Why all dictatorships Left Wing

Post Reply New Topic

So I take it Augusto Pinochet was left wing?

That's it Inuyasha. I'm going to say it.

YOU LIEEEEEEEEE!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !

Where did I say "weak"? SMALL. And they are already forcing their views on the people, using that perceived weakness as a shield to make ever more brutal decisions.

Right....

Seriously, since when is saying that instead of just giving someone food, we should teach them how to do something to either grow their own food, fish, etc. so they could feed themselves for a lifetime a brutal decision?

You'll be thinking of charity advertising there. "Teach a man to fish.." etc. Not the same thing at all. Certainly not the same thing as claiming that a small government desires to not control its subject populace.

I never said that Government wouldn't want that, power corrupts, why do you think Conservatives are opposed to big Government with lots of power.

But they're all for big business with lots of power.

Ok, what about Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy? (Hey, I'm giving you non Nazi examples of right wing dictatorships!)

Oh, yeah, those fascist dictator ships were soooo left wing.

Um, why don't we feed them while we teach them how to grow their own food? Food doesn't grow over night.

Last edited by alicedress on 17 Dec 2010, 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

marxism isnt whats bad, they follow Karl Marx who just wanted no government because a true communist state is with no leaders because everyone is equal and working together but today when we think communist we think Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cuba but they are NOT communist, they are Pseudo-Communist they are communist only in name. communists arent evil they are actually very good i mean their ideal government is no government and where everyone works and shares with a common goal but that is its downfall on large scale communism cannot work on large scale because not enough people are willing to work together for a common goal to allow it to work its a good idea and it can only work on small scale like a town or something. me personally? im a Jeffersonian Democratic Republican Libertarian, you try to tell me it dont exist i say BS. i believe in the right to vote and the ultimate power resting with the people(democrat) i believe in electing officials(republican) and i believe in individual freedom(libertarian)-to a point, for me freedom means you can do whatever you want as long as you dont infringe on the freedoms of others, basically you have 100% control over your own body and your own property and your future thats about it. and i say Jeffersonian because back in the day (early 1800s) there was a something called a Jeffersonian democracy, so named after Thomas Jefferson, is a political philosophy supporting a federal government with greatly constrained powers and advocating a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Jeffersonian philosophy also called for state and local governments to safeguard the rights and property of citizens. Jeffersonians recognized both private and common property.
In its core ideals it is characterized by the following elements, which the Jeffersonians expressed in their speeches and legislation:
* The core political value of America is representative democracy; citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption, especially monarchism and aristocracy.
* The yeoman farmer best exemplifies civic virtue and independence from corrupting city influences; government policy should be for his benefit. Financiers, bankers and industrialists make cities the cesspools of corruption, and should be avoided.
* Americans had a duty to spread what Jefferson called the "Empire of Liberty" to the world, but should avoid "entangling alliances."
* The national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; it should be watched closely and circumscribed in its powers. Most Anti-Federalists from 1787-88 joined the Jeffersonians.
* The wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from intervention by the federal government, government free of religious disputes, and religion free from corruption by government.
* The federal government must not violate the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights is a central theme.
* The federal government must not violate the rights of the states. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 (written secretly by Jefferson and James Madison) proclaim these principles.
* Freedom of speech and the press is the best method to prevent the tyranny of the people by their own government. The Federalists' violation of this idea through the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 became a major issue.
* A standing army and navy are dangerous to liberty and should be avoided; much better was to use economic coercion such as the embargo.
* The United States Constitution was written in order to ensure the freedom of the people. A strict view of how the constitution was written is kept. However, "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation."
* All men had the right to be informed, and thus, to have a say in the government. The protection and expansion of human liberty was one of the chief goals of the Jeffersonians. They also reformed their respective state systems of education. They believed that their citizens had the right and should be educated no matter their circumstance or status in life.

One of the recent right wing bleating points is that fascists were actually liberals/progressives. Beck has done a lot to further that particular delusion.

You don't even need to invoke fascists to disprove his theory that all dictatorships are left wing. The fact of the matter is the regime of Augusto Pinochet had political ideals very close to those of the American right (in fact he received massive support of a Chicago based group of economic anti-socialist activists). Yet he was not democratically elected. He took over in a military coup against a democratically elected socialist government with the implicit support of the US government and the CIA. He ended up imprisoning and killing political dissenters in the name of promoting free-markets and combating socialism.

Actually, one could argue they were left wing too on the basis they had government controlling everything. The problem is that Conservatism as seen in the United States has completely different views from a dictatorship. Conservative values is pro-individual rights, personal responsibility, pro-gun ownership. From that standpoint Mussolini was not a conservative, nor was Franco.



A novel concept but not likely to happen.

Last edited by Inuyasha on 17 Dec 2010, 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Benito Mussolini, Italy

Humberto Branco, Brazil -- "Branco's regime was short but brutal. Labor unions were banned, criticism of the President became unlawful, and thousands of 'suspected communists' (including children) were arrested and tortured."

Maximilano Hernandez Martinez, El Salvador -- "The official records of Hernandez Martinez's anti-communist purge of 1932 were removed from EI Salvador's National Library, but the massacres, which left 40,000 peasants dead and wiped out the country's Indian culture, remain etched on the nation's collective memory."

Roberto Suazo Cordova, Honduras -- "President Suazo Cordova, working with U.S. Ambassador John Dmitri Negroponte and Honduran General Gustava Alvarez, allowed Honduras to become a training center for U.S. funded Nicaraguan contras. General Alvarez, who according to Newsweek, 'doesn't care if officers are thieves, as long as they are virulent anti-communists,'"

Anastasio Somoza, Nicaragua -- "In 1935, General Smedley Butler, who led the Marines into Nicaragua [to put down the rebels], said: '[I was] a high class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and for the banks. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism - I helped purify Nicaragua for [an] international banking house.'"

Jorge Rafael Videla, Argentina -- "Videla also received aid from WACL, the World Anti-Communist League"

General Suharto, President of Indonesia -- "After a CIA organized coup brought him to power in 1965, Suharto, who had already collaborated with Dutch colonialists and Japanese occupiers, decided to purge every last 'Communist subversive from Indonesian soil'. General Nasution, a former close associate of Suharto, called for the extermination of three million Indonesian communist party members."

Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, Dominican Republic -- "... so he invoked anti-communism to justify mass deportations, torture and summary execution. Workers who asked for wage increases were labelled 'communists' and shot on the spot, as were farmers who tried to stop Trujillo from confiscating their land."

Francois & Jean Claude Duvalier, Haiti -- "... Papa and Baby Doc were anti-communists, they could do no wrong in the U.S. government's eyes ..."

Flugenico Batista, Cuba -- "Freedom of speech was curtailed and 'subversive' teachers, lawyers and public officials were fired from their jobs. Death squads tortured and killed thousands of 'communists.'"

Alfredo Christiani, El Salvador -- "'You Germans were very intelligent. You realized that the Jews were responsible for the spread of communism, so you killed them.'"

Alfredo Stroessner, Paraguay -- "European correspondents who visited Paraguay during his rule used the term the "poor man's Nazi regime" to describe the Paraguayan government. The parallels may have been more than a coincidence, for many Nazi war criminals, such as Joseph Mengele, had settled there with Stroessner's blessing."

Ngo Dinh Diem, South Viet Nam -- "Ngo Dinh Diem oppressed the Vietnamese people so badly that many of them turned to the communists for protection from his ruthless rule."

Augusto Pinoche, Chile

"Shah of Iran"

I'm not saying they were all communist, I'm saying they were all liberals. Liberalism/leftist isn't always Communist/Marxist there are multiple types of liberalism (which usually don't get along well with each other). Liberalism should not be confused with liberty though.

Liberalism is always for big government and government having the power.

Conservatism is pro-individual rights, pro-self-determination.

papa and baby doc duvalier were liberals? my god. Suharto was a liberal?

You are Sean Hannity and i claim my five pounds.

p.s before you take me literally there. I dont really think yr him. You've just got your head stuck so far up his ass you cant see at all clearly.

"Liberal" vs "Conservative"?! Am I really hearing a forum full of Aspies poking sticks at this trap?

I've been around long enough to see these words change meanings MANY times. Someone's labels are usually defined by his enemies. You may have often seen the same thing happen with the word "Autistic." As much as we try to hold on to our own definition, our enemies feel they know better and - since their definitions are created out of a black-n-white, two-dimensional material, while ours tries to be inclusive and fluid and trans-dimensional - the enemy's definition is always more easily grasped by the uneducated.

Simple and stupid sells better than the messy organic Truth. Meanwhile, I go to work each day terrified that my employer of 10 years may decide "Aspie" actually means "unreliable" or "crazy."

Well, "liberal" and "conservative", "left" and "right", "communist", "fascist" and all such polarising, isolating, opposing, anti-dialectical words are simply redefined on a regular basis to suit the user's own agenda and fears.

If I were to say to you that I believe the three primary virtues are Compassion, Courage, and  Truth, would you call me conservative or liberal?

If I said I believe that no entity - governmental, individual, or corporate - has a right to exploit me or mine, or to take away what I need to protect or feed my family, or restrict my ability to think or speak, would you call me Right or Left?

And what would you call me if I said that it makes no difference what justification - religion, cultural, class, necessity, justice, birthright or power - one uses when they judge my needs to be subservient to their desires or fears?

I was raised in the Cold War. Became an adult in the late 60s. Educated in a top-notch liberal arts college. Degreed in a business college. Served in the Air Force honorably. Ate tofu in a commune. Studied a dozen religions; ordained via 9600 baud modem; described as evangelist and atheist. I have been called every one of these labels in a myriad of mis-definitions. It is so easy for the simple to see what they want to see. They will magnify whatever detail catches their fearful eye.

There was a time that a Communist was anyone unhappy with the party in power. Then, for a long time, it was defined (specifically) as "any country containing or potentially containing a missile emplacement under the direct or indirect control of the Soviet Union." Later, it meant anyone who believed food (or sex) should be shared for free.

Conservatives were once the guys who paid their taxes first and proudly, and believed in balanced budgets and Christian values. Of course, the budgets were balanced by raking bidders over the coals until they stopped padding their accounts and cheating on materials. And the Christian values included charity and a respect for a man's ability to work hard - ANY  man. And many a staunch conservative held a proud membership in the Union, where they guarded a worker's right to have a living wage and some time with his family.

"Liberals" were once those who searched out the Truth, willing to dig deep into the writings of the best, and worst, to find new and lost visions and ideas to make our lives more valuable and noble. A liberal was generous and kind, because he had seen the truth of Man's vulnerability. Now, of course, we all know that liberals are mindless sheep who respond only to self-gratification and a couple cable channels.

A "Fascist" could be a national champion, willing to sacrifice himself (and everyone else) for the safety of the nation, or a lunatic willing to sacrifice everyone else to protect his power. Either Fascist was a good friend for a democracy needing to control a region the voters had no interest in invading.

And on, and on. And so it goes.

For a long time, I was confused and tried to keep up with the latest evolution(!) of all these definitions. For a longer time, I simply classified these and any other omnibus word as meaningless screed. Eventually, though, I came to understand that meaning comes from the use of the word, and the use of the word is always at the pleasure of the user. He means what he means - nothing more or less - and only what he means at the moment. When that kind of dishonesty takes place, words essentially mean nothing. So, in order for you to participate, you have to bring your own definitions, just to fill the words back up! Then the dance starts. He says a knife kills; you say a knife feeds. He says it kills to feed. You try to remember when you both agreed it was OK to kick each other in the balls. He says you like rules so much you must be a Nazi. Blah Blah Blah.

LISTEN. I had to learn this bit of socialisation the hard way, and it took me a long time: whenever ANYone uses any of these labels in public, he is either a liar or has recently been lied to. Therefore, ANY further discussion is based on lies. Much WORSE than a waste of time.

Liars lie to create fear and confusion. The fearful clutch at lies to save themselves from confusion. So, the Liar can justify his lies with the acclaim of the fearful. He lies some more....

Stay away from this feeding frenzy the way you'd avoid piranha.

And remember: simply because everyone uses a label,  don't assume they all know what they mean. In fact, it's a good indication they're all avoiding the subject completely.

Once you've detected a Fool, do him, and yourself, the great charity of ignoring him completely.

Last edited by gitchel on 18 Dec 2010, 3:14 am, edited 1 time in total.