long as
the were motivated and served the "nation." Communists saw economic theory
as their main focus, with distribution and control of the markets necessary
to try to achieve their egalitarian goals. Fascists had no desire for
egalitarianism, they believed all humans had different abilities and a
different role to play, and it was proper some be very rich and others poor.
Social welfare would be necessary only to the extent it could keep the poor
from wanting to revolt or strike (Bismarck's view as well).
> Fascists tended to at least preserve *nominal* private property, while
> communists/socialists did not, but in reality, much of the actual *power*
> (as distinct from control) rested in the hands of the state.
Fascists often had a web of little fiefdoms in terms of state power, while
communism was more centralized. Economic power in fascism often wasn't in
the hands of the state, but since the state had brute police and military
power, that kept those who had economic power from using it in ways that
would anger the state (often with bribes and kickbacks to officials, much
like third world states today).
>Still, even
> with a great deal of power, both kinds of regimes were subject to many
> undesirable (from their point of view) unintended consequences, hence
their
> inability to deliver the goods.
Fascism did OK at first -- but in an unsustainable way. If Hitler hadn't
gone to war, the negative consequences of his economic policies would have
hit by the early forties. It is odd that the VW that Hitler was influential
in designing (watching over Ferdinand Porsche's work) did so well on the
market -- I think it was the number one selling model of the last century.
One wonders how the world might be different if Hitler had gone into auto
design or something like that...
> De jure, fascism preserved some notion of private property, but de facto
it
> was meaningless. THAT is what, in my view, they share.
Meaningless? I wouldn't go that war. It was limited -- but clever folk
could get away with a lot if they knew who to bribe and had the right
contacts.
> Recognizing the contingent nature of social scientific claims, I'd like to
> see the argument that refutes Mises and Hayek's arguments about the
> impossibility of economic planning, whether by a small group or
> democratically. (Rand gets tossed out mainly because she contributed
> nothing original on this issue.) You disagreed with him Scott, and I'd
like
> to hear the argument against the Mises-Hayek critique of planning. I know
> this literature inside out (and in fact have contributed to it) and I've
yet
> to see an adequate response.
It's been awhile since I read Hayek, I don't know the specifics of his
argument enough to give a detailed response. I certainly agree (based on
the characteristics of bureaucracies) that any kind of centralized planning
is going to be riddled with inefficiencies, and hence economic policy should
be specific and not over ambitious.
> In the end, if one does not trust the market, some form of planning is the
> alternative.
I think there is no perfect system, but the mixed economy has shown the
capacity to do very well, if managed well. I see no reason to think a
pure market economy would do better -- especially not in dealing with things
like social justice and ethics.
>The planning might be attempted democratically, so I'm not
> saying the alternative to a market is some form of dictatorship or
one-party
> rule. What I am saying is that *successful* economic planning is not
> possible. There is plenty of theory and plenty of history to support that
> claim, and I've yet to see an effective counter-argument.
The reality to me is that a market with coherent and rational regulations
works best.
> The Professor (it's lunch time)
>
>
>
John Shafto
>
> "The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message
> > > Fascism is an irrationalist ideology that focuses on emotional
> connection
> > to
> > > the traditions, culture, or leader of a state. It is intensely
> > > nationalist, and opposed to both communism and socialism. It is the
> idea
> > > that power creates truth, and power is really all that matters. It is
> > > anti-intellectual, with the idea that people need connection with a
> > greater
> > > whole to be satisfied -- and if they achieve that, the whole can awesome
> > > power.
> >
> > Is it *really* opposed to communism and socialism, or just their
> > internationalist aspirations?
>
> alliance with right wing and conservative parties, had support of many
> German business leaders, and didn't run a planned centralized economy (until
> the war when they went to the traditional war economy -- even then, it
> wasn't the kind of centralized bureaucracy the Soviet Union had).
>
> Philosophically, their ideological roots are polar opposites.
Their philosophical roots were both exactly the same, Kant
and german idealism (from another thread in this group, I take
it that is your philosophic basis as well). Economically (ideology),
their roots were also the same, the labor theory of value. Marx,
something of a german idealist himself, saw Ricardo's
confusion, and ran with it. So did both the commies and fascists.
Here's a bunch of connection, with quotes and such, but if you
need more, I have some on my computer I can whip out as
the need presents itself....
http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/marx_hitler.htm
> Marxism was an objectivist ideology which tried to use reason and
> science to understand the true laws of history and economics. He
> was wrong, of course, but the emphasis was on reason and science
> -- rationality.
Of course Marx was wrong, because the science/rationality facade
was just that, a facade. The philosophy behind Marx was one of
mysticism and using rationalism (german idealism) to prop up
their hatred of liberal democracy (and consequently the Jews,
who were the personification of capitalism in Europe).
> Fascism was irrational,
So was Communism.
> rejected that approach, and focused on power and will, with emotion not
> reason the key.
There were some differences, I don't deny that, but what I deny is
that they were in any way meaningful differences. Both forms of
totalitarianism are demagogic and appeals to people emotions
much more than reason.
> There was indeed the nationalist-internationalist split,
> but fascism was anti-intellectual, while communism was the darling of
> intellectuals even more than workers.
You call commie lovers 'intellectuals'? I call them idealists, mystics.
> Communism wanted a classless
> egalitarian society. fascism believed that class differences were natural,
> and emotional commitment to the leader, party or state would be enough to
> satisfy the lower classes, they didn't need or deserve material improvement.
That is not what the Nazis claimed, nor how they secured their democratic
victories. You can claim that was all a lie, propaganda to obtain power, while
at the same time asserting that the commies really believed theirs, but that
would just expose your bias. I think they both believed their propaganda,
and that neither cared if reality and facts didn't support their views.
> Theres more. They were both dictatorial and brutal, and the tactics used to
> enforce that dictatorial power were often similar. But the ideologies are
> not.
Only in the fantasies of modern day Neo-Marxists.
What I find so humorous is that almost no one will call themselves
a Marxist anymore, but so many will defend German idealism, and
the roots of Marxism, trying to find a way to get around the economic
problems, while holding onto the demagogic idealism.
> > If you look at the National Socialist
> German
> > Workers Party platforms in the 20s, they look awfully "socialist" in the
> > sense that they share many of the means and ends of socialists, but simply
> > wish to apply them to the fatherland alone. That is, "nation" is more
> > important than "class."
>
> You can't really look at their platform to find out what they really wanted.
> Their platform was an act of propaganda.
And the Communist platorm(s) weren't?
> Look at the name they took --
> National Socialist -- they put the term socialist in there (sort of like
> East Germany used 'German Democratic Republic') as a propaganda tool to try
> to appeal to workers. There was even a left wing of the party which in the
> 20's took the socialist aspirations seriously -- they were liquidated as
> Hitler came to power. A good and fascinating description of this and in
> general Germany (specifically Berlin) in the 1920s is Otto Friedrich's
> "Before the Deluge."
>
> > Their fierce nationalism allows them to be opposed to elements of
> socialism,
> > despite, in my view, actually buying many of its core claims, and opposed
> to
> > capitalism, which as all good socialists have recognized, is relentlessly
> > international as well.
>
> They shared some elements with socialism, and of course they grew out of
> conservatism and right wing/nationalist thought (and conservatives, for much
> different reasons, opposed liberalism and capitalism).
They grew out of Karl Marx, and saw themselves as far left of those
damned Liberal [Jewish] Capitalists, and their incarnation in America.
Never-the-less, I agree that both were really very conservative ideologies.
The late 19th and early 20th century totalitarians took over the left (which
is why our modern conceptions of left and right are so torked), but they
were NOT liberal in the traditional sense. They just had ideas of how
to become the establishment themselves, to take the power and it worked.
Instead of taking the guns [force] away from the establishment, they wanted
the guns themselves. Just like modern day Islamic fundementalists.
> It's a
> multidimensional diverse world, political ideologies. People tend to group
> things together more than they should, and try to fit politics on simplistic
> axes when its actually extremely varied.
Other people try to drive a wedge between fundamentally similar
ideologies, because they hate one, and love the other. All the time,
saying things like, "We can't really know anything anyway, so shut up."
> > It's also worth noting that in the Nazi case, Jews could be an easy target
> > because they were frequently capitalists and frequently involved in the
> > socialist movement.
>
> Not to mention frequent long term victims of bigotry and discrimination.
> Ironically, Germany gave Jews more freedom to move to high positions, and
> was more tolerant of Jews than many other countries in Europe. The Kaiser
> visited Israel before WWI, and one reason Hitler could use the Jews as
> targets is that Germany had been relatively tolerant. It's also interesting
> how groups suffering discrimination (be it the religious dissidents in
> Britain that ended up starting the industrial revolution, or Jews in
> Germany) often place more emphasis on education and success.
>
> > Hatred of the Jews was then, as it is now in so many
> > parts of the world, a hatred of cosmopolitanism.
>
> More often I think it was pure centuries long bigotry.
I think they hated capitalism, because Europe had many centuries
of feudalism, and the change in the late 18th, early 19th was so
rapid away from it, and those damned burgeousie pricks [and
their supporters, the Jews] were taking over everything.
Marxism and Naziism were both luddite ideology, very conservative.
> >Both socialism and
> > capitalism promised cosmopolitanism, and fascism, as a form of
> nationalism,
> > opposed that.
>
> Yeah -- it was a reaction to modernism, using conservative themes to
> introduce something that actually was anti-conservative
Don't these kinds of contradictions cause a red flag to pop up in
your mind?
> as well as
> anti-liberal and anti-socialist. It denied rationality, it scoffed at
> science and reason, and said, "there is no truth but power and will."
Which is exactly what the socialists said just the same.
"No one can really know anything, we can create reality, take the power!"
(as opposed to fight the power!)
John Shafto
>
> "John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
> news:ulrqhf2...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:9Ri79.15517$Ke2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > "John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
> > > news:ulqdkdj...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The problem with that circle scale, or any scale really that limits
> the
> > > > spectrum between "extreme right" and "extreme left (in common
> parlance)
> > > > is that one must fall somewhere between the Nazis and the Commies.
> > >
> > > I still say politics is multi-dimensional, and all our 'scales' are
> > > artifacts that simplify to make things easier to understand, but don't
> > > really explain the whole picture.
> >
> > IOW, you don't understand politics.
>
> Why do you say that?
Because that is in essence what you are saying, that is how I see
it. "We can't really know anything, why try?"
> That's the way politics is understood by most, that's
> how it's taught. That's what the text books say, that's what the scholars
> say. I should know: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb
"Everybody knows what I am saying is true."
"I should know, I'm part of everybody."
Your credentials don't impress me, reason does.
> That doesn't mean all these texts and experts aren't wrong -- perhaps they
> are. But you can't just assert it.
I'll back it up, when you start asking some questions, or trying to refute
my assertions, rather than just telling me that I am making assertions.
> > > > Certainly not a place where I want to be, but that false dichotomy has
> > > > worked wonderfully for statists of all stripes these last 100 or so
> years.
> > > > No one wants to be "extreme", so limit the spectrum, and declare
> > > > "moderate" the best place to be (sounds reasonable), and there they
> will
> > > go.
> > > > Thought your teacher might have just been trying to put the Nazis and
> > > > Commies next to each other on the scale, where they belong.
> > >
> > > They are very different ideologically and philosophically, as I've
> > > explained.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
>
> Would you like me to point you to texts on political ideology that claim
> otherwise?
Nah, I'd rather see if you know what your talking about.
Offering support for your positions is fine, in the form of facts
not opinions, but don't bother trying to evade argument by
appealing to authority, which seems to be your M/O so far.
> I made the argument on how they were different earlier in this
> thread. Can you refute it?
Been there, done that (to some extent, will do more upon request).
[snip rest, addressed in other post]
Scott Erb
"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:Bcr79.16079$Ke2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
they
> > are. But you can't just assert it.
>
> I'll back it up, when you start asking some questions, or trying to refute
> my assertions, rather than just telling me that I am making assertions.
*shrug* I'm making my arguments and explaining them -- as I have in this
thread. If I hear assertions that seem way off and misguided, I note that.
If I don't know the rationale behind those assertions, and if someone
doesn't try to explain them, I'm often satisfied just stating my opinion and
why.
> > Would you like me to point you to texts on political ideology that claim
> > otherwise?
>
> Nah, I'd rather see if you know what your talking about.
> Offering support for your positions is fine, in the form of facts
> not opinions, but don't bother trying to evade argument by
> appealing to authority, which seems to be your M/O so far.
You're doing even less. I'm point out your assertions are contrary to those
of learned folk who study this for a living, and write the texts our
children learn from. If you assert their wrong, that has no power -- you
haven't made an argument, there is nothing to refute. You won't change
minds that way, and since your view is not widely shared, I can dismiss it
as "well, it takes all kinds."
If you actually make an argument, then I'll consider it. Otherwise, it's
not really worth the time trying to refute unsubstantiated assertions. In
cases like that, appeal to authority usually wins because its stronger than
an unsubstantiated assertion. It doesn't prove the assertion wrong, but
since the assertion isn't backed up, there is no reason to believe it right.
In that case, most people will go with the authority.
Substantiate your assertion with an argument, and then the situation
changes.
Scott Erb
diplomatic niceties in responding. I would also note that except for one
really bad source trying to equate Marx with Hitler (which really didn't
support the points the poster made), all of this was from out of the blue,
pure assertion, and mostly wrong.
"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:ult6kst...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:A5679.14238$Ke2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Well, they fought communists, considered them the evil facing Germany,
made
> > alliance with right wing and conservative parties, had support of many
> > German business leaders, and didn't run a planned centralized economy
(until
> > the war when they went to the traditional war economy -- even then, it
> > wasn't the kind of centralized bureaucracy the Soviet Union had).
> >
> > Philosophically, their ideological roots are polar opposites.
>
> Their philosophical roots were both exactly the same,
Do I have to go through this AGAIN?!!!
Fascism as a reaction to modernism and secularism was an irrationalist
ideology, anti-intellectual, anti-reason, and appealed to emotion. From
conservatism it had a fetish for traditional cultural and nationalism.
Socialism was a secular objectivist philosophy, trying to use reason to
understand the laws that govern reality. Its emphasis was intellectual and
not an appeal to emotion. It was rationalist.
Fascism accepted private property, allowed business leaders to do well, and
did not believe at all in egalitarianism.
Socialism had egalitarianism as a prime facet of the ideology, and wanted to
end private property.
There are many other differences, this isn't even controversial.
>Kant
> and german idealism (from another thread in this group, I take
> it that is your philosophic basis as well). Economically (ideology),
> their roots were also the same, the labor theory of value. Marx,
No, you're just dead wrong there. That's absurd. Fascism did not have the
economic aims of Marxism at all, it vigorously opposed both in theory,
rhetoric and practice those ideals.
> something of a german idealist himself, saw Ricardo's
> confusion, and ran with it. So did both the commies and fascists.
No, I don't know where you're getting this stuff, but you're simply WRONG.
> Here's a bunch of connection, with quotes and such, but if you
> need more, I have some on my computer I can whip out as
> the need presents itself....
> http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/marx_hitler.htm
Garbage. If a student used that as a source I'd note it was the kind of
source that one sees to learn that internet sources are often unreliable
garbage.
> > Marxism was an objectivist ideology which tried to use reason and
> > science to understand the true laws of history and economics. He
> > was wrong, of course, but the emphasis was on reason and science
> > -- rationality.
>
> Of course Marx was wrong, because the science/rationality facade
> was just that, a facade.
Hardly. Marxists today still take it seriously. You simply try to assert
things that aren't true about different ideologies to protect your faith.
That's emotionalism, that's not THINKING.
> The philosophy behind Marx was one of
> mysticism and using rationalism (german idealism) to prop up
Bullshit. I mean, you are being absolutely absurd. Where do you get this
crap? Marx was extremely rationalist in his approach, his goal was to use
reason to uncover the laws of nature, which he thought were rooted in the
laws of economics. He took Hegel's idealist notion of a dialectic (a path
to improving knowledge according to Hegel) and applied it to economic
development, something he called historical materialism. He argued that
modes of production (how value is produced) have their own dynamics, and
over time if they are based on some kind of oppression or exploitation,
contradictions arise that cause them to be replaced by something else. As
Hegel saw his the path to perfect knowledge, Marx thought this would lead to
a perfect system of value production with no exploitation, no
contradictions, no state, no force, a true libertarian utopia.
It was really bad social science, but typical of that time period.
The Nazis would have none of it. That was all intellectual crap to them,
they thought that will, power, and nationalist cultural traits was all that
mattered, and they cared not for truth or uncovering the 'laws of history'
they scoffed at such rationalism.
Anyone who has, like I have, studied and even taught on the ideological
battles between the two and the rise of Nazism would laugh in the face of
someone who made such utterly absurd statements that go against all we know
about history. I don't know where you are getting this stuff, but kid --
you are wrong.
> their hatred of liberal democracy (and consequently the Jews,
> who were the personification of capitalism in Europe).
Marxism was followed by many Jews, by the way -- that's one reason Nazis
villified them. Did you not know that? Many people equated Marxism with
Judaism in Nazi Germany for that reason.
> > Fascism was irrational,
>
> So was Communism.
No, you are showing utter ignorance about these ideologies.
> > rejected that approach, and focused on power and will, with emotion not
> > reason the key.
>
> There were some differences, I don't deny that, but what I deny is
> that they were in any way meaningful differences. Both forms of
> totalitarianism are demagogic and appeals to people emotions
> much more than reason.
Methods of maintaining control often shared that in common, especially as
Socialists realized that things didn't work in reality like they do in
theory (in fact, hard core Marxists remind me of anarcho-capitalists that
way -- they put faith in theory and philosophy as providing the answers,
when that is impossible -- you need empirical real world data to test the
theory, and theories/philosophies are never complete or perfect).
> > There was indeed the nationalist-internationalist split,
> > but fascism was anti-intellectual, while communism was the darling of
> > intellectuals even more than workers.
>
> You call commie lovers 'intellectuals'? I call them idealists, mystics.
Then you would be wrong, and you would be demonstrating ignorance of the
history of these things.
> > Communism wanted a classless
> > egalitarian society. fascism believed that class differences were
natural,
> > and emotional commitment to the leader, party or state would be enough
to
> > satisfy the lower classes, they didn't need or deserve material
improvement.
>
> That is not what the Nazis claimed, nor how they secured their democratic
> victories.
Democratic victories? The Nazis had one good election -- in the middle of
1932 (but no majority) and then the party started falling apart. In 1928
they had only 3% of the vote, and it was the great depression and the
instability of a democracy that stopped working for various reasons that
allowed them that success. But in late 1932 their election total dropped,
and the party started to split. At that time Von Papen sensing Hitler was
about to be swept away decided to use him to get a right wing majority in
the Reichstag, forming a coalition. If that hadn't been dead, Hitler would
have continued his decline. It wasn't an 'electoral victory' it was inside
deals. Then Hitler used the Reichstag fire to declare the communists
illegal, and literally threatened delegates in the Reichstag, surrounded by
SA troops with guns, to vote him total power "or else." The Social
Democrats didn't, they courageously loved freedom and held on against Hitler
to the end (they had also fought the communists)...and were sent to the
concentration camp in Dachau.
>You can claim that was all a lie, propaganda to obtain power, while
> at the same time asserting that the commies really believed theirs, but
that
> would just expose your bias.
No, it would expose my knowledge of reality, and how you simply are making
things up to defend your faith in an 'ism' that can't stand on its own. No
one studying the rise of communism and socialism would doubt that they
believed what they were arguing and that it was very different than fascism.
>I think they both believed their propaganda,
> and that neither cared if reality and facts didn't support their views.
I think that describes YOU here -- you simply say things obviously false in
order to rationalize your ideology. You're out of touch with reality.
> > Theres more. They were both dictatorial and brutal, and the tactics
used to
> > enforce that dictatorial power were often similar. But the ideologies
are
> > not.
>
> Only in the fantasies of modern day Neo-Marxists.
No, in the real world of scholarship, mostly non-marxist, analyzing
political ideologies. You are simply showing ignorance with your wild
assertions.
> What I find so humorous is that almost no one will call themselves
> a Marxist anymore, but so many will defend German idealism, and
> the roots of Marxism, trying to find a way to get around the economic
> problems, while holding onto the demagogic idealism.
So in your bizarre world Marxism is the same as Kantian thought? Pathetic.
That is utterly pathetic. There are many Marxists around -- most claim
Stalinism was contrary to Marxism and Marxist thought -- which saw a
withering away of the state -- hasn't gone away. I think they're wrong on
many of their points. Kant is much different -- he's rather an
anti-Marxist, and those who use can't focus on human rights and cooperation.
> > They shared some elements with socialism, and of course they grew out of
> > conservatism and right wing/nationalist thought (and conservatives, for
much
> > different reasons, opposed liberalism and capitalism).
>
> They grew out of Karl Marx, and saw themselves as far left of those
> damned Liberal [Jewish] Capitalists, and their incarnation in America.
No, they didn't grow at all out of Marx, but were in fact a rejection of
Marx. You really are making assertions here that are outlandish and
idiotic. I don't usually dismiss things like that but as someone who takes
history and ideology seriously, I find your ignorance or dishonesty (it has
to be one) utterly reprehensible.
> Never-the-less, I agree that both were really very conservative
ideologies.
No, Marxism had very little in common with conservatism. If you have any
knowledge about political ideologies, you'd know this.
Here's something for a beginner like you:
"Political Ideologies" by Thobaben and Funderburk.
You can try a book by the same title by Leon Baradat.
> The late 19th and early 20th century totalitarians took over the left
(which
> is why our modern conceptions of left and right are so torked), but they
> were NOT liberal in the traditional sense.
Well duh, they weren't liberals. German liberals ultimately supported the
fascists out of fear of the bolsheviks, but clearly neither the fascists nor
communists were liberals.
> They just had ideas of how
> to become the establishment themselves, to take the power and it worked.
> Instead of taking the guns [force] away from the establishment, they
wanted
> the guns themselves. Just like modern day Islamic fundementalists.
And I suppose you connect them to German idealism...
They are a different ideology as well -- different from Marxism, communism,
fascism, liberalism, etc.
> > It's a
> > multidimensional diverse world, political ideologies. People tend to
group
> > things together more than they should, and try to fit politics on
simplistic
> > axes when its actually extremely varied.
>
> Other people try to drive a wedge between fundamentally similar
> ideologies, because they hate one, and love the other. All the time,
> saying things like, "We can't really know anything anyway, so shut up."
I don't know anyone who does that. So you really aren't responding to the
point.
> > > It's also worth noting that in the Nazi case, Jews could be an easy
target
> > > because they were frequently capitalists and frequently involved in
the
> > > socialist movement.
> >
> > Not to mention frequent long term victims of bigotry and discrimination.
> > Ironically, Germany gave Jews more freedom to move to high positions,
and
> > was more tolerant of Jews than many other countries in Europe. The
Kaiser
> > visited Israel before WWI, and one reason Hitler could use the Jews as
> > targets is that Germany had been relatively tolerant. It's also
interesting
> > how groups suffering discrimination (be it the religious dissidents in
> > Britain that ended up starting the industrial revolution, or Jews in
> > Germany) often place more emphasis on education and success.
> >
> > > Hatred of the Jews was then, as it is now in so many
> > > parts of the world, a hatred of cosmopolitanism.
> >
> > More often I think it was pure centuries long bigotry.
>
> I think they hated capitalism, because Europe had many centuries
Hatred of Jews in Europe pre-dates capitalism. I really think you've been
getting all your learning from propaganda sources, you need to do REAL
scholarly work.
> of feudalism, and the change in the late 18th, early 19th was so
> rapid away from it, and those damned burgeousie pricks [and
> their supporters, the Jews] were taking over everything.
> Marxism and Naziism were both luddite ideology, very conservative.
Hatred and bigotry towards Jews had been around for centuries. You are
trying to fit everything into your view of reality, but to do so you make
claims totally untrue.
> > >Both socialism and
> > > capitalism promised cosmopolitanism, and fascism, as a form of
> > nationalism,
> > > opposed that.
> >
> > Yeah -- it was a reaction to modernism, using conservative themes to
> > introduce something that actually was anti-conservative
>
> Don't these kinds of contradictions cause a red flag to pop up in
> your mind?
I've explained and can explain with more detail the issues involved if you
wish. I've spent a lot of time on this since my area of speciality is
German politics, and I've spent a lot of time studying Weimar Germany and
the rise of Hitler. I know that's blatantly absurd to, a half century plus
later for political purposes try to simply lump opposite ideologies together
to promote some kind of weird view of politics as being 'collectivism' vs.
'capitalism'
That ain't the way reality IS.
> > as well as
> > anti-liberal and anti-socialist. It denied rationality, it scoffed at
> > science and reason, and said, "there is no truth but power and will."
>
> Which is exactly what the socialists said just the same.
God, you are being so ignorant or dishonest here, I'm not sure which, but it
is the OPPOSITE of what socialists claimed. You do not know what you are
talking about. You really don't.
> "No one can really know anything, we can create reality, take the power!"
> (as opposed to fight the power!)
Huh?
Educate yourself. I have a lot of patience for different perspectives in
debates, but when someon comes in with a bunch of assertions that are
obviously false, and tries to simply state them as truth, it is the worst
kind of anti-intellectual irrational propaganda and that fills me with
disgust.
John Shafto
> Flame alert: this post was so full of utter crap that I decided to spare the
> diplomatic niceties in responding. I would also note that except for one
> really bad source trying to equate Marx with Hitler (which really didn't
> support the points the poster made), all of this was from out of the blue,
> pure assertion, and mostly wrong.
*yawn*
> "John Shafto" <> wrote
> > "Scott Erb" <> wrote
> > > Philosophically, their ideological roots are polar opposites.
> >
> > Their philosophical roots were both exactly the same,
>
> Do I have to go through this AGAIN?!!!
Sure, you can reassert it again if you like. (?!!!)
Really really hard if want to. :)
> Fascism as a reaction to modernism and secularism was an irrationalist
> ideology, anti-intellectual, anti-reason, and appealed to emotion. From
> conservatism it had a fetish for traditional cultural and nationalism.
> Socialism was a secular objectivist philosophy, trying to use reason to
> understand the laws that govern reality. Its emphasis was intellectual and
> not an appeal to emotion. It was rationalist.
Their politics were both based on the same *philosophy* (you know,
metaphysics, epistemology, ethics...that kind of stuff). What you are
talking about here has more to do with differences in their politics
alone, how they got political support, i.e. propaganda.
I agree with you that Marxism (and fascism) is/was rationalist though,
but the word means something other than what you apparently mean here. Rationalist/Rationalism is
philosophy that is based purely on reason
disconnected from reality (like Plato, Kant, Hegel, Marx etc).
It's the opposite of empiricist/empiricism, and not a good thing.
It's sort of like a crook who rationalizes his thieving.
> Fascism accepted private property,
Yeah sure, so long as you did what you were told, they
wouldn't take your property. Any property rights in Germany
were contingent upon your service to the state, and they certainly
had nothing like our 5th amendment.
"17. We demand land-reform suitable to our national requirements,
passing of a law for confiscation without compensation of land for
communal purposes; abolition of interest on land loans, and prevention
of all speculation in land." --The Nazi Platform.
'What matters is to emphasize the fundamental idea in my party's economic
program clearly -- the idea of authority. I want the authority; I want
everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the
priniciple: benefit to the community recedes benefit to the individual. But
the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider
himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property
against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial
matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners
of property." -- Adolf Hilter, 1931
> allowed business leaders to do well,
The ones who served the state's interests sure, much like
our present system of state capitalism.
> and did not believe at all in egalitarianism.
> Socialism had egalitarianism as a prime facet of the ideology,
> and wanted to end private property.
And the Commies did? Tell that to my wife's grandparents,
who left Russia in 1914, only to get letters from the brothers
and other relatives living under Stalin. It wasn't very egalitarian
I can assure you. Some of them were starved to death.
However anecdotal you think that might be, the truth (reason
that correlates with reality) about the conditions in soviet Russia
(or China, or any other communist state) were and are anything
but 'egalitarian'. You are just believing the dream used to
sucker the dupes in, you are a commie idealist. Any time the
state has as much power as commie's give them, things
are anything *but* egalitarian. If men were angels.....
As for ending private property, have you ever heard the expression
'state capitalism'?
> There are many other differences, this isn't even controversial.
It's very controversial, there are many books about it. This exact
debate has happened many times on usenet that I can remember,
and it happens in other political forums too. It never fails to get the
lefties all bent out of shape, just as you are now. I get a kick out of it.
I'm not sure why people who say, "I'm not a Marxist" or "Marx was wrong"
would then get all jumped up about having the similarities between
Fascism and Marxism pointed out. Perhaps you mean it is not
controversial amongst the leftist intellectuals, but that is not surprising.
> >Kant
> > and german idealism (from another thread in this group, I take
> > it that is your philosophic basis as well). Economically (ideology),
> > their roots were also the same, the labor theory of value. Marx,
>
> No, you're just dead wrong there. That's absurd. Fascism did not have the
> economic aims of Marxism at all, it vigorously opposed both in theory,
> rhetoric and practice those ideals.
Not that you'll read it or anything, but just in case, I forgot to
offer you the second part of that last link, where the writer
(a published author at least) offers more economic connections.
http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/marx_hitler2.htm
> > something of a german idealist himself, saw Ricardo's
> > confusion, and ran with it. So did both the commies and fascists.
>
> No, I don't know where you're getting this stuff, but you're simply WRONG.
Says you. I can give you more, much more if you want it.
Actual quotes, historical books and other sources.
Lemme know if you interested (ha!).
The internet links were just a quickie I found on the spot, that
I thought addressed the issues I have been responding to.
> > Here's a bunch of connection, with quotes and such, but if you
> > need more, I have some on my computer I can whip out as
> > the need presents itself....
> > http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/marx_hitler.htm
>
> Garbage. If a student used that as a source I'd note it was the kind of
> source that one sees to learn that internet sources are often unreliable
> garbage.
You know, I agree with you, there is a lot of garbage on the internet,
as well in print, and on television. OTOH, I still read books, use the
internet, and watch TV (mostly news and docs). How does one
distinguish the good stuff from the bad? Why, reason of course.
"Often garbage" is not equal to "always garbage".
Rather than just smugly waive your hand, can your tell me what
you object to in the article I offered? Can you refute *any*
major premise, quote, or even a single statement there? I could have
typed all that here right out of my head, based on my knowledge from
other sources, but I found that one, and it syncs with everything else I
have read regarding Nazi politics. If I (or the author of that article) is
wrong, fine, but please show me where and how.
> > > Marxism was an objectivist ideology which tried to use reason and
> > > science to understand the true laws of history and economics. He
> > > was wrong, of course, but the emphasis was on reason and science
> > > -- rationality.
> >
> > Of course Marx was wrong, because the science/rationality facade
> > was just that, a facade.
>
> Hardly. Marxists today still take it seriously. You simply try to assert
> things that aren't true about different ideologies to protect your faith.
> That's emotionalism, that's not THINKING.
Marxists apparently don't care much about the science of
economics, the economics prof here in this group can tell
you that. Look, I don't know what 'science' you think marxists
use or like as far as their politics goes, so I don't know how
to refute your over-general statements that Marxists
like 'science'. Big whoop. Fascists were some of the best
rocket scientists in the world, many of them working here in
the US now. About the only thing the commies ever did
was steal their science from us evil capitalists.
> > The philosophy behind Marx was one of
> > mysticism and using rationalism (german idealism) to prop up
>
> Bullshit. I mean, you are being absolutely absurd. Where do you get this
> crap? Marx was extremely rationalist in his approach, his goal was to use
> reason to uncover the laws of nature, which he thought were rooted in the
> laws of economics.
Yea, that's pretty rational alright.
> He took Hegel's idealist notion of a dialectic (a path
> to improving knowledge according to Hegel) and applied it to economic
> development, something he called historical materialism. He argued that
> modes of production (how value is produced) have their own dynamics, and
> over time if they are based on some kind of oppression or exploitation,
> contradictions arise that cause them to be replaced by something else. As
> Hegel saw his the path to perfect knowledge, Marx thought this would lead to
> a perfect system of value production with no exploitation, no
> contradictions, no state, no force, a true libertarian utopia.
I don't need a lesson on Marxism, I first read Marx in 1982, and
have been debating with goofy Marxists for about 10 years now.
I'm pretty familiar. The state is going to "whither away", ha!
Oh yea, "libertarian" my ass, what is it with you leftists always
trying to 'dialect' all the labels all the time? First "liberal",
now you want 'libertarian' too? I think the next word for true
[classic] liberalism should be "notmarxism", take that!. :)
> It was really bad social science, but typical of that time period.
>
> The Nazis would have none of it. That was all intellectual crap to them,
> they thought that will, power, and nationalist cultural traits was all that
> mattered, and they cared not for truth or uncovering the 'laws of history'
> they scoffed at such rationalism.
"Each activity and need of the individual will thereby be
regulated by the party as the representative of the general
good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the
individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism... [But]
Our Socialism goes far deeper...a powerful social force
has caught [the people] up...Why need we to trouble to
socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings..."
-- Adolph Hitler.
They were better socialists than your silly commies.
Communism dies beyond a small group, but fascism lives.
On ethics....
"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize
that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the
existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego
is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ...
that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far
more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. ....
This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego
to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise
for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's
capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man."
--Adolph Hitler, 1933
Sound familiar?
> Anyone who has, like I have, studied and even taught on the ideological
> battles between the two and the rise of Nazism would laugh in the face of
> someone who made such utterly absurd statements that go against all we know
> about history. I don't know where you are getting this stuff, but kid --
> you are wrong.
That's your subjective reality, you can't know the objective truth,
remember? Kid. :)
(for someone who has taught this, you are *way* undereducated
on it, I can't believe you have never heard this stuff.)
> > their hatred of liberal democracy (and consequently the Jews,
> > who were the personification of capitalism in Europe).
>
> Marxism was followed by many Jews, by the way -- that's one reason Nazis
> villified them. Did you not know that? Many people equated Marxism with
> Judaism in Nazi Germany for that reason.
Strange really, since Marx was an anti-semite, but then there
were some Jewish Nazis too. Have you heard about how
Jews were treated in Russia? Did you know that Ayn Rand
was a Jew, raised in Russia before and after the revolution?
You should actually read her, you might learn something.
"The Jew has already emancipated himself in the Jewish way: the Jew who is,
for example, merely tolerated in Vienna, determines with his money power
the fate of the entire German Empire. The Jew who is without rights in
the smallest German state, decides the fate of Europe." --Karl Marx
"Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every Pope by a Jesuit. In
truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability
of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother
thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets." --Karl Marx
“The Jew is by temperament an anti-producer, neither farmer
nor an industrialist . . . He is an intermediary, always fraudulent
and parasitic.” -- Pierre Proudhon
> > > Fascism was irrational,
> >
> > So was Communism.
>
> No, you are showing utter ignorance about these ideologies.
I take it you like communism?
> > > rejected that approach, and focused on power and will, with emotion not
> > > reason the key.
> >
> > There were some differences, I don't deny that, but what I deny is
> > that they were in any way meaningful differences. Both forms of
> > totalitarianism are demagogic and appeals to people emotions
> > much more than reason.
>
> Methods of maintaining control often shared that in common, especially as
> Socialists realized that things didn't work in reality like they do in
> theory (in fact, hard core Marxists remind me of anarcho-capitalists that
> way -- they put faith in theory and philosophy as providing the answers,
> when that is impossible -- you need empirical real world data to test the
> theory, and theories/philosophies are never complete or perfect).
I agree. We always need to touch reality in our thoughts, if not,
we are being irrational, like the commies.
> > > There was indeed the nationalist-internationalist split,
> > > but fascism was anti-intellectual, while communism was the darling of
> > > intellectuals even more than workers.
> >
> > You call commie lovers 'intellectuals'? I call them idealists, mystics.
>
> Then you would be wrong, and you would be demonstrating ignorance of the
> history of these things.
You contradict what you just said above.
> > > Communism wanted a classless
> > > egalitarian society. fascism believed that class differences were
> natural,
> > > and emotional commitment to the leader, party or state would be enough
> to
> > > satisfy the lower classes, they didn't need or deserve material
> improvement.
> >
> > That is not what the Nazis claimed, nor how they secured their democratic
> > victories.
>
> Democratic victories? The Nazis had one good election -- in the middle of
> 1932 (but no majority) and then the party started falling apart. In 1928
> they had only 3% of the vote, and it was the great depression and the
> instability of a democracy that stopped working for various reasons that
> allowed them that success. But in late 1932 their election total dropped,
> and the party started to split. At that time Von Papen sensing Hitler was
> about to be swept away decided to use him to get a right wing majority in
> the Reichstag, forming a coalition. If that hadn't been dead, Hitler would
> have continued his decline. It wasn't an 'electoral victory' it was inside
> deals.
Fair enough, but they certainly did have considerable popular support
after that. Governments just don't stay in power without considerable
popular support, democracy or not. There is always someone who
wants the power, and can use popular support against the ruler.
Also, I know Hitler had his enemies, and I know the Nazis were brutal,
but then so were the commies.
> Then Hitler used the Reichstag fire to declare the communists
> illegal, and literally threatened delegates in the Reichstag, surrounded by
> SA troops with guns, to vote him total power "or else." The Social
> Democrats didn't, they courageously loved freedom and held on against Hitler
> to the end (they had also fought the communists)...and were sent to the
> concentration camp in Dachau.
Apparently, the social democrats didn't have majority support.
Never-the-less, even though Hitler outlawed any competition
(as if the commies didn't), he liked commie individuals.....
"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates
us from it." --Adolph Hitler
Hitler also gave orders requiring former communists to
"be admitted to the party at once," because though some
Germans will not make good Nazis, "...the Communist always will."
> >You can claim that was all a lie, propaganda to obtain power, while
> > at the same time asserting that the commies really believed theirs, but
> that
> > would just expose your bias.
>
> No, it would expose my knowledge of reality,
You mean your *subjective* knowledge of your personal reality, right? :)
> and how you simply are making things up to defend your faith in
> an 'ism' that can't stand on its own. No one studying the rise of
> communism and socialism would doubt that they believed what
> they were arguing and that it was very different than fascism.
I have read several people who have studied it intensely, and they
weren't 'no one'. Yes, the Nazis and Commies often really believed
their mysticism, their political platforms, and their economics.
So, don't dismiss quotes and party platforms from the Nazis as
pure propaganda, while accepting the commies stuff as pure
honest faith in their ideology. That's bias.
You really need to end your frequent line of argument,
"everyone knows", it just doesn't cut it. Most people once thought
that women should be subservient to men, with no political rights.
Most people once believed that slavery was okay. The fallacy is
called ad populum, or if your "everyone" (or "no one") is some
select group of wise men, then it would probably be appeal to
authority. Either way, why don't you argue with your own
reasoning and bring up [objective] facts instead?
> >I think they both believed their propaganda,
> > and that neither cared if reality and facts didn't support their views.
>
> I think that describes YOU here -- you simply say things obviously false in
> order to rationalize your ideology. You're out of touch with reality.
Uh, we weren't talking about me.
If you would prefer to, I can tell you more about myself, doc.
> > > Theres more. They were both dictatorial and brutal, and the tactics
> used to
> > > enforce that dictatorial power were often similar. But the ideologies
> are
> > > not.
> >
> > Only in the fantasies of modern day Neo-Marxists.
>
> No, in the real world of scholarship, mostly non-marxist, analyzing
> political ideologies. You are simply showing ignorance with your wild
> assertions.
I'm not sure this line of debate will go very far. :)
> > What I find so humorous is that almost no one will call themselves
> > a Marxist anymore, but so many will defend German idealism, and
> > the roots of Marxism, trying to find a way to get around the economic
> > problems, while holding onto the demagogic idealism.
>
> So in your bizarre world Marxism is the same as Kantian thought? Pathetic.
> That is utterly pathetic. There are many Marxists around -- most claim
> Stalinism was contrary to Marxism and Marxist thought -- which saw a
> withering away of the state -- hasn't gone away. I think they're wrong on
> many of their points. Kant is much different -- he's rather an
> anti-Marxist, and those who use can't focus on human rights and cooperation.
Kant's philosophy was pure unadulterated rationalism, it can be
used to justify almost anything. Even things that have killed many
many millions of people throughout history.
Oh, and his ethics were ridiculous (and useless).
> > > They shared some elements with socialism, and of course they grew out of
> > > conservatism and right wing/nationalist thought (and conservatives, for
> much
> > > different reasons, opposed liberalism and capitalism).
> >
> > They grew out of Karl Marx, and saw themselves as far left of those
> > damned Liberal [Jewish] Capitalists, and their incarnation in America.
>
> No, they didn't grow at all out of Marx, but were in fact a rejection of
> Marx. You really are making assertions here that are outlandish and
> idiotic. I don't usually dismiss things like that but as someone who takes
> history and ideology seriously, I find your ignorance or dishonesty (it has
> to be one) utterly reprehensible.
Why don't you stop calling me names and start proving me wrong then?
I've had about enough personal attacks (ad hominem) now. Don't ya think?
"I can love Germany and hate capitalism. Not only can I, I must.
Only the annihilation of a system of exploitation carries with it the
rebirth of our people” -- Joseph Goebbels
> > Never-the-less, I agree that both were really very conservative
> ideologies.
>
> No, Marxism had very little in common with conservatism. If you have any
> knowledge about political ideologies, you'd know this.
Really? Sure, they changed out the rulers, but did they really
change anything? No. They wanted to stifle new-fangled
capitalism, they didn''t understand it and they feared it. They
wanted the good old paternalistic states back that they had
formerly had under the monarchies and aristocracies. They got it.
> Here's something for a beginner like you:
> "Political Ideologies" by Thobaben and Funderburk.
> You can try a book by the same title by Leon Baradat.
>
> > The late 19th and early 20th century totalitarians took over the left
> (which
> > is why our modern conceptions of left and right are so torked), but they
> > were NOT liberal in the traditional sense.
>
> Well duh, they weren't liberals. German liberals ultimately supported the
> fascists out of fear of the bolsheviks, but clearly neither the fascists nor
> communists were liberals.
Okay, point of agreement. This is a good thing.
(but your smug self-righteousness isn't doing much good)
> > They just had ideas of how
> > to become the establishment themselves, to take the power and it worked.
> > Instead of taking the guns [force] away from the establishment, they
> wanted
> > the guns themselves. Just like modern day Islamic fundementalists.
>
> And I suppose you connect them to German idealism...
>
> They are a different ideology as well -- different from Marxism, communism,
> fascism, liberalism, etc.
They may be a different ideology, which is just superficial politics,
but they are not that different philosophically, which seems to be
your weak point. Marxism is secularized religion, with the same
exact ethics as Christianity or Islam. Islam is also dualistic, like
philosophical rationalism. They accept science only as concretes,
but they reject reason (which is why they don't make discoveries).
They are luddites who fear change and want paternalistic states.
True, but the Jews were never a problem when they were second
class citizens under feudalistic/monarchal regimes. The real hatred
of them came when they took to capitalism, it was much later when
they got rounded up and killed, not before.
> > of feudalism, and the change in the late 18th, early 19th was so
> > rapid away from it, and those damned burgeousie pricks [and
> > their supporters, the Jews] were taking over everything.
> > Marxism and Naziism were both luddite ideology, very conservative.
>
> Hatred and bigotry towards Jews had been around for centuries. You are
> trying to fit everything into your view of reality, but to do so you make
> claims totally untrue.
"What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What
is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God?
Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently
from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time."
-- Karl Marx
The connection between capitalism and the Jews is what got them gassed
in the 20th century.
> > > >Both socialism and
> > > > capitalism promised cosmopolitanism, and fascism, as a form of
> > > nationalism,
> > > > opposed that.
> > >
> > > Yeah -- it was a reaction to modernism, using conservative themes to
> > > introduce something that actually was anti-conservative
> >
> > Don't these kinds of contradictions cause a red flag to pop up in
> > your mind?
>
> I've explained and can explain with more detail the issues involved if you
> wish. I've spent a lot of time on this since my area of speciality is
> German politics, and I've spent a lot of time studying Weimar Germany and
> the rise of Hitler. I know that's blatantly absurd to, a half century plus
> later for political purposes try to simply lump opposite ideologies together
> to promote some kind of weird view of politics as being 'collectivism' vs.
> 'capitalism'
You have such a powerful bias that I wouldn't take one little bit
of instruction from you.
> That ain't the way reality IS.
How would you know?
> > > as well as
> > > anti-liberal and anti-socialist. It denied rationality, it scoffed at
> > > science and reason, and said, "there is no truth but power and will."
> >
> > Which is exactly what the socialists said just the same.
>
> God, you are being so ignorant or dishonest here, I'm not sure which, but it
> is the OPPOSITE of what socialists claimed. You do not know what you are
> talking about. You really don't.
>
> > "No one can really know anything, we can create reality, take the power!"
> > (as opposed to fight the power!)
>
> Huh?
>
> Educate yourself. I have a lot of patience for different perspectives in
> debates, but when someon comes in with a bunch of assertions that are
> obviously false, and tries to simply state them as truth, it is the worst
> kind of anti-intellectual irrational propaganda and that fills me with
> disgust.
I think your emotions are coming from something else entirely.