Post Serenity: Is the Fireflyverse even remotely pro-government anymore?*warning: spoilers* by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Also, what is one to make of what they did with River? There is apparently another ongoing program that the movie didn't follow up at all.

Good question. Lots of people seem to be suggesting that River was 'created' to fight Reavers, but that makes no sense. It ignores the fact that any gov in it's right mind would love a super-human assassin whether there was Reaver's or no...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 3:16 PM

JOSSISAGOD

I'm unsure if the Firefly 'verse was EVER pro-government, the message I got from both Firefly and Serenity was: Question EVERYTHING about governments. They always hide things they don't want the general public to know about. And never let them have too much control.

You said it best,
"Be suspect of ANY government? Big government = big trouble for the little guy? Truth is only what the rulers decide it is? Official History should be taken as the 'version of the moment'?"
Chrisisall
Oops, forgot there was a reply with quote button, SORRY!

JOSSISAGOD

edit: I also agree with what DREAMTROVE said on Sunday, October 30, 2005 at 16:08

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 3:50 PM

CHRISISALL

The message I get is that governments (ALL, not just the U.S.) are like average teenagers; they all start out meaning well, but they'll be sneaky and sometimes even dangerous. And if they think they can get away with something, for good or ill, they'll try, especially if their little ego-maniac minds think they can solve some problem no one else has ever been able to solve (i.e. the 'I'll show daddy' syndrome).

Chrisisall about the middle

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 4:08 PM

I think we need to make a two dimensional chart for politics.

I'm going to nomination up and down for big govt vs personal freedom. If "up" is freedom, because I like up, it has a nice positive sound to it like "right" :), then there are 9 political perspectives in all.

Joss becomes upper center. Most flans are upper somewhere. Kerry is lower left and Bush is lower right. (All of my own anti-Bushism aside)

No, no pro govt. left in firefly verse, but was there any to start with? was there any in buffy? No. Joss hates govt. Anarchist civil libertarian Joss. Well yay him, because no one else has the guts to say this stuff on tv. Kudos to Joss.

Now that Big Damn Mother of all threads is finally winding down, I see new life in a new thread, and with any luck we can kill it :)

But seriously, there's a lot here I have to read troll and flame. But there's my short answer: Joss->govt=evil^.5.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 4:23 PM

Okay, long string of me quoting and responding. Yeah, like anyone cares?

Quote:

It's against tyrannical government to be sure. But then, isn't everyone? Except the tyrants.

Aren't all govts. tyrannical?

Quote:

I give credit to Joss for having the courage to do something that seldom occurs in movies that are based on tv shows.

Hear, Hear. I think I just posted sometin similar but I hadn't read yours yet, well said.

Quote:

Joss's politics seem to be a bit left of centre, to put it mildly...

Huh? Joss-Left? okay. I am willing to grant Joss is his own brand of politics, and he has a left education, but as I commented earlier, whenever a left stereotype shows up on a Joss show, it's as a punching bag.

Also, if anything posts a problem to my 2 dimensional scheme it's that the left has always been known as the big govt. section, largely because of FDR, and the Soviets, but still there is that slant. Which is to say the left we normally get is lower left on my new paradigm.

But seriously, Joss is also a libertarian, which is generally considered a center-right fringe. I think Joss' anti-govt. clearly doesn't fall on the left-right dynamic, and when he does, no wait I think he's careful not to weigh in on hot button issues. Abortion not a major theme for Joss. Also, fight for your rights, not as much a leftist position, but a libertarian one, and there's the whole alliance is the union and mal is a confederate soldier angle.

Gotta dispute that left-wing claim to Joss.

Quote:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 4:51 PM

Finn,

In this string of responses I decided to devote a whole one to your first post here on utopian ideologues.

I can see part of where our earlier spat came from. You've got an excellent understanding of the dynamic at work, you really do. Kudos.

That said, I think you may be missing who really falls into which category.

Most Socialists, as I call them, utopian ideologues as you refered to them, do, yes, absolutely believe in a handful of things:

1. First and foremost they are good people trying to do what's right.
2. They have a workable usually preconceived plan.
3. They can somehow improve human nature.
4. The ends always justify the means.

Okay, here's who fits this best:

Leninist
Maoists
Nazis. Sure, absolutely.

Saddam Hussein is not pure evil. He believes he is doing good. He put a lot of effort into bettering Iraq and life for his people. A detailed study of the subject reveals this. But he is evil. Not because he believes he deserves a healthy share, if he actually did what he believed he was doing, he would deserve it. But He is evil primarily because he thinks any level of human casualty is acceptable to acheive his goals. I don't think, btw, when I say that he, Hussein, truly believes, that I'm doing him any favors. I think it's true. I also think it's not a compliment. Someone who was extremely corrupt such as some of the princes of Saudi Arabia, get more respect in my book, because at least they understand the world.

I also would nitpick on Bin Laden. I don't think this is who he is. Which again, is not meant to give OBL any credit. But I don't think he's a socialist idealist. I think he's more of an anarchist. Everywhere he goes he creates anarchy, and he goes wherever anarchy is. Contrary to what Bush says, OBL hated Saddam with a passion. They were serious enemies. I think that part of the reason OBL attacked us is he knew Bush wanted to invade Iraq, because Bush was PNAC/Clinton, and Clinton had tried it, and PNAC had written about it. OBL probably knew he was giving Bush a justification for invading Iraq and probably felt good about it. He probably thought we'd topple Saddam, and then Al Qaeda could move in and set up shop. Bin Laden is evil for very different reasons. Bin Laden is more like Niska in the Firefly verse. He's a free agent who creates death and chaos that benefits him. If you want to know how this little snippet form Sean Hannity ought to prove what Bin Laden has to gain in all of this:

- on 9/12/01 Bin Laden's populatity in the muslim world was only 2%, today it's over 70% -

That from about a year after we invaded Iraq, so say about March of '04.

I will tell you who else believes in the utopian idealist socialist one world state. Cheney and all the people over at PNAC. They are an absolutely perfect fit for this model. I don't think that Bush, himself, fits this. Bush fits the model of a dupe, who has been duped by neocon socialists who absolutely believe.

The torture policy we argued over, and the patriot act, these are sacrafices of human rights and freedom. This is the sort of thing that are very early steps on the path of "any sacrafice is acceptable."

I don't hold with that. No sacrafices are acceptable to build the socialist ideal state, like the one world state PNAC would build, because it is not worth building. A state in which dissent is impossible, like the Soviet Union, which is essentially what they want because it will bring world peace, is a state which will abuse its citizens without end and have no respect for their lives. Sure there will be no wars, because there will be no countries. There will be internal rebellions a plenty though.

If you are not yet convinced that the Bush administration and it's supporters are exactly the socialist utopian ideologues you have just described, I am willing to convince you. Myself, I am absolutely certain of it.

The reason I'm still Republican is I believe such people are still much more common in the Democratic party, but I feel confident I can recognize it whereever it rears it's ugly head.

I don't think it's an anti-American position, btw I think it's very American, and I think Joss is saying something in the subtext of the show about what made America great was its faith in its own freedom, and we're losing that now. The alliance I think is in many ways our new big govt. which I think he views as I do as fitting the model you laid out, and what it threatens is that old cowboy freedom.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:08 PM

Quote:
Another mistake people make is thinking that Joss' work must reflect his personal politics.

I get this, I often write things which are contrary to my own political beliefs. I am still certain Joss is a libertarian because all of his characters that are remotely sympathetic are always libertarian.

I know Joss worked some democratic fundraisers in '04. I don't think that proves anything. I posted before I worked briefly for Dean because I was so appalled by Bush. I had been a supporter of John Buchanan, but the GOP primary was a joke, which is to be expected with an incumbent (unless that incumbent is LBJ.) Anyway, Dean and his people appalled me, and kicked me rigth again, though I did work for Nader. I essentially strongly disagree with a lot of what Nader has to say, but I do agree with some of the things he does say, and I couldn't work for Bush. But anyone could have taken one of these Nader or Dean, plucked them from my resume and said I was a liberal and be extremely wrong. To me Bush is a flaming liberal and I sought basically any way to oppose him. I couldn't stomach Kerry, but clearly Joss could. I thought I had read earlier it was a Dean fundraiser, but it doesn't matter. I pretty much think DailyKos is dribble so I find it hard to take stock in the conclusions they themselves reach. The rather bold casual claim "Jefferson is a liberal" seems completely absurd to me.

Many people pointed out that Joss went and hired a well known right wing extremist stand up comic and put her in Buffy, and let her get up and make right wing extremist rants and put them in the show. That doesn't seem like a very left-wing thing to do.

I'm certainly not making the counter argument that Joss is a right wing republican. But I stick by my placement of Joss in the libertarian center. If the big out of countrol govt. was a democrat, as I suspect it soon will be, you might find Joss working for a gop opposition, but that wouldn't make him any more republican. He hates big govt.

Unlike other people I do not expect to see a lot of sympathy for the alliance over time. I expect to see both sides of the story, and a lot of rationalizations of alliance action, but not a "good side."

I also didn't think that Buffy and Angel were particularly shades of grey. I'm very fond of shows with shades of grey, and I was very fond of those shows, but I didn't find them that way. Particularly I thought the demons and wolfram and hart were mercilessly portrayed with the possible exception of one or two bleeding heart (or bleeding hart) angel eps written by former star trek staffers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:22 PM

Quote:

I see the characters as almost uniformly conservative (at least the conservatives minues the religeous right) as are the movies themes and messages. Sure there's a mix of liberalism for flavor, but the lets face it, the crew of Serenity would have a lot more in common with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush then with LBJ, Jimmy Carter, or any Democratic Senator/Presidential candidate.

I basically agree. But I can't accept this Democrat=liberal Republican=conservative. I don't see Jimmy Carter as a flaming liberal, or George W. as a staunch conservative. But y'all know that by now. There are some decent conservative Democratic Senators. Not many, but some.

But to the characters:

Mal, he'd vote for a sort of take no prisoners southerner, probably a republican. Jayne would vote for the libertarian candidate or possibly whoever mal voted for. They might vote for Barry Goldwater or Ross Perot.

Kaylee I'm not so sure of, she might vote for a democrat. She's vote for Jimmy Carter of maybe Iacocca if he was running. Is he a democrat or a republican does anyone know?

Inara is upper crusty, but pretty conservative. She'd vote for Bill Frist, but she might vote for Kerry or Bush.

Book would vote for a believer, possibly Dennis Kuccinich. Someone who believes in what they say but also has faith. We know Book's politics to be far left extreme. He sided with the alliance and he has that ultrawhipped feminist line about a special hell, and some of the stuff he says to River, we know he's left wing looney land.

Wash might vote for a democrat, he's got that kind of wacky sense of humor. He might vote for John Edwards. He might even vote for Bill Clinton, Clinton's got a sense of humor (I credit Clinton with that and a decent financial sense, I still think he's evil)

Simon wouldn't vote for Frist, he hates bad doctors. He'd vote for someone with a decent plan to reform healthcare, which would be no one who recently ran on a major party ticket. He'd probably vote for Nader or Badnarik.

River would vote for Simon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:28 PM

Citizen,

The Nazis ran on the left wing ticket, it stands for National Socialist, which is short for National Socialist Workers Party, a splinter group of a left wing fringe party called socialist workers party that some of Bush's cabinet were involved in decades later, and is still around. Basically the Socialist Workers Party philosophy is that Leon Trotsky had all the answers. Since Trotsky was a marxist, that pretty much bonifies this as a left wing movement.

I understand the left's desire to disown them, though.

The right wing candidate btw in that election was Hindenburg, who won the election for those who don't know, in a landslide. Unfortunately he got very sick and died. Fortunately now in this country we have a rul whereby the party that won the election stays in power, but in the 19th century this sort of thing happened in america, the random death party flip thing, not the psycho thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:34 PM

JOSSISAGOD

Yeah, what you said. I completely agree with you there, Chrisisall.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:41 PM

Quote:

While Serenity ahs been called a Libretarian Western in Space... it's hardly Joss' view of the world.

Sure it is. You don't spend 8 years creating over 100 hours of programming with a consistant message you don't believe in.

Quote:

Citizen said to Finn
You seem to be suggesting that the Alliance is a Socialist totalitarian government. This doesn't fit the facts.

Sorry Citizen, gotta side with Finn here. He's right. A Socialist state doesn't guarantee rights, it guarantees services. Rights are freedoms, and personal freedoms are the enemy of a socialist state because they create chaotic acts of randomness. Some of those may be crimes, others may be progress, which is why socialist states don't thrive, at best they remain fairly static. Clearly the alliance gets ahead by the same means as the soviet union, thinking ahead an creating research labs to devise progress and hand it over to government control. In a free society, River would be the product of a lone looney or a biotech corporation. Even if there are corporations in this world, they work for the govt. under contract, so it's at least as socialist as Bush.

Quote:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:44 PM

JOSSISAGOD

I got also got the same message you did Chrisisall, among the other messages Joss put in Firefly and Serenity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:46 PM

Chrisisall,

Thanks for another fascinating thread.

Quote:

Mal does what needs to get done, which takes him out of contempory politics as we know it, left or right.

Chrisisall, first member of the 'Get It Done' party

I was working for the reform party for a while because that was their motto pretty much, but they couldn't get it done. I agree, Mal is close to where Joss is, political limbo land. No, not Limbaugh land.

Ah rootbeer. How I've missed you.

Anyway, yeah, alas lately neither of the two major parties have been the get it done party. I'm hoping the GOP cna be again if it can rid itself of the it-thing Bush monkey and his neo-socialist followers. But many don't share that view. Well, someday I'll try to convince 'em.

But anyway, sorry for posting too much, just all these posts I missed and I gotta say sometin about them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:50 PM

Quote:

I don’t know what motivations Joss had in choosing the US and China as the basis of the future interplanetary government.

I do!

He wanted to swear like a son of a bitch and get away with it on primetime!

Also, you have to admit, sino-america looked pretty cool in bladerunner.

I think sociopolitically, it was a reference to bladerunner. He knew we would recognize the sino-american theme, and that would at least subconsciously trigger a connection to a the truly twisted morality of that film, which firefly and the alliance do somewhat echo.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 6:00 PM

Citizen.

I know you didn't get a chance to read my posts, becuase I'm writing them all at once, so forgive this reitteration if you already go the point, but I have to make it loud and clear:

FINN IS RIGHT.

About Nazis.

Not about interrogation techniques :)

But yes, about Nazis he is absolutely correct. Even if the Nazis were not nominally socialists, which at the very least anyone would have to admit because that's what it stands for, national socialist. But even if they weren't, their policies are very clear.

1. They hated private enterprise and set up govt. take over plans.
2. They instituted large social welfare and labor programs (only available to the master race, well other races had labor programs, but you didn't exactly volunteer)
3. They adopted a doctrine of social militarism.

I will admit that even though I despise social militarism (using military means to institute social change,) that the Nazi version is at best a very twisted version of that. But their federal takeover of industry was so extreme it allowed the govt. to sit on the board and hold a controling majority of major corporations. This is extreme socialism of the sort that of all American presidents only Bill Clinton has suggested we do it here.

Anyway, I think you should concede the point, and then, having accepted the implication that socialism is evil, distance yourself from it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 6:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chrisisall:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Maybe you’re a closet conservative?

LOL, I'll plead guilty to some small degree....

Can you be a conservative conspiracy theorist?

Fence-hoppin' Chrisisall

Chris,

there are some truly wonderful right-wing conspiracy sites. Absolutely you can be.

Finn,

Kudos, truly. I'm probably far to abrasive to win an admission like this out of someone ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 6:16 PM

Quote:

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

The test is flawed.

I came out Conservative Libertarian, which I don't disagree with, but that wasn't the flaw.

The flaw was that if I changed my vote on "no national ID card" to yes from no, ie. from oppose the ID to support the ID, I became right-wing looney fringe. National ID card is a left-wing looney fringe idea, and supporting it should bump me left not right. Just because Bush supports something doesn't make it right-wing. National ID card is also supported by Tony Blair, who is a left wing looney. The reason is Tony Blair is a neo-socialist just like Cheney, and they belong to the same groups.

But overall it was better than a lot that I've seen. The other issue is there are a lot of issues that focus on economy here.

I can see that technically a quiz like this could be weighted to produce any result you want. Like if you wanted everyone to come out a lefty you could say:

You support
a> intelligent design
b> evolution

or if you wanted right-wingers

You support
a> higher taxes
b> lower taxes

I talk too much. Damn. Need to get a handle on that. Sorry guys. If it's any consolation I may have said some interesting things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 6:26 PM

Citizen you did catch my post about the democratic party being founded in the early 1820s by Andrew Jackson on a platform of exterminating the Indians, right? Well they did manage to kill 12 million of them. The thing is, genocide itself isn't strictly speaking normally a left wing policy as it is in these cases. But it is something which can happen much more readily in a top down social structure.

If I were to summarize right vs. left I would say right-wing society is bottom up and left wing society is top down. This would make Bush left wing. But honestly, Bush on that test. Hell. Now I want to try that.

Okay I plugged in everything Bush said. Bush is a "Centrist/Statist"

Statist, btw, is the word the CIA uses to describe Communist governments which are not actually members of the communist party, but have communist policies.

So, I take it back, maybe Bush isn't a liberal, he's just to the left of me, but in the greater scheme he's a centrist, but he is a commie.

Oh wait, no, there's the state ID question, which I said was left(and of course it's big govt.), and the test scores it right/big govt. So Bush should come out as a pip left of center, but still, he's not in left looney land on this 2d grid.

Funny how I posted that "we need a 2d grid" earlier, and suggested big govt be down. But I hadn't seen that test yet. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 6:39 PM

Okay, to add to the funny, I did John Kerry. He came out only two pips to the left of Bush, counting ID card the way the do (with no mods by me) but he was also 2 pips more commie.

The test is well callibrated if your a liberal though. Dennis Kuccinich was only 2 pips from the left wing looney corner.

But for conservatives it's less on target. Pat Buchanan came out as Libertarian/Conservative.

Some dancing around I found the problem. According to the test, these are the most conservative positions:

Government should censor speech
There should be a draft.
There should be laws regarding sex
Laws prohibiting drugs should stay
There should be a National ID card

What? This is conservative? No way.

1st ammendment is a conservative idea. If you recall pre-bush, the pro-censorship spokesperson was Tipper Gore, the pro-cnesorship candidate was Al Gore and the biggest pro-censorship govts. have been the Soviet Union and Communist China.

The draft has always been a left wing platform issue as well. Look again, all the proponents are democrats, and have been. In the debates, Bush took the vow that the moderator asked for against the draft, Kerry would not. Democrats just proposed the draft, and again, soviets had it and chinese have it.

Laws regarding sex? this might be prostitution or gay marriage, so sure, that's probably right wing.

Laws prohibiting drugs is definitely a right wing thing.

But again, national ID card is not.

So their liberal identifiers are decent, their conservative ones are only about 40%

So take heart Finn, you're more conservative than the test says ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 6:52 PM

Re: insanity.

Okay, at the risk of ruling myself out to be taken seriously, I know a lot about this for a reason, if anyone is still reading. I know this was a lot of posts. But I think I can end this "what can a crazy person really do" discussion.

I had, about five years ago, an attack of a serious neurodegenerative illness. It broke down my ability to reason or function on a basic level, in any way which resembled reality. I was haunted by halucinations, and paranoid delusions, I could often not talk, and sometimes not walk. I also didn't sleep. It isn't as fatal as someone posted because there were times I didn't sleep for weeks or months.

After seeing 18 doctors, including several 'experts' and talking to a half dozen more 'experts' over the phone, being on 15 different pharmaceuticals and to three hospitals, I had continued to degenrate with no end in site, and I came to a very fateful realization:

The medical community could not cure me because they knew nothing about the brain. Virtually nothing at all. On a level that witchdoctors who speak of possession and do exercism dances don't understand infection.

Fortunately for me I had a background in biochemistry. I started researching, and analyzing, theorizing, experimenting. I studied neurochemisty, mostly about mice, and got amino compounds and extracts, took them and made up charts of the effects. After two years, I cured myself.

As a result, I now know a tremendous amount about how the brain works. If anyone has problems like this, anything from depression to the sort of stuff I describe, don't hesitate to ask.

But anyway, yet. Someone like me, like I was, completely and utterly insane in the sense that they can no longer function in society or even comprehend it, can carry out extremely complex tasks.

I hope this settles the point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 6:59 PM

Quote:

There's a difference, in my view, between a psychotic and someone who is insane.

Not really. A "psychotic" is a person whose hypothalmus is overmetabolizing tyrosine derivatives usually as the result of some deficiency.
Near as I understand it, but that's not addressing the real problem, which is that psychotic is a meaningless label made by people with no understanding of how the hypothalmus metabolizes tyrosine derivatives or even what any of those things might be.

I wasn't a "psychotic" but I knew a couple, also including people capable of extremely complex tasks.

I think I do understand reavers very well, though.

The "lucky" get transformed to reavers, don't lie down, that's because the are the aware super race. If you lie down, or don't become awakened, you are not human and don't matter. So killing you isn't particularly wrong. You are just food.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 7:02 PM

Okay, I finally got to the end of this thread. And my apologies again for overposting.

Chrisisall. Yes. Govts. are well meaning ill behaved teenagers. But they are fat reaver teens. they eat everything and grow.

My brother once said "The only reason for govt. is if you didn't have one, someone would come in and set up a govt."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 3:47 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

My brother once said "The only reason for govt. is if you didn't have one, someone would come in and set up a govt."

Wow, you posted a lot in such a short time!
Governmental analogy time:
My condominium recently ousted a management team from our board of trustees that was skimming, and we rejoiced. The new team is now swinging the other way cutting services and PERSONNEL!!! A long time fix-it-dude just got 'layed off'.

Ah, power...who has the ability to posess it WITHOUT using(abusing) it?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 4:30 AM

I think I came late to this thread :)

There was a lot of ranting to do

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 8:00 AM

ODDNESS2HER

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

My brother once said "The only reason for govt. is if you didn't have one, someone would come in and set up a govt."

Wow, you posted a lot in such a short time!
Governmental analogy time:
My condominium recently ousted a management team from our board of trustees that was skimming, and we rejoiced. The new team is now swinging the other way cutting services and PERSONNEL!!! A long time fix-it-dude just got 'layed off'.

Ah, power...who has the ability to posess it WITHOUT using(abusing) it?

Chrisisall

So, does power corrupt, or do corrupt people seek power?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DreamTrove:
I understand the left's desire to disown them, though.
...
FINN IS RIGHT.
About Nazis.

This argument was done sometime ago. I will say nothing more on this subject save to reiterate and clarify my previous assertions.
You obviously hold rightwing ideals, as does Finn. I hold ideals that are pretty much fifty/fifty split between the two, not centrist, but both left and right wing.
I'm not trying to distance the Nazis from the left, that's been done for me as the general consensus among people who study these subjects in detail, and who's opinions are arguably more pertinent than yours, Finn's or my own, pretty much universally agree that the Nazi's WERE right wing. Given these facts I would say it sounds far more like it's the right not only trying to disown but also trying to foist the Nazi's on to the left.
I'll say it again.
You and Finn are obviously 'right-wing'. I mean no offence but you yourself are obviously extremely biased against socialism to the point that you’re seemingly incapable of seeing any successes in the left. Your posts lead me to believe that you wholeheartedly believe the 'right' is always 'right' and where the 'right' fails or is corrupt it's because the evil 'left' got involved somewhere.
So I'll say it again. The right is no better or worse than the left. The left is no better or worse than the right.
I say that the Nazis are both left and right or they are neither left nor right, depending on your interpretation of my statements.
Yourself and Finn both say, defiantly left, no doubt about it.
So again I say our beliefs are probably much less about what the Nazis are or were, and more about what we don't want them to be.

Quote:
A Socialist state doesn't guarantee rights, it guarantees services.

Actually neither do right wing states, there's plenty of right wing dictatorships, but of course those weren't right wing, they were twisted into dictatorships by the evil left, right

.
Again your wanting to disown GW Bush to the left (and I'm sure you wholeheartedly believe this is valid) because your anti-bush and pro right, this points me in the direction of believing that your thoughts on this issue aren't entirely clear and unbiased.

If a state allowed the true right-wing 'free market' it is entirely possible you'd end up with a corporate run state.
Britain had a right-wing government during the 18th-19th centuries that began to grow very close to the east India Company. In many way's you couldn't tell where the government began and the corporation began.
It's entirely possible for a corporation to become meld with a government under a right-wing state.

Quote:
Government should censor speech
There should be a draft.
There should be laws regarding sex
Laws prohibiting drugs should stay
There should be a National ID card
What? This is conservative? No way.

I agree that Government censorship of speech is not a rightist ideology. That is, perhaps not any more. It's found in extreme left and right. It is however more prevalent within middle-ground rightwing states, and is traditionally a right-wing policy. It’s arguably a grey area, but if your going to include it, it belongs on the right, not the left.
You’re absolutely wrong on the point of the draft, though. The draft is a point towards strong military and has always been a right-wing rather than left-wing ideal. Right-wing politics believe in outward looking, which often includes a strong military. Left-wing politics is more inward looking which doesn't necessarily include a strong military.
You’re also confusing totalitarianism, (which isn't left wing, actually) with pure left wing ideologies, and thus forcing totalitarianism on left wing politics.
Laws on sex are very much traditionally right-wing and that still hasn't changed.
Likewise drugs.
The ID card is again a grey area. You may have a point on that. It's not left wing but it's not right wing either.

I feel that a lot of your posts regarding left wing/right wing shows poor understanding on the true meanings of left and right wing politics. It seems very much as if you've bought into anti-leftist right wing propaganda.
You seem to want to force all the bad things you don't like on to the left, and draw all the good into the right.
That's fine but acknowledge that your changing the strict meanings of left/right and that you are in fact producing a new definition of political ideals all together.
Your up down system is a good start, but if I may propose a slightly different and arguably better definition (as it removes any notions of left/right entirely so no confusion with the traditional method), how about North, South, East and West?
So for perspective, the history of Left/Right:

Quote:
Originally, back in the 1700s, the terms "right" and "left" as applied to politics had a clear meaning. The "right" wing was based on tradition and upheld both traditional moral values and traditional institutions and power relationships. Historically, in Europe and America, power was based on the institutions of church and state, the Caucasian (white) race, the male sex, and those owning property, especially land.
The "left" arose in opposition to right-wing domination. Left-wing ideology was centered on reason, and the liberal philosophers concluded that there was in nature no reason for master/slave relationships, but rather that human beings have equal moral worth and should have equal rights. Moreover, no particular religion was based solely on reason, hence all religious practices should be equal before the law. Tradition could be observed voluntarily as custom, but should not enforced by law. These were the original "liberal" ideas, since they favored liberty rather than authoritarian rule by church and state and the landed aristocracy.
...
But the United States had no historic aristocracy, and many classically liberal ideas became encapsuled in the US Constitution, such as democracy and free speech and the market.
...
This policy of "equal rights for all, privileges for none" is the true left-wing ideology, in the original sense and meaning.
http://www.progress.org/archive/fold64.htm

On a lot of the points above I could argue that the Nazis were as Right wing as they were left. Hence my assertion that they transcend the left/right wing spectrum that you and Finn want to shoe horn them into.

Re. Insanity.

We’ve already spoken at great length on this subject, and have both made our thoughts known. I have nothing more to say on that.

I’m very sorry to hear of your problems, and may take you up on your offer to talk about such things at greater length (though this is neither the time nor the place for me).
I’m glad you got through it and wish you continued good health.

And with that I bring this rather long post to a close. (a lot longer than I was planning I'm afraid).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 12:04 PM

Quote:

So, does power corrupt, or do corrupt people seek power?

I'm more of a Nietzsche fan myself, so I'm going to go with the corrupt seek power.

Quote:

Stuff Citizen said

Okay several things.
1. Being biased against socialism is like being biased against Nazis and Commies. Count me in.
2. Hopefully the left has something else to offer than Socialism
3. Successes? Did I miss something?
4. Me and Finn are right wing, sure, and several others here. Ain't nothing wrong with that. Me and Finn flew some flaming posts a few days ago on our "interrogation" policy. So everyone is liable to have their own point of view. This isn't about partisanship or anything.
5. The Nazis can't be distanced from the left, they were the left. The new left can distance itself from them. Quite frankly I'm somewhat concerned that Bush has failed to distance himself from the Nazis. It's one of many points I have against him.
6. The idea that the Nazis were right wing is patently absurd. The Nazis were evil, and if someone claims that they were very right wing than such a person if spouting left wing propoganda. Nazis were a) Socialists, b) Statists, c) Anti-free market, d) pro-social program, and e) social militarists. This pretty much makes them 100% definitely not right wing. The right believes in personal freedoms more than forced equality, small govt, pro-business, pro-religious freedom, pro-independent societies, anti-govt control. I think our positions are pretty well defined and definitely have nothing in common with Naziism.
7. Stalin was also left wing. Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein. Many others. These people were left wing because they were members of the left wing party. You said "there's plenty of right wing dictatorships." Name one. Following this same model of they were in the right wing party, and no, George W. Bush doesn't count. As long as I can openly oppose him as much as I want, and run candidates against him, he doesn't count.

WTF????!!!!!!!!!!

I am so NOT wrong about the draft.

The draft is a democrat thing, and it still is. The democrats believe that with a draft rich kids will go to war. I think this is a fantasy. The only real truth about a draft is that the army will be larger and we will be able to fight bigger wars. I am certainly right about what was said on the debates, I watched all of them.

Please explain if you can, how:

1. Many wars with the indians
2. A war with germany in 1915
3. A nuclear war with Japan
4. A war with Korea
5. A war with Vietnam
6. The many wars of Clinton.

... is not a policy of militarism?????????

My views on right and left are very objective. The right isn't perfect, it has people in it who are anti-stem cell research and pro-intelligent design. The left is mostly very well meaning, but I do know a lot about it. I was once on their side, for many many years. I was ...

phooey I have to go to dinner, I'll finish this later.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally, back in the 1700s, the terms "right" and "left" as applied to politics had a clear meaning.

I doubt this since they were coined in 1789 one i think it was right right refered to the monarchists.

I don't think, btw, that the left is evil. Socialism is evil. There are lots of decent people on the left. Russ Feingold, George Galloway, are two I have a lot of respect for.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DreamTrove:
1. Being biased against socialism is like being biased against Nazis and Commies. Count me in.

Yes, I see exactly! The partially socialist states of Europe (Britain, France, Germany etc) are well known as the most evil states in existence in the world!

Quote:
2. Hopefully the left has something else to offer than Socialism

Erm, a lot more. I'll come back to this.

Quote:
3. Successes? Did I miss something?

Erm, yes. The vastly superior, essentially public Health care systems of the 'evil' states of France, Germany and to a lesser extent Britain over that of the more predominantly right wing United States, for one.
The far lower social problems such as gang warfare and general social tension within the aforementioned nations and the US?
Most European nations currently follow a socialist or partially socialist system, and Europe’s doing just fine thanks.

Quote:
4. Me and Finn are right wing, sure, and several others here. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

Never said there was. But it worries me when someone is so biased against something that they are incapable of seeing anything but rhetoric that supports their anti- view.

Quote:
6. The idea that the Nazis were right wing is patently absurd. The Nazis were evil, and if someone claims that they were very right wing than such a person if spouting left wing propoganda.

Yes, because as you've already asserted the only evil people in the world are those crazy leftists who want all freedom taken away.

Quote:
Nazis were a) Socialists, b) Statists, c) Anti-free market, d) pro-social program, and e) social militarists.

f) Most closely resembling the rightwing ideology of Fascism.

Quote:
This pretty much makes them 100% definitely not right wing. The right believes in personal freedoms more than forced equality, small govt, pro-business, pro-religious freedom, pro-independent societies, anti-govt control. I think our positions are pretty well defined and definitely have nothing in common with Naziism.

Your definitions of Right-wing and Left-wing are obviously incorrect, as I alluded to earlier. Let me clarify by taking your points as too what you see Right wing to actually be:
personal freedoms originally a left-wing ideal now adopted by some ideals which are sometimes considered to be right wing, such as Libertarians.
pro-religious freedom Actually strict right-wing ideologies are not sectarian, this is an original leftist ideal.

Quote:
Communism, as well as the Marxist philosophy that many base it on, and most currents of traditional anarchism are often considered to be radical forms of left-wing politics. Most left-wingers however reject any association with communism or anarchism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Fascism, as well as the nationalist ideology that many base it on, are often considered to be radical forms of right-wing politics. Most right-wingers however reject any association with fascism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Both those passages sound fairly similar. Maybe you should seek out a leftist who maintains that communism isn’t born out of left-wing politics, I'm sure they can come up just as many arguments as to why communism isn't left-wing as you can for why Nazis aren't right-wing.

Quote:
You said "there's plenty of right wing dictatorships." Name one.

Here’s two straight away.
Chile under Augusto Pinochet.
South Korea under Gen. Park Chung-hee.
How’s that for a start?

Quote:
I am so NOT wrong about the draft.

I have no doubt you believe that. You don't like the draft. You don't like the left. Thus the draft must be leftist.
Your understanding of the left right spectrum is warped, as is many peoples. You seem to have systematically moved anything you think is good into right wing, and anything you think is bad into left wing, in complete disregard for the real definitions. Like I said, you wanna do that, fine, but admit you’re not talking about the accepted left/right definitions and running with your own.

Quote:
The draft is a democrat thing, and it still is. The democrats believe that with a draft rich kids will go to war. I think this is a fantasy.

Being left of the Republicans does not a left-wing party make.
If the Democrats are really a true left wing party, then Stalin’s a Right-wing apologist.
But beyond that, just because one American political party that professes to be left-wing supports the draft doesn’t mean it’s a left wing thing.
But to be honest trying to do some research on your assertion that the Democrats want the draft back I found this:

Quote:
The notion that Republicans oppose a draft while Democrats support it is false. It's not a Democrat/Republican issue. After 9/11, Republicans Nick Smith (MI) and Curt Weldon (PA) introduced the "Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001", H.R. 3598, in the House of Representatives. Like Rangel's bill (H.R. 183)and its Senate counterpart (S. 89) which were introduced on January 7, 2003, it was referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/008146.html

Want to shed some light on this?

Quote:
The only real truth about a draft is that the army will be larger and we will be able to fight bigger wars.

Yes, that’s right, it’s been the system used by ‘right-wing’ states before what we call the ‘left’ even existed.

Quote:
I am certainly right about what was said on the debates, I watched all of them.

I never said you weren’t.

Quote:
1. Many wars with the indians
2. A war with germany in 1915
3. A nuclear war with Japan
4. A war with Korea
5. A war with Vietnam
6. The many wars of Clinton.

Firstly America is predominantly a right-wing state, so American aggression is probably not the best proofs for you to use for the evils of the left wing, even if a democratic president is in the white house at the time.
1. Really, a left wing only policy? Give me a break, which takes some level of cognitive dissonance to support.
2. What war was this? The First World War started in 1914, and was far from the product of leftist militarism. If your talking about America’s entry in to the war that was in 1917, not 1915. Also it was far from leftist militarism that drew America into the First World War. If that’s really what you think you may need to go read a history book.
3. Well the war in the Pacific arena between the Japanese and the Americans was started by the Japanese (a right-wing Imperial militarised state). The use of Atomic weapons is way out of the scope of this discussion.
4. Was born out of the carving up of the country by the Soviets and the Americans after the 2nd World War across the 38th parallel. Not entirely sure where your coming from on this.
5. Another incredibly complex conflict which you want to simplify into a case of ‘evil leftists did it’. So I’m assuming your of the opinion that the conflict started in 1961 when Kennedy was president (of course, he was the Democrat, the evil leftist must of done it) completely ignoring the fact that American troops took over combat operations from the French in 1957, when Dwight David Eisenhower (a right-wing republican) was in power.
6. Yep your dead right. Clinton was the only president of America that presided over such things. Our right-wing republican friend GW Bush was never involved in any wars now was he? But I forget, you’ve decided the Bush is left-wing, so that’s okay then.

It honestly seems to me that you have an ingrained desire to foist the problems of the world on the left, and the successes on the right.

EDIT:

Quote:
I doubt this since they were coined in 1789 one i think it was right right refered to the monarchists.

1789 is in the 1700’s.

Quote:
I don't think, btw, that the left is evil.

I’m glad to hear it. But it’s not how your posts come across.

Quote:
Socialism is evil.

Why? You’ve yet to give a single reason. Unless you think Socialism = Communism, then I could understand where you were coming from.
Firstly Socialism isn’t Communism; secondly not even Communism is inherently evil.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 9:45 PM

Whoa,

Citizen. That was a long post.

I'll try to answer it.

Quote:

Yes, I see exactly! The partially socialist states of Europe (Britain, France, Germany etc) are well known as the most evil states in existence in the world!

There's nothing socialist about Britain, France and Germany. These are capitalist democracies with the equivalents of democrats and republicans making up majorities of their parliments. So they have some social programs, like a public health. This doesn't make a country a socialist state.

A socialist state is one where the state, as an entity, is the basis of the economy, like Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and many others. Some aren't terrible. But because a country has socialists holding some party seats in parliment is very very far from making it a socialist state.

France is annoyingly self important. They have done some very questionable things, and delight in attack us any time we do something similar. It's what draws wrath. It's not evil.

Quote:

Yes, because as you've already asserted the only evil people in the world are those crazy leftists who want all freedom taken away.

This made me laugh. No, I don't think that's my position. I've said the Bush administration is evil many times so far. I don't like how the crazy lefties want to take all the freedom away, though. And some of them do. I have issues with that. I think I said that I thought Osama Bin Laden isn't an evil leftie. I think he's pretty right wing, except for his love of Nazis, which he does love them, he is underhandedly funding American neo-nazi movements, but he himself is probably pretty right wing. He's pro personal freedom and anti-big government. He's personally evil. He's his own unique kind of evil.

Quote:

f) Most closely resembling the rightwing ideology of Fascism.

WHAT????????!!!!!!!

This is the first I've heard of it. Fascism is right wing? Since when? I don't even know where this is coming from? Or to put it in buffy quotes "You're brain isn't even connected to your mouth, is it?"

Really I mean no offense. I think you're smarter than that. Use your head. I think also you've fallen into a trap of labelling everything you despise as right-wing. If someone did this, of course they would despise the right.

You have to credit at right wing only those things the right ascribes to. It's never been fascism. Fascism itself is closest linked to social militarism. Bush could be said to be a little fascist. I don't think it would be completely fair, but it's an argument one could make. It wouldn't apply to the whole of the right, and to say that it's a right wing ideology seem to me absurd.

Fascism is born of "might makes right" which has right in it, sure, but that's a top down approach, a big govt. approach. Fascist govts. have been generally left wing, but I will credit that I don't think of fascism as a left wing ideology, I think it's its own ideology outside the spectrum.

Here's how I see it:

Fascism is the oppostite of libertarianism. Since every has granted libertarianism as outside the left right, it's fair to say the same for fascism. I think you should take this offer, since if it has to fall in the spectrum, it's not going to end up on the right end.

Quote:

Your definitions of Right-wing and Left-wing are obviously incorrect, as I alluded to earlier. Let me clarify by taking your points as too what you see Right wing to actually be:
personal freedoms originally a left-wing ideal now adopted by some ideals which are sometimes considered to be right wing, such as Libertarians.
pro-religious freedom Actually strict right-wing ideologies are not sectarian, this is an original leftist ideal.

Did I make a definition of left wing. Left wing strives for universal equality, that is it's singular driving ideal. Just about everything the left, anyone from democrats to communists which I consider to be at diffrerent ends of the spectrum of left, everything any of them has done pretty much is towards this end.

The right is based on preservation of a way of life. If you think about it enough, this puts it at odd with the left almost all the time.

I don't say the left is evil. It's not evil to want universal equality. It's not a position I support. I believe that societies which create progress, and can support themselves, have earned the right to control their own future, and not compromise with everyone else.

I get that other people don't share this view. That's their right. It's a difference of opinion based on a difference of world view. That's fine.

We need to learn that both viewpoints are valid and work from there.

Socialism is a different issue. It's a particular approach to the idea of universal equality which appalls me, but that's not what makes it evil. It's evil because virtually all history's genocidal dictators have been socialist, and this is not a coincidence.

VERY IMPORTANT:

Socialism is a system which creates a power structure through which a far greater amount of evil can be committed should a flawed individual come to power.

But don't take my word for it, history has already proven this to be the case.

Sure, you could argue, socialism isn't evil it just opens the door to evil, but the same could be said of guns. No that's not a 2nd ammendment statement, 2nd ammendment is a mixed issue I have mixed feelings about. At the moment I support second ammendment rights, which is really complicated. But the argument socialism isn't evil is pretty much identical to "guns don't kill people, people kill people," which is a very flawed one. People who have no guns kill a lot fewer people.

Quote:

Pinochet

Good call. You're right, I forgot about Pinochet. What a piece of work. Pinochet is probably the right's worst disaster. Except maybe George W. Bush :) But seriously, I concede this point, I figured there probably were a few, but most dictators are definitely socialists, historically.

Park Chung Hee as dictator is a much tougher call. Many many democratic leaders worldwide have created corrupt voting schemes that keep them in power. I would require more for the definition of dictator. A true totalitarian dictator would have to silence all dissent, outlaw opposition parties and possibly dispense with elections. Park's election manipulation was not democratic, to say the least, but bad democracy is actually the norm in democracies. Koizumi is currently involved in a very similar process. Virtually every government in central asia and africa are guilty of the same, as well as several in latin america. But there are other issues here as well.

Park wasn't a particularly bad leader. He's not up there on the all time worst list, and many place him on a best list. The significance of this is that though Park did bolster his own power in a way we wouldn't consider equitable, it's hard to credit that needed dictatorial control that he encouraged just in order to remain in power.

I'm not conceding Park Chung Hee. I also think he's not a figure you want to use to make a right-is-evil argument.

If rampant election manipulation is enough for your definition of dictator, I have a much better one for you:

Ariel Sharon. Sharon is flat out evil, and very much a right-winger. I'm ashamed to have him on my side. That's about what it would take to make me a lefty. If I were an Israeli maybe. It's not enough to fit my definition of dictator, but I would certainly put him on the list of the right's biggest disasters.

Quote:

I have no doubt you believe that. You don't like the draft. You don't like the left. Thus the draft must be leftist.

No.

This is not it at all.

You just haven't been paying attention on this issue. The draft is very extremely incontrovertably a left wing issue. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Draft=equality
no draft=personal freedom, particularly for rich people

You don't think the right votes in favor of personal freedom for rich people?

Kerry had a plan for a draft, he refused to say he won't make a draft, and the democrats proposed the draft. It wasn't a rig, they wanted it.

Pro-draft democrats are of two schools of thought:

1. There's a peace-left which thinks that if rich people might be called to serve, they wouldn't support wars, and if they didn't, fewer wars would happen. I'm not sure if either of these points are true, but I'm not sure they're false, and the pro-draft portion of the peace-left believes this.

2. Pro-draft militarist left. They believe that without a draft we cannot win a significant military conflict. I'm not sure that we could win one with a draft. But they believe it's necessary.

There may be some militarists on the right who hold with this position (2) but they are decidedly in the minority.

This has nothing to do with my opinions on the matter. I think these are pretty much the spinless facts.

Quote:

If the Democrats are really a true left wing party, then Stalin’s a Right-wing apologist.

I don't get this. What are you trying to say? I mean, I'm not insuating anything, I just didn't understand the statement.

I remember when the democrats introduced a draft bill quite recently. I'm aware some republicans support the idea. I'm certain Kerry supported the idea. If my other arguments don't win this last point, consider tha Kerry promised 500,000 more combat troops to Iraq and had clearly no other means of getting them.

I'm not trying to prove that the left is evil, I've said several times it wasn't. But the democrats fight big wars was the point of the list. Yes, I meant 1917, my error.

Quote:

The use of Atomic weapons is way out of the scope of this discussion.

WHAT??????!!!!!!!!!!!

Good God. This is the most irresponsible thing you've said. Serously. I don't know what to say. You're dismissing the fact that Harry S. Truman ordered two nuclear strikes against a civilian population as inadmissable in a trial of whether the democratic party is agressively militaristic? On what grounds?

The start of the war I already explained. I'm not an imperial japan apologist, but it was a bloody pointless war. At the very least it was questionable.

But more importantly every war fought by a democrat, right or wrong was a war fought by a democrat. If you take the 20th century, and you take the casualties in wars fought by democrats and ones fought by republicans, even reducing it to people killed in direct conflict with the US, there is simply no comparison.

Bush isn't left wing, I said I agreed to call the neocons and neo-socialists an it thing socialist, because it supports democrats and republicans, Clinton and Bush. Sure, W. is a very bad republican. He's probably personally a right winger. And sure, he's evil and destructive.

But this isn't the issue. You can say "Clinton didn't fight five wars because Bush is also bad." My statement that Clinton was war-happy is independent of the fact that Bush is also war happy.

DO YOU EVEN READ WHAT I WRITE?

I very clearly stated that the list was a list of wars fought by democrats to support the case that Democrats are militaristic. Nowhere did I said "the left is evil, and Bush is blameless"

This wasn't even the issue.

Seriously, you often seem to totally miss the point and not have read what people have said in many of you flaming posts. I'm somewhat serious about this.

It just seems to me that you are endlessly twisting what everyone else has said in an effort to provoke a bigger argument. Don't argue why you think you don't do this, because you do, just please stop deliberately misreading people. Unless you're stone stupid, you know the text is perpetually right there in front of your eyes. There is no excuse for misrepresenting other people's words so consistantly

Quote:

EDIT:

Quote:
I doubt this since they were coined in 1789 one i think it was right right refered to the monarchists.

1789 is in the 1700’s.

Huh, I never would have guessed that. I meant it meant monarchism towards the end of the century, and nothing earlier.

Communism is a form of Socialism, therefore

Communism = Socialism

but

Socialism does not equal Communism

One reason why socialism is evil. I think I've already stated a few, but how about this:

Socialist States to date have killed an incredibly large number of people! At least in the hundreds of millions! I think that from a human perspective, this is a pretty serious reason to think that they are evil.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 10:10 PM

Things to remember.

1) People tend to support political systems that benefit them or their social group in some way.

2) Conservative and progressive are relative terms. One US conservative I know calls the US war of independence a "conservative revolution" which I'm sure is an oxymoron. What he means is that modern conservatives see the period just after the revolution as being somehow sacred and the founders as conservative heroes. In the 1780's though they were definately seen as progressives, and a "conservative" then was a monarchist.

3)Progressive forces move things forward against people's inherent conservative instincts. People don't like change, if it aint broke dont fix it, EVERYONE is conservative to some degree or another because it's a damned good survival aid! If however the progressive elements produce something better --- like the US republic -- that then becomes accepted as the "norm" and entrenched. That then becomes the new conservative high water mark. You can see that elsewhere. In Russia a "conservative" is a hard line communist yearning for the return of the soviet state that benefited him. A progressive is a free marketeer and democrat.

Now getting back to firefly. First we are talking 500 years into our future. Now 500 years ago most of the world lived in feudal societies, capitalism, socialism, communism didn't even exist. Democracy was a failed Greek experiment that nobody anywhere practiced anymore.

Consequently we have no idea how politics works in the alliance or elsewhere. We have seen that Corporations like Blue Sun have considerable influence, perhaps the "Parliment" is actually a "board of directors" each representing the interests of a huge carbine ---- Capitalism gone crazy, "better world" may be what their PR companies put out to placate the masses.

Alternately, we have seen that some people have some kind of "status" higher than ordinary folk. There is some suggestion that the Tams are from that elite. Obviously companions have to have well to do clients and those clients seem to have raised their concubines to a level of being equals. Is this a monarchy? We have folks with noble sounding names appearing in "Shindig" is this a peculiarity of that world or is that world closer to the society of the core?

An American listening to the teacher's speech from Serenity might have a knee jerk reaction and say "socialist." However first impressions could be deceptive. If you had gone into the villiage that a grew up in in the mid 1920's you'd have found large affordable workers houses, library's, schools, free health care, a swiming baths, tennis courts, soccer and cricket fields, two social centers, public parks. Sounds like a socialist wonderland? No, it was a company town with everything provided by the company for it's workers. It was in short industrial feudalism, something very common in the late 1800's and the first decades of the 20th century but now almost unknown. Happy workers are productive workers, fit workers are productive workers, smart workers are productive workers. Social engineering for a better capitalist utopia....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 10:58 PM

Two other thoughts.

1) We have no way of knowing what effects the migration from Earth-that-was had on the society of the 'Verse. In the Visual companion it suggests that the trip took generations. During that time there may have been a division between crew and passengers. Perhaps the elites and the professional classes in the core are decended from ships crews. Maybe "nobility" comes from what your family did during migration.

2) Imagine being on a ship for decades as basically cargo. People in command making all the decisions, survival meaning that you do as you are told by people that had authority over you and whose decisions could be life and death. It may be normal in the core worlds to do as you are told and not ask questions. That could be the conservative line. Folks out on the Rim forced to think and act for themselve or die are likely to have a completely different mindset. Years of migration told the folks in the core that survival was something communial and to follow orders. Decades on the Rim teaches folks to do what they have to to survive.

4) In our modern society people are commodity items, you can hire and fire at will so individuals are interchangeable. There were likely to be far fewer humans in the verse and so individuals may be more important. It could be that in the core at least initially a "nanny state" was almost a nescessity --- they simply couldnt afford to loose people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 8:36 AM

ZOOT

I think the message is:

Watch out for any organisation seeking to govern others that is in itself notably ungoverned. That and watch out for a government's motives and remember even if the motives are honourable, the greater number of persons involved, the more likely they are to fuck it all up …

Zoot’s succinct and pessimistic summary of the world in general …

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 9:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
There's nothing socialist about Britain, France and Germany. These are capitalist democracies with the equivalents of democrats and republicans making up majorities of their parliments. So they have some social programs, like a public health. This doesn't make a country a socialist state.

There’s plenty socialist in all those states. I know the British political system, I live in Britain. My original point was that some good has come from the socialist system, that was in support.

Quote:
This is the first I've heard of it. Fascism is right wing? Since when? I don't even know where this is coming from? Or to put it in buffy quotes "You're brain isn't even connected to your mouth, is it?"

Really I mean no offense. I think you're smarter than that. Use your head. I think also you've fallen into a trap of labelling everything you despise as right-wing. If someone did this, of course they would despise the right.

Can you please go over my posts again? I felt it necessary to give a polarised left-wing view to counter your polarised right-wing view. My point all along was the Nazism transcends the left/right spectrum, NOT that it was right wing. Nazism and Fascism ARE so closely related to be almost indistinguishable.
This is one of the reason’s I hold to my assertion that Nazism isn’t left nor right, and you seem to now be supporting me on this.

Quote:
Fascism is the oppostite of libertarianism. Since every has granted libertarianism as outside the left right, it's fair to say the same for fascism. I think you should take this offer, since if it has to fall in the spectrum, it's not going to end up on the right end.

I’d hold that it is in fact Totalitarianism that is the opposite of Libertarianism. Again a point I’ve been making all along.

Quote:
Socialism is a system which creates a power structure through which a far greater amount of evil can be committed should a flawed individual come to power.

But don't take my word for it, history has already proven this to be the case.

Sure, you could argue, socialism isn't evil it just opens the door to evil, but the same could be said of guns. No that's not a 2nd ammendment statement, 2nd ammendment is a mixed issue I have mixed feelings about. At the moment I support second ammendment rights, which is really complicated. But the argument socialism isn't evil is pretty much identical to "guns don't kill people, people kill people," which is a very flawed one. People who have no guns kill a lot fewer people.

The argument that Socialism is not evil because it is corrupted by people, rather than it is evil because it does corrupt people is actually quite valid. However, Capitalism, for instance, are just as open to corruption, but of a more insidious and harder to gauge nature.

Quote:
I don't get this. What are you trying to say? I mean, I'm not insuating anything, I just didn't understand the statement.

I’m saying that the Democrats aren’t all that left-wing, not any more. Neither is the Labour party (that’s Tony Blair’s party) in the UK for that matter.

Quote:
Good God. This is the most irresponsible thing you've said. Serously. I don't know what to say. You're dismissing the fact that Harry S. Truman ordered two nuclear strikes against a civilian population as inadmissable in a trial of whether the democratic party is agressively militaristic? On what grounds?

It’s out of the scope of this discussion. Irresponsible? Do me a favour. You thought I had a long post before, well you’d still be reading it right now if I’d gone into the use of Nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War. Hence out of scope of THIS discussion. If you want to start a thread for the discussion of the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima do so, but it’s out of scope here.
Further more you’ve got a big axe to grind with the Democratic Party and you do, Dreamtrove, but it was irresponsible, or at least of poor judgement, for your to bring the First and Second World Wars into it.
What so a democratic president happened to be in power in the US during the two biggest wars mankind has ever seen? So what? IF America had been responsible for the start of the First and Second World Wars you’d have something, but America isn’t, so you don’t.
The Second World War was an unnecessary conflict? Are you living in cloud cuckoo land?
Moreover do you really think that if a Republican was in the White House when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour America would not have declared war? It’s nothing to do with the Democrats, something obvious to anyone who hasn’t got a political axe to grind.

Quote:
But this isn't the issue. You can say "Clinton didn't fight five wars because Bush is also bad." My statement that Clinton was war-happy is independent of the fact that Bush is also war happy.

I see, in order to discuss the point of Democratic ‘militarism’ we can only keep to the wars fought by the Democrats? Sure, in that case you win, well done.
I’m saying that the right wing is just as ‘war happy’, as the left.
Strange how rightist say Clinton was both too soft and too hard depending on what point they’re trying to make at the time. Which is it?

Quote:
It just seems to me that you are endlessly twisting what everyone else has said in an effort to provoke a bigger argument. Don't argue why you think you don't do this, because you do, just please stop deliberately misreading people. Unless you're stone stupid, you know the text is perpetually right there in front of your eyes. There is no excuse for misrepresenting other people's words so consistently

I’m obviously twisting your words here but I’m either stupid or deliberately misreading you because I don’t agree with you? Don’t tell me that that is not the meaning of that sentence. Don’t tell me I’m twisting your words. You say I’m perpetually misreading people, sometimes I push people’s arguments to their logical extremes, if you choose to say that’s misreading then you don’t want to face the logic of your own argument. I know the text is right? So I either agree with you, I’m stupid or I’m merely acting as a Troll (trying to spark an argument, bigger or otherwise). That’s not twisting, it’s interpretation. There’s no excuse for misreading your text? Maybe you’re misreading it. Maybe you want to see something that’s not there. In which case I’m not stupid or trying to spark a wider argument for not seeing in your data what you do.
But of course none of that should have been said because you already basically forbade me from defending myself, unless you want to give me an alternate interpretation for:
Don't argue why you think you don't do this, because you do
Who the hell, exactly, do you think you are?
It’s obvious to you because you have a political axe to grind, it so blatantly obvious it hurts.
You want to start chucking insults around while trying to gain the moral high ground this isn’t the place to do it. I suggest you go talk to Howard; it’s very possible you two will get on famously.

But since this is your attitude I don’t wish to continue a discussion that myself and Finn had agreed to end already, and that you dragged back up.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 10:20 AM

Fletch,

I basically agree. If I were in those times I'd side with the founding fathers, and that might make me a progressive.

In general I don't have a serious problem with progressives. I think progressives could be on either side. TR was considered a progressive and called his 'bull moose' party the 'progressive' party. There are progressives on the other side, some of whom I respect.

I don't think liberal is progressive. I think liberal is adhering to the values of an alternate society, which at times has existed, but in large part has existed for a long time in the minds of intellectuals as a utopian ideal.

I don't have serious problems with liberals. I just disagree with them. I don't have many problems with extant society, and if it could rewind to 1955 I'd be very happy, but I'd settle for 1985.

I realize this is backwards and reactionary, but I think we've started down a road of social change which is a wrong turn. I already know where it's heading because it was all dreamed up in advance and the dream was widely publicized.

I have a problem with socialists. I would like to see someone propose a solution which does not involve killing several million people, and one which will allow any group of people to set their own rules for their own society as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.

I'd like to see schools without marijuana as the main course of study, where smart kids could pull ahead of the curve, and where things that were known to be wrong didn't clutter up the day; healthcare that was based on common sense, where the options were wider than this brand or that, where the treatment was not based on kickbacks and intentional customer addiction to drugs; I'd like to see a miltary that actually defended America, and didn't go galavnting off to fight wars in other people's countries that those other countries' people don't really want. I want this for a society in which I live, and I don't want someone else telling me I can't have it like this because that's not how everyone else has it, and so I have to change. This makes me a conservative, and it's not going to change if someone wins an argument on some issue point.

What I really don't want is to spend a lot of time defending my position because someone has twisted my words around completely to say something I didn't say.

Quote:

Now getting back to firefly.

Thank You! Can we please do this!

Okay. I disagree we won't know what it's like. Europe was feudal in the middle ages, and the chinese system was similar, but I disagree that this was most of the world. I also think by 1505 (500 years ago) it was mostly monarchies. I don't think that even when contained feudal relationships that it was a fair comparison. That's like saying that because the roman empire has a senate that meant it was a republic. It just didn't come out that way in practice.

Most of the systems alive today have been debated for many centuries. There were many proponents of democracy and other various forms of govts. in the rennaissance. There was no socialism, but I'll bet if you digged through history you would find someone who thought they could legislate human nature in a similar way.

If it is capitalism gone crazy, it's still socialist. I call the Bush backers socialists and rightly so. Just because they initiate their changes through large monopolistic corporations with strong govt. ties instead of large govt. beaurocracies doesn't really make it different. It's the same thing, only without the checks and balances. But that's why I like to neo-socialist, because it's not idential to old world 20th century socialism, but the idea is the same, even if the means may be slightly different.

I think the alliance is neo-socialist. I think it's intentionally neosocialist as an attack on Bush. Joss doesn't live 500 years in the future and neither does his audience. He wants something they can relate to. Star Trek was often called a socialist utopia, which I think was also accurate. It's important to bear in mind that the totalitarian state with a fist of iron is only a problem if you happen to disagree with it.

Consider Superman. Superman has three things:

1. A moral imperative.
2. The power to enforce it uncompromisingly.
3. The will to do so.

Superman is a terrifying concept if you happen to disagree with him. Like, for instance, if you're Lex Luthor.

Us, the audience, tend to agree with Superman and not see this flaw because we generally agree with his moral imperative because were raised to do so.

But from Lex's point of view, Clark Kent is the Nazi king.

I think this is bound to be the case to some extent in firefly. The Alliance will be fine for most of the citizens because they agree with the moral imperative being forced down their throats. But Mal and the BDH don't hold with that.

I knew a soviet dissident during the cold war, and I know a couple in byelarus today. It's a difficult position to be in. It's made somewhat more difficuly by the fact that you are surrounded by people who do share, for the most part, the moral imperative.

So what's wrong with being forced under a moral imperative you agree with? Well, clearly, Miranda, for one. Too much power increases the chances that something might go askew.

For instance, consider when his divine shadow decides that the human race should be cleansed. That's a just an executive decision for the betterment of the league of 20,000 from the divine shadow's perspective. And you have a society that blindly follows the orders because they believe.

It's an interesting question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 10:33 AM

Fletch, I think the colonies aren't the first experiment. I think they probably colonized and terraformed the solar system the same way, and learned some very tough lessons the hard way.

I remember when my older brother was growing up, he went out to wild parties, stole stuff did drugs, etc. When I was growing up my mom very carefully checked out all my friends, made sure she knew where I was, etc. Life was of course, less fun, but on the other hand, in retrospect I see why she did it.

This is a similar situation. We know what the colonization was like. It's a parallel for the west and America, so early one, the colonial Mars was like the east coast. England watched as it grew, organized, rebelled and eventually disputed the agenda of its creator.

So what I think is, this is what it would be like if England has a second chance. If the Mississippi had been the size of the pacific. The colonies of America rebel, and during their isolationist phase, England goes on and colonizes the east coast of Iowa.

Now, having learned from their mistakes, they cleverly set up a predetermined social order.

But something goes wrong. West America is bigger than old America, and they can't control it all. The west coast of Texas and the Idaho north shore are difficult to control from Iowa, and even the island of Lousiana is threatening to break away.

The new stellar system as it is told to us, is bigger than our own. So, the grand plan falls short, and there are fringes that can't be maintained. So they improvise. There are unification wars, there's Miranda.

Now things are a mess, California is taken over by insane cannibals and Arizona is threatening to make sneak terrorist attacks on Nebraska.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 11:58 AM

Well first up Rome WAS a Republic -- that was why it had a Senate -- but that Republic failed and became a dictatorship. That great quote of Franklins when asked what kind of government they had chosen for the US Constitution "A Republic madam -- if you can keep it," reflects the fact that every other republic in history had become a dictatorship. The division of powers in the US Constitution is a safeguard against that happening to the US. Back in 1787 nobody knew if it would work. It is in fact the greatest social experiment of it's time. You said that progressives get their minds fixed on a Utopia they never acheive? You live in one such Utopia, it may fall sort on occasion, but compared to the world in the late 1600's this is the promised land.

Feudalism is a monarchy, in fact monarchy's in some form have existed 1000's of years. What Feudalism does is create a rigid society of classes, benefits and obligations with a King at the top. 99% of people labour on land they do not own paying rent to their land owners for the right to be allowed to continue living there.

I cant help thinking that somehow you've come to link socialism to totalitarianism so completely that you make the mistake of assuming that the two are interchangeable. This is not so. In any business there are two inputs, capital ---which means money, raw materials and any machinery--- and labour -- the effort of the workers that converts raw material to finished product. Marx argued that since there would be no product without workers labour then that labour was the superior partner in this relationship and that capital was secondary. This was not a new idea, Lincoln said much the same 50 years before. However Marx went a little further and said that if those workers owned the means of production --- ie the industries they worked in--- then the profits could be distributed equally to them. In effect he was advocating the workers control of industry. This is socialism, if the workers own the factories they work in then it's socialism if they do not it isnt. That is an absolute test.

So let's look at Nazism. First Hitler didn't nationalise very much at all. The state seized assets of Jews but in most cases it sold them to Germans and didnt keep them for the state. In fact Hitler was supported by Germany's biggest industrialists and as a result he gave them work. So was the means of production in the hands of workers under Nazism --- no so it couldnt be socialist. That's what socialism means, who owns the factories.
It was however totalitarian and if you see the words as interchangable then I can see your point.

One last thing don't pay too much attention to the "socialist" in the Nazi name. There is little truth in advertising. The party was originally a militarist party operating in Bavaria -- a little like some of these right wing militia groups in some US western states. At that time order was breaking down in germany and the socialists and communists were fighting for political control. If you were communist you put the word "peoples" or "communist" in your party name if you were anticommunist you put the word "national" or "socialist" in your party name. The Nazis did both. Remember that in the cold war we have the German Democratic Republic --- the only true thing in that name was that it was in Germany since it was neither democratic or a republic (in fact it was a communist regime) there is no truth in advertising.

You accuse the President of being a "socialist" and that he uses his cronies in big business to force his way. Are those businesses owned and operated by their workers --- no --- in which case it cant be socialist. Again you may accuse him of being a totalitarian but that does not automatically mean socialist.

As for your dreams of 1955, you are out of luck. Like most conservatives you miss the point entirely. The world changes to reflect economic forces, society changes in reflection of that economic reality.

You look at 1955 and see a social idea - dad is the bread winner comming home to housewife mom who makes sure that little Jimmy and June look their best, do their homework and grow up safe and strong. I can see the appeal. But from a freemarket capitalist viewpoint that utopia is a disaster! If dad is the sole bread winner you are either paying him too much or he simply only buys nescessities.

Capitalism is driven by consumption, the more people buy the better it works. People in 1955 bought very little compared to people today, mom sat at her Singer sewing machine and made June's summer dresses, they saved to buy items rather than stick them on the credit card --- consumption was pityful compared to today. See 1955 mom? To a capitalist she is a lost worker, single working women produce wealth with their labour and then spend it as consumption. If she's at home looking after the kids she's not producing or spending. Just look at the amount of goods targetted at young women? That's because young single women have disposable income, they dont have to ask father or husband for money to buy things. If back in 1955 world those women are married off and off being home makers then those industries and their economic benefits dry up.

Birth control and abortion? They let the woman choose when she has kids, keeps her a productive wage slave longer. Women can now put career before child rearing --- result falling birth rates in developed countries nescessitating influxes of new workers from elsewhere most of which produce more kids than their predominantly white middle class neighbours. Hence some parts of the US south will be speaking Spanish as the first language in 100 years.

Look at little Jimmy. In 1955 he's waiting on Christmas and that Red Ryder BB gun. Today teens have relatively huge disposable incomes finaced in part by two working pareants. Entire industries exist telling them what to wear, how to think, what to do to "be cool" (in exchange for money of course.) The one thing these places are NOT doing is telling them to wear a crew cut, call folks "sir" and "Ma'am" and go to school --- where's the profit in that?

So I feel sorry for social conservatives. The world they look on and see as degenerate is actually a byproduct of America's economic success. You can't wind the clock back to 1955 because those companies that pay for your politicians won't let that happen --- it would hit the bottom line.

Sure Republican politicians will come to conservatives and say that they are of the same "faith" but they do that because of the annoying technicality that they need your vote, their campaign has been bought and paid for by Time Warner and Enron and once the distastefull business of meeting the electorate is over it's corporate interests that will be served in Washington.

Look at the big conservative bug bear "Roe v Wade" you can overturn that in a heartbeat without needing to stack the supreme court with judges that toe the line. All you need do is pass a law and if that isn't enough a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion. Republicans have had all three branches of govnt for years, they hold the majority of state capitals so why not pass a law? Because the current situation suits them perfectly, to evangelicals they can wring their hands "damn Roe v Wade and those activist judges we're on your side but until the court changes we're powerless" on the other hand there is no risk of alienating their corporate masters and taking thousands of productive workers out of the workforce.

Free market capitalism is corosive to 1955 world, which is why that world no longer exists. The world we have is the world economics says we will have. Little Jimmy doesnt dress like a Gangsta rapper and get little Suzy in the 10th grade to give him blow jobs because some degenerate liberal tells him to. He does it because Time Warner tells him gangsta is cool so they can sell him more cd's dvd's and "gear." Little Suzy doesnt know that blowjobs are wrong or that this is sex because mom and dad are too busy working to tell her otherwise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 3:06 PM

Okay, I said I really don't want to waste time arguing what I already know, since I am under no obligation to educate people, and I want to waste time. I'll try to answer this.

Quote:

Well first up Rome WAS a Republic

Don't you think I know all this?

I expected this debate to happen at a higher level. This is the information age people. Everyone has access to infinite information. Even if you haven't been to 20 years of college, you still should be able to keep pace in a professionally informed discussion and assume that everyone else can too.

Assume I know all the facts and then some. A nine year old with access to wikipedia knows all the facts. Debates should be based on interpretation of those facts that we all already know.

Quote:

You said that progressives get their minds fixed on a Utopia they never acheive?

I don't hate the left. Yet. Please stop trying to make me. You know darn well that's not what I said just as Citizen knows darn well because My text is right there at the bottom of your screen as you're typing. So I can't help but feel that altering my words is some twisted rhetorical technique which is based on an idea that you feel you get more mileage from opposing me than agreeing with me.

1. I said Socialist are bent on a eutopia
2. I will not let you use the word progressive as a substitute for socialist, that's simply not honest.
3. I never said they never succeed. The Soviets built a perfect socialist state. I admire it in it's hideousness. I wouldn't want to live there, but I truly do admire the perfection of the creation. Like a beautifully crafted sword you wouldn't want to be at the pointy end of.
4. I'm definitely not conceding that this was a nation crafted by lefties. That's just patently false. You can argue against the T-shirt and bumper stickers that show the founding fathers with the words "right wing extremists," but you can't invert it can get away with it under the same logic and have me agree with you.
5. Clearly right stands for a set of beliefs regarding certain freedoms, and we put that above quality.
6. Clearly the right is not monarchist.
7. The terms left and right refer to whoever is in the political arena at any given time.
8. We are talking about the American left and the American right here. What was done by french people over a 30 year period is not particularly relevant to this debate. The American left and right really didn't exist prior to the revolution, because there was no political body for them to be divided in. In fact, they didn't divide until the 1820s.
9. The American Left and American Right split because of a debate between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. Eventually that debate split us into democrats and republicans. You can pick whatever side of that you want.

Quote:

Feudalism is a monarchy,

This just isn't so. Feudalism existed long before Monarchy in Europe, it was co-opted by the monarchs. Feudalism is a Guanji (sp?) would have been a more accurate statement, though the two are not identical. Feudalism is a business relationship.

Quote:

I cant help thinking that somehow you've come to link socialism to totalitarianism so completely that you make the mistake of assuming that the two are interchangeable.

Your twisting my position again.

I called the Bush admin. neosocialist, and clearly it's not totalitarian. It's part of a democratic process. It's manipulative, sure.

But this is really dodging the issue.
Everything is what it is in practice. Communism becomes what soviets do, and not the ideal of what marx laid out, because the soviets did it.

Stop and think for a second.

If we accepted your premise that socialism is marx, than we'd have to accept that Naziism was really an ideal govt. laid out by social darwinists and the like, and not a bloody murderer. This would be what the neonazis want us to believe, and if we believed it, we might put them in power and let them create our new state.

But who here truly believes that if we gave them that power that there's no chance that they would create a bloody murderer?

That was a rhetorical question, I'm assuming no one does. So if we can't assume that, then it logically follows that the ideology is what it does, and not what it says.

Socialism is about govt. sponsored social change. Some people may agree that that is a good idea. I'm certain Joss doesn't, but I can't really speak for him. But one thing I can say is that you cannot accomplish such govt. sponsored social change without some degree of state power.

You can do it like the Nazis, like the Chinese, like the Soviets, or like Bush. I think those are four different ways and there are probably others.

Quote:

So let's look at Nazism. First Hitler didn't nationalise very much at all.

Read your history again. The Nazis introduced the idea that the govt. could hold stock in companies, and they used that to take over industry.

Quote:

The party was originally a militarist party operating in Bavaria -- a little like some of these right wing militia groups in some US western states.

This is a stretch

I'm aware of the political situation. The power struggle you describe simply isn't the whole picture. Communists were for from dominant, they were a fringe. The real opposition to Hitler was Hindenburg, who the independent conservative, according to wikipedia.

I totally disagree with your name only characterization of National Socialists. I think they were very clearly both of the above. I think the error we made after the war was to come to the conclusion "Nationalism is evil." My conclusion "Socialism is evil" came after much study of the subject. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics took many of the same actions as the Nazis had that made them evil during that time frame.

Since then there have been many nationalist govts. This hasn't led to endless genocide in countries like India, Korea and Japan. There's not a lot of evidence to support the idea that nationalism is evil. But there has been a long line now of Socialist Slobodan Milosevic type candidates. This is what I base my argument on.

In none of these Socialist states were businesses owned by their workers. This is pure fallacy. The workers are the people, but they are a small grou of people. If a small group of people owns something and controls it, that is a threat to any master planof social change.

In my 1955 Bluestopia, Mom can work if dad stays home with the kids, I'm not that sexist :), but someone has to stay home with the kids or they have no one there for them, no upbringing they join the neonazi drug czar satan marijuana cult and that's the end of perfect society.

I'm not arguing the 1955. Everyone has their own utopia. But this world was an economic success. Positive cashflow was at it's highest level ever, and the US share of global business was at a peak.

Economic Success?

??????????!@@@@@@@!!!!!!!!!!

We've become an economic disaster! I think it held together well to 1985 or so, and then it began to slide. Our world market share is plummetting, our national debt is skyrocketing, the buying power of Americans is plumetting...

And take note of this statistic I read the other day:

The average american is in debt for the first time in history.

This is your economic success story?

The society I spoke of was completely economically viable. This one now is not. Not at all.

The only thing holding us up is our 1969 invention of the internet, which is now paying a hefty dividend. If it weren't for that we might be where old europe is right now.

I'm not dragging abortion into this argument, that's totally gratuitous.

Quote:

Free market capitalism is corosive to 1955 world, which is why that world no longer exists. The world we have is the world economics says we will have. Little Jimmy doesnt dress like a Gangsta rapper and get little Suzy in the 10th grade to give him blow jobs because some degenerate liberal tells him to. He does it because Time Warner tells him gangsta is cool so they can sell him more cd's dvd's and "gear." Little Suzy doesnt know that blowjobs are wrong or that this is sex because mom and dad are too busy working to tell her otherwise.

Okay, now something we can agree on. This was very well said.

I have one bicker with this. Time Warner IS the american left, and is NOT a product of free market capitalism. There have been many efforts of other companies to compete, and in opposition to all reason, the US govt. has upheld Time Warner's de facto monopoly on both signal and content. This is not because there's a hidden justice in it, it's because Skull and Bones which created and controls Time Warner is very powerful in the US govt.

But do try to agree, because when this started I started by basically agreeing with you.

If I were a liberal I certainly wouldn't be playing this divisive game at all. You're in a minority in America, among people and govt., and it would behoove you to reach a middle ground. A combative left is not going to declare it's unequivocal victory, and you know I'm right. Instead what will happen to it is more of what's happening to it right now, it'll get completely marginalized.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 3:53 PM

First Time Warner is a business, not some liberal conspiracy. If it could make as much money selling bibles it would.

Free trade benefits US business and the folks that run it, absolutely, that is a fact check the record profits. It doesn't benefit America as a SOCIETY which is the point that I am making about 1955 world. Your problem is that the world we live in is driven by economic rather than societal forces. Time Warner sells Rap because kids buy it, kids buy it because they have disposable income given to them by parents that I would argue are bribing their kids rather than parenting. Why do they do that? Because in 2005 world it often takes 2 people working to pay the bills and finance the accellerated pressures to buy and consume. People would rather keep mom at work and pay off the kids than take the financial hit of mom (or dad) staying home.

Like I said everyone is conservative, I would rather live "back then" (though if I could cherry pick I would prefer 1960 after the Kennedy tax cuts but before Vietnam.) The problem is that this is the world we have and things have gone forward too far to go back. Try to restore 1955 and America becomes a theme park not an economic superpower.

No group of liberals got together and made this happen --you'd have to be warped to assume that the current US situation is utopian-- this is driven by economic forces that exist at this moment. 1955 world was created by excess capacity in the US economy caused by war production being redirected to producing goods, by 5 years of demand for goods that went unsatisfied because of the needs of war production and by 1000's of GI's returning home to start families. It is a moment in history -- a relatively good moment for the US there were good and bad moments before and after. The point is that the future happens no matter how comfortable you may be with the present and how wonderfull the past may look in hindsight.

You will never get 1955 world back, the best you can do is try and stear 2015 in the right direction.

And finally your definition of Feudalism is wrong. Your definition comes about because America never had a landed nobility therefore you assumed that Industrial Feudalism is the norm.

From the Oxford English Dictionary

feudalism

• noun the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were tenants of and protected by the nobles.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 4:12 PM

Okay, fletch

I don't know what you've done but you took things that you said and turned them around and put them in my mouth. I'm not intersted in any discussion that happens on this level at all, under any circumstances.

You took my statement of where I was coming from and painted it as my life philosophy and political point of view.

Timne Warner was created in the Tomb, the Skull and Bones headquarters. Treating it as independent would be absurd and dishonest.

I'm not wrong about feudalism. It's the relationship whereby a vassal agrees to pay a percentage of the yield in exchange for a lease from the owner. Since we were talking about traditional european feudalism, this has to be the interpretted meaning, since this is the origin of the system. I have a degree in the origins of medieval society, so I'm not just winging it. I know I'm right and I don't care if you know.

Unlike the pile on dreamtrove session, I'm not looking to say you are saying anything that you're not, so please drop it. I feel obligated to defend myself because people are saying I'm saying what I'm clearly not, since the text is right there. Please stop.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 4:40 PM

I have a question BTW. If Time Warner is a some liberal conspiracy then why would it still exist after 10 years of a Republican congress? Why would Michael Powell (that well known leftist) be adjusting FCC ownership rules in their favor? Could it be perhaps that it's coupled to campaign contributions and the power of the media?

What I think is this. Big media shoves product --any product that sells. Old product doesnt sell as good as new product, the more sex/drugs/R&R included the better. So their business model will always lead to pushing the envelope and that will always place them outside of a conservative's comfort zone. They dont push a "liberal" message --- most liberals are for gun control and womens rights so I doubt they approve of "drink my 20/screw my ho/ pop a cap in that MF ass" kinda messages. I think you live in a world where anything you dont like is "liberal" and any bad government is "socialist." It would challenge that world view to imagine that there are other forces at work, that liberals dont want drugs in school, violence on TV and many of the other things you disapprove of. Like I said everyone is conservative, even liberals

What is happening is easy to see in my opinion. Americans today are encouraged to consume --- remember Bush after 9/11 telling folks to go shop? Personally I'd have told folks that I was looking to call up the men we needed to finish the B*ds off but I'm a lefty so I guess that's me.

Americans are in debt because banks make it easy to spend more than you earn, they use that money to buy goods pushed at them via American companies but made in China. The company and its share owners dont mind because Chinese slave labor means bigger profits for them, they dont care about all the money going to China or all those Americans that can't find a good paying job. As long as they get their "nut" they're happy and they will pay off as many politicians as they need to to keep the good times rolling.

Remember 1955 world? Back then when you had kids you sacrificed for them, my folks did without so that we got new clothes, we never bought a thing that we didnt have the cash money to afford, we never borrowed, if we could make it rather than buy it we would. But then my parents were adults, they understood that they had responsabilities as citizens and as parents. Modern parents seem to have forgotten that, or perhaps have been encouraged to forget. Back in the 1950's industry discovered the "youth culture" kids that had disposable incomes but very little impulse control, kids easily influenced by fashion, kids that were gullable and easy to manipulate. I would argue that in the past 50 years that principle has been extended to every part of society. You don't need that 60 inch plasma TV -- my parents would never have dreamed of spending $3000 on a TV set even if they had the money--- but people do because they are kept as children later and later into life. Children are easy to manipulate but children are also terrible at raising children which is why the current generation is worse than the last.

No liberal did this. This is not a social utopia this is a "perfect world" for media combines, and big business who dont have a liberal bone in their bodies but will sell it to you if it makes them a buck.

The insiduous thing about Miranda is that nobody there chose to be drugged or were told what was happening. The insiduous thing about today is that the same kinds of control is being done and nobody notices --- well you do but you think it's a left wing socialist plot because you cant imagine that good capitalists would exploit the populous for profit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 10:35 AM

Fletch,

I don't know (or care) what you're on about.

Time Warner isn't a liberal conspiracy. It's just a conspiracy. The create content, and then they sell it with sex. For instance, just about all of the music videos aired on the video channels which are all owned by Viacom, are for Viacom signed artists. This is not free market enterprise. This is a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy to control content and make money through monopoly, rather than open free market competition.

I said re: socialism, which we all know what it is, is the left's bugbear partner which they should lose at the first available opportunity.

Right now the socialist in PNAC are the right's bugbear partner and I'm trying to help us lose them at the first possible opportunity.

Somehow whenever whoever first posted "The Alliance is a Socialist State" which wasn't me, all I was doing was wholeheartedly backing up that accurate statement, at some point we clearly trigger the social tripwire that awakened the socialist attack dogs.

Since I say "Socialism is evil" which it is, I am so not up for debating that, socialist governments have killed over a hundred million people collectively, there's no need to argue that; and then other people respond with you said "the left is evil" I cannot escape the conclusion that the attackers are socialists, and not lefties.

I never said "the left is a socialist" I said in response to these pro-socialist attacks "I hope the left has more to offer than socialism."

I think of the left as Democrats, Greens, and Ralph Nader. None of those I think are particularly socialist. I think Mr. Nader is closest in that he seems abnormally opposed to buisness and pro-government, but that only makes him federalist. He's never said to the best of my knowledge "let's nationalize the industry, let's change society, let's alter human behavior" his message has been things like "make the punishment fit the crime, rein in out of control greed, help people stand up for their rights." While I consider Mr. Nader part of the American far-left, I don't consider him a socialist. Since I consider Mr. Wolfowitz a Socialist, and he is clearly not part of the American far-left, I think it's clear that the left/socialist relationship is a loose one at best.

The problem is when the socialists latch on to the left like parasites. As I said, currently a group of them are latched on the right as parasites. If you're a socialist, be you nazi or commie or some other derivation, please do us both a favor and don't talk to me.

If you're part of the American left, who for some reason has a soft spot for socialism, get over it. Cut these guys loose, and don't deal with them.

Quote:

Chinese slave labor

This is an offensive comment. I have problems with communist china. I have problems with castro and chavez, and all the other socialist states around. But the Chinese aren't this bad, this simply isn't fair. China is, to the extent that it is, a fair free market competitor.

I welcome Chinese competition. Since my belief is the way to defeat socialism is through free reform, and a free market is the beginning of that reform, I have to wholeheartedly support commerce with China, and there is really nothing wrong with it. Chinese workers are typically skilled and earn decent wages.

I don't think that this is the problem. I think the problem is two fold:

1. The labor regulars in the US are incredibly unfriendly to anyone who hires americans. According to GM, for every $7/hr of take home pay they give to a worker in alabama, they pay $14 in taxes. Personal income tax in that person name, state tax, mandated benefit packages and corporate tax. By contrast, for the $10/hr they pay to a Korean worker in take home pay, they pay $1 in taxes. This is clearly a structural problem, since they are paying the Korean almost half again what their paying the American in terms of take home pay. The CEO of GM said, when confronted with why the Korean should get more money in take home pay, their response was "He's worth more."

Take a moment to take that in before going on, that's the ceo of general motors telling us his honest opinion, from a productivity standpoint, a korean worked is more valuable than an american worker. Flat out. Which brings us to point two.

2. Americans are lazy. Americans spend far more time watching television, using drugs and consuming alcohol, than do their korean counterparts. The same is undoubtedly true for america vs. china. Often Americans are also poorly educated, and lack proper diet and exercise, all of which makes them relatively inefficient workers.

In a world like this, The Chinese and the Koreans are winning, and they deserve to win. I don't begrudge them that one bit. Yay them. I would be blissfully happy if we would get off our asses, away from the TV, the drugs and the booze, exercise, eat right and get educated, so that someday we could hope to compete with the Koreans and the Chinese, and possibly even the Japanese.

I basically agree with you on the rest of it, but to say that television was a free market is to not have been paying attention for decades.

This was a monopoly establish early on, cemented in the 70s, and when Nixon tried to put a lid on it, CBS created Viacom as a way to get around the law and maintain and even cement the content monopoly. TV today is business sure, but in a very warped way. The TV programming itself is monopolistic brainwashing garbage run by a small elite group. It glamorizes the lifestyle that its advertising supporters pay it to.

I remember in the 80s, when that old dead society was still very much alive, and the growing monster Viacom was still relatively in its infancy, and Time Warner's empire was also still small, I remember, no one went to bars. It just wasn't a done thing. Not commonly. Not like it is today. Alcoholism is sold daily on the TV by the programming.

Is this capitalism? Yes, in a way. Is it free market capitalism? No, it isn't. It's manipulative.

Why? Because one small group controls the content from start to finish. Rather than just ads in the middle, the programs themselves sell the idea of alcoholism through presenting it as the way to get dates, socialize, etc. They do this because Alcohol is a big advertizer, and because, contrary to US law, the company getting the alcohol advertizing dollars is both the company that determines which content gets shown and the same company which creates the content.

It's very similar to Bush and his unhealthy relationship to oil companies. Or both Bush and Clinton and their unhealthy relationship to Halliburton.

In a truly free market, there would be a wide variety of signal providers with no connection to content, and freedom to choose which signal provider you want this particular hour and another one next hour, and then which content you want from each.

This is coming, and it's going to come from the internet, and mark my words, the resulting content control will be different, if the hold of these monopolies can be broken.

I don't think we really are coming from that different a vantage point. We agree on the problems I suspect, but we disagree on whose fault they are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 11:20 AM

socialism

• noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

totalitarian
/totalitairin/

• adjective (of government) centralized, dictatorial, and requiring complete subservience to the state.

These are NOT the same thing. It is a nonesense to say that any business owned by a small number of shareholders is "Socialist" it's like calling "solitare" a team sport. It simply isn't accurate. You point out that the USSR and the Nazi's have "Socialist" in the title BUT the thing that marks them out is that they were totalitarian. Tony Blair leads a socialist party (well kinda) half the political parties in Europe are socialist and most European governments have socialists as part of their makeup. When these people loose elections, they leave power because there is nothing in being a socialist that stops you being a democrat.

Citizen has tried to explain it and so have I. I'm not going to bother doing it any more. I absolutely agree that there are media monopolies. I completely understand your need for 1955 world, I even believe that at heart we ahve much the same values. My problem is that by saying "socialist" without understanding what the rest of the world knows it to mean you are completely ignoring the folks that are behind this --- clue here they live on Wall St and not the Kremlin. Left to their own devices companies will, form illegal monopolies and cartels, will manipulate their customers and try to buy influence. They will in so doing have the same effects on society that a meddling totalitarianist regeme would have via state sponsored propoganda. Absolutely on the same page as you there. No doubt.

But it isn't "socialism" to call the political and industrial elite of the US with all their privillages and benefits "socialist" is just inaccurate. A new aristocracy maybe --- since we see that succession comes in families left and right --- a new imperial elite definately. Socialist.... no.

Read the definition.

Oh and I'm not of the American left --- there is no such thing as the American left --- I am if anything of the European Thatcherite left (at least seen from the US)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 11:58 AM

I never said they were. You did.
In practice, in a democracy, the collective community is the government.
But you definition is an abstract intellectualism with a real world value of zero.

Socialist govts. have come to power many times, and they have found ways to implement this abstract idea in a practical manner. Those ways I discussed, enumerated and commented that they were different from one another.

The end summation is that the post war interpretion of the problem with Nazis was "nationalism is evil" was incorrect. Nationalism is everywhere, and it only slaughtered millions when it was crossed with socialism. In my estimation, the correct interpretation we should have made was "socialism is evil." This is because Stalin did many or the same sorts of things as the Nazis, and so have many many socialist regimes since then, such as the VC, North Korea, Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic.

Mine is an extremely defensible position from the standpoint of real world facts. It needs no argument. I was not ranting because I wanted to convince you of it, as I've said many times, I don't care whether you understand or not. I was ranting to try to deflect your constant personal attack of character assassination.

I never said that these neo-socialists as I call them, ie. PNAC and company, live in the kremlin. They are by their own admission trotsky-socialists, and they are opposed to leninist or maoist socialists. Some may be on wall street, but more often they are in Washington DC.

As for the rest of the world, I think my examples included the rest of the world. Socialism in the US is pretty close to unknown, fortunately.

If you mean you're from the UK, Thatcher is neither socialist nor left. Even from an American perspective Thatcher is considered I right winger, and I have no problem with her. I have no problem with Michael Howard. I don't have a problem with Charles Kennedy or George Galloway as I said. I have a problem with Tony Blair. I spend a fair amount of time in the UK for an American, and I'm pretty familiar with what goes on there.

My reference to the Bush administration's supporters as socialists does not come from left field. It's what they have claimed to be for decades. They have long histories in the socialist intellectual community. You can look all of this up in wikipedia, it's all there in excruciating detail which you can then cross reference and check with any source you want. You'll find that yes, these people were all prominant socialists, and they have not changed their agenda one bit. They've changed some of their methods of operation. But the objective is the same.

I can't accept a defense of socialism. It's like a defense of Naziism. Take any one of a number of people in a long line of socialists and there is No defense for it. There's no defense for Slobodan Milosevic, or Saddam Hussein. Several of the world's greatest disasters of leaders todays are also socialists. Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe and Thabo Mbeki just to name a few. We'll never move forward until we can recognize this fundamental fact that this is a bad idea. Socialism is unworkable. The basic tenet you set forth for the basis of socialism, even if it was workable in practice, which it isn't, is flawed. The people who did not create something have no right to it's ownership. If they had such a right it is a foregone conclusion that they would perpetually scrap it for personal gain, or at the very least, manage it in a suboptimal fashion.

It's not the first idea to ever have been an unqualified disaster. It is certainly without a doubt the greatest such disaster. We need to move on, as a species, and look for other solutions that don't consistantly lead to genocide.

I suspect time will soon prove to us another unworkable problem. Many of Bush's supporters and also Clinton's have had stock in companies and this has adversely affected policy decisions. Public sector policy makers should probably be banned from holding stock in private sector companies.

We just live and learn.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 12:23 PM

You know that Galoway is definately a socialist right?

The point that I am making is that Maggie is still left of the US mainstream. She liked free trade, she cut red tape, she reduced public ownership and liberalised labour markets, but she maintained public services, public health care et al and she definately did "meddle" with people.

You can cherry pick her if you like. I have known Americans that argue that Kennedy was right wing (tough on communism, tax cutter, strong on defence, Reagan liked him) and that Nixon was left wing. I find that bizarre. Milosovich was a Nationalist not a socialist, Serbs never nationalised anything they used "ethnic clensing" against people that were not of their racial group. That's the problem with Nationalists. Saddam gassed Kurds and Shites, not Sunni's.

As for economic socialism being unworkable -- you are quite right, political socialism probably is too for much the same reasons you state. I would go as far as to say that no state no matter what it chose to call itself has ever been a "socialist" state because that "ideal" is completely unworkable in practice. Your use of the word the way you do just annoys me. Imagine if Jeffery Dahmer called himself a "liberatian" and as a result people used libertarian in place of canibal. I don't care what "conclusions" you have come to, the word has an accepted meaning to everyone else but you, language only works if we agree on meanings. Several of us gave you definitions, if you cant use the language in the way the rest of us do then please don't use it at all.

I'm saying no more.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 3, 2005 8:44 AM

Yes, I that's why I included him. I've heard Galloway called a socialist, anyway, and he's in bed with a lot of socialists. I've also heard Nader called this for the same reason for that matter. They may call themselves that, I don't know.

But that was my point. Socialism in action is really the socialist state. My point is I don't have problems with far left politicians. I have problems with Socialist States and their leaders. A Socialist State was what was at issue, because this started out by someone saying that the Alliance was a Socialist State.

Sure his far left viewpoints are far left, and bound to clash with my own. My point is, I have no gripe with this man. He's the sort of person I'd want on the opposite side of the aisle if I were in govt.

Plus whether or not he should be considered a socialist leaning labor party member, or ex-labor party member, he has a good record of opposition to socialist statists like Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. From a Republican perspective it's hard for me to have serious problems with anyone who attacks Clinton as viciously and deservedly as Galloway did. The only other person I can think who did so was Mr. Nader.

Socialist leaning politicians don't scare me, was my point. Socialism in action does.

Quote:

That's the problem with Nationalists.

Near as I can figure, this is an utter fiction. It seems to be the problem with socialists, since every such person was a socialist, and the only one who was a nationalist was also a socialist, and there were many other nationalists.

Milosevic did de facto nationalize the press, and most everything else was already pretty much state owned.

But let's set the record on Slobodan Milosevic, a socialist.

First he was the leader of a Socialist Party, called, coincidentally, the "Socialist Party."

Second, he was the leader of a socialist state called, coincidentally the "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

Nowhere is it written that Slobodan Milosevic is a nationalist, and he ranted about the evils of Nationalism incessantly.

Logically, Nationalists are pro-self determination of their own people. Both Israelis and Palestinians for example, are nationalist to some degree. All of the break away states in Yugoslavia were nationalist entities. Croatia was openly so.

Milosevic in contrast wanted to maintain his socialist union. His ultimate goal was to merge several people in one nation, which is not very nationalistic of him.

And yes, he carried out or attempted to carry out an ethnic cleansing of mulsims, because their presence was a detriment to his socialist state.

Just as a curious side note, I met someone once who knew him, personally, Slobodan. He said that it was impossible to hate someone so thoroughly as he had come to had Milosevic.

Another note about Saddam Hussein. He attack Kurds because they were state separatists who wanted a national kurdish identity to establish a Kurdistan, a nation of Kurds. He attack Shiia because they were specifically trying to overthrow his govt. because they were in league with Iran, or because they WERE Iran, but he didn't attack Shiia as a whole, he only attacked particular Shiia milititant groups. If Sunnis had attempted to overthrow him, he would have squashed them. He did after all fight a war with the predominantly Sunni nation of Kuwait, in which he was very rough on Sunnis. Hussein himself wanted a mixed nation of all three ethnicities.

Everyone who has used the word to date, in any position of power, has more or less been in this context. I'm not picking a random person.

Here's one. Charles Manson called himself a socialist. I will grant that he wasn't one. A socialist must organize people into at least a presumed mutual benefit society, preferably of larger than six people, in order to be a socialist IMHO.

But nothing is perfect. You can't say that because America is not a perfect democracy that nothing which happens in America reflects back on the principles of Democracy, or their viability.

This is simply not so. The fact that any idea will be implemented by flawed humans has to be taken into consideration when address any such issue.

Socialism leads to genocide. I'm certain of it. And here's how:

The socialist state grants the ruling system of govt. more power than any other system.

Socialism doesn't make people bad people. That's why I have no problem with George Galloway, and relatively few problems with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, who both actually are leaders of socialist states.

Socialism lets bad people do much evil.

A normal leader of a capitalist democracy simply does not have the power to wipe out a minority on a whim. If Bush wanted to de-black America, he couldn't do it. I don't know if he would, I don't think he's particularly racist, but he might want to de-poor America, but he can't do that either.

But if he had the equivalent power over his own people to a Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic or Joseph Stalin, he could do it, at least to some degree. And if he could, he quite possibly would.

So this is why my problem is with socialism, and not with bad people. Bad people are everywhere, and there's not much to do about it. Socialism is an open door to let bad people do much more bad than they otherwise could.

I think you're use, as sometimes shows up in the American left, is to use it to mean a pro-capitalist democratic politician or voter, who supports a social safety-net. That's not what socialism has been by all the socialist states there have been to date, which number quite high now. I defend my use of the term to apply to a wide array of people and govts. who have been in power, and called themselves "Socialist." These people followed at least some of the ideas of Owen Marx or Engels, or other prominent socialist thinkers, and assembled them, and put them into action through some form of govt. that they thought met the definition of socialism.

This phrase from wikipedia puts the most positive spin on it

Quote:

"focusing on general welfare rather than individualism, on co-operation rather than competition"

I would agree with that. It's a very nice sounding way to put it, but I agree with them that that's what socialism is, and I agree that the socialist states there have been very much fit that definition.

But in practice there is very much an ant-hill-ness about the cooperation, and a state-supported aspect to the general welfare.

Such states suffer from the lack of competition, and often squash the individualism, because both of these things are at odds with, and often interfere with, the other two, coopertaion and general welfare, which are placed with greater emphasis under "socialism."

Myself, I happen to be a fan of competition. So much so that I would want George Galloway in my govt. because his ideas, being very different from my own, would lead to more competition of ideas. Whether he would want me in his is not the issue. Unless at somepoint in the future Britain becomes a socialist state, which I doubt.

Okay, finally, your last line really ticked me off. I gave you the definition already. I clearly have no problem with the meaning of the word, which I understand perfectly well. Even with a positive spin, it still defines a system which is set up to lead to a system which would be ultimately unilateral and uncompromising in viewpoint, and would allow for little or no individuality or competition, the two things that IMHO make America great. I think that also backs up the whole idea whoever posted it, which was two people before me, that the Alliance is a socialist state.

The only interpretation I've done here is to show how that positive ideal of the true and orignally intended meaning of the word has led to the abominations we have seen on the Earth. There is no question in my mind that Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Adloph Hitler and the rest, were each, themselves, individually committed to social cooperetation and the general welfare. They were destructive not because they were personally evil men, which they were, but because the system allowed their evil to grow. Evil when put into competition with good is far less damaging than when it is put into the leadership of a field of perfect or near-perfect cooperation. This reminds me of maybe it was howard zinn, someone like that said "Hitler didn't kill 6 million jews, business as usual killed 6 million jews." Which I guess is what I'm saying.

I don't think I'm wrong on any part here.

I'm not guessing.

I'm just telling it like it is, and reading right from the definitions and the history that is right there in front of me, in front of all of us.

Now can we PLEASE as I asked about ten posts ago GET BACK TO FIREFLY!

I feel it necessary to answer these person attacks and misinformation when they are posted, but I do not find it a fun time.

And I don't want to spend any time address some idea of socialism as liberal fantasyland unless it in some way has relevence to firefly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 3, 2005 11:11 AM

I'm still worried about your use of labels. People can call themselves whatever they like. It happens that they tend to call themselves things that make them sound like good guys, nobody is going to call themselves "united Republic of baby murderers and rapists" for example. A friend of mine once pointed out that if a nation had the word "democratic" in its name it was almost always a dictatorship. That doesn't mean that I automatically assume all democratic nations are dictatorships.

Prior to 1787 every proceeding Republic had failed and become a dictatorship, every attempt at democracy had failed. If the American founders played safe you would probably live in a constitutional monarchy since that was at least known to be a working model. Instead they worked out a system to limit the effects of "bad men" that is why you live in a representative constitutional republic and not a democracy. Bush can't "deblack" something because the institutions won't let him. Does that mean no American President can be evil or want to do evil things? No, but it limits his scope. If your argument is that socialist systems are more prone to exploitation by "evil men" we will never know because nobody has ever built one. If your argument is that without safeguards ANY political system can be coopted for evil then we are in agreement. When Jefferson said that the price of freedom was eternal vigilance he wasn't talking about some socialist because that idea didn't exist back then he was talking about the risk that any political system can nose dive into tyrany.

Jim Jones had a psudo Christian cult that killed hundreds. Now because he called himself Christian, because he called his cult a Christian church, does that mean that all Christians are evil or does it mean that evil doers want to hide behind otherwise noble ideas?

Let me run something by you and hopefully make it my final words. The reason your use of language in this area pisses me off is this. Nobody is going to label their group "the really evil people" they will always try to label themselves after the noblist ideals possible, they will call themselves Christian and never do one Christian thing for example.

Socialism is an appealing *idea* because it holds out the promise of a *fair society.* Of course it can never work because life is never fair, just as nobody can have perfect liberty without encroching on the liberty of someone else. We accept limitations on our personal liberty --- my right to swing my arms stops at the tip of your nose --- and we accept that the world is unfair while trying to make it as fair as it practical.

However the promise of Socialism is a fair society, the idea that the poor downtrodden masses will *somehow* be lifted up. Guess what? If you are part of the downtrodden masses that idea sounds really appealing. So we have a failed or failing state -- which is what all the countries you have cited were --- and a hard man steps up and says "follow me." Now if he stands on his soap box and says "I'm an evil bastard, I'm going to arrest/torture/kill vast numbers of you, slaughter others on a whim, kill still more because I dislike their ethnic background" how many people will follow him? Not many I will think. If he stands up and says "brothers and sisters, I am a socialist I *believe* we can build a better society, a fairer society, for all our people..." how many will follow him then?

The problem I see is that this is a con game and all con artists move on when a scheme gets old. So if as you suggest the idea of Socialism has now been tarnished the same evil doers will move on to something else and just call themselves something different. If your "vigilance" is directed only at things claiming to be socialist then they can walk right by you disguised as something else.

Bin Laden isn't a socialist, he has no intention of building a fairer society and has no interest in economic ownership or control, he wants a theocracy, a caliphate that covers the whole world (preferably with him in charge.) It's the same old evil scheme, take something people trust -- in this case a religion -- wrap yourself in it and then use that influence to manipulate people.

Anyway as Willow said "bored now."

I can't believe you've made me write 5 pages defending socialism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 3, 2005 11:14 AM

post deletd

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 3, 2005 12:20 PM