The left has gone full retard

[Nihilist_santa]

Is that why the left traditionally kills off the intelligentsia when taking power and actively promotes "reducation"?

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is that why the left traditionally kills off the intelligentsia when taking power and actively promotes "reducation"?

Powerplay.

[JurisDictum]

This is how the labels are taught in modern Political Science:

Political_compass.jpg

These categories are just ways of grouping methods of governing. They are only as useful as they are distinct. Socialism is often used by the right to denote anything that involves the government redistributing wealth. This however, is not a useful definition of socialism in practical reality. Because among the governments that redistribute wealth, there are massive differences.

In particular, conservatives wish to group all forms of socialism with the early to mid 19th century kind practiced by Stalin. This socialism was very authoritarian and did not remotely live up to any high minded ideals American socialists had. It is also very different from modern democratic socialism countries, which would probably put directly in the middle of this cross. But nevertheless, it allows them to successfully demonize modern democratic socialism -- which is really what the goal is.

[JurisDictum]

Edit: the particular labels of squares are different depending on the book basically. Some say the bottom right one is Capitalism and the upper right one is Fascism -- which I find to be easier to accept for most Americans...but probably less accurate. The very top of the right square is probably Fascism, where Capitalism (as in what we have in America) is more toward the bottom. Most of Asia is closer to Fascism than capitalism IMO (Japan is an obvious exception).

There is a distinction in Europe between Conservative welfare states like Germany -- that want to keep the traditional family in tact and keep hierarchies going -- compared to a Socialist welfare states; which want real equality to be promoted.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Im not dumb you are the one fighting 160 years of socialist history. Did you even read what you posted? Its just more of the same trying to distance themselves from the core ideology. Trying to make distinctions that arent even distinctions but more or less just describe an incrementalist approach to the same outcome. Here is the distinction trying to be made. Soviets were autocratic and socialism-lite pretends to be democratic but only in so much as it is a step towards autocratic socialism.

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Edit: the particular labels of squares are different depending on the book basically. Some say the bottom right one is Capitalism and the upper right one is Fascism -- which I find to be easier to accept for most Americans...but probably less accurate. The very top of the right square is probably Fascism, where Capitalism (as in what we have in America) is more toward the bottom. Most of Asia is closer to Fascism than capitalism IMO (Japan is an obvious exception).

There is a distinction in Europe between Conservative welfare states like Germany -- that want to keep the traditional family in tact and keep hierarchies going -- compared to a Socialist welfare states; which want real equality to be promoted.

Wonder how different political science treats that graph outside of the US

[Csihar]

I do think the addition of the vertical scale is necessary as the 'left-right' scale if far too simplistic and inaccurate.

But I think 'libertarian' should be 'anarchy'. That way you're comparing a central government with limited freedom with no government at all.
Libertarianism is also a loaded term because it's been around for a longer time and it can be left-wing.

I also don't like the inclusion of Communism and Capitalism. It should just be 'left' and 'right' politics. Communism is by definition a stateless society so it's also positioned incorrectly.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I do think the addition of the vertical scale is necessary as the 'left-right' scale if far too simplistic and inaccurate.

But I think 'libertarian' should be 'anarchy'. That way you're comparing a central government with limited freedom with no government at all.
Libertarianism is also a loaded term because it's been around for a longer time and it can be left-wing.

I also don't like the inclusion of Communism and Capitalism. It should just be 'left' and 'right' politics. Communism is by definition a stateless society so it's also positioned incorrectly.

Some self-identified Anarchists believe that yea -- but most people see that private property automatically breads inequality of social relations. Most Anarchists don't want power relationships. Then there are those anarchists like Chomsky that argue only unjustified power relationships need to be eliminated (not professors like him, for example). Either way -- most anarchists are either better described as libertarian or don't believe in private property as a right (only an interest).

But if some right leaning people want to call themselves anarchists what am I supposed to say? Your wrong? I guess they are wrong by our modern institutional understanding.

Communism is extreme redistribution and extreme authoritarianism. At least in the real world. You are referring to the utopian communism of Marx that never existed in reality -- where the state withers away.

[Raev]

Serious question for you leftists (except Alarti, who is incapable of critical thought). Do you feel this is a fair description of your opinion:

1. We have seen a massive increase in social redistribution programs in the United States during the past 50 years
2. These programs primarily benefit the bureaucracy, e.g. welfare doesn't reduce poverty, Obamacare doesn't increase healthcare coverage, etc
3. You want more social redistribution programs or at least to maintain the ones we have

[Jorgam]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Serious question for you leftists (except Alarti, who is incapable of critical thought). Do you feel this is a fair description of your opinion:

1. We have seen a massive increase in social redistribution programs in the United States during the past 50 years
2. These programs primarily benefit the bureaucracy, e.g. welfare doesn't reduce poverty, Obamacare doesn't increase healthcare coverage, etc
3. You want more social redistribution programs or at least to maintain the ones we have

Also, please define Fair Share.

Thanks.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Serious question for you leftists (except Alarti, who is incapable of critical thought). Do you feel this is a fair description of your opinion:

1. We have seen a massive increase in social redistribution programs in the United States during the past 50 years
2. These programs primarily benefit the bureaucracy, e.g. welfare doesn't reduce poverty, Obamacare doesn't increase healthcare coverage, etc
3. You want more social redistribution programs or at least to maintain the ones we have

1. ignores the massive roll back of welfare in the 80s, and trys to blame the middle class decline following the 80s on stuff that happened in the 40s-50s (when the middle class came rose and became strong).

2. Obamacare did increase coverage. Deal with it. BTW, the conservative governors purposefully tried to sabotage the program throughout most of conservative America. This is why you notice much more issues with Obamacare in conservative states than liberal ones. All that being said, I want socialized medicine for all. There will still be private medicine for the rich if they want cushy waiting rooms and more patient drs.

3. I want us to change directions when it comes to social programs. I don't want programs that help people subsist in poverty. I want programs that invest in the workforce, programs that train people in skills than place them in jobs. I want programs that allow preferential loans to particularly productive things -- like college and home ownership. In short, I want to take the programs that work in Europe, and modify them as necessary to work for America.