Attention Forum Socialists

[Pliny]

No, there is nothing in common. You're completely taking dialectical materialism and the quote about the thesis and antithesis you found on wikipedia

ha ha

way too seriously. What it essentially was is the ideological theory that all of history is rooted in materialism, that there would be a series of revolutions until the end of history would be reached. Slaves would overthrow slave owners, serfs would overthrow lords and become the bourgeoisie and then eventually the bourgeoisie would be overthrown by the working class at which point communism would be achieved.

Are you saying that once the working class has taken control and Communism established it is the end of materialism.

It is a theory enveloping the struggle of all of life. Applied politically Marx arrived at the synthesis - communism.

Communism, according to theory, is indeed the political end as it is the supposed achievement of the total state, the end of the private ownership of production and the start of the classless society and the equal distribution of all production. Communism, the ideological end, will fortunately, never be achieved. An inert state of equilibrium cannot exist without force in the physical universe. Eventually the forces maintaining the inert political state will break down, be they human or natural factors, such as the economy.

What dialectical materialism has to do with anything, I've got no clue.

Evidently.

They are dissimilar. They use similar methods to bring about longevity of the regime, however, even then, the structures of governance between communism and fascism, not to mention their ideology is vastly different.

They are still total forms of government. That is the quintessential factor. There will be a form of government under total government, you are arguing that the forms are different, which is true, but their essence is state control of society and the economy. Call it whatever you want.

Yes, we did see what happened when the two ideologies were brought together. They went to war. They didn't fuse into anything.

The result, Germany became a social democracy and the Soviet union now out of any proximity to Nazism/Fascism and bolstered by the allies continued it's totalitarian state. Part of the evolution is the collapse of the USSR. Now somewhat of a social democracy.

Communism is now dead. The social democracies are becoming more and more socialist. It must be pointed out, not without resistance, and that resistance may result in uprisings against the State, not for the installation of the state, which was the purpose of the communist revolutions.

Clearly you believe political science is junk, which in the end is your decision to believe or not to believe. Clearly, though, the reason why you believe it to be "cracker barrel philosophy" is that it doesn't conform with your views on governance.

I'm all for "cracker barrel philosophy" and everyone having their own perspective. These forums are excellent places for discussion and debate.

Political science has no mathematical quantitative axiomatic laws of precision so it is therefore not a science in the true sense of the term science. The word adds credibility to politics elevating it's status.

Like the humanities, it drifted from the arts towards science to lend more credence to it's theories. It's theories becoming less theoretical and more accepted fact.

Now, in the political science community, new ways to explain trends in politics or the development of the state are always welcomed despite whatever you think of the people within said field.

Yes. I am aware of how welcomed they are. Ann Coulter was not received with open arms at the University of Ottawa. While She is a little too big government for me, her experience illustrates how welcome trends in politics are.

The only accepted trend is toward lib-left big government.

Now, the problem for you here is that within academia, in all fields (science, social science and humanities), work is peer reviewed.

It isn't a problem for me. I am not presenting a thesis for my PHD.

I am expressing my understanding from my education and experience how I see the political world.

That is to say colleagues within departments and between universities review and edit other people's work to ensure authenticity of sources, and proper reasoning that lead to sound conclusions. Unfortunately, you don't have any of those things.

Correct. I don't.

Once again I remind you we are on a political forum not presenting a paper for approval.

Furthermore, what I find hilarious is you're obviously contemptuous towards people with "degrees" (because they obviously didn't go to university to understand) and political science as a whole, yet at the same time you're essentially playing the same game as everyone else in the field.

They went to university to get an understanding but instead got a schooling. What are they going to do when they finish? Say their degree is worthless? Some do, but society will be the ultimate arbiter as to it's value not me or any other individual. I am expressing my opinion that they are becoming less and less valuable.

Except of course for the fact that you're negating the whole peer reviewed aspect of your "work." Not only is it hypocritical, it's the worst form of "i'm better than you syndrome." Unlike the rest of us, you believe your work is so ironclad solid that you don't have to go through the same process that anyone else in the political science community will go through to have their work published, and if anyone calls you out on it, you'll just call them erudite ivory tower elitists.

Their "work" will be published and read. My "work" will remain in the realm of opinion. You are saying we all need to go through the same process to give ourselves any credibility. All I am saying is we can all have opinions. Some may be interesting. Some may not.

In your years of study, what did you research? What papers did you write? What books did you read? Interviews you conducted? In essence, what is the basis for your treatise on the similarities of fascism and communism other than your wildly misplaced zeal towards dialectical materialism?

Where are you? I am on a political forum expressing my views. I am not asking for any peer reviewed approval. If I can find any agreement then I will be happy.

I see in your view that no one has any credibility unless they have gone "through the process". Not having gone through the process is an argument made to nullify someone's position. If we accepted that idea we would all be automatons accepting information from only one source - guess who? The expert and erudite academic!

I find left wing egalitarianism to be quite hilarious. The erudite academic seems to like his lofty position. And he does fend off threats to his ego and his station. How will we ever attain the egalitarian society with that kind of self-importance? The answer is we won't ever attain it.

I remember a question on my grade twelve final exam. The question was, "What is the difference between communism and socialism?"

The correct answer was that communism was the attainment of the total state through revolutionary means while socialism was the attainment of the total state through evolutionary means.

I must assume from that that socialism is a gradual, "progressive" process resulting in the total state. I should add the adjective "insidious" to that.

I get the idea that your concept of socialism is not progressive but is essentially the total state being achieved by democratic vote, all of a sudden or something like that. There being no progressive aspect to it at all. So if we have socialist concepts like universal healthcare. That is not socialism.

Funny, but few people in the thirties had concerns about socialism at all. You would think that someone knew what it was and could recognize that the National Socialist party was not socialist at all. I think, like myself, that most people didn't have any qualms about big government as it seemed to offer entitlements everyone wanted. They were yet to experience where big government leads to - war and destitution. We haven't learned that lesson judging from the prominence of the lib-left politically correct ideology of big government. Nazi's cannot exist without big government and neither can totalitarian socialists. We can avoid both by realizing government cannot grant us entitlements out of the economy, and that is not it's job anyway, for it cannot and does not equally grant those entitlements to all and if it does not do that it will fail in it's valid mandate of being able to deliver justice.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Presuming the latter refers to the former, you may wish to read about the Anarchists, Republicans and Fascists that held a Civil War in Spain during the late of the 1930's.

I see anarchists and communists, aiding the Republicans bound together to fight the Nationalists. The dialectic depends upon the opposing forces. Nationalists threatened and opposed Republicans Communists and Anarchists. My statement is that if anarchists were the threat fascism and communism would bind together for the common purpose of defeating anarchism. Just as the unlikely alliance of Russia with the West occurred to defeat the Nazi's. Because of their nature they would then battle themselves for power since they cannot co-exist in some power sharing coalition. Their definition would preclude that.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Pliny

[WIP]

Of course when the subprime mortgage collapse came about "no one saw it coming". Why didn't they - because guys like Barney Franks said everything was just dandy. In other words the government wasn't going to be putting on the brakes anytime soon and they didn't. Banks continued, along with the blessing of the Fed and encouragement of the Federal government, to make credit available for mortgages until the market reached saturation and collapsed.

No! Lots of people said everything's fine besides Barney Frank; and it wasn't because trusted advisers were saying the real estate market was strong either. The reason why banks, pension fund managers and financial analysts still thought the market was stable or at its worst, would make a "soft landing" was because there were huge sums of money pouring in, and even buying the riskiest parts of mortgage securities.

One hedge fund in particular is credited with keeping the subprime bubble going another three years and making it worse than it would have been if investor anxieties back in 2005 had taken their course.

"By the end of 2005, the general sense was that the CDO market would slow down. These trades continued to fuel the fire," says Bill Tomljanovic, who worked for a firm that helped build a Magnetar CDO. Magnetar was "a driving force in the market."

http://www.propublica.org/feature/all-the-magnetar-trade-how-one-hedge-fund-helped-keep-the-housing-bubble

Magnetar was a relatively new and fast growing hedge fund that started making increasingly aggressive purchases of the lowest, riskiest portions of mortgage securities -- the "equity tranche" of the collateralized debt obligations - CDO's, were full of bonds made of bundled subprime mortgages to high risk purchasers. As long as most of the mortgages weren't in default, an equity tranche buyer could collect interest rates of up to 20%. But equity was usually difficult for investment bankers to sell; so having a company like Magnetar was manna from heaven for bankers who usually didn't create a CDO unless they had already lined up a potential buyer. Apparently, most of the other firms thought Magnetar was taking on too much risk, but since they were so confident in buying subprime mortgages, there was a general feeling that the rest of the market must be good in spite of the run up in real estate values.

But, only the insiders knew that Magnetar was hedging their risk through the purchase of credit default swaps. As long as these quasi insurance contracts were payed off (and they were, thanks to the bailout of AIG) Magnetar stood to make more from CDO's that failed, than from the ones that continued to pay.

How could Magnetar hope to make money on such risky stuff? It had a second bet that was known only to insiders.

At the same time it was investing in the equity, the fund placed bets that many of the same CDOs it had helped create would actually blow up. It did that using one of the most opaque corners of the investment world: credit default swaps, which function as a kind of insurance on CDOs and other types of bonds.

The SEC conducted an investigation of the Magnetar trades because of the appearance that they were created to fail, but even if Magnetar was unethical, there trades likely weren't illegal, since credit default swaps were unregulated and using them was a strategy that was available to other hedge fund managers and investors.

In late 2005, the booming U.S. housing market seemed to be slowing. The Federal Reserve had begun raising interest rates. Subprime mortgage company shares were falling. Investors began to balk at buying complex mortgage securities. The housing bubble, which had propelled a historic growth in home prices, seemed poised to deflate. And if it had, the great financial crisis of 2008, which produced the Great Recession of 2008-09, might have come sooner and been less severe.

At just that moment, a few savvy financial engineers at a suburban Chicago hedge fund helped revive the Wall Street money machine, spawning billions of dollars of securities ultimately backed by home mortgages.

When the crash came, nearly all of these securities became worthless, a loss of an estimated $40 billion paid by investors, the investment banks who helped bring them into the world, and, eventually, American taxpayers.

If anything, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and every other lending institution, were swept along in a false bubble created by a market that is still unregulated and ready to blow up again at any time.

Edited May 17, 2010 by WIP

[Shwa]

I see anarchists and communists, aiding the Republicans bound together to fight the Nationalists. The dialectic depends upon the opposing forces. Nationalists threatened and opposed Republicans Communists and Anarchists. My statement is that if anarchists were the threat fascism and communism would bind together for the common purpose of defeating anarchism. Just as the unlikely alliance of Russia with the West occurred to defeat the Nazi's. Because of their nature they would then battle themselves for power since they cannot co-exist in some power sharing coalition. Their definition would preclude that.

What is dissimilar, is no government - anarchy. Both Communism and Fascism would bind to fight anarchy or limits to government.

I have not read this anywhere.

But now, that you have just read the fact that - in the Spanish Civil War at least - the Communists and Fascists did not bind together to fight anarchy. In fact, the Communists and Anarchists bound together to fight Fascism, somewhat opposite of your opinion. I think this shows that despite the theoretical opposition of two ideologies, in practice is there far more compromise in human political affairs.

[Pliny]

But now, that you have just read the fact that - in the Spanish Civil War at least - the Communists and Fascists did not bind together to fight anarchy. In fact, the Communists and Anarchists bound together to fight Fascism, somewhat opposite of your opinion. I think this shows that despite the theoretical opposition of two ideologies, in practice is there far more compromise in human political affairs.

I made the statement out of the definitions of the words as being dichotomies. Communism and Fascism, i.e. total government, being opposite to anarchy.

Who ever has the power and whoever seeks the power are going to be at loggerheads and they will form the dialectic. Be it Democracy and Monarchy or whatever. That is why Fascism and communism will form a great thesis-antithesis. In other words they make great enemies.

Anarchists, of the communist sort, find some similarity in ideology in that, as the theory goes, once communism has brought about the total state, anarchy will eventually become established.

[Pliny]

No! Lots of people said everything's fine besides Barney Frank; and it wasn't because trusted advisers were saying the real estate market was strong either. The reason why banks, pension fund managers and financial analysts still thought the market was stable or at its worst, would make a "soft landing" was because there were huge sums of money pouring in, and even buying the riskiest parts of mortgage securities. .

Ok. One more time WIP.

CDO's are collaterallized debt obligations, as explained in your post. They are mortgage debts, the collateral being the real estate, perhaps combined with other debt obligations.

The major point must be that those debts were generated by a fiscal policy of the Federal Reserve and government that made the credit available in the first place. If they hadn't created all that credit out of thin air there would have been nothing to make CDO's out of. The repackaging of the debts into CDO's is after the fact that the credit was created.

Did Wall Street think those CDOs were risky? Of course they did. You would be a fool not to considering what those mortgages were, subprime and NINJA loans created out of thin air. And they hedged their bets on it. They created risky junk bonds and bet against them. If the price of real estate could have continued climbing and people made their mortgage payments everything would have been fine. But you can't keep creating credit out of thin air forever. Eventually, the market will drop out the bottom when there is no one left entering into the ponzi scheme.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Pliny

[Shwa]

I made the statement out of the definitions of the words as being dichotomies. Communism and Fascism, i.e. total government, being opposite to anarchy.

Who ever has the power and whoever seeks the power are going to be at loggerheads and they will form the dialectic. Be it Democracy and Monarchy or whatever. That is why Fascism and communism will form a great thesis-antithesis. In other words they make great enemies.

Anarchists, of the communist sort, find some similarity in ideology in that, as the theory goes, once communism has brought about the total state, anarchy will eventually become established.

Sounds good in theory, except in political theory there is the dealing with imagined ideals which never seem to play out in the real world. For instance is sort-of-fascism and sort-of-communism as dichotomous as their ideals? And it is true that certain ruling individuals or groups may hold to a certain ideology, but that does not always translate into the entire regime holding to those ideals and those 'ideological weak spots' have always added a little edge to any prediction. If there is a thesis/antithesis progression the actual results usually hold some very interesting surprises.

You say that Facism and Communism make for great enemies, but was there the prediction that two totalitarian regimes would sign a non-aggression pact? It would seem that a totalitarian regime would be more of a theoretical dichotomy with a democratic regime regardless of economic or social ideological concerns of either. And even still, there are treaties and such signed between these sorts of regimes all the time.

[Oleg Bach]

That's funny, because I haven't seen anything at all to indicate that he is.

Most lower level socialists are duped henchmen. Obama is a socialist - and high end socialists get their power from arch capitalists..Obama knows the game - socialism for everyone but themselves .

[Pliny]

Sounds good in theory, except in political theory there is the dealing with imagined ideals which never seem to play out in the real world. For instance is sort-of-fascism and sort-of-communism as dichotomous as their ideals? And it is true that certain ruling individuals or groups may hold to a certain ideology, but that does not always translate into the entire regime holding to those ideals and those 'ideological weak spots' have always added a little edge to any prediction. If there is a thesis/antithesis progression the actual results usually hold some very interesting surprises.

You say that Facism and Communism make for great enemies, but was there the prediction that two totalitarian regimes would sign a non-aggression pact? It would seem that a totalitarian regime would be more of a theoretical dichotomy with a democratic regime regardless of economic or social ideological concerns of either. And even still, there are treaties and such signed between these sorts of regimes all the time.

You raise some interesting points.

Firstly, we must discuss the term "ideology". An ideology is a concept of an "ideal". Marx expressed his ideal of society; very basically, it was a society where private property did not exist and all worked for the benefit of the whole - one for all and all for one - "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs". Conceptually this is a fine "ideal". The first achievement necessary to the attainment of this ideal is to eliminate private property. Force must be used to divest the bourgeoisie of their ownership of production. Thus communism starts with a revolution and establishes the enforcement of the total socialist state. The "ideal",i.e., the end goal, does not contain the use of force to maintain society. All are to realize that their co-operation and understanding of the sharing of wealth is what brings harmony and stability to society and individual happiness.

That's the ideal. One must always realize that an ideal is solid and expected to be the state of existence for eternity by the ideologue. It is ideal, after all. This is the basic problem with ideologies - change is it's enemy, it resists all change or diversion from the ideal. That does not mean that nothing happens. But the primary problems of society become the maintaining of the ideal. Distractions or diversions from the ideal are ignored or suppressed because they are not providing solutions to real existing social problems but are primarily concerned with washing their own laundry.

WE can take our health care system as an example. Apparently, we have the "ideal" health care program. Thus it's form and structure are very solid and change only exists, it seems, in further solidification and maintenance of the form. Thus, it follows that the health care system and illness, becomes a major issue and concern of Canadians. Out of that, health itself, takes a back seat.

If you are into conspiracies you may think that there is an active effort to squelch "cures" and ensure ignorance of our own individual health. There is no conspiracy to do so but there is only the effort to maintain the ideal form and structure. Of course people's good health becomes an enemy of the ideal as healthy people do not promote the maintaining of the system. Now we have a thesis-antithesis and soon there will be a reckoning. The ideal becomes more important than reality and real problems are not dealt with but ignored or suppressed.

It is when the ideal reaches that point where it is all-important that any forced suppression or enforced reality will become forces of equal magnitude. So if the system is important and the purpose, the reason for it's very existence, is lost to the maintaining of the system, in health care that would be the health of the individual, in governance it would be the maintenance of the State, then there will be a reckoning.

As for totalitarian regimes signing non-aggression pacts this is entirely plausible because proximity is important. It is when they mix that energies are built. Like a battery, the terminals themselves kept apart do not create any current. It is only when they touch or have a connection that current is produced. Opposing forces not in proximity to each other, or held apart by some agreement or non-aggression pact results in inaction as it is supposed to do. Where they touch there may be border skirmishes. That's predictable. It is also predictable that if the people on the border did not hold the ideals of their governments they would wonder what the heck this non-aggression pact was all about.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Pliny

[Shwa]

But ideals are never transmitted the same from person to person or regime to regime. While we can cite Marx's ideals in his particular expression of them, they have been much modified over the years and some of his doctrine has since been modified or rejected by adherents in subsequent regimes. We could say that communism in-itself has been undergoing it own synthesis process for over a hundred years now. What started out as Marx and a vanilla ideal has now become many flavours. Two of those flavours had skirmishes in the late 60's that resulted in deaths. Ostensibly over borders, but interally, no doubt, over the differences in their flavours. Marx would never have predicted that.

So what I am getting at is unless you can provide a stable and widespread political ideology (thesis) it will be difficult to source out it's counterpart antithesis. In fact, one could make a very good argument that the two flavours of communism evidenced in the Soviet Union and China in the late 50's & 60's were the equivalent of thesis/antithesis and what was the final synthesis of that process?

So the problem becomes one of scope. We can say "communism" or "democracy" but what do those terms really mean in relation to modern times? There appear to be broad ideologies only and I don't see any grand schematic of political change synthesized out of the clash of broad ideologies. There is change of course, the internal dichotomies doing their thing in the name of progress, and there are some clashes between different ideologies, although not necessarily opposite ones.

Which kind of leads me back the Spanish Civil War. The two main combatants did not stop their fight to unite to crush the Catelonian anarchists.

[WIP]

Ok. One more time WIP.

CDO's are collaterallized debt obligations, as explained in your post. They are mortgage debts, the collateral being the real estate, perhaps combined with other debt obligations.

The major point must be that those debts were generated by a fiscal policy of the Federal Reserve and government that made the credit available in the first place. If they hadn't created all that credit out of thin air there would have been nothing to make CDO's out of. The repackaging of the debts into CDO's is after the fact that the credit was created.

Did Wall Street think those CDOs were risky? Of course they did. You would be a fool not to considering what those mortgages were, subprime and NINJA loans created out of thin air. And they hedged their bets on it. They created risky junk bonds and bet against them. If the price of real estate could have continued climbing and people made their mortgage payments everything would have been fine. But you can't keep creating credit out of thin air forever. Eventually, the market will drop out the bottom when there is no one left entering into the ponzi scheme.

You haven't mentioned credit default swaps here, which is how they were hedging their bets in the first place. The last numbers I heard for the value of Wall Street investment banks and brokerages was five trillion dollars. No one knows what the potential worth of these CDS IOU's are, but the best guestimates are that it could be as high as 600 trillion dollars! Now, what happens if there is another run on AIG similar to the one that started the clamoring for the bank bailout a year and a half ago? From what I read of the Magnetar Trade, which although being a relatively small player, ended up bringing down Merrill Lynch, CDO's averaging a billion dollars were created for them. The real estate experts thought that the subprime market was going to go down in 2005, but it was investors like Magnetar that were hedging their bets with credit default swaps which kept money pouring in for subprime mortgages. Don't forget, this wasn't all about the Fed creating credit out of thin air! A lot of the investors were coming in from overseas; influenced by the continuing rise in the subprime market and many foreign banks such as Deuschebank and the Bank of Scotland, also went to AIG to purchase credit default swaps as a hedge against losses.

According to an as of yet unverified account of the backroom dealings - Hank Paulsen's former bosses at Goldman Sachs dropped by to Fed Chairman's office to tell him that he needed to provide AIG with the guarantees necessary to pay off some of those credit default swap obligations. And of course Goldman served their own interests since they cashed in more than any other institution.

What it all boils down to is allowing a brand new market to be created in derivatives investments, and giving in to Wall Street to allow them to "self regulate," and we know how well that went! While they were making obscene amounts of money, it was free enterprize and small government, once things went bad, the story became banks "too big to fail" and all of a sudden the losses became everybody's problem. Same as the oil industry, they want free enterprize for profits and socialism for losses.

[nicky10013]

Evidently.

I'm not the one who has completely misconstrued what the original term means. To then act as if I'm clueless is quite hilarious

They are still total forms of government. That is the quintessential factor. There will be a form of government under total government, you are arguing that the forms are different, which is true, but their essence is state control of society and the economy. Call it whatever you want.

The result, Germany became a social democracy and the Soviet union now out of any proximity to Nazism/Fascism and bolstered by the allies continued it's totalitarian state. Part of the evolution is the collapse of the USSR. Now somewhat of a social democracy.

Communism is now dead. The social democracies are becoming more and more socialist. It must be pointed out, not without resistance, and that resistance may result in uprisings against the State, not for the installation of the state, which was the purpose of the communist revolutions.

What is this even supposed to mean? Sure, both are total forms of government but authoritarianism isn't exactly manifested on the spectrum. It's a linear representation of political ideology that goes from the extreme lef to the extreme right. The ideologies are vastly different. It just so happens that the extreme ends of the spectrum which denote extreme ideology tend to represent authoritarian models of government. How the government governs has nothing to do with ideology. You're taking the opposite approach which says well, if their methods are similar their ideologies must be similar as well. That's simply not the case.

I'm all for "cracker barrel philosophy" and everyone having their own perspective. These forums are excellent places for discussion and debate.

Political science has no mathematical quantitative axiomatic laws of precision so it is therefore not a science in the true sense of the term science. The word adds credibility to politics elevating it's status.

Like the humanities, it drifted from the arts towards science to lend more credence to it's theories. It's theories becoming less theoretical and more accepted fact.

Yes. I am aware of how welcomed they are. Ann Coulter was not received with open arms at the University of Ottawa. While She is a little too big government for me, her experience illustrates how welcome trends in politics are.

The only accepted trend is toward lib-left big government.

Yes, a lot of it is social science. However, to say that social science is meaningless is yet another flawed argument. Studies and statistics lead to the understanding of useful trends which can then be applied to different situations with certain stipulations. It can also lead to finite principles as well. Such as the concrete link between GDP per Capita and the development or destruction of democracy. Then again you knew that.

Re: Anne Coulter - she cancelled her own event for publicity. If U of O really didn't want to let her speak, she wouldn't have been given the space to begin with.

Re: lib-left big government. I had a lot of conservative professors. My friends mom works in the department and he was telling me she was surprised as to how right of centre the department actually was. The notion of ivory tower leftist elitists, is I'm afraid, an ugly stereotype that doesn't exist in reality. It's merely an attack by less educated Conservatives trying to downplay the significant advantage of higher education of their opponents in an appeal to the "common person." It's a shame such anti-intellectualism exists.

It isn't a problem for me. I am not presenting a thesis for my PHD.

I am expressing my understanding from my education and experience how I see the political world.

Then don't look down your nose on people with degrees when they tell you you've got no idea what you're talking abuot.

Correct. I don't.

Once again I remind you we are on a political forum not presenting a paper for approval.

They went to university to get an understanding but instead got a schooling. What are they going to do when they finish? Say their degree is worthless? Some do, but society will be the ultimate arbiter as to it's value not me or any other individual. I am expressing my opinion that they are becoming less and less valuable.

How so? Shouldn't a person with a degree be in a much better position to make that judgement than a person who has no idea what type of work the degree entails? You make an AWFUL lot of assumptions based on no prior knowledge, not just here but in other things. As they say, assuming makes an ass of you and me.

Their "work" will be published and read. My "work" will remain in the realm of opinion. You are saying we all need to go through the same process to give ourselves any credibility. All I am saying is we can all have opinions. Some may be interesting. Some may not.

Everyone has opinions, sure. Ones based on facts can be wrong, though. Which is why you really need the credibility.

Where are you? I am on a political forum expressing my views. I am not asking for any peer reviewed approval. If I can find any agreement then I will be happy.

That's the entire problem. Nobody should be looking to agree with anyone else. It's the truth that matters. If you go looking for something, you'll find it every time.

I see in your view that no one has any credibility unless they have gone "through the process". Not having gone through the process is an argument made to nullify someone's position. If we accepted that idea we would all be automatons accepting information from only one source - guess who? The expert and erudite academic!

I find left wing egalitarianism to be quite hilarious. The erudite academic seems to like his lofty position. And he does fend off threats to his ego and his station. How will we ever attain the egalitarian society with that kind of self-importance? The answer is we won't ever attain it.

Don't you see? You're doing the exact same thing with the term academic. The difference is anyone can go through the process to gain that credibility. Your problem is that you can apply it to anyone who you don't like. Which one is more open and transparent? I'll leave that to you to understand or not understand.

I remember a question on my grade twelve final exam. The question was, "What is the difference between communism and socialism?"

The correct answer was that communism was the attainment of the total state through revolutionary means while socialism was the attainment of the total state through evolutionary means.

I must assume from that that socialism is a gradual, "progressive" process resulting in the total state. I should add the adjective "insidious" to that.

I get the idea that your concept of socialism is not progressive but is essentially the total state being achieved by democratic vote, all of a sudden or something like that. There being no progressive aspect to it at all. So if we have socialist concepts like universal healthcare. That is not socialism.

That's not what my view of socialism is at all. If we're going to take the 20th century version of socialism and apply it to our own government it clearly doesn't fit. Nor does the actual theory of socialism fit with the practice of socialism in the 20th century. So, to apply theory to practice also is flawed. Since you and other right wing nut jobs like Glenn Beck are convinced that we're moving towards socialism a la the USSR, we can automatically reject the notion of theoretical socialism which to Marx was democratic and use practical socialsim. Socialism in practice can be defined through the policies of nations like the Soviet Union or the DDR. Certainly, those states were not created through a vote. Certainly, socialism did not "progress." Furthermore, since political scientists can concretely tie authoritarianism to GDP, to make the assumption that we're slipping into socialist authoritarianism is hilarious. No, what we're seeing is generally the cyclical nature of government control. It goes up and it goes down. Furthermore, every democratically elected government is responsible for a bit of both. Interestingly enough, Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney, Bushx2 and now Harper, all people who espouse the same ideology as yourself, are responsible for the largest increases in government in history. I don't remember it being called socialism then.

Funny, but few people in the thirties had concerns about socialism at all. You would think that someone knew what it was and could recognize that the National Socialist party was not socialist at all. I think, like myself, that most people didn't have any qualms about big government as it seemed to offer entitlements everyone wanted. They were yet to experience where big government leads to - war and destitution. We haven't learned that lesson judging from the prominence of the lib-left politically correct ideology of big government. Nazi's cannot exist without big government and neither can totalitarian socialists. We can avoid both by realizing government cannot grant us entitlements out of the economy, and that is not it's job anyway, for it cannot and does not equally grant those entitlements to all and if it does not do that it will fail in it's valid mandate of being able to deliver justice.

People in the 30s weren't concerned about socialism because of the depression. In the 20s, however, there were a few attempts to overthrow the Soviet Union by the British. Lest we forget that in the early 20s, Canada, the US, UK sent troops to fight with the whites against the reds during the Russian Civil War.

Also, what is your definition of big government. Sure, the Nazis used government as a tool. However, the Nazis idea of big government was the gestapo, SS and Wehrmacht. Even then, the military industrial complex was highly privatized. Nazi Germany was never the bastion of socialist big government that you think it was.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

I think you're making two errors, both related. First of all, Obama is not a socialist.

But ok, that argument can go round and round forever, so here's a better one: many of the posters here whom you deem "socialists" most likely are not.

Myself, for example. Just like, to guess at a number, 90% or more of North Americans, I consider myself a capitalist, but with a belief in certain "socialist" (broadly termed) ameliorative properties to diminish some of capitalism's harsher effects.

And virtually everyone, no doubt yourself included, feels the same way. The difference is only a matter of degree, not of basic philosophy.

I doubt these fools give even part of a dam about anyone else

Edited May 22, 2010 by Uncle 3 dogs

[Pliny]

I'm not the one who has completely misconstrued what the original term means. To then act as if I'm clueless is quite hilarious

It appears most of Germany misconstrued what the terms meant. They elected a national socialist party and couldn't tell the difference between Nazism and socialism.

What is this even supposed to mean?

Do you have a question?

Sure, both are total forms of government but authoritarianism isn't exactly manifested on the spectrum.

All government is authoritarian in the sense that laws are laws and are enacted and enforced by government. After all, they are supposed to have a monopoly on the use of force. They are the authority.

More laws and an increase in the sphere of a government's mandate in society and the economy doesn't make it more authoritarian. It gives it a wider sphere of authority.

Here we are again. Politically, authoritarianism is associated entirely with the extremes of the political spectrum with accompanying visions of jackboots and Gulags. Where is the concept of authority in the centre of the spectrum?

It's a linear representation of political ideology that goes from the extreme lef to the extreme right.

But is not manifested on the spectrum?

The ideologies are vastly different.

The fundamental is the same. State control of society and the economy. Beyond that I agree.

It just so happens that the extreme ends of the spectrum which denote extreme ideology tend to represent authoritarian models of government.

Now I would say "Totalitarian" models of government as all governments are authoritarian.

How the government governs has nothing to do with ideology. You're taking the opposite approach which says well, if their methods are similar their ideologies must be similar as well. That's simply not the case.

A fundamental of totalitarianism is state control of society and the economy. It's that basic idea that makes them similar. Beyond a few other similar fundamentals their structure and methodology is entirely open.

Yes, a lot of it is social science. However, to say that social science is meaningless is yet another flawed argument. Studies and statistics lead to the understanding of useful trends which can then be applied to different situations with certain stipulations. It can also lead to finite principles as well. Such as the concrete link between GDP per Capita and the development or destruction of democracy. Then again you knew that.

Re: Anne Coulter - she cancelled her own event for publicity. If U of O really didn't want to let her speak, she wouldn't have been given the space to begin with.

She must thank those demonstrators for that excellent opportunity to cancel. She wasn't so fortunate in Calgary.

Re: lib-left big government. I had a lot of conservative professors. My friends mom works in the department and he was telling me she was surprised as to how right of centre the department actually was. The notion of ivory tower leftist elitists, is I'm afraid, an ugly stereotype that doesn't exist in reality. It's merely an attack by less educated Conservatives trying to downplay the significant advantage of higher education of their opponents in an appeal to the "common person." It's a shame such anti-intellectualism exists.

It's a shame such elitism exists. You would think our public education system would be narrowing the gap.

If Obama is considered a centrist, as a lot of posters here believe, then yes a lot of things could appear right wing. Does your Mom's friend think Obama is a centrist or minimally centre-left?

Then don't look down your nose on people with degrees when they tell you you've got no idea what you're talking abuot.

If they say that to me then I have no faith in their degree.

How so? Shouldn't a person with a degree be in a much better position to make that judgement than a person who has no idea what type of work the degree entails? You make an AWFUL lot of assumptions based on no prior knowledge, not just here but in other things. As they say, assuming makes an ass of you and me.

A person with a degree should be in a better position. Often, I am disappointed.

Everyone has opinions, sure. Ones based on facts can be wrong, though. Which is why you really need the credibility.

That's the entire problem. Nobody should be looking to agree with anyone else. It's the truth that matters. If you go looking for something, you'll find it every time.

It looks as though you have found the truth then.

Don't you see? You're doing the exact same thing with the term academic. The difference is anyone can go through the process to gain that credibility. Your problem is that you can apply it to anyone who you don't like. Which one is more open and transparent? I'll leave that to you to understand or not understand.

That's not what my view of socialism is at all. If we're going to take the 20th century version of socialism and apply it to our own government it clearly doesn't fit. Nor does the actual theory of socialism fit with the practice of socialism in the 20th century. So, to apply theory to practice also is flawed. Since you and other right wing nut jobs like Glenn Beck are convinced that we're moving towards socialism a la the USSR, we can automatically reject the notion of theoretical socialism which to Marx was democratic and use practical socialsim.

There is practical socialism and theoretical socialism?

Socialism in practice can be defined through the policies of nations like the Soviet Union or the DDR.

Umm... and they would be??? Universal healthcare perhaps. Control of the currency? The redistribution of wealth?

Certainly, those states were not created through a vote. Certainly, socialism did not "progress."

Because they are communist and communism is not about progressivism.

Furthermore, since political scientists can concretely tie authoritarianism to GDP, to make the assumption that we're slipping into socialist authoritarianism is hilarious.

Political scientists did that did they. Wow! It's certainly a setback to complete government takeover of the economy.

No, what we're seeing is generally the cyclical nature of government control. It goes up and it goes down. Furthermore, every democratically elected government is responsible for a bit of both. Interestingly enough, Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney, Bushx2 and now Harper, all people who espouse the same ideology as yourself, are responsible for the largest increases in government in history. I don't remember it being called socialism then.

Marx: "Democracy is the road to socialism."

Of course you don't remember it being called socialism. It is right wing - impossible in your world. Of course any increase in the size of government is a progression towards the totalitarian State.

Government was the gestapo, SS and Wehrmacht. Even then, the military industrial complex was highly privatized. Nazi Germany was never the bastion of socialist big government that you think it was.

And in the USSR it was the KGB, the police and the army.

If it was highly privatized then it wasn't totalitarian was it?

I find it hard to square that circle.

Well, thanks again.

[Shady]

to diminish some of capitalism's harsher effects.

What are capitalism's harsher effects?

[eyeball]

All government is authoritarian in the sense that laws are laws and are enacted and enforced by government. After all, they are supposed to have a monopoly on the use of force. They are the authority.

In a democracy though the authorization of that monopoly is supposed to be subject to the will of the people. The government is supposed to obey the law too.

[nicky10013]

It appears most of Germany misconstrued what the terms meant. They elected a national socialist party and couldn't tell the difference between Nazism and socialism.

Yup.

All government is authoritarian in the sense that laws are laws and are enacted and enforced by government. After all, they are supposed to have a monopoly on the use of force. They are the authority.

Yes, governments have a monopoly on force, but we agree to those rules in exchange for rights. That's what we call the rule of law. All, even those in the government are subject to the same social contract. Not in authoritarian states. The government isn't accountable and is above the law. So, no, not all governments are authoritarian.

More laws and an increase in the sphere of a government's mandate in society and the economy doesn't make it more authoritarian. It gives it a wider sphere of authority.

Yep.

Here we are again. Politically, authoritarianism is associated entirely with the extremes of the political spectrum with accompanying visions of jackboots and Gulags. Where is the concept of authority in the centre of the spectrum?

A more moderate and pluarlistic society tends to be reflected upon government. Hence democracy and checked authority on the power of governance.

But is not manifested on the spectrum?

Nope, I've now said this a million times and I'll say it again because clearly you don't understand the concept. The extremity or moderate nature of ideology is reflected upon the nature of the regime. More extreme ideologies tend to be far more puritan in their outlook and determined to hold onto power. Does that mean they necessarily have to become an authoritarian states? Not at all. However, with these more extreme ideologies, authoritarianism mechanisms are needed to advance the life of the regime. Therefore, due to that fact, extreme ideologies are going to be far more authoritarian in nature than ones closer to the center. Again, authoritarian mechanisms of government don't go hand in hand with ideology.

The fundamental is the same. State control of society and the economy. Beyond that I agree.

No, the fundamentals are simply not the same as I've explained above.

Now I would say "Totalitarian" models of government as all governments are authoritarian.

Apparently you don't know what authoritarianism or totalitarianism means.

A fundamental of totalitarianism is state control of society and the economy. It's that basic idea that makes them similar. Beyond a few other similar fundamentals their structure and methodology is entirely open.

Control over the economy just simply doesn't have to be a part of that. Germans in the 30s as well as Italians could go about their business as long as it wasn't the business of overthrowing the government. How is that economic control?

She must thank those demonstrators for that excellent opportunity to cancel. She wasn't so fortunate in Calgary.

Ahahah yeah there's already a thread on this where it's clearly demonstrated what bunk that argument is. I defer you to that.

It's a shame such elitism exists. You would think our public education system would be narrowing the gap.

It doesn't. Just people who are threatened by intelligence.

Let me put it to you this way. There are business moguls who make hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm guessing as a free market conservative you have no problem with that. They've risen to the top through hard work to earn their due. Why is it so different in the academic world where there actually is a free market regarding ideas? Professors go through years of school, have to publish a certain quota of material every year and instruct the next generation. As in business, not everyone gets to that level, not everyone is smart enough to be able to get to that level. So how is it that these people are elitists? If they are, then what's stopping conservatives like you from calling business leaders the same and downplaying their achievements?

If Obama is considered a centrist, as a lot of posters here believe, then yes a lot of things could appear right wing. Does your Mom's friend think Obama is a centrist or minimally centre-left?

So you of all people are calling her out on bias? Hilarious.

If they say that to me then I have no faith in their degree.

In regards to an opinion, feeling that way would be reasonable. However, you're attempting to make arguments based on facts, facts which just aren't true. A person is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own set of facts. You're in fundamental breach of that concept.

A person with a degree should be in a better position. Often, I am disappointed.

How can you be disappointed if you still have no idea what those people went through? Again, judgement calls on people's character simply for disagreeing with you.

It looks as though you have found the truth then.

Right.

There is practical socialism and theoretical socialism?

Yep. Degrees in poli sci are helpful in being able to figure out those types of things.

Because they are communist and communism is not about progressivism.

No, they really weren't.

Political scientists did that did they. Wow! It's certainly a setback to complete government takeover of the economy.

The government isn't going to take complete control of the government. Conspiracy theory talking, here.

And in the USSR it was the KGB, the police and the army.

If it was highly privatized then it wasn't totalitarian was it?

I find it hard to square that circle.

Well, thanks again.

Of course it was totalitarian because you don't know what totalitarianism means. Totalitarianism is an autocratic form of government which manifests itself through specific forms. They are: One man dictatorial rule, rabid ideology with massive use of propaganda, a cult of personality around the leader and state sponsored random terror. Nothing in the definition of totalitarianism calls for the takeover of the economy.

You can't square the circle because it was never a circle to begin with. Sorry.

[Pliny]

But ideals are never transmitted the same from person to person or regime to regime.

Yes. That is true.

While we can cite Marx's ideals in his particular expression of them, they have been much modified over the years and some of his doctrine has since been modified or rejected by adherents in subsequent regimes. We could say that communism in-itself has been undergoing it own synthesis process for over a hundred years now. What started out as Marx and a vanilla ideal has now become many flavours. Two of those flavours had skirmishes in the late 60's that resulted in deaths. Ostensibly over borders, but interally, no doubt, over the differences in their flavours. Marx would never have predicted that.

Right. Marx's theory was that communism had to revolutionize the world first. It never has accomplished that. Socialists argue that communism wasn't really communism. Apparently only political scientists know what's going on. But I'm clear on the predictability of governments whether they are socialist or democratic or whatever you want to call them.

No one knew the Nazi weren't socialists apparently.

So what I am getting at is unless you can provide a stable and widespread political ideology (thesis) it will be difficult to source out it's counterpart antithesis. In fact, one could make a very good argument that the two flavours of communism evidenced in the Soviet Union and China in the late 50's & 60's were the equivalent of thesis/antithesis and what was the final synthesis of that process?

Look at the struggle and see how the sides are arranged.

So the problem becomes one of scope. We can say "communism" or "democracy" but what do those terms really mean in relation to modern times? There appear to be broad ideologies only and I don't see any grand schematic of political change synthesized out of the clash of broad ideologies. There is change of course, the internal dichotomies doing their thing in the name of progress, and there are some clashes between different ideologies, although not necessarily opposite ones.

Which kind of leads me back the Spanish Civil War. The two main combatants did not stop their fight to unite to crush the Catelonian anarchists.

The appearance and definition of the opposing dichotomies evolves over time who couold say hoaw it will manifest. We only know they will. We can see them

China and Russia kept apart - they did not mix. How would they fight. Only when the time was right and there was enough interaction.

[Pliny]

In a democracy though the authorization of that monopoly is supposed to be subject to the will of the people. The government is supposed to obey the law too.

Good point. Is the move to authoritarianism apparent? Government must be carefully and vigilantly watched or it will inexorably move there.

[Pliny]

It appears most of Germany misconstrued what the terms meant. They elected a national socialist party and couldn't tell the difference between Nazism and socialism.

Yup.

Then you insist upon keeping people in the dark. How am I to determine what you are talking about if the political world insists it's citizens be dupes and words are used to mean whatever politicians deem.

Of course, Obama can claim he is not a socialist although he wishes to redistribute the wealth. If he is not a socialist then he must have fascist tendencies. His taking over of the running of GM is more a fascist move.

Words are used, redefined, ignored, propagandized for political ends. Of that there can be no doubt.

In order for you to agree that Nazism is not socialist you have become part of the problem of keeping people in the dark and ensuring that political science remain esoteric and beyond the comprehension of the average citizen whose votes become merely votes of entitlement for themselves. Not even understanding that it is they who pay for them. We get things like free healthcare and a free public education.

My thinking is not quite as cloudy on the subject as you think it is. I well aware of the fact that Political labels and terms all have different applications depending upon time and circumstance. Communism has never really been tried. Socialism is the ideal and exists only at the extreme right of the spectrum. We have seen what happens when ever communism is attempted to be installed. We end up with dictators, like Stalin, Mao and Castro. whoever is crafty enough to realize they have to eat their own to forward the "ideal". The ideal being something only they truly understand.

Yes, it is all confusing - isn't it. And if we want to vote we know it doesn't really matter much, things still remain the same no matter what lying politician is in office.

If you are ever going to get people to understand politics and government you have to simplify it. Telling people they are ignorant and nutjobs does nothing for the resolution of the problems of governance. what you have to do is figure out a way to get them the information that is pertinent to them and their governance. The most important thing is the purpose of government and it's mandate. The next most important thing is the terminology. We can't say that the USSR was communist and then later say it wasn't really communist. Then we can further divide it into Marxist communism, Marxist-Leninist communism, or Maoism, or any of various denominations later determined not to be communism at all.

Chavez openly calls himself a socialist and he is progressively establishing the State as does a socialist either through his own power or the power granted by the citizens, even though they may not wish to go as far as the "ideal" Chavez has in mind.

If I accept that national socialism was not socialism the issue is clouded as is the claim it was then. If it truly was socialist then I would say that theoretically it may not have been but in practice it was. It was government engineering society.

You have said that there was lots of private enterprise in Hitler's Germany and what I would have to answer to that is that it wasn't entirely a totalitarian state then, was it. So it wasn't quite at the very extreme of the right wing spectrum and there was still room for him to move right towards totalitarianism; or will you now tell me that his government was totalitarian?

Yes, governments have a monopoly on force, but we agree to those rules in exchange for rights. That's what we call the rule of law. All, even those in the government are subject to the same social contract. Not in authoritarian states. The government isn't accountable and is above the law. So, no, not all governments are authoritarian.

Ok. As long as they are not above the law they are not authoritarian. That's a good point.

Government, once it starts granting rights has already gone beyond the point of authoritarianism. If it can grant rights it can take them away. It is the job of government to protect rights not grant them but if you would like to live in a socialist country, under a dictatorship, or a communist country you know government will determine what your rights are.

You can have a right to an education and healthcare (unless you are a smoker) and essentials like food, clothing and shelter all granted to you by government. But then the erosion of those rights are already evident, such as certain "lifestyle" choices not being

covered by "universal" health care. The economic reality of granting these rights is impossible.

If there is ignorance it is in thinking that rights can be granted by government. It seems European political scientists have not learned the lesson that there is a "concrete link between GDP per Capita and the development or destruction of democracy" unless it is the goal of the European Union to destroy democracy and relegate it to it's communist concept?

Here we are again. Politically, authoritarianism is associated entirely with the extremes of the political spectrum with accompanying visions of jackboots and Gulags. Where is the concept of authority in the centre of the spectrum?

A more moderate and pluarlistic society tends to be reflected upon government. Hence democracy and checked authority on the power of governance.

Yes and progressivism tends to promise more rights in a moderate and pluralistic society which tends to grow government in size and mandate. All those pluralistic interests must be addressed, after all.

Nope, I've now said this a million times and I'll say it again because clearly you don't understand the concept. The extremity or moderate nature of ideology is reflected upon the nature of the regime. More extreme ideologies tend to be far more puritan in their outlook and determined to hold onto power. Does that mean they necessarily have to become an authoritarian states? Not at all. However, with these more extreme ideologies, authoritarianism mechanisms are needed to advance the life of the regime. Therefore, due to that fact, extreme ideologies are going to be far more authoritarian in nature than ones closer to the center. Again, authoritarian mechanisms of government don't go hand in hand with ideology.

Excuse me, where's the centre?

We seem to have a disagreement on this. You haven't said where the centre is. I believe you think of yourself as being centre-left.

I put you about mid left and am moving you further left as the discussion goes on. I would describe myself as a centrist in the current political paradigm but most people would call me right wing. If anything I am a "classical" liberal - For small government with a limited mandate.

The fundamental is the same. State control of society and the economy. Beyond that I agree.

No, the fundamentals are simply not the same as I've explained above.

You are talking theoretically, no doubt. In actuality, they are what they are to be redefined later.

Apparently you don't know what authoritarianism or totalitarianism means.

They seem to change according to what you like. The meaning of authoritarianism including that government not be above the law is a good one but I am sure we will differ on when a government reaches the point where it becomes authoritarian.

Control over the economy just simply doesn't have to be a part of that. Germans in the 30s as well as Italians could go about their business as long as it wasn't the business of overthrowing the government. How is that economic control?

You will have to read it from an economic perspective. Many believe that capitalism still exists today whihc is why government can still use it as their favourite whipping boy.

It's a shame such elitism exists. You would think our public education system would be narrowing the gap.

It doesn't. Just people who are threatened by intelligence.

You would like me to believe that wouldn't you. I am not threatened by intelligence. I am threatened by lack of it.

Let me put it to you this way. There are business moguls who make hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm guessing as a free market conservative you have no problem with that. They've risen to the top through hard work to earn their due. Why is it so different in the academic world where there actually is a free market regarding ideas? Professors go through years of school, have to publish a certain quota of material every year and instruct the next generation. As in business, not everyone gets to that level, not everyone is smart enough to be able to get to that level. So how is it that these people are elitists? If they are, then what's stopping conservatives like you from calling business leaders the same and downplaying their achievements?

Hardly a comparison. The business leader has accomplished something objectively quantifiable by society. The Professor who has achieved something in the academic world has achieved something in the academic world. If it were of value it would have endurance beyond it's peer reviewed approval. Most of it falls to the wayside.

In regards to an opinion, feeling that way would be reasonable. However, you're attempting to make arguments based on facts, facts which just aren't true. A person is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own set of facts. You're in fundamental breach of that concept.

I am for change and understanding not the elitist status quo who believes the public too ignorant to govern their whole life.

How can you be disappointed if you still have no idea what those people went through? Again, judgement calls on people's character simply for disagreeing with you.

As I said earlier, society will be the ultimate arbiter. I will make my own judgements.

Yep. Degrees in poli sci are helpful in being able to figure out those types of things.

All in keeping it esoteric.

The government isn't going to take complete control of the government. Conspiracy theory talking, here.

If you don't see any movement towards the erosion of national sovereignty being replaced with global treaties and oversight occurring what good is your degree?

I am interested in knowing to the degree where I can predict something with some certainty. It seem you are willing to accept the claims of government not being socialist at all. As did the Germans in the thirties.

[bloodyminded]

What are capitalism's harsher effects?

I'm afraid I don't believe this to be a serious question.

[Smallc]

I'm afraid I don't believe this to be a serious question.

I was going to comment on it too...but then I though the same thing.

[nicky10013]

Then you insist upon keeping people in the dark. How am I to determine what you are talking about if the political world insists it's citizens be dupes and words are used to mean whatever politicians deem.

Of course, Obama can claim he is not a socialist although he wishes to redistribute the wealth. If he is not a socialist then he must have fascist tendencies. His taking over of the running of GM is more a fascist move.

Words are used, redefined, ignored, propagandized for political ends. Of that there can be no doubt.

In order for you to agree that Nazism is not socialist you have become part of the problem of keeping people in the dark and ensuring that political science remain esoteric and beyond the comprehension of the average citizen whose votes become merely votes of entitlement for themselves. Not even understanding that it is they who pay for them. We get things like free healthcare and a free public education.

My thinking is not quite as cloudy on the subject as you think it is. I well aware of the fact that Political labels and terms all have different applications depending upon time and circumstance. Communism has never really been tried. Socialism is the ideal and exists only at the extreme right of the spectrum. We have seen what happens when ever communism is attempted to be installed. We end up with dictators, like Stalin, Mao and Castro. whoever is crafty enough to realize they have to eat their own to forward the "ideal". The ideal being something only they truly understand.

Yes, it is all confusing - isn't it. And if we want to vote we know it doesn't really matter much, things still remain the same no matter what lying politician is in office.

If you are ever going to get people to understand politics and government you have to simplify it. Telling people they are ignorant and nutjobs does nothing for the resolution of the problems of governance. what you have to do is figure out a way to get them the information that is pertinent to them and their governance. The most important thing is the purpose of government and it's mandate. The next most important thing is the terminology. We can't say that the USSR was communist and then later say it wasn't really communist. Then we can further divide it into Marxist communism, Marxist-Leninist communism, or Maoism, or any of various denominations later determined not to be communism at all.

Chavez openly calls himself a socialist and he is progressively establishing the State as does a socialist either through his own power or the power granted by the citizens, even though they may not wish to go as far as the "ideal" Chavez has in mind.

If I accept that national socialism was not socialism the issue is clouded as is the claim it was then. If it truly was socialist then I would say that theoretically it may not have been but in practice it was. It was government engineering society.

You have said that there was lots of private enterprise in Hitler's Germany and what I would have to answer to that is that it wasn't entirely a totalitarian state then, was it. So it wasn't quite at the very extreme of the right wing spectrum and there was still room for him to move right towards totalitarianism; or will you now tell me that his government was totalitarian?

It can't be simplified though. Governments are complicated beasts. To simplify the understanding of government is to simplify governance which I'm not entirely convinced is a good idea. Polities and consititutions evolve over time and usually for good reason; to deal with social and political realities that threaten the realm. To dial it back to the good old days frankly just isn't a good idea.

In terms of politics duping it's citizens, there's surely a difference between a totalitarian government and a democracy. Though governments in a democracy may obfuscate and try to run away, they're still held accountable in municipal, provincial/state, and federal elections. They can be replaced for recalcitrant behaviour. That's the beauty of democracy. So, to use the deceitful nature of a totalitarian state to besmirch political science as a whole either ignorantly or purposefully neglects other more positive aspects of representative politics.

As for totalitarianism, I specifically defined it for you in the first post. I'll copy and paste it again in case you missed it.

Totalitarianism is an autocratic form of government which manifests itself through specific forms. They are: One man dictatorial rule, rabid ideology with massive use of propaganda, a cult of personality around the leader and state sponsored random terror. Nothing in the definition of totalitarianism calls for the takeover of the economy.

You can't square the circle because it was never a circle to begin with. Sorry.

Government, once it starts granting rights has already gone beyond the point of authoritarianism. If it can grant rights it can take them away. It is the job of government to protect rights not grant them but if you would like to live in a socialist country, under a dictatorship, or a communist country you know government will determine what your rights are.

You can have a right to an education and healthcare (unless you are a smoker) and essentials like food, clothing and shelter all granted to you by government. But then the erosion of those rights are already evident, such as certain "lifestyle" choices not being

covered by "universal" health care. The economic reality of granting these rights is impossible.

If there is ignorance it is in thinking that rights can be granted by government. It seems European political scientists have not learned the lesson that there is a "concrete link between GDP per Capita and the development or destruction of democracy" unless it is the goal of the European Union to destroy democracy and relegate it to it's communist concept?

Yes and progressivism tends to promise more rights in a moderate and pluralistic society which tends to grow government in size and mandate. All those pluralistic interests must be addressed, after all.

Your definition of the origina of rights fits more into the aquinas camps; that all rights derive from god and therefore are finite. This view is quite obsolete. Governance is essentially a social contract. We all come together in society and agree to live by a certain set of rules to be punished by the government we agree to be bound by if we fail to uphold the contract. In democracies, in exchange for implicitly agreeing to be part of that contract, we laid out rights for ourselves that cannot be breached. So, really, we gave ourselves the original rights to begin with. As long as it's done in an open and transparently, what makes it a communist concept to make ammendments to that social contract by the incorporation of new rights? Whether it's economically feasible or not is a different story, however, we as a society can make up as many rights as we want.

Excuse me, where's the centre?

We seem to have a disagreement on this. You haven't said where the centre is. I believe you think of yourself as being centre-left.

I put you about mid left and am moving you further left as the discussion goes on. I would describe myself as a centrist in the current political paradigm but most people would call me right wing. If anything I am a "classical" liberal - For small government with a limited mandate.

I'd say the centre is pragmatism. Whatever is best for the country and is proven to work and enhance the liberty of the citizens is what we should do. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. It's a post ideological idea that I believe needs to take root.

Furthermore, you're not a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is far more social democratic than either you or most conservatives would admit. The poster boy for classical liberalism is John Stuart Mill and his essay "On Liberty" which has a basic premise of men should be entitled to do as he pleases as long as he does no harm to others. However, most people neglect to read his "On the Principles of Political Economy" which advocates the modern state as we know it today.

You are talking theoretically, no doubt. In actuality, they are what they are to be redefined later.

Nope.

They seem to change according to what you like. The meaning of authoritarianism including that government not be above the law is a good one but I am sure we will differ on when a government reaches the point where it becomes authoritarian.

Of course we'll differ because I'm not making it up on the fly to fit my biases.

You will have to read it from an economic perspective. Many believe that capitalism still exists today whihc is why government can still use it as their favourite whipping boy.

Of course capitalism still exists. Why? What do we have? Soviet socialism?

You would like me to believe that wouldn't you. I am not threatened by intelligence. I am threatened by lack of it.

No, you're threatened by people disagreeing with you.

Hardly a comparison. The business leader has accomplished something objectively quantifiable by society. The Professor who has achieved something in the academic world has achieved something in the academic world. If it were of value it would have endurance beyond it's peer reviewed approval. Most of it falls to the wayside.

Just because you don't have the intelligence to quantify it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are hundreds of classic works on political science that exist from even a couple thousand years ago. There are some being written today that will last as well.

I am for change and understanding not the elitist status quo who believes the public too ignorant to govern their whole life.

Bahahahah so anyone educated in a university is an undemocratic authoritarian? Got it.

As I said earlier, society will be the ultimate arbiter. I will make my own judgements.

Fine, then don't be pissed when people call you out for your continued stupidity. You call academics arrogant...sheesh.

If you don't see any movement towards the erosion of national sovereignty being replaced with global treaties and oversight occurring what good is your degree?

How is that the takeover of the economy? If anything, globalism is reducing government control on the economy. Say Nike doesn't like paying their kids in Nigeria 10 cents minimum wage a day. They could easily hop over to Liberia and pay kids there 5. Corporations are paying far lower taxes and much more free to do what they please today than even 15 years ago. As a result, we get 99cent tube socks at walmart. Where's the problem?

I am interested in knowing to the degree where I can predict something with some certainty. It seem you are willing to accept the claims of government not being socialist at all. As did the Germans in the thirties.

What does me be willing to accept that have anything to do about whether you can predict something? Adopting right or left wing economic policies has nothing to do with socialist authoritarianism. The two things have nothing to do with each other. What can we predict? Through economics we can attempt to predict the decline into authoritarianism or the lift into democracy. For example. China's economy is running at a huge rate expanding at a double digit pace each year. People are generally doing well. That creates a middle class and a middle class creates democracy. People don't have to worry about putting food on their families tables and can finally worry about what the cops are doing instead. In terms of GDP per capita there is a reliable window, between $5,000-$10,000 GDP per capita where democratisation occurs. Above the $10,000 upper limit, there isn't a country that isn't a democracy. It doesn't go both ways though. Democratic institutions are open and strong. They can withstand a LOT more than authoritarian institutions which are created to be closed and rigid. They can survive below the $5,000 GDP per capita window, but it doesn't happen often.

So, as a result, we can predict that China despite the actions of their government are moving towards a democracy. The people are getting richer. Not surprisingly then, there are more and more protests each year. Last year there were over 70,000, not to mention an veritable uprising in Tibet in 2008.

What does that say about our society and economy? Well, it says that at near $40,000 GDP per capita, Canada is a long way away from being remotely close to falling into an authoritarian pattern of governance. Same for the west. Unless the economy is wiped out, there's just no way it's going to happen.

Edited May 24, 2010 by nicky10013

[Oleg Bach]

Socialism is the most powerful and profoundly insidious form of capitalism that there is. It creates a compliant and emotional work force that will labour for a cheaper and cheaper wage - while in the mean time the phenomena of socialism will spawn a very tiny privledged group of elite..those who finace socialism and support it..Who backed Karl Marx? Certainly it was not other socialist - they simply do not have the money - much like terrorism is supported by the bored and nasty rich Saudi Arabians...for the most part it is an interesting hobby for the supper rich - who get a kick out of total control..and of course those that are equal will be counted as such - and those below or above equal will be destroyed..mundane ultitarianism is what it is all about - socialist like utlity - and despise beauty and genius.

[Pliny]

It can't be simplified though. Governments are complicated beasts. To simplify the understanding of government is to simplify governance which I'm not entirely convinced is a good idea. Polities and consititutions evolve over time and usually for good reason; to deal with social and political realities that threaten the realm. To dial it back to the good old days frankly just isn't a good idea.

When were the good old days?

Governments are complicated mostly because of the Lord Acton's axiom - "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

We are now dependent upon government for many things and many people owe their livelihood to government, either through employment or contract. I would include the medical and teaching professions as well as public service employees in that count.

In terms of politics duping it's citizens, there's surely a difference between a totalitarian government and a democracy. Though governments in a democracy may obfuscate and try to run away, they're still held accountable in municipal, provincial/state, and federal elections. They can be replaced for recalcitrant behaviour. That's the beauty of democracy. So, to use the deceitful nature of a totalitarian state to besmirch political science as a whole either ignorantly or purposefully neglects other more positive aspects of representative politics.

Karl Marx - "Democracy is the road to socialism." Can you see how Marx could have arrived at that conclusion?

As for totalitarianism, I specifically defined it for you in the first post. I'll copy and paste it again in case you missed it.

Totalitarianism is an autocratic form of government which manifests itself through specific forms. They are: One man dictatorial rule, rabid ideology with massive use of propaganda, a cult of personality around the leader and state sponsored random terror. Nothing in the definition of totalitarianism calls for the takeover of the economy.

That isn't what it says in my Oxford dictionary of politics.

A dictatorial form of centralized government that regulates every aspect of state and private behavior.

If you think Hitler did not have his hands on the macro-economy you must be dreaming. Regulating "every aspect" of behavior would have to include economic behavior. I realize that small business, the micro-economy, was left somwhat alone to serve the community. You were only in trouble if you were Jewish or a communist.

Your definition of the origina of rights fits more into the aquinas camps; that all rights derive from god and therefore are finite. This view is quite obsolete.

Of course, that would be.

But the only right government should be guaranteeing is the freedom from the initiation of force or violence against the person and/or property of another by someone else.

Governance is essentially a social contract. We all come together in society and agree to live by a certain set of rules to be punished by the government we agree to be bound by if we fail to uphold the contract. In democracies, in exchange for implicitly agreeing to be part of that contract, we laid out rights for ourselves that cannot be breached. So, really, we gave ourselves the original rights to begin with. As long as it's done in an open and transparently, what makes it a communist concept to make ammendments to that social contract by the incorporation of new rights?

It devolves into the rights of special interests. A national government if it is to deal with the protection of society cannot grant rights to one over another nor expect one to pay for the rights of another.

Whether it's economically feasible or not is a different story, however, we as a society can make up as many rights as we want.

They did that in Greece. And Obama is hell bent on giving as many rights as he can to his fellow Americans.

I'd say the centre is pragmatism. Whatever is best for the country and is proven to work and enhance the liberty of the citizens is what we should do. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. It's a post ideological idea that I believe needs to take root.

Needs to take root? You don't see this progressivism as having taken root already?

Furthermore, you're not a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is far more social democratic than either you or most conservatives would admit.

No. you are talking about a modern liberal.

The classical liberal was about limited government, freedom and liberty of the individual.

I am only considered conservative because I am anti-liberal. I am just as much against the conservative growth of government as the liberal.

The poster boy for classical liberalism is John Stuart Mill and his essay "On Liberty" which has a basic premise of men should be entitled to do as he pleases as long as he does no harm to others. However, most people neglect to read his "On the Principles of Political Economy" which advocates the modern state as we know it today.

So he got his wish? Or are we closer to the nanny state?

Of course we'll differ because I'm not making it up on the fly to fit my biases.

You don't recognize any biases?

Of course capitalism still exists. Why? What do we have? Soviet socialism?

Yes. Capitalism exists and it is unfettered and unnregulated. We have a kind of mercantilism/corporatism.

How is that the takeover of the economy? If anything, globalism is reducing government control on the economy. Say Nike doesn't like paying their kids in Nigeria 10 cents minimum wage a day. They could easily hop over to Liberia and pay kids there 5. Corporations are paying far lower taxes and much more free to do what they please today than even 15 years ago. As a result, we get 99cent tube socks at walmart. Where's the problem?

The economy is already taken over. Globalism is reducing government control on the economy?? WE are about to experience legislation transferring wealth between nations and you are saying the government control of the economy is being reduced?

I think you really do believe that capitalism exists today completely unfettered and unregulated.

What does me be willing to accept that have anything to do about whether you can predict something? Adopting right or left wing economic policies has nothing to do with socialist authoritarianism. The two things have nothing to do with each other. What can we predict? Through economics we can attempt to predict the decline into authoritarianism or the lift into democracy. For example. China's economy is running at a huge rate expanding at a double digit pace each year. People are generally doing well. That creates a middle class and a middle class creates democracy. People don't have to worry about putting food on their families tables and can finally worry about what the cops are doing instead. In terms of GDP per capita there is a reliable window, between $5,000-$10,000 GDP per capita where democratisation occurs. Above the $10,000 upper limit, there isn't a country that isn't a democracy. It doesn't go both ways though. Democratic institutions are open and strong. They can withstand a LOT more than authoritarian institutions which are created to be closed and rigid. They can survive below the $5,000 GDP per capita window, but it doesn't happen often.

Karl Marx - "Democracy is the road to socialism."

If we want a democracy we have to be sure we are not just voting ourselves favour from the public purse. WE must understand the reason for limitations of government. That you understand it does not thrive outside certain economic parameters is to your credit but I don't believe you see how government has a tendency to extend itself beyond them and a democracy granting itself rights will not limit government but encourage it to extend itself beyond what is economically feasible. And economic feasibility is variable not a constant.

So, as a result, we can predict that China despite the actions of their government are moving towards a democracy. The people are getting richer. Not surprisingly then, there are more and more protests each year. Last year there were over 70,000, not to mention an veritable uprising in Tibet in 2008.

What does that say about our society and economy? Well, it says that at near $40,000 GDP per capita, Canada is a long way away from being remotely close to falling into an authoritarian pattern of governance. Same for the west. Unless the economy is wiped out, there's just no way it's going to happen.

When it adopted the income tax it became authoritarian. It's only growing in it's mandate. What's a long way away? A generation? Or is it just until the economy is wiped out?

Edited May 26, 2010 by Pliny