Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If the meaning of the spectrum changes, then we all need to keep up with the changes, if we don't, we can't talk to each other.
First... try not to put totalitarianism and libertarian/anarchism on a left right basis... you can be more right OR left and still be totalitarian or libertarian/anarchist...
Second.. try and think of the spectrum as having both an x and y axis...
Third.. as seen by your ignorant responses so far, it is quite apparent that you are yet another in the long line of leftist partisan hacks... complete ignorance as to what a conservative is, or a neo conservative for that matter.. and with very little interest beyond trying to bash anyone on the 'right' that you label according to your titles based on pure ignorance
How I wish people would respect knowledge like you ask.
They dont, they twist and turn and call verifiable proof bullshit here.
Its the price you pay for trying to bring truth to people who want to hide in the back of the cave and remain stupid and in the dark.
Dave, if you took the second set of comments as a personal insult, then I guess that says more about you then it does me. The comments that you quoted were in response to a particular post, and any reasonable person should have seen that.
Llama, I disagree with you, there was nothing about Stalin's economic policies that could be considered left.
Difference between authoritarian and totalitarian states
According to Karl Lowenstein, "the term 'authoritarian' denotes a political organization in which the single power holder - an individual person or "dictator", an assembly, a committee, a junta, or a party monopolizes political power. The term "authoritarian" refers rather to the structure of government than to the structure of society. An authoritarian regime confines itself to political control of the state.
The governmental techniques of a totalitarian regime are necessarily authoritarian.[2] But a totalitarian regime does much more. It attempts to mold the private life, soul, and morals of citizens to a dominant ideology. The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into every nook and cranny of society; its ambition is total.[2]
Totalitarian regimes seek to destroy civil society i.e. communities that operate independently of the State. Neither the Italian fascists nor the Nazis completely "destroyed their respective social structures", and so these countries "could rapidly return to normalcy" after defeat in World War II.
In contrast, attempts to reform the regime in the USSR "led to nowhere because every non-governmental institution, whether social or economic, had to be built from scratch. The result was neither reform of Communism nor establishment of democracy, but a progressive breakdown of organized life".[2]
1. Anybody who gives a crap about reputation points is too dumb to be in here. Any argument that's worth a damn is going to piss somebody off.
2. Neg-reps are the work of people who have no hope of actually winning the argument on its merits. Too bad for you....
Devnell, I agree. But, I also think the first few posts are in and of themselves a circle jerk. People who want to debate open and honestly shouldn't have to figure out what words mean
Obama is a practical centrist with leftist leanings.
Seventeen years later, another young honor student was offered a job as an organizer in Chicago. By then, Alinsky had died, but a group of his disciples hired Barack Obama, a 23-year-old Columbia University graduate, to organize black residents on the South Side, while learning and applying Alinsky's philosophy of street-level democracy.
In Rules for Radicals (his final work, published in 1971 one year before his death), he addressed the 1960s generation of radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power. In the first chapter, opening paragraph of the book Alinsky writes, "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away".
In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky outlines his strategy in organizing, writing in the prologue,
"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."[4]
Devnell, I agree. But, I also think the first few posts are in and of themselves a circle jerk. People who want to debate open and honestly shouldn't have to figure out what words mean
DiamondDave, I just re-read one of your posts, and I have a question. If you can be totalitarian or far left and still be on either side of the spectrum, then what does that say about everything in between?
Dave, thanks. By all means, go do what you have to do. I'm not sure I buy the 3 dimension argument, but I'll be here tomorrow.
Dave, thanks. By all means, go do what you have to do. I'm not sure I buy the 3 dimension argument, but I'll be here tomorrow.
Dave, the graph you posted is not 3 dimensional
Dev I have to ask for support on this (something beyond appointments made thus far). My research on this guy shows that he has dedicated his life to far left wing causes and has allied himself from his early days in Chicago (before law school) with people whose ideologies represent the farther left folks in the US. See this article from the Washington Post about Obama and our new Sec State and their common backgrounds an mentors.
Saul, was/is a brilliant left wing radical/reactionary as far as I know. I've had a few older friends through the years who were actually trained under or with Alinsky methods. A few are still radicals, a few more are more centrist as life experiences change the ideals and perceptions of people as they mature.So, who is Saul Alinsky? He wrote "Rules for Radicals" and mentored other people like Ceasar Chavez of Farm Worker Union fame.
Wiki Saul Alinsky
The basis is his history. From his days in Boston/Cambridge, Obama has been a man on a mission...personal advancement mixed with the knowledge that ones ideals are useless in the real world unless they are married to the power to affect change.Now clearly, Obama had lots of other associates in his life, but he constantly strove throughout his life to for the same goals he started with when he got to Chicago. Why is it that you claim that now that he has the power, he will throw what he worked his whole life for out the window and suddenly become a darker complected Bill Clinton? I just don't see a basis upon which to make that judgment.
The New Republic
The Agitator by Ryan Lizza
Barack Obama's unlikely political education.
Post Date Monday, March 19, 2007
