Need help with my an essay on political parties

[nicky10013]

Some of their characteristics were very socialistic on paper.

"The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:

Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

"

The conservatives IMO are far more Fascist than Hitler for what that is worth.

The Nazis didn't really live up to their ideals. The only ideal they lived up to was they killed all the Jews and tried to kill all the real socialists and communists. He wouldn't be in power if it weren't a young Jewish communist they rounded up and blamed for burning down the reichstag. History is filled with authoritarian states that don't live up to their obligations on paper.

Where'd you pull it from? I'd like to read the entire thing.

Edited January 12, 2010 by nicky10013

[Alta4ever]

The Nazis didn't really live up to their ideals. The only ideal they lived up to was they killed all the Jews and tried to kill all the real socialists and communists. He wouldn't be in power if it weren't a young Jewish communist they rounded up and blamed for burning down the reichstag. History is filled with authoritarian states that don't live up to their obligations on paper.

Where'd you pull it from? I'd like to read the entire thing.

Your right however you forget to point out that those despots ride a socialist wave or a communist wave into power.

I can't remember who it was maybe Stain or Lenin, but one of them commented on the useful idiots who bring them power.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Alta4ever

[ToadBrother]

The Nazis didn't really live up to their ideals.

Well, maybe they didn't live up to the original National Socialist ideals (though those early movements were all over the place until Hitler basically shaped them into his tool to seize German), but they lived up to Hitler's. Mein Kampf is the roadmap Hitler dreamed up and he followed it all the way to the Third Reich. Churchill observed that it surprised him that so many were shocked when Hitler showed his true stripes, considering Mein Kampf had been around since the mid-20s and in great detail showed Hitler's theories and plans.

But then again, all such movements begin thusly. Most certainly the Bolsheviks didn't start out as a party dedicated to overthrowing tyranny simply to replace it with tyranny. In fact, to some extent, I think Lenin and Trotsky were probably reasonably sincere. Certainly Lenin didn't want Stalin anywhere near power, and Trotsky was the natural successor, but movements will often gravitate to a charismatic center of gravity, and Trotsky was always more the political theorist than the politician.

[GrizzlyBear]

Fascism is borne out of government-corporate collusion. It is correct to draw a parallel to the Conservative Party of Canada in that regard...however, the only reason this is so, is because the Conservative Party are conservatives in name only. If the party actually lived up to its namesake, it'd be a complete joke to suggest they bear any resemblance to fascists. Matter of fact, among the Libs, Cons, NDP or Bloc...none of them can claim to be unrelated (however distant the relation may be) to fascist ideals. All of those parties are in favour of blended economies where the lines between governments and corporations blur.

[William Ashley]

The truth being - Harper is worse than Hitler ?

I didn't use worse or better did I. I simply said the conservatives and harper are more fascist than Hitler.

Hitler- The Fatherland - Hitler did stuff

Harper - Northern Sovereignty - Harper proposes programs wastes money and does nothing.

Hitler - Supported Corporations both large and small.

Harper - Corporate lap dog to private interests.

Hitler - For the German Race

Harper - For an increasingly small group of people from Alberta.

Hitler - For the NAZI party.

Harper - For the Conservative Party.

Hitler - Put people to work - until they dropped.

Harper - Unemployed thousands so corporations could make extra money.

Hitler - Put companies to work for the state.

Harper - Sold off the state to the private companies.

Hitler - Dictator

Harper - Wannabe.

On second thought harper may just be a pig wannabe fascist, not a real fascist, while hitler actually stood for the german race.

I still stand by the statement the conservative party is more fascist than the NAZI's, if you count them as their own race of cretin rather than pronationalists.

[William Ashley]

The Nazis didn't really live up to their ideals. The only ideal they lived up to was they killed all the Jews and tried to kill all the real socialists and communists. He wouldn't be in power if it weren't a young Jewish communist they rounded up and blamed for burning down the reichstag. History is filled with authoritarian states that don't live up to their obligations on paper.

Where'd you pull it from? I'd like to read the entire thing.

THE 25 POINTS.

[Michael Hardner]

I still stand by the statement the conservative party is more fascist than the NAZI's, if you count them as their own race of cretin rather than pronationalists.

It's pretty hard to have your posts read as a non-partisan and objective observer when you post hyperbole like that. Here's a reminder: the Nazis canceled all German elections, imprisoned dissenters, executed trouble makers and embarked on a program of race-based extermination.

Democracy works best when the common people engage constructively to discuss issues regarding governance in good faith.

[nicky10013]

Well, maybe they didn't live up to the original National Socialist ideals (though those early movements were all over the place until Hitler basically shaped them into his tool to seize German), but they lived up to Hitler's. Mein Kampf is the roadmap Hitler dreamed up and he followed it all the way to the Third Reich. Churchill observed that it surprised him that so many were shocked when Hitler showed his true stripes, considering Mein Kampf had been around since the mid-20s and in great detail showed Hitler's theories and plans.

But then again, all such movements begin thusly. Most certainly the Bolsheviks didn't start out as a party dedicated to overthrowing tyranny simply to replace it with tyranny. In fact, to some extent, I think Lenin and Trotsky were probably reasonably sincere. Certainly Lenin didn't want Stalin anywhere near power, and Trotsky was the natural successor, but movements will often gravitate to a charismatic center of gravity, and Trotsky was always more the political theorist than the politician.

I think the Bolsheviks thought they were overthrowing tyranny. Whether they thought of themselves as tyrannical is a different story. Lenin believed that western democracy was a bourgeois failure; that only the rich were able to be elected and thusfar exploitation continued. He created democratic centralism to counter it. The idea isn't bad in principle, though clearly it could never work from the outset. The principle was that the party would run everything, however, people had the right to vote for different party members. They would make up a legislature called the Supreme Soviet where policy would be made. Once a consensus had been reached, all members would adhere to it. Nobody adhered to anything so Lenin had to "impose party discipline" which essentially made everything run from the top.

Stalin wasn't meant for power but I don't think Trotsky was either. From a theoretical standpoint he was a shoe-in but by the time of Lenin's death the party was moving away from the stringent dogmatic socialism which was implemented during the era of the civil war. The NEP (guys from the west, simma down) was a right wing liberalisation of the economy. No collectivisation, private companies in some form allowed to exist and so on. The USSR was extremely happy with what was going on. People had a little bit more freedom. What they didn't count on was the position of General Secretary. Today we know whoever got that position was leader of the party, but back then it was a leadership position looked down upon by everyone. It was administrative and nothing more. The one power that the secretariat had, though was the ability to appoint people to positions within the government and people in the supreme soviet. Stalin filled those positions with people loyal to him and the rest as we say was history.

[Rue]

If you were, you would be aware that such courses don't ask questions like "what is the political spectrum?"

Lol Bubber there's lots more where that came from. Maybe he's home schooled.

[Rue]

Splash I know the routine. If you are looking to come on this forum to avoid having to do research try someone else. You want help I have taught for years at colleges and universities as a lecturer, so I can help but no, you will not get the answers from me and the exercise your teacher has asked you to do is designed to encourage you to take the time to find out the actual proper descriptions of political ideologies and how they have become completely misused and distorted in common every day language by people for many reasons the two most common being ignorance and political bias.

The term political spectrum is an open ended question. There is no one answer. It refers to the range of political ideologies from the extreme left to extreme right.

It is whatever parties you place on that left and right scale provided you can explain why you put them where you did on that scale.

Some people will place political ideologies at different points on the scale reflecting their own personal biases.

Coming on this forum and asking people to give you answers will only share their personal biases and with no references to back up their opinions.

If you want to write a paper properly what the teacher wants to see is not just an opinion. They want to see how you arrived at your opinion.

They want to see the objective information you used to base your conclusions.

In a proper paper you start with a thesis proposing what you will contend is true.

You then present evidence summarizing what that evidence indicates.

You then conclude by summarizing the evidence and linking it to the opinions you then concluded from the evidence.

When the teacher asks you for the economic/fiscal and social-moral harm aspects those are the measurments he/she wishes to use.

In other words explain the ideologies you will place on the scale using two references-their economic beliefs, i.e., completely government controlled (extreme left), moderately government controlled (left of centre, right of centre) absolutely no government control-extreme right, and centrist if you think there are any.

The point of the exercise is to show you that parties on the left and right of the spectrum often have the same moral or social harm philosophies and what may differ them sometimes is only economic approaches.

For ideologies you may want to work with anarchist (extreme left),communist, socialist, liberal (Bentham definition), conservative (Burke definition) and libertarian (extreme right).

Give clear definitions of each ideology's take on its market place philosophy (economics) and its moral positions. Then explain why you have put them where you have on your scale.

Conventionally speaking anarchism is to the extreme left or right. Next to anarchism on the left is communism, then heading towards the center, socialism then liberalism. After passing the right its conservatism then facism then libertarianism ending on the extreme right with anarchy.

The point is the extremes to the left and right become one and the same.

When you spend more time studying Political Science you will find facism on the right and communism on the left have totalitarian characteristics that are the same.

You would also find Nazism in fact incorporates many traditional Liberal (Bentham) views. You will also find conservatism (Burke) which is usually associated with right wing big business and Christian fundamentalists, in the true ideological sense is about laisez faire economy and freeedom of the individual while Liberalism sees a collective good as more important to advance than individual good.

How we place these ideologies on the spectrum as I stated earlier depends on each person's biases.

What the teacher wants to see is that you can justify why you put the ideologies where you do.

If you just repeat what people tell you the teacher will know right away.

Its precisely why Bubly said the teacher the question provides the answer-you won't find it parroting other peoples opinions.

So in summary from left to right you might want to try:

anarchism....communism....socialism....liberalism...centre...cnservatism...facism....libertarianism...anarchism

Do a chart and call it figure 1. On that chart have one box with the above name to the left, then two boxes for each ideology to the right, one for economic beliefs and one for social morality beliefs

Footnote where you got your definitions from.

Then in Figure 2, draw a chart placing the ideologies from left to right.

In your paper start off with a paragraph proposing what you intend to show and explain.

Then referring to figure 1 and figure 2, explain why you put the ideologies where you did on the scale.

Conclude with stating whether the spectrum you use could be subject to variance or change or distortion depending on someone's political biases or on how they emphasize certain beliefs in each ideology to

define it as being to the left or right.

You might want to explain howsome characteristics are traditionally to the right and some to the left but can be in the same ideology and so you placed it where you did deciding on which of its characteristics was the most dominant or important.

I would suggest you stick with conventional definitions of the ideologies from encyclopedias and journals and not go for example to a Nazi site to get the definition of Nazism. You will also find today socialism and communism are used interchangeably and many people mistake libertarianism with anarchism and mistake conservatism as necessarily meaning religious fundamentalism and regulated behaviour-actually traditional liberalism is more likely to feature those two qualities.

See for yourself. Don't be short cutting and having others tell you how to write your paper.

Good luck.

[William Ashley]

Splash I know the routine. If you are looking to come on this forum to avoid having to do research try someone else. You want help I have taught for years at colleges and universities as a lecturer, so I can help but no, you will not get the answers from me and the exercise your teacher has asked you to do is designed to encourage you to take the time to find out the actual proper descriptions of political ideologies and how they have become completely misused and distorted in common every day language by people for many reasons the two most common being ignorance and political bias.

The term political spectrum is an open ended question. There is no one answer. It refers to the range of political ideologies from the extreme left to extreme right.

It is whatever parties you place on that left and right scale provided you can explain why you put them where you did on that scale.

Some people will place political ideologies at different points on the scale reflecting their own personal biases.

Coming on this forum and asking people to give you answers will only share their personal biases and with no references to back up their opinions.

If you want to write a paper properly what the teacher wants to see is not just an opinion. They want to see how you arrived at your opinion.

They want to see the objective information you used to base your conclusions.

In a proper paper you start with a thesis proposing what you will contend is true.

You then present evidence summarizing what that evidence indicates.

You then conclude by summarizing the evidence and linking it to the opinions you then concluded from the evidence.

When the teacher asks you for the economic/fiscal and social-moral harm aspects those are the measurments he/she wishes to use.

In other words explain the ideologies you will place on the scale using two references-their economic beliefs, i.e., completely government controlled (extreme left), moderately government controlled (left of centre, right of centre) absolutely no government control-extreme right, and centrist if you think there are any.

The point of the exercise is to show you that parties on the left and right of the spectrum often have the same moral or social harm philosophies and what may differ them sometimes is only economic approaches.

For ideologies you may want to work with anarchist (extreme left),communist, socialist, liberal (Bentham definition), conservative (Burke definition) and libertarian (extreme right).

Give clear definitions of each ideology's take on its market place philosophy (economics) and its moral positions. Then explain why you have put them where you have on your scale.

Conventionally speaking anarchism is to the extreme left or right. Next to anarchism on the left is communism, then heading towards the center, socialism then liberalism. After passing the right its conservatism then facism then libertarianism ending on the extreme right with anarchy.

The point is the extremes to the left and right become one and the same.

When you spend more time studying Political Science you will find facism on the right and communism on the left have totalitarian characteristics that are the same.

You would also find Nazism in fact incorporates many traditional Liberal (Bentham) views. You will also find conservatism (Burke) which is usually associated with right wing big business and Christian fundamentalists, in the true ideological sense is about laisez faire economy and freeedom of the individual while Liberalism sees a collective good as more important to advance than individual good.

How we place these ideologies on the spectrum as I stated earlier depends on each person's biases.

What the teacher wants to see is that you can justify why you put the ideologies where you do.

If you just repeat what people tell you the teacher will know right away.

Its precisely why Bubly said the teacher the question provides the answer-you won't find it parroting other peoples opinions.

So in summary from left to right you might want to try:

anarchism....communism....socialism....liberalism...centre...cnservatism...facism....libertarianism...anarchism

Do a chart and call it figure 1. On that chart have one box with the above name to the left, then two boxes for each ideology to the right, one for economic beliefs and one for social morality beliefs

Footnote where you got your definitions from.

Then in Figure 2, draw a chart placing the ideologies from left to right.

In your paper start off with a paragraph proposing what you intend to show and explain.

Then referring to figure 1 and figure 2, explain why you put the ideologies where you did on the scale.

Conclude with stating whether the spectrum you use could be subject to variance or change or distortion depending on someone's political biases or on how they emphasize certain beliefs in each ideology to

define it as being to the left or right.

You might want to explain howsome characteristics are traditionally to the right and some to the left but can be in the same ideology and so you placed it where you did deciding on which of its characteristics was the most dominant or important.

I would suggest you stick with conventional definitions of the ideologies from encyclopedias and journals and not go for example to a Nazi site to get the definition of Nazism. You will also find today socialism and communism are used interchangeably and many people mistake libertarianism with anarchism and mistake conservatism as necessarily meaning religious fundamentalism and regulated behaviour-actually traditional liberalism is more likely to feature those two qualities.

See for yourself. Don't be short cutting and having others tell you how to write your paper.

Good luck.

Nazi site, Wo sind die Naziaufstellungsorte?

[DrGreenthumb]

Splash check out this video, it will help you understand the Conservative mind.

[Alta4ever]

Splash check out this video, it will help you understand the Conservative mind.

your a fool if you take this satire as fact

Edited January 20, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Oleg Bach]

Spend two years in grade nine..that gives me the equivilence of a grade 18. Why that almost a Phd! First part my friend - enjoy learning - and learn what you are designed for - nothing is more of a waste of time than a person becoming a doctor when his passion has always been nothing in particular.