Page 11 of 14 [ 213 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

13 Oct 2012, 2:13 pm

Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
- You're obsessed with individual differences, yet love collectivist ideologies.

- Regardless of what's wrong, the entity to blame are always corporations.

- You believe that everyone who is successful is a criminal that hasn't gotten caught yet.

- You believe that a rich person commits crime out of malice, whereas a poor person is a victim of society.

- You believe that "more government" is the solution to all problems.

- You believe that elected officials are better than people with objectively established merits in their field.


I get the first four stereotypes but that last one is confusing me as it applies more to the right than the left.


Actually, marshall that applies only to the left, people on the right tend to be rather cynical of politicians in general, doesn't matter what their professed political ideology is.


Isn't there some cognitive dissonance between this and the general attitude on the right that the left are made up dictator's boot lappers and that in our love for the Iron Fist we managed to produce not only the Soviets but the Nazis, their diametrical opposities?


The nazis and the USSR were not opposites. In fact, national socialism was seen as left-wing until the late 40's, when Stalin's henchmen started playing the nazi cards to discredit capitalism.


Seen and what it really stood for are two different things. Anything that was left wing about the Nazis was murdered in the Night of the Long Knives.


What makes national socialism more right-wing than Stalinism? Derivatives of Marxist-Leninism seeks to eliminate class segregation by class struggle and dictatorship of the Proletariat ("all the animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"); fascism aims to do the same by forcing the classes to cooperate.


Private property. The national socialists never abolished private property and their framework was for using a prole/bourgeoisie cooperation to crush the petit bourgeoisie because Hitler and his peers saw that the middle class didn't make good national socialists.


The Third Reich was actually based on planned economy. Planned economy as a permanent solution conflicts with the core value of capitalism.

This private property was strictly regulated and heavily taxed, not to mention the fact that the government organized industries into cartels and banned competition. All foreign (and some German) industries were nationalized.

Private property was allowed during the NEP in the USSR as well and it's allowed in all communist countries except for North Korea today.


The core value of capitalism? The plutocrats have no core values. The reds scared them so half to death that they managed and rode the national socialist wave in Germany while advocating for America to adopt this best of all worlds solution that they settled upon. Regulated and taxed private property does not socialism make.

The NEP was Lenin. I thought we were arguing Stalin.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

13 Oct 2012, 2:17 pm

DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
- You're obsessed with individual differences, yet love collectivist ideologies.

- Regardless of what's wrong, the entity to blame are always corporations.

- You believe that everyone who is successful is a criminal that hasn't gotten caught yet.

- You believe that a rich person commits crime out of malice, whereas a poor person is a victim of society.

- You believe that "more government" is the solution to all problems.

- You believe that elected officials are better than people with objectively established merits in their field.


I get the first four stereotypes but that last one is confusing me as it applies more to the right than the left.


Actually, marshall that applies only to the left, people on the right tend to be rather cynical of politicians in general, doesn't matter what their professed political ideology is.


Isn't there some cognitive dissonance between this and the general attitude on the right that the left are made up dictator's boot lappers and that in our love for the Iron Fist we managed to produce not only the Soviets but the Nazis, their diametrical opposities?


The nazis and the USSR were not opposites. In fact, national socialism was seen as left-wing until the late 40's, when Stalin's henchmen started playing the nazi cards to discredit capitalism.


Seen and what it really stood for are two different things. Anything that was left wing about the Nazis was murdered in the Night of the Long Knives.


What makes national socialism more right-wing than Stalinism? Derivatives of Marxist-Leninism seeks to eliminate class segregation by class struggle and dictatorship of the Proletariat ("all the animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"); fascism aims to do the same by forcing the classes to cooperate.


Private property. The national socialists never abolished private property and their framework was for using a prole/bourgeoisie cooperation to crush the petit bourgeoisie because Hitler and his peers saw that the middle class didn't make good national socialists.


The Third Reich was actually based on planned economy. Planned economy as a permanent solution conflicts with the core value of capitalism.

This private property was strictly regulated and heavily taxed, not to mention the fact that the government organized industries into cartels and banned competition. All foreign (and some German) industries were nationalized.

Private property was allowed during the NEP in the USSR as well and it's allowed in all communist countries except for North Korea today.


The core value of capitalism? The plutocrats have no core values. The reds scared them so half to death that they managed and rode the national socialist wave in Germany while advocating for America to adopt this best of all worlds solution that they settled upon. Regulated and taxed private property does not socialism make.

The NEP was Lenin. I thought we were arguing Stalin.


Capitalism to most economist after WWI means free market. Having a planned economy in a capitalist country is like eating meat everyday when you're a vegetarian or claiming that you're a virgin when you're a prostitute.

The NEP policy lasted several years into Stalin's reign. Plutocracy does not equal capitalism; if this were the case Lenin's Rolls Royce collection would make him one helluva capitalist.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

13 Oct 2012, 2:20 pm

DancingDanny wrote:
The core value of capitalism? The plutocrats have no core values. The reds scared them so half to death that they managed and rode the national socialist wave in Germany while advocating for America to adopt this best of all worlds solution that they settled upon. Regulated and taxed private property does not socialism make.


Hey one of those so called "plutocrats" is responsible for the creation of many of the public libriaries in the United States. He donated his own money for them to be created, because he thought education had value and it would be good for the general public to know how to read and get educations.

DancingDanny wrote:
The NEP was Lenin. I thought we were arguing Stalin.
Stalin was one of Lenin's proteges.



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

13 Oct 2012, 2:22 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Private property. The national socialists never abolished private property and their framework was for using a prole/bourgeoisie cooperation to crush the petit bourgeoisie because Hitler and his peers saw that the middle class didn't make good national socialists.


While they didn't seize private property at the time, it could be argued that it would eventually happen. Unlike Russia where about everything was owned by the nobility, up until the Revolution; Germans had more of a history of private property ownership. If they had tried to seize all property, they would have had a national revolt.

The fact of the matter is that the Nazis seized control of all large industry, as well as the large businesses, prior to the war so wartime can't be used as an excuse.

In American Conservatism, the idea of government seizing control of industry and business is considered to be rather alarming.


Yes, they nationalized industry. The difference is in the meaning. The reds rode the class dialectic myth in the so called interests of the proletariat. There wasn't class struggle in national socialist ideology but if they could have wrapped their arms around a dream it would have been the bourgeoisie.



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

13 Oct 2012, 2:26 pm

Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
- You're obsessed with individual differences, yet love collectivist ideologies.

- Regardless of what's wrong, the entity to blame are always corporations.

- You believe that everyone who is successful is a criminal that hasn't gotten caught yet.

- You believe that a rich person commits crime out of malice, whereas a poor person is a victim of society.

- You believe that "more government" is the solution to all problems.

- You believe that elected officials are better than people with objectively established merits in their field.


I get the first four stereotypes but that last one is confusing me as it applies more to the right than the left.


Actually, marshall that applies only to the left, people on the right tend to be rather cynical of politicians in general, doesn't matter what their professed political ideology is.


Isn't there some cognitive dissonance between this and the general attitude on the right that the left are made up dictator's boot lappers and that in our love for the Iron Fist we managed to produce not only the Soviets but the Nazis, their diametrical opposities?


The nazis and the USSR were not opposites. In fact, national socialism was seen as left-wing until the late 40's, when Stalin's henchmen started playing the nazi cards to discredit capitalism.


Seen and what it really stood for are two different things. Anything that was left wing about the Nazis was murdered in the Night of the Long Knives.


What makes national socialism more right-wing than Stalinism? Derivatives of Marxist-Leninism seeks to eliminate class segregation by class struggle and dictatorship of the Proletariat ("all the animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"); fascism aims to do the same by forcing the classes to cooperate.


Private property. The national socialists never abolished private property and their framework was for using a prole/bourgeoisie cooperation to crush the petit bourgeoisie because Hitler and his peers saw that the middle class didn't make good national socialists.


The Third Reich was actually based on planned economy. Planned economy as a permanent solution conflicts with the core value of capitalism.

This private property was strictly regulated and heavily taxed, not to mention the fact that the government organized industries into cartels and banned competition. All foreign (and some German) industries were nationalized.

Private property was allowed during the NEP in the USSR as well and it's allowed in all communist countries except for North Korea today.


The core value of capitalism? The plutocrats have no core values. The reds scared them so half to death that they managed and rode the national socialist wave in Germany while advocating for America to adopt this best of all worlds solution that they settled upon. Regulated and taxed private property does not socialism make.

The NEP was Lenin. I thought we were arguing Stalin.


Capitalism to most economist after WWI means free market. Having a planned economy in a capitalist country is like eating meat everyday when you're a vegetarian or claiming that you're a virgin when you're a prostitute.

The NEP policy lasted several years into Stalin's reign. Plutocracy does not equal capitalism; if this were the case Lenin's Rolls Royce collection would make him one helluva capitalist.


I can't help it if fear makes people sacrifice their core values. That's what that generation of the German bourgeoisie did.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

13 Oct 2012, 2:30 pm

DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
- You're obsessed with individual differences, yet love collectivist ideologies.

- Regardless of what's wrong, the entity to blame are always corporations.

- You believe that everyone who is successful is a criminal that hasn't gotten caught yet.

- You believe that a rich person commits crime out of malice, whereas a poor person is a victim of society.

- You believe that "more government" is the solution to all problems.

- You believe that elected officials are better than people with objectively established merits in their field.


I get the first four stereotypes but that last one is confusing me as it applies more to the right than the left.


Actually, marshall that applies only to the left, people on the right tend to be rather cynical of politicians in general, doesn't matter what their professed political ideology is.


Isn't there some cognitive dissonance between this and the general attitude on the right that the left are made up dictator's boot lappers and that in our love for the Iron Fist we managed to produce not only the Soviets but the Nazis, their diametrical opposities?


The nazis and the USSR were not opposites. In fact, national socialism was seen as left-wing until the late 40's, when Stalin's henchmen started playing the nazi cards to discredit capitalism.


Seen and what it really stood for are two different things. Anything that was left wing about the Nazis was murdered in the Night of the Long Knives.


What makes national socialism more right-wing than Stalinism? Derivatives of Marxist-Leninism seeks to eliminate class segregation by class struggle and dictatorship of the Proletariat ("all the animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"); fascism aims to do the same by forcing the classes to cooperate.


Private property. The national socialists never abolished private property and their framework was for using a prole/bourgeoisie cooperation to crush the petit bourgeoisie because Hitler and his peers saw that the middle class didn't make good national socialists.


The Third Reich was actually based on planned economy. Planned economy as a permanent solution conflicts with the core value of capitalism.

This private property was strictly regulated and heavily taxed, not to mention the fact that the government organized industries into cartels and banned competition. All foreign (and some German) industries were nationalized.

Private property was allowed during the NEP in the USSR as well and it's allowed in all communist countries except for North Korea today.


The core value of capitalism? The plutocrats have no core values. The reds scared them so half to death that they managed and rode the national socialist wave in Germany while advocating for America to adopt this best of all worlds solution that they settled upon. Regulated and taxed private property does not socialism make.

The NEP was Lenin. I thought we were arguing Stalin.


Capitalism to most economist after WWI means free market. Having a planned economy in a capitalist country is like eating meat everyday when you're a vegetarian or claiming that you're a virgin when you're a prostitute.

The NEP policy lasted several years into Stalin's reign. Plutocracy does not equal capitalism; if this were the case Lenin's Rolls Royce collection would make him one helluva capitalist.


I can't help it if fear makes people sacrifice their core values. That's what that generation of the German bourgeoisie did.


Several revolutionary leaders of the USSR were from the burgeoisie or more commonly the petite-burgeoisie.



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

13 Oct 2012, 2:34 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
The core value of capitalism? The plutocrats have no core values. The reds scared them so half to death that they managed and rode the national socialist wave in Germany while advocating for America to adopt this best of all worlds solution that they settled upon. Regulated and taxed private property does not socialism make.


Hey one of those so called "plutocrats" is responsible for the creation of many of the public libriaries in the United States. He donated his own money for them to be created, because he thought education had value and it would be good for the general public to know how to read and get educations.

DancingDanny wrote:
The NEP was Lenin. I thought we were arguing Stalin.
Stalin was one of Lenin's proteges.


That was another era. This era of our post-industrial, consumer economy enriched ruling class thinks that it is good for people to learn how to read pulp, trash literature and advertisements for what products to buy and instructions to follow while they are operating the cash register. An in depth liberal or financial education for the general public is not in their interests for obvious reasons.



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

13 Oct 2012, 2:43 pm

Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
- You're obsessed with individual differences, yet love collectivist ideologies.

- Regardless of what's wrong, the entity to blame are always corporations.

- You believe that everyone who is successful is a criminal that hasn't gotten caught yet.

- You believe that a rich person commits crime out of malice, whereas a poor person is a victim of society.

- You believe that "more government" is the solution to all problems.

- You believe that elected officials are better than people with objectively established merits in their field.


I get the first four stereotypes but that last one is confusing me as it applies more to the right than the left.


Actually, marshall that applies only to the left, people on the right tend to be rather cynical of politicians in general, doesn't matter what their professed political ideology is.


Isn't there some cognitive dissonance between this and the general attitude on the right that the left are made up dictator's boot lappers and that in our love for the Iron Fist we managed to produce not only the Soviets but the Nazis, their diametrical opposities?


The nazis and the USSR were not opposites. In fact, national socialism was seen as left-wing until the late 40's, when Stalin's henchmen started playing the nazi cards to discredit capitalism.


Seen and what it really stood for are two different things. Anything that was left wing about the Nazis was murdered in the Night of the Long Knives.


What makes national socialism more right-wing than Stalinism? Derivatives of Marxist-Leninism seeks to eliminate class segregation by class struggle and dictatorship of the Proletariat ("all the animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"); fascism aims to do the same by forcing the classes to cooperate.


Private property. The national socialists never abolished private property and their framework was for using a prole/bourgeoisie cooperation to crush the petit bourgeoisie because Hitler and his peers saw that the middle class didn't make good national socialists.


The Third Reich was actually based on planned economy. Planned economy as a permanent solution conflicts with the core value of capitalism.

This private property was strictly regulated and heavily taxed, not to mention the fact that the government organized industries into cartels and banned competition. All foreign (and some German) industries were nationalized.

Private property was allowed during the NEP in the USSR as well and it's allowed in all communist countries except for North Korea today.


The core value of capitalism? The plutocrats have no core values. The reds scared them so half to death that they managed and rode the national socialist wave in Germany while advocating for America to adopt this best of all worlds solution that they settled upon. Regulated and taxed private property does not socialism make.

The NEP was Lenin. I thought we were arguing Stalin.


Capitalism to most economist after WWI means free market. Having a planned economy in a capitalist country is like eating meat everyday when you're a vegetarian or claiming that you're a virgin when you're a prostitute.

The NEP policy lasted several years into Stalin's reign. Plutocracy does not equal capitalism; if this were the case Lenin's Rolls Royce collection would make him one helluva capitalist.


I can't help it if fear makes people sacrifice their core values. That's what that generation of the German bourgeoisie did.


Several revolutionary leaders of the USSR were from the burgeoisie or more commonly the petite-burgeoisie.


Yeah it has always struck me as ironic that from the USSR leaders to todays American liberal arts educated college freshman that the most fervant "Marxists" are selecting this ideology that straight up states that their allegiance with the proles is shaky at best because all people in all of History will follow what is best for their class interests. If you're a bourgeoisie Marxist then you probably just didn't understand anything about the class dialectic.



13 Oct 2012, 2:44 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
-You think the Government is powerless to abolish the black market of drugs yet the only reason gun control doesn't work is because the Government isn't trying hard enough
-"Freedom" is a glittering generality while the "Greater good" is a common interest whether or not people agree with it



The "greater good" is a common interest for some people but there are always those for whom it is not a common interest. So guaranteeing freedom protects those who don't fit in and don't have much in common with the majority. The "common good" is actually the interests of the Status Quo.
Cool story.



And what makes it even cooler is that it's true.

People are selfish and self-interested, and the only time that a true "common good" exists is when there is a crisis that affects everyone, like an external enemy. If you want people to cooperate, you need to convince them that society values them and wishes to include them. The reasons I do not support the good of the whole is that I see myself as someone who is marginalized and excluded by mainstream society. So you tell me WHAT I have to gain by sacrificing for the "collective good" of a bunch of other people who don't give a f*ck abou tme?!?



13 Oct 2012, 2:49 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
- You're obsessed with individual differences, yet love collectivist ideologies.

- Regardless of what's wrong, the entity to blame are always corporations.

- You believe that everyone who is successful is a criminal that hasn't gotten caught yet.

- You believe that a rich person commits crime out of malice, whereas a poor person is a victim of society.

- You believe that "more government" is the solution to all problems.

- You believe that elected officials are better than people with objectively established merits in their field.


I get the first four stereotypes but that last one is confusing me as it applies more to the right than the left.


Actually, marshall that applies only to the left, people on the right tend to be rather cynical of politicians in general, doesn't matter what their professed political ideology is.


Isn't there some cognitive dissonance between this and the general attitude on the right that the left are made up dictator's boot lappers and that in our love for the Iron Fist we managed to produce not only the Soviets but the Nazis, their diametrical opposities?


Believe it or not, the Nazis are actually more in tune with modern liberalism. Considering people on the right are very "get government the hell out of my life," and Nazism is about government taking control of everything, the two are extreme polar opposites. One question here is are we talking about the European Right or the American Right, cause there are some fundamental differences between European Conservatism and American Conservatism.



I'm sorry, but most conservatives aren't libertarians and they sure as bloody hell are NOT anarchists! If you truly understand liberalism, you will realize that it is deeply and fundamentally opposed to authoritarianism.

Conservatives are anti-communist but can be very pro-authoritarian because they are believe that social hierarchy is a good thing. This is the reason for their fanatical support for organized religion: Because religion is the most effective and time tested tool for maintaining the Status Quo and preserving tradition.



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

13 Oct 2012, 3:04 pm

And yet another take of the cognitive dissonance that I just described with the bourgeoisie and Marxism are people who identify with Ayn Rand while being a Christian, a libertarian or lacking that technological know how to build a perpetual motion device or whatever John Galt did that allowed a utopia comprised solely of white collar workers to not immediately turn into the Lord of the Flies once a problem that needed blue collar skills arose.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

13 Oct 2012, 3:10 pm

AspieRogue wrote:

I'm sorry, but most conservatives aren't libertarians and they sure as bloody hell are NOT anarchists! If you truly understand liberalism, you will realize that it is deeply and fundamentally opposed to authoritarianism.

Conservatives are anti-communist but can be very pro-authoritarian because they are believe that social hierarchy is a good thing. This is the reason for their fanatical support for organized religion: Because religion is the most effective and time tested tool for maintaining the Status Quo and preserving tradition.


I'm a conservative and I'm anti-religion, I'm anti-authoritarian for the most part. I can stand any ideology that tells me "This is how you should think" because all such ideologies have a person behind the curtain pulling strings and attempting to reach a selfish goal.

I just tend to prefer the right because at least they try to be somewhat consistent in applying their values, as opposed to "the left" that morals and values similar to a slinky. I used to be a "leftist" myself, but the many good things and ideals on the left are starting to become completely overshadowed by faux-tolerance, moral/cultural relativism and arrogance.



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

13 Oct 2012, 3:16 pm

TM wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:

I'm sorry, but most conservatives aren't libertarians and they sure as bloody hell are NOT anarchists! If you truly understand liberalism, you will realize that it is deeply and fundamentally opposed to authoritarianism.

Conservatives are anti-communist but can be very pro-authoritarian because they are believe that social hierarchy is a good thing. This is the reason for their fanatical support for organized religion: Because religion is the most effective and time tested tool for maintaining the Status Quo and preserving tradition.


I'm a conservative and I'm anti-religion, I'm anti-authoritarian for the most part. I can stand any ideology that tells me "This is how you should think" because all such ideologies have a person behind the curtain pulling strings and attempting to reach a selfish goal.

I just tend to prefer the right because at least they try to be somewhat consistent in applying their values, as opposed to "the left" that morals and values similar to a slinky. I used to be a "leftist" myself, but the many good things and ideals on the left are starting to become completely overshadowed by faux-tolerance, moral/cultural relativism and arrogance.


This is pretty much like throwing a brick into the TV because you don't like the program on the set.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

13 Oct 2012, 3:21 pm

DancingDanny wrote:
TM wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:

I'm sorry, but most conservatives aren't libertarians and they sure as bloody hell are NOT anarchists! If you truly understand liberalism, you will realize that it is deeply and fundamentally opposed to authoritarianism.

Conservatives are anti-communist but can be very pro-authoritarian because they are believe that social hierarchy is a good thing. This is the reason for their fanatical support for organized religion: Because religion is the most effective and time tested tool for maintaining the Status Quo and preserving tradition.


I'm a conservative and I'm anti-religion, I'm anti-authoritarian for the most part. I can stand any ideology that tells me "This is how you should think" because all such ideologies have a person behind the curtain pulling strings and attempting to reach a selfish goal.

I just tend to prefer the right because at least they try to be somewhat consistent in applying their values, as opposed to "the left" that morals and values similar to a slinky. I used to be a "leftist" myself, but the many good things and ideals on the left are starting to become completely overshadowed by faux-tolerance, moral/cultural relativism and arrogance.


This is pretty much like throwing a brick into the TV because you don't like the program on the set.


More like taking the batteries out of a broken remote that keeps changing channels every 2 seconds.



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

13 Oct 2012, 3:35 pm

Well, they are the progressives, aren't they? Progress means a change of some sort or another has got to come or else they aren't progressives anymore. I will agree with you in that I do not like the fact that the left is trying to build a coalition made up of minority civil rights issues and have largely forgotten the economic justice and class struggle platform that got them to the dance in the first place.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

13 Oct 2012, 3:39 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
I'm sorry, but most conservatives aren't libertarians and they sure as bloody hell are NOT anarchists! If you truly understand liberalism, you will realize that it is deeply and fundamentally opposed to authoritarianism.


While Conservatives are not anarchists, they are also totally opposed to authoritarianism. When you bring up liberalism, I'm assuming you are referring to classical liberalism, not modern liberalism. Classical liberalism actually did have some anti-authoritarianism, but modern liberalism only has that feature when it is a group they are opposed to. I would argue classical liberals are an endangered species, having long been replaced by modern liberals.

Republican does not necessarily mean one is a Conservative, the Republican party is made up of liberals, Centrists, and Conservatives. The Democrat Party used to be the same way, but Conservative Democrats are largely an endangered species and I don't know of any that are currently in government.

AspieRogue wrote:
Conservatives are anti-communist but can be very pro-authoritarian because they are believe that social hierarchy is a good thing. This is the reason for their fanatical support for organized religion: Because religion is the most effective and time tested tool for maintaining the Status Quo and preserving tradition.


Wrong, while Conservatism is anti-communist, Conservatism is not pro-authoritarian in the slightest (if we are referring to American Conservatism, European Conservatism has some different roots). American Conservatism looks at religion as a foundation of right and wrong. There is a reason why the Republican Party was formed specifically in opposition to Slavery, it was out of a core conviction that one human being owning another human being was wrong. It was due to their religious beliefs that they opposed slavery.

While you are correct that religion can be used as an excuse for great evil, it can also be the driving force for incredible good.

The Republican Party was formed by people whom were called radicals then, but would be considered Conservatives today and many of today's conservatives are pro-life for the same reason their fore-fathers were anti-slavery. They believe that one person cannot be owned by another, they view the child in the womb as being a person, not property.

Now as to where you're getting the authoritarian nonsense, Conservatives believe that some rules do need to exist, however they also believe that there is such a thing as too much Government. When we talk about religion, one thing one's religious beliefs do is provide one with a sense of what is ethical and what isn't; right and wrong.

Libertarians, whether they realize it or not, probably have more in common with Conservatives than they often realize. Just the things that Libertarians think need to be legalized (like marijuana), is the same stuff liberals have been eyeing as a way to keep the masses under control.