Fascism is On the Left (Graph)

[joepistole]

I think it is more an issue of comprehension problems and simple avoidance. Avodiance is the theme throughout the rest of your post.

By whose definition, yours. Frankly, this is a blatant lack of understanding of politics period. I am now wondering whether you are even worth my time. I know that Count kicks your ass regularly and you will continue the idiotic drivel. You are a glutton for ass beatings, and apparently like them.

Seriously, you really believe this drivel. Wow!!

Your words:

You are absolutely wrong about this. This is not what right wing means unless you are secluded to only reading marxist drivel, which.....

Right wing is polar opposite of tyranny and control over individual freedom. You have been brainwashed into believing this stuff or you are the brainwasher.

Do you have any clue as to how assinine this statement is? It really reveals much into your thinking. Quick, what the opposite of light? "Ahh, I don't deal in such opposites there's right light and left light?" Whatever the hell that means. Seriously, you really want people to take you seriously? But then some here do, so what does that say about them?

More assininity, again, the opposite of tyranny is freedom. Since you don't deal in such opposites you clearly support tyranny as long as it follows your kind.

You are lifting Ice's words out of context and misrepresenting them...typical.

 

[joepistole]

This is all you got?

My reply is where are the moderators? Why is that trolling allow to continue? Is there any part of this response from joe that adds intellectualism to the post he is responding to? Hint: no.

He is off topic, trolling and insulting another poster.

Why, quadra, & ice even though I disagree with them and believe them to be very wrong, they are not minimizing oppositional points by cherry picking a paragraph to use scathing rhetoric.

He is doing exactly the same thing I have been accused of and I was warned or banned, why is he allowed to do this???

No I am not doing the same thing you have been accused of and banned for doing. Your failure to discern the difference is a problem for you.

One, you repeated the often promulgated position taken by limbaugh, levin, et al . . . one cannot trust educated people. It is the same think Mao did after taking control of China. It is the same thing done by almost all dicators of the last century.

The message from the American right wing (limbaugh, beck, levin, et al) is simplistic and clear, don't trust anyone who has an opinion or thought different from that of your political leadership especially if that thought comes from people who have some subject matter knowledge.

It is a scary thing for those not under the spell and who value our freedoms.

 

[iceaura]

Right wing is polar opposite of tyranny

no right wing ideology favors anything over the individuals' interest.

Again, that which favors the state flow towards tyranny and is thus left wing.

Tyranny is tyranny. There is no left or right wing tyranny. Freedom is the extreme of tyranny. The extreme of tyranny is freedom.

I'm beginning to be a bit curious about what an ideology that fit all that would look like. Even Ayn Rand's juvenilia favor honest dealing and payments of debt over the individual's interest - no piracy, no theft, etc. Do you have an example handy, of something you agree is a right wing ideology?

 

[John T. Galt]

You are lifting Ice's words out of context and misrepresenting them...typical.

Really Einstein, well since this is so obviously evident as well as typical: how about you show everyone where that has happened?

Simple question joe, and I already know how you will respond to it. I just ask that moderators jump your shit once you fail to answer, just like they would me.

Show me where I have lifted her words out of context and misrepresented them.

Oh and BTW, she hasn't accused me of this, so if she thinks so. She should also display this evidence.

Prove it!!

Otherwise, you got nothing and are trolling as usual.

 

[John T. Galt]

No I am not doing the same thing you have been accused of and banned for doing. Your failure to discern the difference is a problem for you.

One, you repeated the often promulgated position taken by limbaugh, levin, et al . . . one cannot trust educated people. It is the same think Mao did after taking control of China. It is the same thing done by almost all dicators of the last century.

The message from the American right wing (limbaugh, beck, levin, et al) is simplistic and clear, don't trust anyone who has an opinion or thought different from that of your political leadership especially if that thought comes from people who have some subject matter knowledge.

It is a scary thing for those not under the spell and who value our freedoms.

What a blatant display of ixxxxxxxe and sxxxxxxxy. It's not about politics. It's about ideas. Yes joe there is a difference. Your continued failure to discern is far more alarming than any of your fantastic pseudo intellectualism.

Mao killed people, dxxxxxs. I don't advocate killing people. The only person that acts as you accuse is you. Chew on that for awhile.

 

[John T. Galt]

I'm beginning to be a bit curious about what an ideology that fit all that would look like. Even Ayn Rand's juvenilia favor honest dealing and payments of debt over the individual's interest - no piracy, no theft, etc. Do you have an example handy, of something you agree is a right wing ideology?[/QUOTE]

Wow, you really haven't decoded this yet? I have already given you numerous and repeated examples. I just haven't place a label to it, you know other than freedom being the opposite of tyranny.

Gosh, what would that look like?

Hmmm!! How about where an individual can do the things he or she wishes without a government telling them they can't, and doing them within the confines of a moral society. In short, you can't tell me I have to buy health insurance; I can't smoke (incidentally I don't and think it a bad habit, but I support those who wish to); I can't eat at any restaurant I choose; I must remit my earnings to you; I am guilty for defending myself against someone who wanted to do harm to me; I have to like people who are different than me (I know that will get taken out of context by some of you geniuses here at scifi); I have to drive a tin box for commuting; I can't call someone who wishes to terrorize a terrorist; I must be fondled at the airport because we wouldn't want to offend anyone except of course those who shouldn't be fondled; etc. & etc.

I realize that some of these things are not as blatant as I make them sound, but the fact of the matter is that if you had your way on all of these things. That would be our society, expediently pernicious.

 

[iceaura]

Gosh, what would that look like? - - - etc

Sounds good.

But you left out the ideology. You are describing a society run according to some ideology you prefer, but you haven't given us much of a clue as to what it would be. How does one organize governance so as to establish all those desirable conditions?

Reading between the lines, as we are forced to do, you would oppose without question any of the common right wing ideologies dominating the public discourse in the US these days. Their Patriot Acts, defense of religious privilege, and other authoritarian features, would be objectionable to you.

You would also object to the current expansion of corporate authority - you would oppose corporate testing for weekend drug use, the reversion to the company town, the coercively defended destruction of individual opportunities and resources without consent or payment to those individuals, and other quasi-serfdom arrangements favored by the large industrial bureaucracies.

Your natural home seems to be in the realm of left libertarianism - where community and personal liberties are favored over the powers of large piles of capital and other authoritarian structures - with a strong lean toward individual rather than even small and local community control. How about it?

 

[joepistole]

Really Einstein, well since this is so obviously evident as well as typical: how about you show everyone where that has happened?

Simple question joe, and I already know how you will respond to it. I just ask that moderators jump your shit once you fail to answer, just like they would me.

Show me where I have lifted her words out of context and misrepresented them.

Oh and BTW, she hasn't accused me of this, so if she thinks so. She should also display this evidence.

Prove it!!

Otherwise, you got nothing and are trolling as usual.

I did.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2665168&postcount=121

 

[Anarcho Union]

The best known fascist in history is of course Adolf Hitler, who renamed his party Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

i just noticed this graph shows anarchism on the right... :shrug:

 

[joepistole]

What a blatant display of ixxxxxxxe and sxxxxxxxy. It's not about politics. It's about ideas. Yes joe there is a difference. Your continued failure to discern is far more alarming than any of your fantastic pseudo intellectualism.

Mao killed people, dxxxxxs. I don't advocate killing people. The only person that acts as you accuse is you. Chew on that for awhile.

Typical, you missed the point completely. The point is that the American right wing advocates as you have done repeatedly, that people should not trust academics - people who know something of which they speak - and instead take for gospel truth anything coming from your political leadership (e.g. limbaugh, beck, levin, et al). And that is the same tactic used by virtually all facists of the last century. The fact that you nor your leadership is at this point advocating the murder of educated folks is not relevant at this point in time.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

your dealing with a proponent of randian thought the freedom they care about is the elites to do as they will and the control the lives of the rest of us. they proclaim themselves as libertarian though they aren't( they use libertarianism and conservatism because they political spans tend to be the ones that are the best vechile for destroying anything that could be used to protect against power.

I'm a libertarian and I think Ayn Rand was naive and heartless.

About a million ways: anti-trust legislation, workplace safety regulation, environmental regulations, financial and accounting regulations, minimum wage laws, non-discrimination laws, workers comp and unemployment insurance, insider trading laws, etc.

And how many of those laws have any teeth? As I mentioned somewhere, perhaps earlier in this thread, the Fair Labor Standards Act hasn't been updated in decades, so any job that pays more than something like $11 an hour is exempt. And of course the reason that "janitors" were upgraded to "sanitation engineers" was so, as "professionals," they could be exempted too. The minimum wage is a joke, and anti-trust and insider trading are too easy to get around.

Go refresh on what the early industrial revolution looked like: child laborers working long hours in dangerous factories that dangerously degraded the environment, unchecked monopolies, etc.

That always happens at the beginning of a Paradigm Shift. Look at today's horrors, as the Electronic Revolution runs away from all attempts to regulate it. I'm sure people said the same thing at the onset of the Agricultural Revolution, the first Paradigm Shift, 11,500 years ago. "We're slaving away in the fields for twelve, sixteen hours a day. In the good old days when we were nomadic hunter-gatherers, we only worked a 24-hour week, and on top of that it was real good fun chasing after bison."

Power hierarchies abound, and so do the tensions between them.

And the government isn't a power hierarchy?

From your rhetoric - you hold that the state is too powerful, as such, and propose that it be radically reduced, without any provisos on how much or in what areas.

"Radical" is your word, not mine. I haven't gone into a lot of detail since this thread didn't seem to call for it. My personal beef is when the state presumes the authority to interfere in the way we live our own lives, with no reference to transactions with businesses or other individuals. They make the arbitrary decision that the pleasure I get from certain activities is not worth the risk. How could they possibly know? Is there an actuarial table for stuff like that? And is it really one-size-fits-all, like everything else the Nanny State does to us?

any substantial reduction in state power is necessarily an advance in the power of whatever other structures are restrained by state power (corporation, church, race, etc.).

But there is such a thing as a non-zero sum game. The power of the state in today's America could be reduced colossally without increasing the power of the competing institutions by an equivalent amount. The power of the state has reached the point of diminishing returns: Every right it takes away from us is not matched by a benefit of equivalent value.

A good portion of this is due to the sheer irrationality of their bureaucratic attempts at risk analysis. The odds of being killed by a drunk driver are fifty times greater than the odds of being killed by a terrorist. So why are they curtailing our rights and spending trillions of dollars in a quixotic attempt to reduce the lower of the two risks, instead of spending a few billion dollars to install breathalyzer ignition interlocks in cars at the factory, which would not require identifying, delaying or harrassing anybody, and would actually reduce the risk of that cause of death to nearly zero?

These are the people you want me to meekly trust to run my life? Give me a break! They don't know what they're doing!

And so it is no surprise that libertarian politics are bankrolled by corporate interests with a strong, direct stake in weakening government control of their activities.

Yeah, let me count them. Let's see, there's the guy who runs Whole Foods and a couple of other neo-hippies. Corporations put their money where it works, and throwing it at libertarian institutions and Libertarian candidates is equivalent to throwing it away. If we had more corporate support it's conceivable that we'd have at least one Libertarian member of Congress since Ron Paul had to re-register as a Republican to keep his job.

 

[quadraphonics]

And the government isn't a power hierarchy?

Of course it is - as I have been crystal clear about throughout this thread. Did you have some point there?

"Radical" is your word, not mine.

Of course it is - do you dispute it? You've openly indicated a desire to undo the New Deal. I count that as "radical." You're talking about going back to a time without Social Security or the Civil Rights movement, etc. (hence, the examples I supplied).

My personal beef is when the state presumes the authority to interfere in the way we live our own lives, with no reference to transactions with businesses or other individuals. They make the arbitrary decision that the pleasure I get from certain activities is not worth the risk. How could they possibly know? Is there an actuarial table for stuff like that? And is it really one-size-fits-all, like everything else the Nanny State does to us?

Are you talking about anything in particular here, or just tilting at windmills? Drugs? Motorcycle helmet laws? What?

But there is such a thing as a non-zero sum game.

Of course. But competition between power hierarchies for social control isn't an example of such.

The power of the state in today's America could be reduced colossally without increasing the power of the competing institutions by an equivalent amount.

Hogwash - the power of said hierarchies (not all of which are embodied in institutions) is presently defined exactly by the limitations imposed upon them by the state. Weaken the state, and you necessarily increase the power of the other hierarchies. Get rid of non-discrimination laws, and people will discriminate and segregate (further). Get rid of laws about secularism, and church will impose itself (further) upon public life. Get rid of laws against child labor, and corporations wille exploit vulnerable children. Etc.

The power of the state has reached the point of diminishing returns: Every right it takes away from us is not matched by a benefit of equivalent value.

That would go to the efficiency of government, rather than its power.

A good portion of this is due to the sheer irrationality of their bureaucratic attempts at risk analysis. The odds of being killed by a drunk driver are fifty times greater than the odds of being killed by a terrorist. So why are they curtailing our rights and spending trillions of dollars in a quixotic attempt to reduce the lower of the two risks, instead of spending a few billion dollars to install breathalyzer ignition interlocks in cars at the factory, which would not require identifying, delaying or harrassing anybody, and would actually reduce the risk of that cause of death to nearly zero?

Because both of those sets of policies are about a lot more than a vanilla risk analysis. Ask honest questions, if you want honest answers.

These are the people you want me to meekly trust to run my life?

Not what I've suggested.

What I do recommend is a careful accounting of the delicate balance of power between the various relevant power hierarchies, and how shifting such would actually impact society (including the freedom of the individual to run their own life), instead of a peurile fixation on state power to the exclusion of all else (which will just end up with our lives being run by other, worse, less accountable power hierarchies).

Yeah, let me count them. Let's see, there's the guy who runs Whole Foods and a couple of other neo-hippies.

The fact of the matter is that you and your handful of hippy libertarian friends are an irrelevancy to Libertarian politics. The action is in places like the CATO Institute, the Hoover Institution, The Atlas Society and other such crypto-fascist corporate fronts. These are the people with the media machines, the lobbying arms, etc. The rest of you are a footnote, if that.

Corporations put their money where it works, and throwing it at libertarian institutions and Libertarian candidates is equivalent to throwing it away. If we had more corporate support it's conceivable that we'd have at least one Libertarian member of Congress since Ron Paul had to re-register as a Republican to keep his job.

The corporate interests don't care about whether your actual party actually gets elected - in fact, that would probably be bad for them, since actual Libertarian politicians tend to have their own ideas. What they do want is to keep the pressure on the Republicans to shift ever-further right - to have Ron Paul and other teabaggers setting the agenda for the R's is a dream come true for them (far more so than the election of some actual Libertarian politicians would be). This works the same way as left-wing activist politics in the US: you aren't trying to get elected so much as force the party that counts you among their base to tilt policies towards you, or face defeat when you stay home/vote for the unelectable fringe candidate. That said, the Teabaggers - Republicans, all - are pretty much the face of libertarian politics in the USA today. The actual Libertarian Party is an afterthought.

 

[Nasor]

i just noticed this graph shows anarchism on the right... :shrug:

Yeah, along with all the conservatives who want to outlaw homosexuality, give the police the power to detain people without showing just cause, outlaw flag burning/pornography/recreational drugs/anything and everything that makes them uncomfortable, ban abortion, and generally force their religion on everyone else via legislation. Because clearly those "conservatives" are very concerned with individual freedom

This graph is stupid, and anyone who doesn't immediately realize its stupidity is also stupid. You need at least two dimensions, one for personal freedoms and one for economic freedoms.