So, How Come You're Still A Leftie?

[Bfgrn]

You are as indoctrinated as the far right, and I will leave it at that. And while you are at it, talk to the survivors of the Khymer Rouge. I have no more use for Political Chics of the left than I do for her on the right. None at all.

We all have a right to our opinions but not to our set of facts and definitions.

What is so hard to understand? Do you subscribe to some dumb theory that the rest of the fucking world revolves around YOUR Americanized indoctrination definition of left/right, liberal/conservative? Does the rest of the world follow some version of drains swirling the opposite way in the southern hemisphere?

ANY form of government can be totalitarian, BUT it is run by conservatives in THAT culture. Other cultures do NOT conform to YOUR Americanized indoctrination definition of left/right, liberal/conservative.

The Khmer Rouge were communists that believed people were tainted with capitalism.

WHAT would a conservative in Russia look like, a liberal in America? And would liberals in Russia be conservatives in America?

Fucking WOW!

You are under the opinion that this rest of the world is going to accept your definitions?

That is the act of someone out of touch with reality.

You are the counterpart to Political Chic.

OK, describe a conservative born, raised and indoctrinated in the Soviet Union.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I will not argue with you any more than argue with PC now. You guys are in la la land, and only you will find your way out of it.

 

[Bfgrn]

I will not argue any more than argue with PC now. You guys are in la la land, and only you will find your way out of it.

OK Jake, if you abdicate, I will describe conservatives in Russia. Hey BTW Jake, while you were monitoring Cambodia, have you kept abreast of how many liberal journalists have been murdered in Russia?


February 27, 1989

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

MOSCOW, Feb. 26 — Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.

The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

It is impossible to accurately gauge the extent of their influence or their support among nominees, but it is clear that conservatives are seizing upon the March 26 election, which Mr. Gorbachev has described as the key step toward greater democracy, to promote their political platform.

At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists,'' representatives of politically conservative organizations are trying to draft voters and candidates to establish a foothold within the Government. New Congress of 2,250 Deputies

''We need deputies who will protect us against destructive, Zionistic forces,'' said Vladimir Ozhigonov, a factory worker, who was at a rally last Sunday, holding a sign that read: ''The movement of Pamyat will win.''

Conservatives already claim credit for helping defeat certain candidates, most notably Mr. Korotich, editor of the liberal and popular magazine ''Ogonyok,'' and Andrei D. Sakharov, the physicist and Nobel Peace Prize winning dissident.

Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat, delighted in the fact that Mr. Korotich had been forced off the ballot in Moscow's Sverdlovsk region, and described this as the first successful step in the conservative campaign to use the elections as a vehicle for its political ideas. 'I Am a Stalinist'

''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

 

[PoliticalChic]

Have you read Mein Kampf? And if you answer yes, then you would know that Goldberg's book is false.

"O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.
Benito Mussolini

"It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
George W. Bush


"While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives."
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Wow...you will go to quite some lengths not to admit you don't read it, but still have strong opinions about the book....

But, I must admit, that technique sure is a time saver..

If I want to understand fascism, should I go to the source, or should I seek out a 'nanny' to explain it to me PC? I didn't read your 'nanny's' story book, I prefer to make my own judgments and determinations...try it sometime PC, you might stop sounding brainwashed.

"I prefer to make my own judgments and determinations..."

You probably don't realize how absurd you appear: in a discussion about a particular book, you defend the idea that avoiding the primary source is the best way to "make [your]own judgments and determinations."

It expains so much about you, and gives so much amusement to your opposition.


Does this strategy work as well foods you've never eaten, or folks you've never heard of?

Carry on.

 

[Bfgrn]

Wow...you will go to quite some lengths not to admit you don't read it, but still have strong opinions about the book....

But, I must admit, that technique sure is a time saver..

If I want to understand fascism, should I go to the source, or should I seek out a 'nanny' to explain it to me PC? I didn't read your 'nanny's' story book, I prefer to make my own judgments and determinations...try it sometime PC, you might stop sounding brainwashed.

"I prefer to make my own judgments and determinations..."

You probably don't realize how absurd you appear: in a discussion about a particular book, you defend the idea that avoiding the primary source is the best way to "make [your]own judgments and determinations."

It expains so much about you, and gives so much amusement to your opposition.


Does this strategy work as well foods you've never eaten, or folks you've never heard of?

Carry on.

The 'primary' source of understanding fascism would be a book written by a fascist.

See if you can pick the fascist PC:

A) Adolph Hitler

B) Jonah Goldberg

Take your time and get back to me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Have you read Mein Kampf? And if you answer yes, then you would know that Goldberg's book is false.

"O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.
Benito Mussolini

"It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
George W. Bush


"While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives."
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Wow...you will go to quite some lengths not to admit you don't read it, but still have strong opinions about the book....

But, I must admit, that technique sure is a time saver..

If I want to understand fascism, should I go to the source, or should I seek out a 'nanny' to explain it to me PC? I didn't read your 'nanny's' story book, I prefer to make my own judgments and determinations...try it sometime PC, you might stop sounding brainwashed.

Warning, BoringFriendlessGuy!

Do not read this post! It contains information about fascism...and I respect your method of "avoiding-at-all-costs any actual material about the subject I wish to express exerptise about"...

OK- you were warned...

1. Palingenetic ultranationalism is a theory concerning generic fascism formulated by British political theorist Roger Griffin. The key elements are that fascism can be defined by its core myth, namely that of "national rebirth" — palingenesis. (Palingenesis is the concept of mythic rebirth from the ashes, embodied by the Phoenix. Palingenetic ultranationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Stanley Payne's work, which offers a "typological definition" of fascism:
a. Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models
b. Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist
c. Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture
d. Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia
e. Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence
f. Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation
g. Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective7
Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 7.

3. Emilio Gentile: A mass movement, that combines different classes, but is predominantly of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics, and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy. Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 5 n.6

4. Fascism is a religion of the state. It is totalitarian in that it assumes everything is political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is defined as the enemy. American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism. Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 23

5. The popular meaning of fascism is controlled by the left, so its use appears as a cudgel to beat political opponents, as in the following versions:
a. Al Gore and the environmentalists imply fascism when they compare global-warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers.
b. Hollywood uses the term to mean ‘anything liberals don’t like.’
c. On NBC’s ‘West Wing’ support for school choice was labeled ‘fascist’.
d. Charlie Rangel claimed that the GOP’s 1994 Contract With America was more extreme than Nazism.
e. In 2000 President Clinton called the Texas GOP platform a ‘fascist tract.’
f. “…some on the left are dusting off the political vocabulary of the 1920's and 30's to describe policies of the Bush administration… ”The Latest Obscenity Has Seven Letters - New York Times
g. NYTimes reporter Chris Hedges book: “American Fascists: The Christian Right…”
h. “Behind Israel's Neo-Nazi Violence” TIME


You read it, didn't you?

No self-control.

Wimp.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If I want to understand fascism, should I go to the source, or should I seek out a 'nanny' to explain it to me PC? I didn't read your 'nanny's' story book, I prefer to make my own judgments and determinations...try it sometime PC, you might stop sounding brainwashed.

This.

And there's no way you can read up on the Nazi's and come to the conclusion that they were liberals in even the most distorted sense of the word.

In mathematics, whenever some claims to have develop a method for trisecting any angle with only a straight-edge and compass the person is rightfully laughed out of the room. Literally no one reads the result because even claiming to have done it means the person clearly is lacking in mathematical reasoning.

I view "Liberal Facism" the same way. If your starting premise is that Hitler was a liberal, then you're just not worth my time. I can spend the time with my son, or on my own research, or just plain indulging other hobbies than listen to inannity I know to be false. Why bother?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If I want to understand fascism, should I go to the source, or should I seek out a 'nanny' to explain it to me PC? I didn't read your 'nanny's' story book, I prefer to make my own judgments and determinations...try it sometime PC, you might stop sounding brainwashed.

"I prefer to make my own judgments and determinations..."

You probably don't realize how absurd you appear: in a discussion about a particular book, you defend the idea that avoiding the primary source is the best way to "make [your]own judgments and determinations."

It expains so much about you, and gives so much amusement to your opposition.


Does this strategy work as well foods you've never eaten, or folks you've never heard of?

Carry on.

The 'primary' source of understanding fascism would be a book written by a fascist.

See if you can pick the fascist PC:

A) Adolph Hitler

B) Jonah Goldberg

Take your time and get back to me.

You are spinning out of control now. Don't you realize that it is useless to attempt to save face...To save face, there must be some respect invested in you by others. In your case, this leaves you on the outside looking in.

To learn about serial killers, only read books by serial killers?

To learn about oncology, read only books by cancer victims?

How does one learn about embalming...I know, a book by one who has been embalmed?

I have fulfilled my role: bringing out the comedy gold in your posts!

 

[PoliticalChic]

If I want to understand fascism, should I go to the source, or should I seek out a 'nanny' to explain it to me PC? I didn't read your 'nanny's' story book, I prefer to make my own judgments and determinations...try it sometime PC, you might stop sounding brainwashed.

This.

And there's no way you can read up on the Nazi's and come to the conclusion that they were liberals in even the most distorted sense of the word.

In mathematics, whenever some claims to have develop a method for trisecting any angle with only a straight-edge and compass the person is rightfully laughed out of the room. Literally no one reads the result because even claiming to have done it means the person clearly is lacking in mathematical reasoning.

I view "Liberal Facism" the same way. If your starting premise is that Hitler was a liberal, then you're just not worth my time. I can spend the time with my son, or on my own research, or just plain indulging other hobbies than listen to inannity I know to be false. Why bother?

Did you read "Liberal Fascism"?

 

[Bfgrn]

Wow...you will go to quite some lengths not to admit you don't read it, but still have strong opinions about the book....

But, I must admit, that technique sure is a time saver..

If I want to understand fascism, should I go to the source, or should I seek out a 'nanny' to explain it to me PC? I didn't read your 'nanny's' story book, I prefer to make my own judgments and determinations...try it sometime PC, you might stop sounding brainwashed.

Warning, BoringFriendlessGuy!

Do not read this post! It contains information about fascism...and I respect your method of "avoiding-at-all-costs any actual material about the subject I wish to express exerptise about"...

OK- you were warned...

1. Palingenetic ultranationalism is a theory concerning generic fascism formulated by British political theorist Roger Griffin. The key elements are that fascism can be defined by its core myth, namely that of "national rebirth" — palingenesis. (Palingenesis is the concept of mythic rebirth from the ashes, embodied by the Phoenix. Palingenetic ultranationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Stanley Payne's work, which offers a "typological definition" of fascism:
a. Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models
b. Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist
c. Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture
d. Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia
e. Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence
f. Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation
g. Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective7
Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 7.

3. Emilio Gentile: A mass movement, that combines different classes, but is predominantly of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics, and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy. Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 5 n.6

4. Fascism is a religion of the state. It is totalitarian in that it assumes everything is political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is defined as the enemy. American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism. Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 23

5. The popular meaning of fascism is controlled by the left, so its use appears as a cudgel to beat political opponents, as in the following versions:
a. Al Gore and the environmentalists imply fascism when they compare global-warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers.
b. Hollywood uses the term to mean ‘anything liberals don’t like.’
c. On NBC’s ‘West Wing’ support for school choice was labeled ‘fascist’.
d. Charlie Rangel claimed that the GOP’s 1994 Contract With America was more extreme than Nazism.
e. In 2000 President Clinton called the Texas GOP platform a ‘fascist tract.’
f. “…some on the left are dusting off the political vocabulary of the 1920's and 30's to describe policies of the Bush administration… ”The Latest Obscenity Has Seven Letters - New York Times
g. NYTimes reporter Chris Hedges book: “American Fascists: The Christian Right…”
h. “Behind Israel's Neo-Nazi Violence” TIME


You read it, didn't you?

No self-control.

Wimp.

Hey PC, you can't accuse liberals of being 'wimps', weak on national security, being ultra NON-nationalistic, squeamish on torture and then call us fascists. You need to pick one or the other.

Fascism in Germany, the folk-state, could best be described as the Nazi' version of German 'exceptionalism'

BTW, I see you reference the 20's and the 30's...

The Hard Road to Fascism : The Watson Institute for International Studies

The Hard Road to Fascism

Today’s antiliberal revolt looks a lot like 1920s Europe.

Abbott Gleason

The United States is at a turning point in its history. Some intellectuals and journalists have compared the destruction of Saddam Hussein with the fall of the Berlin Wall or even the collapse of the Soviet Union. Others—looking to the origins of the Cold War rather than its end—have compared the momentous political and economic changes now underway with the period between 1946 and 1948, when the wartime alliance with the Soviet Union broke down.

But current changes seem deeper, more far-reaching, and at the same time less conclusive than either of these analogies suggests. American power today dominates the world in quite a different way than it did even at the end of the Second World War, when the United States and its European allies faced a powerful and implacable enemy across an increasingly polarized Europe and elsewhere around the globe. At the same time, the American Leviathan is only at the beginning of its crusade—the word seems well chosen—to democratize the world and ensure its harmony with American interests.

A more apt (and troubling) comparison is with the 1920s, when an earlier liberal order collapsed and was replaced by imperial and mega-state regimes.

* * *

Traditional conservatives have persistently criticized modern liberalism for its alleged “softness.” After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagan’s expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.

German and Italian critics of liberalism—writers such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentile—longed for the military spirit that allegedly typified the “front-fighter” generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using force—which would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.

Extreme right-wing theoreticians—for example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt—believed that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communities—at the end of the day by force—and sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its “executive function.”

The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. “The Italians,” Bismarck said, “have such large appetites and such poor teeth.” Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (“sweet do nothing”) that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.

So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the state’s commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elite—battle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian government—could achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial element—the “Thousand Year Empire”—although we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.

* * *

Mutatis mutandis, we find a similar cultural bond between the Bush administration’s imperial foreign policy and its tax cuts, which not only benefit America’s richest people and institutions but are deliberately aimed at starving the welfare state. The United States has achieved its overwhelming military power at the same time and in close connection with a revolt against liberalism, which is arguably as deep as the one that reached its climax with the establishment of the totalitarian regimes of the 1920s and 1930s. Local crises are emerging at the state level all across the United States. Educational institutions are being starved; benefits to the poor are being cut; the proportion of Americans living in poverty is up, as is inequality; crises in Medicare and Social Security loom. And these results are a product of deliberate policy, promoted through a program of deep tax cuts which promise to erode the financial capacity of the state to undertake any but the most minimal welfare functions.

There are still other parallels with the past. The earlier anti-liberal revolt was marked by an attack on cultural decadence and a demand for a return to religion and order. Culture, according to conservative critics, was becoming trash, and the mess had to be cleaned up, by resolute means. In Italy and Germany, and in a different way in the Soviet Union, far more authoritarian or “totalitarian” government came to prevail as state power swelled. In other nations as well, constitutional guarantees were abolished or weakened: authoritarian and traditionalist governments came to power in Spain, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, and Austria, and a quasi-Fascist government formed in Rumania. Liberals were seen as weak-kneed wimps, unwilling to use force internationally and preoccupied with social welfare internally; local patriotisms prevailed everywhere. Eventually, except on the Iberian peninsula, the “totalitarian nations” took over the indecisive authoritarian disciples they had spawned.

Intellectual isolation was also important. In Germany and Italy, competing intellectual points of view were crowded out, just as had occurred earlier—and even more decisively—in the Soviet Union. Foreign opinion and foreign nations were demonized for being run by the wrong classes, religions, races, or politicians.

Of course, there are differences between the past and present anti-liberal revolts. In the Soviet Union private business was demonized and expropriated; in Germany and Italy it was at least thoroughly dominated by the political elite. By contrast, in the current revolt, embodied by the United States, business is an intimate partner of government, at times seeming almost indistinguishable from it. When Iraq is rebuilt, it appears that most of the contracts will go to such companies as Bechtel and Halliburton, with major ties to Vice President Cheney and other administration figures. The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us against almost half a century ago is attaining its maturity.

It has been too little noticed what an about-face the Bush administration has made since 9/11. From an indecisive tendency toward isolation and proposals of Rube Goldberg–style schemes for missile defense, the imperial drive for global dominance has within some few months become the all-but-officially proclaimed doctrine of the administration, though it has been more than a decade in the planning. These apparent contrasts between isolation and empire have one important thing in common: It’s all or nothing, but either way we make our own rules.

Historically, people often do not notice the most important social changes because they are part of the everyday reality that is usually not viewed as being historically significant. Events of great moment are much easier to determine retrospectively. But we should make no mistake: nothing comparable to current cultural and political developments has happened since the world of the 20th century took shape in the period following World War I, the end of the long 19th century. <


Abbott Gleason is professor of history at Brown University and author of Totalitarianism (Oxford University Press, 1995).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's instill some sanity here. Read David Oshinky's online review of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism as well as his own A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy, a fair and balanced look at the controversial senator.

 

[Bfgrn]

"I prefer to make my own judgments and determinations..."

You probably don't realize how absurd you appear: in a discussion about a particular book, you defend the idea that avoiding the primary source is the best way to "make [your]own judgments and determinations."

It expains so much about you, and gives so much amusement to your opposition.


Does this strategy work as well foods you've never eaten, or folks you've never heard of?

Carry on.

The 'primary' source of understanding fascism would be a book written by a fascist.

See if you can pick the fascist PC:

A) Adolph Hitler

B) Jonah Goldberg

Take your time and get back to me.

You are spinning out of control now. Don't you realize that it is useless to attempt to save face...To save face, there must be some respect invested in you by others. In your case, this leaves you on the outside looking in.

To learn about serial killers, only read books by serial killers?

To learn about oncology, read only books by cancer victims?

How does one learn about embalming...I know, a book by one who has been embalmed?

I have fulfilled my role: bringing out the comedy gold in your posts!

Here's your problem PC, Johan Goldberg is no expert on fascism. Adolph Hitler is.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If I want to understand fascism, should I go to the source, or should I seek out a 'nanny' to explain it to me PC? I didn't read your 'nanny's' story book, I prefer to make my own judgments and determinations...try it sometime PC, you might stop sounding brainwashed.

This.

And there's no way you can read up on the Nazi's and come to the conclusion that they were liberals in even the most distorted sense of the word.

In mathematics, whenever some claims to have develop a method for trisecting any angle with only a straight-edge and compass the person is rightfully laughed out of the room. Literally no one reads the result because even claiming to have done it means the person clearly is lacking in mathematical reasoning.

I view "Liberal Facism" the same way. If your starting premise is that Hitler was a liberal, then you're just not worth my time. I can spend the time with my son, or on my own research, or just plain indulging other hobbies than listen to inannity I know to be false. Why bother?

Did you read "Liberal Fascism"?

I thought my post was clear that I'd consider it a waste of time and money. The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich is right there on my shelf right next to a few other good sources on the time period. The lead up to WWII and the impact of the Nazis on Mathematics at Gottingen is one of my biggest history of math related interests. Considering the high regard I have for David Hilbert and Emily Noether I've done more than a fair bit of research into the kind of government that could drive folks like Neumann, Erdos, and others out of Europe.

So again, when your starting premise is so ridiculous and you intend to charge me for the privilege of reading it... I think I'll pass for now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This.

And there's no way you can read up on the Nazi's and come to the conclusion that they were liberals in even the most distorted sense of the word.

In mathematics, whenever some claims to have develop a method for trisecting any angle with only a straight-edge and compass the person is rightfully laughed out of the room. Literally no one reads the result because even claiming to have done it means the person clearly is lacking in mathematical reasoning.

I view "Liberal Facism" the same way. If your starting premise is that Hitler was a liberal, then you're just not worth my time. I can spend the time with my son, or on my own research, or just plain indulging other hobbies than listen to inannity I know to be false. Why bother?

Did you read "Liberal Fascism"?

I thought my post was clear that I'd consider it a waste of time and money. The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich is right there on my shelf right next to a few other good sources on the time period. The lead up to WWII and the impact of the Nazis on Mathematics at Gottingen is one of my biggest history of math related interests. Considering the high regard I have for David Hilbert and Emily Noether I've done more than a fair bit of research into the kind of government that could drive folks like Neumann, Erdos, and others out of Europe.

So again, when your starting premise is so ridiculous and you intend to charge me for the privilege of reading it... I think I'll pass for now.

Another genius with strong opinions based on not reading the book under discussion...

let me guess: another product of the government schools?

 

[Bfgrn]

Let's instill some sanity here. Read David Oshinky's online review of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism as well as his own A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy, a fair and balanced look at the controversial senator.

If you really want to understand and delve into the personality markers and psychological roots, start here; a study that examined 88 different psychological studies conducted between 1958 and 2002 that involved 22,818 people from 12 different countries. They boiled that information down into a number of psychological attributes that are closely associated with people who are politically conservative.

Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition - http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf

If that is too technical, here's a Goldwater conservative that used a 50 year study of authoritarianism.

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Understanding the Contemporary Republican Party Authoritarians Have Taken Control

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Did you read "Liberal Fascism"?

I thought my post was clear that I'd consider it a waste of time and money. The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich is right there on my shelf right next to a few other good sources on the time period. The lead up to WWII and the impact of the Nazis on Mathematics at Gottingen is one of my biggest history of math related interests. Considering the high regard I have for David Hilbert and Emily Noether I've done more than a fair bit of research into the kind of government that could drive folks like Neumann, Erdos, and others out of Europe.

So again, when your starting premise is so ridiculous and you intend to charge me for the privilege of reading it... I think I'll pass for now.

Another genius with strong opinions based on not reading the book under discussion...

let me guess: another product of the government schools?

It's more a product of my mathematics background. When your initial claim is demonstrably false, why bother reading the rest? Especially if you intend to charge me for the privilege.

I'll give you another example. At least once every three months I check ArXiv and find a "proof" of the Jacobian Conjecture. Every proof starts with the same technique that has been demonstrated to fail, but somehow the author claims "this time is different!". At this point, as important as the Jacobian conjecture is, I'm not reading a paper that starts with the same failed arguments.

Liberal Facism is the same experience. The idea that the original premise that a pro-Military, pro-Nationalist, pro-big business, anti-intellectual regime that cloaked itself in religion and a call to earlier glory can in any way be liberal is so ridiculous that it just isn't worth the time. Especially if you're expecting me to plunk down hard earned cash. So no, I'll stick to reading the accounts of those that lived, that died, or that were forced to flee.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I thought my post was clear that I'd consider it a waste of time and money. The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich is right there on my shelf right next to a few other good sources on the time period. The lead up to WWII and the impact of the Nazis on Mathematics at Gottingen is one of my biggest history of math related interests. Considering the high regard I have for David Hilbert and Emily Noether I've done more than a fair bit of research into the kind of government that could drive folks like Neumann, Erdos, and others out of Europe.

So again, when your starting premise is so ridiculous and you intend to charge me for the privilege of reading it... I think I'll pass for now.

Another genius with strong opinions based on not reading the book under discussion...

let me guess: another product of the government schools?

It's more a product of my mathematics background. When your initial claim is demonstrably false, why bother reading the rest? Especially if you intend to charge me for the privilege.

I'll give you another example. At least once every three months I check ArXiv and find a "proof" of the Jacobian Conjecture. Every proof starts with the same technique that has been demonstrated to fail, but somehow the author claims "this time is different!". At this point, as important as the Jacobian conjecture is, I'm not reading a paper that starts with the same failed arguments.

Liberal Facism is the same experience. The idea that the original premise that a pro-Military, pro-Nationalist, pro-big business, anti-intellectual regime that cloaked itself in religion and a call to earlier glory can in any way be liberal is so ridiculous that it just isn't worth the time. Especially if you're expecting me to plunk down hard earned cash. So no, I'll stick to reading the accounts of those that lived, that died, or that were forced to flee.

I fully understand you fervent desire to switch the subject to a topic in which you are more conversant, and arguably more knowledgeable, mathematics...but you have made an error: unlike BoringFriendless, you had and have some cache, some of which you have squandered in these posts.

Based on my fondness for you, let me suggest what would have been the proper response:

1. "Although I have not read the book, and am therefore unable produce a thoughtful critique of same, ..."

or

2. "Although this does not speak directly to the matter at hand, i.e., "Liberal Fascism," other readings that I have read inform my opinion as to the origins of fascism and progressivism...

a. "My understanding of the origin and evolution of fascism and/or progressivism is..."

or, as a last resort,

3. "I'll comment on 'Liberal Fascism' at such time as I have had an opportunity to read same."

Generally I find you participation more ratiocinative.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

2. "Although this does not speak directly to the matter at hand, i.e., "Liberal Fascism," other readings that I have read inform my opinion as to the origins of fascism and progressivism...

Actually, I said that earlier. I referenced a few other sources back in my earlier posts. As I said, one of my hobbies is the History of Mathematics. It's easily one of my favorite courses to teach. It's impossible to read about poor lonely David Hilbert (a personal hero of mine) who saw the famous school at Gottingen destroyed by the Nazis and not want to read up on them. It's impossible to read about Emmy Noether, forced to flee the Nazi's and not want to know what kind of idiots would instigate that. Or Paul Erdos who lost his family to those monsters. Or read about poor Felix Hausdorf who committed suicide rather than go to the camps.

So yeah, I've read up on the Nazis. I know what they were, and as such I feel very comfortable outright rejecting "Liberal Facism".

 

[QUENTIN]

Liberals are empowered by emotion that suspends rational thought.

That's why a simple mantra like "Change and Hope" was like street crack to the liberal mind.

Liberals have a utopian vision for mankind that even science fiction writers would envy.

Where everyone thinks, acts, and lives harmoniously in a monochrome PC world.

On the contrary, liberals (Democrats, as we're not ALL uber liberal, you know) operate from a WHAT IS rationality. It's conservatives who operate in their idyllic BUT WHAT IF state of mind. A more than perfect example is the TARP "bailout." The bank failures were about to take down the GLOBAL economy, including of course our own. But Republicans continued with their "Yes, but what if? Won't the free market if left alone right the situation?" In time, maybe, but in the meantime, i.e., N.O.W, people would be dying in the streets.

You conflate "liberals" and "Democrats," almost redefining it to refer to the latter.

What you mean is Democrats, and that's fine, you're a Democrat, but if you support the Democrats even when their policies are wildly inconsistent with and in contradiction of liberalism, you're a Democrat, not a liberal.

This was part of my point. There's a huge difference between an ideology and a political party and the two major political parties in America are defined primarily by neither "liberalism" or "convervatism" despite the intellectual laziness of our rhetoric and common terminology.

1. "And I consider myself a leftist..."
Let's begin with the necessity for definition of terms...Leftist: socialist, syndicalist, progressive, liberal, fascist, nazi, commuist, statist, collectivist...pick your poison...now tell how you differ from the other eight. I see all as being totalist philosophies.

"How ironic that the way [H. G.] Wells refers to the fascists and Communists could apply to today&#8217;s liberals: &#8220;they embody the rule of a minority conceited enough to believe that they have a clue to the tangled incoherencies of human life, and need only sufficiently terrorize criticism and opposition to achieve a general happiness,&#8230;&#8221; And even more prescient, when we consider the current administration against the backdrop of Wells&#8217; criticism of Soviet Communism as central-planning with &#8220;police-state thuggery.&#8221;
&#8220;The Godfather of American Liberalism&#8221;
The Godfather of American Liberalism by Fred Siegel, City Journal Spring 2009

2. "... Bush's term wasn't particularly conservative .."
No argument here.

3. "Liberalism, progressivism, leftism, like conservatism or libertarianism, is an ideology that can be defined and demonstrated throughout history."
Let's begin our argument here.
First, the classical liberalism
a. Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the liberalism of which you speak was of the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn&#8217;t want to behave, let alone &#8216;evolve.&#8217;

b. &#8220;The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the [classical] liberal society has no overarching goal.&#8221; War Is the Health of the State

c. After the resounding rejection of Wilson's progressivism, the progressives changed their title to 'liberal.'
&#8220;Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n45566374/

4. Now, that "...throughout history..."part: this is only true if history begins with the French Revolution.
The Enlightenment gave impetus to the French Revolution, which was an attempt to cast off both the oppression of the monarchy, and of the Church.

a. In France, there was the development of an apparatus of ideological enforcement for &#8216;reason.&#8217; But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that &#8216;enlightened despotism&#8217; would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in &#8216;tyranny of popular opinion&#8217; or even &#8216;a dictatorship of the proletariat.&#8217;

b. Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: &#8220;We must reason about all things,&#8221; and anyone who &#8216;refuses to seek out the truth&#8217; thereby renounces his human nature and &#8220;should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.&#8221; So, once &#8216;truth&#8217; is determined, anyone who doesn&#8217;t accept it was &#8220;either insane or wicked and morally evil.&#8221; It is not the individual who has the &#8220; right to decide about the nature of right and wrong,&#8221; but only &#8220;the human race,&#8221; expressed as the general will. Himmelfarb, &#8220;The Roads to Modernity,&#8221; p. 167-68

c. Robespierre used Rousseau&#8217;s call for a &#8220;reign of virtue,&#8217; proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In &#8216;The Social Contract&#8217; Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: &#8220;the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.&#8221; Himmefarb, Ibid.

d. In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, to do away with all inequalities in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, &#8220;Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,&#8221; p. 3-7


There are, according to Talmon, in "Totalitarian Democracy," three stages in the development of &#8220;totalitarian democracy&#8221; in the French Revolution. First, there was the Rousseauist intellectual background, which rejected all existing institutions as relics of despotism and clerical obscurantism, and which demanded a complete renovation of society so that it would be an expression of the General Will&#8212;this last being no mere consensus but an objective standard of virtue and reason that imperfect humanity must be coerced into obeying in order to enjoy a bonheur de médiocrité for which it was as yet ill-prepared.

Second, there was the Reign of Terror, when an &#8220;enlightened&#8221; vanguard of Jacobins undertook to impose the General Will&#8212;when Robespierre acted out his role as &#8220;the bloody hand of Rousseau,&#8221; as Heine called him.

Third, there was the post-Thermidorean conspiracy of Babeuf and his associates, which added to political messianism the doctrine of economic communism, thereby pointing the way to Marx. The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy, by J. L. Talmon

5. "The ideology behind leftism is not the same ideology as the Democratic party and the agenda of liberals is significantly different than the agenda of the Democratic party, in fact they're directly opposed."

Here are some of the more important aspects of all of those:
a. The Constitution is outdated and must be repolaced with a 'living Constituition.'

b. The collective, or the state is superior to the individual. There is no private property beyond the needs and wishes of the state.

c. The result of the correct governmental polices, laws, leaders will be a utopia on earth.

d. There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state.

6. "...disenfranchised workers toward the college-educated liberal elite, who abetted or did nothing to halt the corporate assault on the poor and the working class of the last 30 years, is not misplaced."
Absolute left-wing nonsense.
a. no one is barred from choices that will improve or destroy their lives.
b. corporations are public, and owned, almost entirely by ordinary folks:

&#8220;Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil&#8217;s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.&#8221; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html

The rich folk pay almost all of the taxes, and those evil corporations?

In 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income tax, and while Exxon&#8217;s earnings increased 89% from 2003 to 2007, their income taxes increased 170%. Exxon: Profit Pirate or Tax Victim?

. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion.&#8221; Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills - US News and World Report
If Exxon&#8217;s 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filer&#8217;s share would be $1,259/year. Still hate Exxon? The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million


Friend Q, I hope you are at an early point in your journey through life, because you have so much to learn....

I want to start by addressing how you didn't address at all any of my points about the massive difference between leftism and what the Democratic party does. No response to Hedges' critique of how the Democrats have abandoned leftism for comfort, money, and power and no response to my own long list of the actions of this Democratic president and Democratic Congress that are absolutely anathema to leftism. If you're going to respond, please address them, otherwise I don't see the point in this discussion. If you want to label the Democrats as leftist and assert they're the same thing, how do you account for the fact that all of their policies aren't just not leftist but against leftism?

Your apparent definition of leftism isn't remotely accurate. To go for as uncontroversial and official a defintion as possible, we turn to the dictionary where a leftist is described as: "someone who seeks radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality. "

Leftist | Define Leftist at Dictionary.com

I don't really subscribe to a particularly ideology, I've yet to find one that totally matches up with my beliefs, but libertarian socialism comes closest.

That's the opposite of totalitarian as totalitarianism is "absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution." while the many ideologies under the umbrella of libertarian socialism call for NO STATE AT ALL and thus NO CONTROL or CENTRALIZATION at all. So it differs in the most significant and consequential way imaginable.

I don't think you know what leftism is except for a catch-all term for things you oppose. The idea that fascism and Nazism for instance, extremely far right ideologies, are leftist is absurd.

Classical liberalism is different than the liberalism I'm talking about, I assumed you knew that and didn't know we had to define our terms. You asked in the OP "So, How Come You're Still A Leftie?" Classical liberals aren't leftists, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. In terms of history, yes I was referring to since the French Revolution, particularly in America between 1870-1945.

Then you do a lot of examples of how other people who either called themselves liberals or were at one point liberals abandoned liberal principles throughout history in Europe, which I think plays more into my point than yours. Again, it's an ideology and who believes in and practices it can be judged by their actions. So from the European totalitarians onto Stalin, Mao, or anyone else of that ilk you want to mention were totalitarians who believed in supreme human authority over their populations, they weren't leftists. Communism is leftist, but has never been practiced as such, since it never gets past the vanguard stage and that vanguard then makes themselves into an oligarchy. Just as self-proclaimed conservatives have not brought on or fought for limited government the past few decades because they're not really conservative in the political sense. Again, it doesn't matter what people call themselves when we judge them, it matters what they do. Trusting a politician on where they fall on a political spectrum based on their statements rather than their actions, especially when those two are so contradictory, is foolish.

There are forms of totalitarianism that also share some aspects (mostly economic) of socialism that line up with your aspects list, but that's it. No leftist believes "There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state." and it's ludicrous to say so. Again, it seems you've defined leftism not as what it is but as a term to describe whatever it is you oppose. Totalitarian regimes, by their very nature, are not leftist. The economic and social conditions of an ideal leftist society give everyone equal power and do not require a state, much less state control, so an all-powerful state is common to fascism and other tyrannical forms of governance that are actually on the right-wing. There may be elements of totalitarianism in Communism when practiced, but the extent to which they are totalitarian is the extent to which they veer from leftism. Put rather simply, leftist ideology simply seeks to craft a culture of equality for all (some with an extremely open, democratic state run clearly by, of, and for the people, some with no state at all). There are valid criticism of that, but they're not found in equating it with ideologies where that is decidedly not the case such as totalitarianism with its incredible disparity in power among the populace.

If you don't think corporations wield and exercise undue and destructive influence, then I understand why we're on such opposite ends of the political spectrum, but this really isn't a discussion of the virtues of leftism vs. rightism so that's kinda moot.

I'm just pointing out that what you're describing as leftism plainly isn't, it's your bastardized personal definition divorced from what the word means and what the ideology supports and since the gap between leftist values and policy and Democratic Party values and policy is bigger than the Grand Canyon, your posed question doesn't make sense and misses the point. The Democratic Party is fundamentally corporatist (like the Republican Party), leftism is diametrically opposed to its very essence to corporatism, so you can't equate the two.

As for the condescending final line, however kindly you phrased it, I'd just say right back at you.

There are lots of things about right-wing politics I oppose, but that doesn't mean I'll start ascribing every imaginable negative to them, ignore what the ideology actually is, and just assume if I don't like it, it's "rightist" and everyone who doesn't believe as I do is a "rightist" regardless of how much substantial difference there is between and among them. I don't agree with anarchocapitalism, neo-conservativism, or theocracy, but that doesn't mean they're all even remotely the same and to pretend otherwise would be ignorant or dishonest.

While I admit that I kinda' like reading it, your post is largely nonsense.
"I don't really subscribe to a particularly ideology, I've yet to find one that totally matches up with my beliefs, but libertarian socialism comes closest."

That's the end then, isn't it...

You define yourself into one hair-splitting almost impossible to find box, unique in the universe.

OK.

But just because the Democrats pretend, as you do, that they do not wish the command-and-control economy, the statist overarching authority over every aspect of citizen's lives, doesn't mean that, given a more realistic binomial system of political debate, you and they would not be members of the same totalitarian camp that includes all the categories that I named.

The other camp is the one that includes conservatives, classical liberals, libertarians,...but not you.

But, a few corrections..."I don't think you know what leftism is except for a catch-all term for things you oppose."

The left has as it's major principles the four items that I listed.


Just one more correction...

"Totalitarian regimes, by their very nature, are not leftist. The economic and social conditions of an ideal leftist society give everyone equal power and do not require a state, much less state control, so an all-powerful state is common to fascism and other tyrannical forms of governance that are actually on the right-wing."

Fascism, communism, nazism, modern liberalism, are all permutations of what began as progressivism. Prior to WWII, fascism was viewed as a progressive social movement, and was championed by many in both Europe and the United States. Musselini, FDR, Sorel, Lenin, Hitler,...all totalists, who saw the government as superior to the individual, and corporatism as a tool toward the utopia that was just down the road...

1. "Before WW II, where the term fascism was smeared by the actions of Nazi fascism, many progressive leaders proudly proclaimed thralldom with it, and with its major proponents, such as Mussolini. After, they had to not only distance themselves from it, but now proclaim that fascism was &#8216;right-wing.&#8217;" http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf

Toward that end, the individual was expendable, another tool was eugenics...

Your Democrats have up-dated same with an eye toward rationed healthcare, 'death panels.'

2. During the 1930s H.G. Wells's theory of revolutionary praxis centred around a concept of &#8216;liberal fascism&#8217; whereby the Wellsian &#8216;liberal&#8217; utopia would be achieved by an authoritarian élite. Taking inspiration from the militarized political movements of the 1930s, this marked a development in the Wellsian theory of revolution from the &#8216;open conspiracy&#8217; of the 1920s. Although both communist and fascist movements evinced some of the desired qualities of a Wellsian vanguard, it was fascism rather than communism which came closest to Wells's ideal. However, in practice, despite the failure of approaches to parties of the left and centre as possible agents of revolution, Wells rejected the British Union of Fascists. The disparity between Wells's theory and his actions when faced by the reality of fascism echoes the unresolved tension between ends and means at the heart of the concept of &#8216;liberal fascism&#8217;.
H.G. Wells's ?Liberal Fascism? ? Journal of Contemporary History


This, from a discussion of Goldbergs' "Libeal Fascism,"

The side of fascism he attributes to American liberalism is not that associated with the works of George Orwell or the racism and genocide of the Holocaust. It is much less brutal, &#8220;smiley-face fascism,&#8221; as he puts it. He asserts that liberals hold political principles which are similar to those found in many fascist regimes. They have a desire to form a powerful state which coordinates a society where everybody belongs and everyone is taken care of; where there is faith in the perfectibility of people and the authority of experts; and where everything is political, including health and well-being. Apparently, the Nazis were strong promoters of organic foods and animal rights, fought against large department stores, and promoted antismoking and public health drives.
Liberal Fascism Explained

3. . Fascism is a religion of the state. It is totalitarian in that it assumes everything is political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is defined as the enemy. American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism. Jonah Goldberg, 'Liberal Fascism', p. 23

I don't know what this bullshit business is of a "binomial system of political debate." I am capable of considering more than two options, particularly if neither option matches up with my beliefs. You should try it some time. There's much more to the world than black and white and false dichotomies.

I am not in any sense or under any circumstances "on the side" of totalitarians or of Democrats (not that they're remotely the same thing either). I've never voted for a Democrat and actively oppose Democrats, I think the party and its policies are anathema to what I believe to be good. Just because I think the Republican party is marginally worse doesn't mean I have even a slight affinity for or allegiance to or similarities with the Democratic party. I think Pol Pot is worse than Idi Amin, that doesn't mean Amin and I are "on the same side."

I oppose any state at all, I support a society without any government at all, so claiming I have something in common with totalitarians is patently ridiculous.

This whole closed-off "binomial" way of looking at the world is intentional ignorance based on false and simplistic choices.

As for the rest, you failed for the fourth time to address the massive laundry list of significant and extreme divergences between what the Democratic party has done and what leftist policies are, so I'm done playing a game with someone who doesn't play fair and refuses to address the primary point of the person they're debating.

I don't really subscribe to a particularly ideology, I've yet to find one that totally matches up with my beliefs, but libertarian socialism comes closest.

libertarian socialism....?

wouldn't that be a tad bit of an oxymoron....emphasis on moron....?

I don't really subscribe to a particularly ideology, I've yet to find one that totally matches up with my beliefs, but libertarian socialism comes closest.

libertarian socialism....?

wouldn't that be a tad bit of an oxymoron....emphasis on moron....?

Just spitballing here, but I'd imagine Libertarian Socialism means you're in favor of personal privacy and freedom, i.e. do what you want as long as you don't harm others, while maintaining that essential services should be run by the government.

That isn't that crazy of an idea all in all. Sounds pretty close to my philosophy.

For the uninitiated or curious:

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, and sometimes left libertarianism) is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes the alleged coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism or as a synonym for socialist anarchism.

Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.

Accordingly, libertarian socialists believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form&#8212;whether economic, political, religious, or sexual&#8212;brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised." Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions and workers' councils.

"Libertarian socialism" is a term for a specific ideology, it doesn't mean "the definition of traditional libertarianism" + "The definition of traditional socialism" as that indeed would not make sense.

I don't really define myself as one because I have divergences on particular issues, but when asked to identify what my ideology is, that's what comes closest.

It's egalitarian, mixes the benefits of collective society with the freedom and lack of coercion of individualism, and it's stateless (thus could not be further from any form of totalitarianism or statism). On the traditional political compass referenced, it falls on the furthest end of the left and the lowest end of libertarianism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals are empowered by emotion that suspends rational thought.

That's why a simple mantra like "Change and Hope" was like street crack to the liberal mind.

Liberals have a utopian vision for mankind that even science fiction writers would envy.

Where everyone thinks, acts, and lives harmoniously in a monochrome PC world.

On the contrary, liberals (Democrats, as we're not ALL uber liberal, you know) operate from a WHAT IS rationality. It's conservatives who operate in their idyllic BUT WHAT IF state of mind. A more than perfect example is the TARP "bailout." The bank failures were about to take down the GLOBAL economy, including of course our own. But Republicans continued with their "Yes, but what if? Won't the free market if left alone right the situation?" In time, maybe, but in the meantime, i.e., N.O.W, people would be dying in the streets.

You conflate "liberals" and "Democrats," almost redefining it to refer to the latter.

What you mean is Democrats, and that's fine, you're a Democrat, but if you support the Democrats even when their policies are wildly inconsistent with and in contradiction of liberalism, you're a Democrat, not a liberal.

This was part of my point. There's a huge difference between an ideology and a political party and the two major political parties in America are defined primarily by neither "liberalism" or "convervatism" despite the intellectual laziness of our rhetoric and common terminology.



I don't know what this bullshit business is of a "binomial system of political debate." I am capable of considering more than two options, particularly if neither option matches up with my beliefs. You should try it some time. There's much more to the world than black and white and false dichotomies.

I am not in any sense or under any circumstances "on the side" of totalitarians or of Democrats (not that they're remotely the same thing either). I've never voted for a Democrat and actively oppose Democrats, I think the party and its policies are anathema to what I believe to be good. Just because I think the Republican party is marginally worse doesn't mean I have even a slight affinity for or allegiance to or similarities with the Democratic party. I think Pol Pot is worse than Idi Amin, that doesn't mean Amin and I are "on the same side."

I oppose any state at all, I support a society without any government at all, so claiming I have something in common with totalitarians is patently ridiculous.

This whole closed-off "binomial" way of looking at the world is intentionally ignorance based on false and simplistic choices.

As for the rest, you failed for the fourth time to address the massive laundry list of significant and extreme divergences between what the Democratic party has done and what leftist policies are, so I'm done playing a game with someone who doesn't play fair and refuses to address the primary point of the person they're debating.

Just spitballing here, but I'd imagine Libertarian Socialism means you're in favor of personal privacy and freedom, i.e. do what you want as long as you don't harm others, while maintaining that essential services should be run by the government.

That isn't that crazy of an idea all in all. Sounds pretty close to my philosophy.

For the uninitiated or curious:

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, and sometimes left libertarianism) is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes the alleged coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism or as a synonym for socialist anarchism.

Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.

Accordingly, libertarian socialists believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form—whether economic, political, religious, or sexual—brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised." Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions and workers' councils.

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism and social ecology) as well as autonomism, and some versions of individualist anarchism. Some libertarian socialists, such as Noam Chomsky, are willing to use the powers of the state until it can be overthrown; he says: "There is no conflict. You should use whatever methods are available to you. There is no conflict between trying to overthrow the state and using the means that are provided in a partially democratic society, the means that have been developed through popular struggles over centuries."

"Libertarian socialism" is a term for a specific ideology, it doesn't mean "the definition of traditional libertarianism" + "The definition of traditional socialism" as that indeed would not make sense.

I don't really define myself as one because I have divergences on particular issues, but when asked to identify what my ideology is, that's what comes closest.

It's egalitarian, mixes the benefits of collective society with the freedom and lack of coercion of individualism, and it's stateless (thus could not be further from any form of totalitarianism or statism). On the traditional political compass referenced, it falls on the furthest end of the left and the lowest end of libertarianism.

"I don't know what this bullshit business is of a "binomial system of political debate." I am capable of considering more than two options, particularly if neither option matches up with my beliefs. You should try it some time. There's much more to the world than black and white and false dichotomies."

The system I'm applying is one which most closely represents that under which we live in the United States...a binomal political system (debate).

You should try it sometime.

It obiates any discussion if one defines a position which never was and never will be...
if the shoe fits...


"I oppose any state at all, I support a society without any government at all, so claiming I have something in common with totalitarians is patently ridiculous."

The above defines you as, educationally, a child, with no understanding of either history or human nature.

Up against the wall, Mother Hubbard.