Any Stalinists around these parts?

Page 5 of 7 [ 104 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

01 Aug 2012, 12:26 pm

ruveyn wrote:

AspieRogue wrote:

Conservatives are hierarchical. The movement itself was a reaction to the liberalism of the enlightenment which was seen as a threat to the status quo. Preserving the social order is their objective. Fascists are conservatives who embrace nationalism and warlike foreign policies as their goal is empire building. Stalin's main focus was building and developing the USSR rather than imperial endeavors.

How can you behold what he did in Eastern Europe following "The Great Patriotic War" and say that?

ruveyn

His colonization of Eastern Europe was not his focus prior to the 1940s. What happened was that Germany invaded Russia, was driven back, and he wanted Eastern Europe(and Germany)as a buffer zone allied with the USSR to deter any future attempts by the West to invade.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

01 Aug 2012, 4:53 pm

Declension wrote:

Hitler was "far-right", in the technical meaning of "far-right" which basically means "like Hitler". But I don't think that "far-right" is actually to the "right" of "right". These words are stupid. The European "far right" has always involved some collectivist ideas, and it still does to this day.

I think that the idea of the left as collectivistic and the right as individualistic is an historically flawed model.

The left, especially the far left, is emancipatory. The focus is on oppressed populations. The right, especially the far right, is conservative. That is to say, it attempts to conserve the power of entrenched elites.

Libertarianism, which reflects the views of many people on WrongPlanet, is mostly on the right. In other words, the focus is on "recovering" certain freedoms, for the majority, which have been taken away by an alleged elite.

_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

01 Aug 2012, 5:00 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

sez you. I why should I trust you? You don't even disclose your methods.

lol. Is that an argument for something?

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

01 Aug 2012, 5:03 pm

Declension wrote:

Although I think that "right" is a word that is almost broken beyond repair, I think that "left" has the useful (if self-serving) meaning of "destroying hierarchies whenever they do not agree with some foundational principle". In this sense, I think that American libertarians are "left" (although very confused).

The argument I would use for libertarianism being, for the most part, on the right is that many libertarians focus on the liberties of majorities, not oppressed minorities.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

01 Aug 2012, 5:52 pm

nominalist wrote:

Declension wrote:

The model where you put Naziism and communism on opposite ends of spectrum is one that makes little to no sense, to me at least. You can ranked things any way you want I guess politics is a little more complicated than a simple right left spectrum as most people know it.

However, If you have a spectrum from individualism and collectivism then Naziiism, Fascism, Communism, revolutionary socialism, etc would all be on the same side of the spectrum and opposite to Libertarianism/Liberalism with anarchism being the most extreme form of individualism. I one wants to label one side right and the other left, then the right/left spectrum starts making some sense.

as for libertarianism being for the majority, that is one of the most ridiculous things I ever heard. They're for the freedom and equality of the individual, the most oppressed minority there is.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

01 Aug 2012, 6:10 pm

Jacoby wrote:

I never said anything about "opposite ends of a spectrum." Those are your words. In fact, I never mentioned a spectrum at all. I was delineating categories.

Jacoby wrote:

However, If you have a spectrum from individualism and collectivism then Naziiism, Fascism, Communism, revolutionary socialism, etc would all be on the same side of the spectrum and opposite to Libertarianism/Liberalism with anarchism being the most extreme form of individualism. I one wants to label one side right and the other left, then the right/left spectrum starts making some sense.

Most Westerners are, to varying degrees, individualistic, especially Americans, the French, and New Zealanders. Both the pro-choice and pro-life movements on abortion are individualistic, for instance.

Jacoby wrote:

as for libertarianism being for the majority, that is one of the most ridiculous things I ever heard.

That is because that is not what I wrote. I said that libertarians defend the liberties of the majority.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

01 Aug 2012, 6:11 pm

nominalist wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

sez you. I why should I trust you? You don't even disclose your methods.

lol. Is that an argument for something?

Not an argument just a rejection of your word of God tone.

Honesty being a Platonic Idea does not exist.
Transparency and disclosure on the other hand are things folks can do.
Practice can be detected and regulated.
"Honesty" on the other hand is something we will just have to take your word for.

If I read a paper that discloses its methods and bias I can use it is useful.
If it simply claims to be "honest" it is not.

It is not really a hard point to understand.

So getting back to Joe's Fascism what definition are you using?
The Genetic or the Practice I have some fairly good arguments for both
and some compelling ones for the latter.

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

01 Aug 2012, 6:20 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

Not an argument just a rejection of your word of God tone.

That is ad hominem. By definition, you just lost the argument. The fact that you disagree with me does not mean I have a "word of God" tone.

JakobVirgil wrote:

If I read a paper that discloses its methods and bias I can use it is useful.

Discloses whose methods?

JakobVirgil wrote:

It is not really a hard point to understand.

Whether a point is hard or difficult to understand is not an argument.

JakobVirgil wrote:

So getting back to Joe's Fascism what definition are you using?

The history of Fascist Italy.

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

01 Aug 2012, 6:35 pm

Jacoby wrote:

nominalist wrote:

Declension wrote:

Libertarians are political near-anarchists but economic fascists of the most extreme variety. There is more than one spectrum at work in ideologies.

Nazism and communism are at opposite ends of a spectrum that has nothing to do with collectivism. Nazism believed in tradition, racial superiority, the inherent superiority of the wealthy members of a society, that the disabled were worthless, all minorities were scum, homosexuals were deviants, and "anti-socials" of all forms should be exterminated to purify the society. Essentially they worshipped power, which puts them on the right.

Right and left are not a spectrum about collectivism, but about power and the status quo. The idea that it's about collectivism is an Orwellian perversion of language by the corporate cat's paw that is libertarianism. The term originally arose in the French general assembly. The monarchists sat on the right, the republicans sat on the left. Right took on the meaning of support for current power structures and the status quo, left took on the meaning of challenging or threatening the established order.

Both Nazism and Bolshevism were less collectivist than 21st century corporate capitalism. They aimed for collectivism and modern capitalism claims not to, but we have nonetheless achieved more uniformity and collectivization than either of them could ever dream of. Collective farming? Primitive and decentralized compared to modern agribusiness. Soviet stores? Nowhere near as uniform as our box stores. We are more regimented and uniform than at any previous point in history.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Aug 2012, 6:44 pm

edgewaters wrote:

Nazism and communism are at opposite ends of a spectrum that has nothing to do with collectivism.

The central idea of Naziism was the Volks Gemeinschaft. It does not get any more collective than that.

ruveyn

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

01 Aug 2012, 6:45 pm

nominalist wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

Not an argument just a rejection of your word of God tone.

That is ad hominem. By definition, you just lost the argument. The fact that you disagree with me does not mean I have a "word of God" tone.

JakobVirgil wrote:

If I read a paper that discloses its methods and bias I can use it is useful.

Discloses whose methods?

JakobVirgil wrote:

It is not really a hard point to understand.

Whether a point is hard or difficult to understand is not an argument.

JakobVirgil wrote:

So getting back to Joe's Fascism what definition are you using?

The history of Fascist Italy.

I you sure you won? I can't remember which game we are playing.
My impression of your word of God tone comes from your habit of declaiming rather
than making solid arguments.

Whose methods? the author of the paper now you are just playing right?

Finally we have driven past your ego and reached the actually interesting part of your post.
(the part were you answer the question.)

The question you forgot to ask is did Joseph Stalin derive policy or theory from the Italian fascists? Lets get some ground rules are parallel practices admissible? Or do you require
Joe to quote Gentile as a source of policy?

In spirit of disclosure I am not arguing that Marxism or the Left are fascist because that would be stupid but that Joe Stalin adopted a polity that shows more similarities with fascism than Marxism.

To make my job easier (and to avoid misunderstandings about goalposts)
give me three qualities of Fascism that Joe would have to be shown to exhibit to convince you.
I am assuming your "honesty" I don't expect speaking Italian, wearing a black shirt and calling oneself il duce to be on the list.

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

01 Aug 2012, 6:51 pm

ruveyn wrote:

edgewaters wrote:

Nazism and communism are at opposite ends of a spectrum that has nothing to do with collectivism.

The central idea of Naziism was the Volks Gemeinschaft. It does not get any more collective than that.

ruveyn

In and of itself, that's no more collectivist than the notion of "the American people", especially in its formulation as a classless society, which renders it almost precisely the same meaning.

But collectivism is NOT what determines the right-left spectrum. Traditionally it comes from the French Revolution, when monarchists sat on the right of the assembly, republicans on the left. Support for the powerful in society, is what defines the left-right spectrum. That is its historical meaning and the understanding held for a few centuries, until the term was perverted by propagandists in just the last few years, in Orwellian fashion.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

01 Aug 2012, 6:56 pm

edgewaters wrote:

Libertarians are political near-anarchists but economic fascists of the most extreme variety. There is more than one spectrum at work in ideologies.

It depends on the definition. In most of Europe, libertarianism and anarchism are mostly (though not entirely) synonymous. In the U.S. libertarianism is seen as right wing with anarchism as left wing.

edgewaters wrote:

Nazism and communism are at opposite ends of a spectrum that has nothing to do with collectivism. Nazism believed in tradition, racial superiority, the inherent superiority of the wealthy members of a society, that the disabled were worthless, all minorities were scum, homosexuals were deviants, and "anti-socials" of all forms should be exterminated to purify the society. Essentially they worshipped power, which puts them on the right.

I agree with you definitions. However, I am somewhat cautious about using the term "spectrum."

edgewaters wrote:

Right and left are not a spectrum about collectivism, but about power and the status quo.

Yes, that is the generally understood distinction.

edgewaters wrote:

The term originally arose in the French general assembly. The monarchists sat on the right, the republicans sat on the left. Right took on the meaning of support for current power structures and the status quo, left took on the meaning of challenging or threatening the established order.

Right.

edgewaters wrote:

Both Nazism and Bolshevism were less collectivist than 21st century corporate capitalism. They aimed for collectivism and modern capitalism claims not to, but we have nonetheless achieved more uniformity and collectivization than either of them could ever dream of. Collective farming? Primitive and decentralized compared to modern agribusiness. Soviet stores? Nowhere near as uniform as our box stores. We are more regimented and uniform than at any previous point in history.

Yep. That is why I don't buy into the collectivism argument.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

01 Aug 2012, 7:00 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

I you sure you won? I can't remember which game we are playing.

In the usual rules of debate, making an ad hominem attack is a disqualification.

JakobVirgil wrote:

My impression of your word of God tone comes from your habit of declaiming rather than making solid arguments.

That is another ad hominem attack.

JakobVirgil wrote:

Whose methods? the author of the paper now you are just playing right?

That makes no sense.

JakobVirgil wrote:

Finally we have driven past your ego and reached the actually interesting part of your post.

Yet another ad hominem attack. This is getting tiring. Conversation over.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

01 Aug 2012, 7:02 pm

edgewaters wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

edgewaters wrote:

Nazism and communism are at opposite ends of a spectrum that has nothing to do with collectivism.

The central idea of Naziism was the Volks Gemeinschaft. It does not get any more collective than that.

ruveyn

Word of God. This whole Nazis are liberals thing is I think a telling argument that politics in america are team sports with no regard for facts. Or even useful definitions. the meaning of every word is disputed very PoMo.

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

01 Aug 2012, 10:33 pm

edgewaters wrote:

Nonsense, Libertarians are for the free market. That is about as far away from fascism as it can get.

And, I wasn't claiming that is what right/left actually means only that actually makes sense as opposed to the definition you give.

I disagree about 'corporate capitalism' of today as being more collectivist than the that of Naziism or communism, but I agree that it is of the same branch. I suppose the problem is that capitalism has become synonymous with that of the free market. "Crony capitalism" is essentially 21st century lingo for corporatism, which is the economic system of fascism.

Page 5 of 7 [ 104 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

Any Stalinists around these parts? Post Reply New Topic

Any Stalinists around these parts?