 |
| |
|
|
Thirgaral
|
 |
On vacation in Sunny lands
Mar 2003
time: 06:27
|
|
I will reply to you in chronoligocal order....:
ok...
quote:
There are more than two ideologies, however a left-right scale is commonly used for many things, and most people who vote know where their party lies on it. There are far more, but you can still lie somewhere on a left-right line. However there is the problem with economic libertarians who would be right, and authoritarians who would also be right. |
I agree
quote:
Who is "they" and what is "it?" |
"They" are the fascists and "it" is taking care of them...
quote:
They are capitalists according to the classical definition of socialism - worker control of the means of production. Of course, since the social democrats have become relatively politically powerful in Europe, social democracy has been associated with socialism. |
yes, they're actually supposed to be capitalistic...but those here in Sweden just aren't...as in many other countries....
quote:
Then why did you say that you don't associate with anarchists? In any case, it's pretty clear that either you don't know anything about your friends' political opinions, or your friends have no idea what they're talking about. |
By saying that I didn't associate with them I meant that I don't agree with them, I can still have a fun time with them And no, they probably don't know what they're talking about...(they're anarchists )but there's probably different kinds of Anarchisms just as any other ideology....
quote:
Canada, the US, Scandinavia, western Europe, Australia, etc, etc, etc. are all social democracies to varying degrees. There are still privately owned companies, stock exchanges, no limits (outside of taxes) to how wealthy one can get on their own, among many other capitalist notions. Just because there are some socialist elements (public health care, education, utilities, etc.) does not mean that capitalism has been stamped out. |
Uhm...what Swedes mean by "Social Democracy" is that what divides it from communism isn't their goals...the only difference is that they don't think that a revolution is the right way to achieve it.....At least that's what we learn in school what is written in our dictionaries...but I may be wrong
quote:
Not necessarily. If all companies were owned by their workers, that would be socialism. Indeed, it is what Marx wanted, in some respects IIRC. Government control comes into it in that it would probably never happen without, and so almost always is involved, but it is not a prerequisite for Socialism, IMHO. |
Since he also wanted the workers to rule the gov...and that's whats socialism...workers owning their companies is Liberalism IIRC...all ideologies strive for equality, don't they?(except fascism, nazism and some religions)
AFAIK, if companies rule then it's an ideology to the right, and that's why I put Anarchism to the right? But there are as many opinions about this as there are people on earth So there's no right or wrong...
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Libertarians are always getting labeled anarchists by people who want more government control over our lives than allowed by libertarianism, but if anarchists aren't at the right end of the poltical spectrum, where are the communists and fascists that built up enormous states to control people's lives?
IMO, the various ideologies ~match the 1-10 rankings like this:
1) Totalitarianism - Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao
2) Socialism
3) Social democrats
4) Liberalism
5) Conservatism
6) Hamiltonian centrists
7) Anarchism as described by Ramo
8) Madisonian republicans
9) Libertarianism/Jeffersonian democrats
10) Libertarian anarchism/anarcho-capitalists |
I mostly agree to this...but I think you should stuff in some more "center-ideologies" at 4 and 5 and move the rest a bit to the right....
AND, Totalitarianism is very hard to give a number since they never did what their "party-programme" said they'd do... And giving Stalin's and Mussolini's parties the same number is not very good....
I still want to put the fascists to the right....nazis are another thing...but they're just really awkward
quote:
Second, judging by conservatives (like you :lol, yes, they are in the middle. Look at the conservatives in Congress. They've adopted so many left wing policies originating with liberals that the Founders look like right wing extremists, it just takes them 2 to 4 decades longer. Since you apparently don't see the criteria I used for a left-right spectrum even after I provided examples, the left end of the spectrum is totalitarianism and the right end is government limited exclusively to preserving freedom and property rights. All the levels in between are mere gradients of increasing or decreasing control via government leading to either end. Hamilton makes today's conservatives look like social democrats, and in his day, Jefferson and Madison were to his right. The fact you've endorsed FDR's New Deal when so many liberals cite him as one of their own ought to tell you how close conservatives are to liberals. That's why liberals and conservatives increasingly fight over social issues while fiscal matters are relegated to whether or not a %1 or |
maybe you're right....Well, Hitler is VERY hard to place....
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The left/right, goes:
10 - 'True' Communists / Command Communists
9 - Anarchists
8 - Socialists
7 - Social Democrats
6 - Moderate-left
5 - Centrist
4 - Moderate-right
3 - Libertarian (far right economically, left morally)
2 - Conservative
1 - Fascist (super far right morally) |
This is maybe an even BETTER list....but i still think that the anarchists are to the right...and that's the ONLY complaint I have about this list!
except you might want to reverse the numbers, since 10 is to the right
All this is IMHO
And now the conclusion...:
This left-right scale is very insufficient...i know that...but all ideologies can be put there...also, there are different kinds of left-right scales being used and not even the professors can agree on which one is the "correct", so I don't know either...and none of you should think that you do....
ok...I'll let you reply to this now...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
NeOmega has a point, but also abortion isn't about state vs individual (unless you consider that pro-choice is state shouldn't be involved, and pro-life therefore for state laws) but about whether an unborn child has the same rights as a born human, and whether the mother's right to choose outweighs it. I wouldn't use another point for it. There are many points that canbe put into the first, which Republicans and Democratic do not necessarily agree on, such as environment vs economic growth (part 1, part 2, with a bit extra).
About Hitler, I think he was a centrist. He wasn't massively pro-market, IIRC, but was very authoritarian. I think the political compass got it pretty close. Thus I think the 1 to 10 scale is just about economics. Although if you wanted to put morality in it, I think state morality is more rightist (conservative) and freedom is more leftist (liberal) but you can of course believe in freedom and be rightist, just that generally, also if you look at political compass, most people to the left also tend to be nearer the bottom, and vice versa. The exceptions being if you are anarcho-capitalist you would be right, or if you are for state controlled socialism you would be left. However to say that they equate to a particular number, to try to say that anarcho-capitalism is more right than conservative capitalism isn't possible, it depends on the person.
But I would say Anarcho-capitalists would be far to the right, (8-10)
Conservatives someway to the right, (6-10)
Centrists, whether libertarian centrists or authoritarian centrists (fascist), in the middle, (3-7)
Liberals a little to the left, (1-5)
Socialists of all persuasions far to the left, whether state controlled or anarchist socialists. (1-3)
Whereabouts in the range you are, would depend on the person. I admit this won't work for everyone, but for people looking for a guide, it might be a way to start.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
So explain why Hitler was on the right with you. |
Because he was a reactionary moralist. Fascism, as a whole, is simply a reaction to Communism. It wishes to go back to the good old days and hates the enlightenment and liberalism (social liberalism: ie, civil liberties).
quote:
Doesn't totalitarianism inherently involve (im)morality and economics? |
Not necessarily. There are plenty of dictators who believe in capitalism (most US backed ones) and there are those that believe in communism (Lenin, Castro). There are those that believe heavily in forcing morality (Fascists) and those that don't care.
quote:
Btw, don't conservatives relish how they are mainstream America and those loony liberals are out of touch with the American people? Wouldn't that make conservatives "centrists" by definition. |
Conservatives relish that more people are conservative. They don't think they are centrists at all.
Btw, you think Jerry Falwell (Mr. far-right moralist) is on the left??!
quote:
Isn't that totalitarianism? |
Do you have any idea what 'true' communism is?! It is basically a communal society. Marx's vision is that when everyone cares for each other, the state withers away. It is even more anti-state than Anarchism.
quote:
Furthermore, why do you consider "morality" more right wing than economics? |
Because we all do. The people who are considered 'far-right' in America are Jerry Falwell, William Bennett, Pat Robertson, etc. Libertarians aren't called 'far-right', and never have been.
quote:
What does it mean to be right or left morally? |
Moral rightism is the belief that people should behave in a moral fashion. This can take the form of forcing people to do so (Church states) or simply shaming them into conforming (Falwell).
Moral leftism is the belief that everyone's morality is the same and therefore we shouldn't try to impart our morality on others and allow people to do what they please.
quote:
Don't you mean nazis instead of fascists? I've always been under the impression that fascism equals goverment control of it's citizens, and has actually a very hostile attitude to ethics (Nietzche)? |
Nietzche, while tied to Fascism, wasn't really who the Fascists pointed to (Hitler did, interestingly enough). Most Fascist states imparted their own ethical beliefs on their people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
Actually, in the UK, we consider the BNP (fascist) party far right, and Libertarians not so, but I see that as where the left-right system breaksdown. It can either be economic, or moral, but not both. It just happens that Conservatives and Labour are at about the same point on both, and thus can be used easily. But the BNP are leftist economically (they want bigger state pensions, more jobs, and the areas they win are the poorer communities). I had to write an A-Level essay on that (left right divide) and I had to start by saying that it isn't like that, but still had to write it as such. Such a crappy idea that essay was 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
NeOmega - quote:
Recently Libertarians have been characterized as far leftists for their anti-war views.... extreme anti-war views, views like who cares if Iraq has WMD's, nunofourbizness. |
I don't care if Iraq got WMD, I believe more WMD (and the willingness to use them) deters war. "MAD" is a valid idea, wars usually occur when one power thinks it can succeed and not suffer much. But the Founding Fathers would not have cared either and they would have minded their own business - and they were right wing.
Imran - quote:
Because he was a reactionary moralist. |
Are you? There are plenty of leftists who are reactionary moralists.
quote:
Fascism, as a whole, is simply a reaction to Communism. It wishes to go back to the good old days and hates the enlightenment and liberalism (social liberalism: ie, civil liberties). |
Seems to me both fascism and communism are just newer versions of monarchies and communalism. I don't see them as new ideologies, some of the early Christians practiced a brand of socialism - communal goods - in a time of monarchies. Even the Pilgrims tried socialism when they came to the new world and they almost starved. They went to private property and discovered people work harder when they get to make their own decisions and keep the fruits of their labor.
quote:
Not necessarily. There are plenty of dictators who believe in capitalism (most US backed ones) and there are those that believe in communism (Lenin, Castro). There are those that believe heavily in forcing morality (Fascists) and those that don't care. |
Capitalism still involves economics, but as long as the dictator presumes to have the authority to decide which economic system will be enforced, that's still totalitarianism.
quote:
Conservatives relish that more people are conservative. They don't think they are centrists at all. |
They don't like being shown just how close they are to liberals either. There's a problem with conservatism as I've pointed out, they preach the Constitution, freedom and limited government, but they practice something different when they get into office. Liberals start a program and conservatives end up supporting it, this has happened time and time again.
quote:
Btw, you think Jerry Falwell (Mr. far-right moralist) is on the left??! |
I'd say his economics are just right of center and his "morality" is leftist. Liberals believe in imposing their morality on others just as he does, so why should they be on opposite sides? The fact they don't agree all the time on what is moral is irrelevant, the fact they believe government exists to impose their morality on the rest of us does matter - that's why they are leftist.
quote:
Do you have any idea what 'true' communism is?! It is basically a communal society. Marx's vision is that when everyone cares for each other, the state withers away. It is even more anti-state than Anarchism. |
So why does an anti-state ideology appear right next to command control communism on your list? Yes, Imran, I'm aware that Marx argued socialism would lead to a withering away of the state, but we all know what it really did - promoted a totalitarian system in the name of a classless society.
I don't. Morality and government is an oxy-moron because one cannot legislate morality in a system funded by legalised theft.
quote:
The people who are considered 'far-right' in America are Jerry Falwell, William Bennett, Pat Robertson, etc. Libertarians aren't called 'far-right', and never have been. |
Libertarians are constantly called far right by liberals and anarchists by conservatives (meaning even further to the right than conservatives). According to conservative propaganda, liberals want more government, conservatives want constitutional government, and anarchists want no government. If liberals are left and conservatives are right, how can anarchists be left when they want even less government than conservatives?
quote:
Moral rightism is the belief that people should behave in a moral fashion. This can take the form of forcing people to do so (Church states) or simply shaming them into conforming (Falwell). |
And liberals don't believe in forcing people to behave morally? Did you read Agathon's thread on Augusta (The Masters)? Both liberals and conservatives believe in legislating their morality. For example, while many conservatives and libertarians oppose anti-discrimination laws in hiring practices because such laws conflict with private property rights, liberals say these hiring practices are immoral and need to be outlawed. On the other hand, many conservatives want drugs outlawed in the name of morality even though these laws conflict with private property rights while many liberals (and all libertarians) oppose those laws. So, only the libertarians are being consistent... The use of shame is a libertarian approach to combatting immoral behavior, conservatives use shame when they lack the support to have the behavior outlawed. But liberals use shame too, you're in college so you should know what can happen to students who express politically incorrect views.
quote:
Moral leftism is the belief that everyone's morality is the same and therefore we shouldn't try to impart our morality on others and allow people to do what they please. |
If everyone's morality is the same, how can we impart our morality on others who already share the same morality? Liberals use government to impose their morality on others, they just don't want others doing the same to them, and conservatives are no different...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
Ramo - quote:
Berzerker, the left/right axis usually isn't concerned directly with the level of state authority. |
Then what?
quote:
I would say that I belong on the left along with the commies and that you belong on the right along with the fascists. |
And I say you belong on the right with those who want the state minimized and the fascists belong on the left with the commies and those who want more government control over people. This left-right spectrum that seeks to place autocrats at both ends is illogical.
quote:
BTW, did you intentionally put Madison further right on your axis than me? Seeing as how he supported state legitimization of human slavery, I find that pretty odd... |
Slavery was imposed upon the colonies by England and once it was established, the Constitution and AoC would not have been ratified without it. So I'm referring to the principles embodied by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Also, I'm not sure where to put your brand of anarchism on the right because I'm not sure how you'd go about creating your system, but as long as you don't advocate the use of force or coercion to compel business owners to hand over their investments to the employees, then you aren't on the left. Maybe you belong at the right end along with anarcho-capitalists come to think of it.
quote:
As for "anarcho-capitalists," I'd say the term is a contradiction. Capitalists believe in considerable private authority (corporations, etc.), but anarchism rejects authority. |
Would you believe in considerable private authority if someone tried to steal your home? What makes you more worthy of using private authority to protect your property than people who own corporations? Anarchism doesn't reject authority, it rejects the imposition of authority on others to deny them their freedom, true? If we lived in an anarchist system reflecting your beliefs - worker owned businesses - and some group came along to take away those businesses, wouldn't the workers have the authority to defend their property?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2003 13:39
|