Congressman: American schools should be modeled after madrassas

[kraychik]

Funny how they're called liberals, eh?

Interestingly, and I just noticed this, your very signature reveals the violent revolutionary narrative that is at the core of your ideology. Contemporary leftism in most of its manifestations is sympathetic to the use of violence to implement its agenda when there is a lack of popular support. That quote of yours is just oozing Marxism, yet you stated in an earlier thread that you are strongly opposed to communism (despite your attempt in that very thread to defend communism from its parallels with Nazism)

[kraychik]

Besides, it's completely off topic. Why the hell are we discussing political philosophy in the US politics forum in a thread about Louisiana schools? I'll tell you why. Because this character is a troll and the moderators no longer moderate.

This is a perfect example of the left's intolerance of the truth. At the very least, I am providing a dissenting point of view from the dominant (and false) leftist narrative of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology. If you don't want to engage me, you don't have to. There's also a red x in the top right of your internet browser window that you're welcome to use if this conversation frustrates you. Or, you can stay true to your ideological set of values and wish for the truth dissenting viewpoints to be stricken from the record while deriding me as a "troll". It is completely par for the course for the calls for censorship in a political discussion forum to be emanating from the left.

[dre]

I've already addressed this nonsense argument. Conflicts between various leftist groups does not contradict my statement that they belong to the same ideological family of the left.

No they belong to a magical whimsical caricature of the "left" that exists only your head. Youre attempt to equate authoritarianism with leftist is quite literally infantile. Something nobody could ever do unless they simply hadnt bothered to educate themselves on the subject. The libertarian/authoritarian axis is a vertical on both ends of the political spectrum.

This diagram is about right...

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_XfkDjnbmnNo/TAik1-zF8-I/AAAAAAAAAhs/TQkJ5LRWmtg/pcgraphpng_new.png

The Italians that invented Fascism didnt actually call it that initially. They called it "estato corporativo" which basically means "corporatist state". Basically the idea was to reorganize the state around corporate interests and divide people up into industrial classes.

They promoted...

1. Industrial classism.

2. The suppression of organized labor.

3. Supremacy of the military.

4. Obsession with national security.

5. Obsession with crime and punishment.

6. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts.

Which again is why virtually all the serious opposition to Fascism came from the left. To describe an ideology whos goal was to crush organized labor and re-organize the state around a nationalist corporate perspective as leftist is utterly ridiculous.

Almost every important characteristic of Fascism is inherently anti leftist. Leftists in those days wanted government control, fascists wanted corporatism. Leftists were working to organize labor, fascists worked to crush organized labor. Leftists wanted a classless society, fascists wanted to organize society into classes.

You seem to ignore all this and the only argument youve presented to back this horseshit up is "They were both statists dude!"

Seriously... Get real.

This is a perfect example of the left's intolerance of the truth. At the very least, I am providing a dissenting point of view from the dominant (and false) leftist narrative of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology

Thats not a leftist narrative. Mussolini himself described Fascism as a right wing, anti-liberal ideology.

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere.

Edited July 10, 2012 by dre

[cybercoma]

Classical liberalism has nothing to do with the contemporary left. I am using the term leftism in the contemporary pop-culture sense, not in the academic sense. If we are to use academic and classical definitions of liberalism compared to the term as it is used today in common discourse, we will see that they are virtually opposites of one another.

No. You're using liberalism in the narrow sense of fiscal policy and economics without any regard for how that has been translated to social issues over the years and used to defend things like pensions, unemployment insurance, etc.

[cybercoma]

Interestingly, and I just noticed this, your very signature reveals the violent revolutionary narrative that is at the core of your ideology. Contemporary leftism in most of its manifestations is sympathetic to the use of violence to implement its agenda when there is a lack of popular support. That quote of yours is just oozing Marxism, yet you stated in an earlier thread that you are strongly opposed to communism (despite your attempt in that very thread to defend communism from its parallels with Nazism)

Read that quote again. That is from a member of the CCF criticizing Communists for wanting a violent revolution. It's actually the exact opposite of what you're saying. You obviously have reading comprehension issues.

[cybercoma]

This is a perfect example of the left's intolerance of the truth. At the very least, I am providing a dissenting point of view from the dominant (and false) leftist narrative of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology. If you don't want to engage me, you don't have to. There's also a red x in the top right of your internet browser window that you're welcome to use if this conversation frustrates you. Or, you can stay true to your ideological set of values and wish for the truth dissenting viewpoints to be stricken from the record while deriding me as a "troll". It is completely par for the course for the calls for censorship in a political discussion forum to be emanating from the left.

The left, the left, the left, the left.

When you broadbrush people with your ignorant strawmen, yeah... you're a troll. Maybe you should try actually discussing the topics you're posting in, instead of going around the board saying "the left this and the left that." Your trolling shows that you're not actually equipped to have any kind of fruitful discussion about the issues.

[cybercoma]

The Italians that invented Fascism didnt actually call it that initially. They called it "estato corporativo" which basically means "corporatist state". Basically the idea was to reorganize the state around corporate interests and divide people up into industrial classes.

They promoted...

1. Industrial classism.

2. The suppression of organized labor.

3. Supremacy of the military.

4. Obsession with national security.

5. Obsession with crime and punishment.

6. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts.

Sound familiar? I don't think it would be over-the-top to call some of the people on these forums fascists.

[Black Dog]

Shorter kraychik: when you change the meanings of the words Nazism and leftism, you can see how much they have in common.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

-double post-

Edited July 10, 2012 by Black Dog

[kraychik]

No. You're using liberalism in the narrow sense of fiscal policy and economics without any regard for how that has been translated to social issues over the years and used to defend things like pensions, unemployment insurance, etc.

As I've already said, classical liberalism, as manifested by folks like John Locke and Adam Smith, have nothing to do with contemporary liberalism in the sense of the term liberalism is utilized today in common discourse. In many ways, classical liberalism is antithetical to contemporary liberalism. I guess classical liberalism has been "translated" in the same sense as Obama's position on same-sex marriage has "evolved". Your socialist ideology has nothing to do with John Locke or Adam Smith, and uncomfortable for you as it may be, has far more in common with Nazism and communism.

[kraychik]

Read that quote again. That is from a member of the CCF criticizing Communists for wanting a violent revolution. It's actually the exact opposite of what you're saying. You obviously have reading comprehension issues.

My mistake, I missed the second "not".

[kraychik]

The left, the left, the left, the left.

When you broadbrush people with your ignorant strawmen, yeah... you're a troll. Maybe you should try actually discussing the topics you're posting in, instead of going around the board saying "the left this and the left that." Your trolling shows that you're not actually equipped to have any kind of fruitful discussion about the issues.

I'm not going to go around this circle with you any more. I've clearly articulated the ideological parallels between the contemporary left and ideologies like communism and Nazism. I've explained how centralisation of control in both the economic and social spheres are values that are virtually exclusive to the left. I've explained how the only immunity a society can have to such tyranny is through a greater respect for the sovereignty of the individual. I've also explained how advocating on behalf of a greater degree of individual sovereignty and a rolling back of the state's encroachment on our economic and social liberties almost exclusively comes from the right. The narrative of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology has been broken, and it's been exposed as a facet of dishonest leftist historical revisionism to imply that there is a parallel on the right to communism. You then accuse me of trolling when it is you that is insulting me while hinting that you wish for me to be silenced. Thank you for exposing the mentality of the left.

[cybercoma]

As I've already said, classical liberalism, as manifested by folks like John Locke and Adam Smith, have nothing to do with contemporary liberalism in the sense of the term liberalism is utilized today in common discourse. In many ways, classical liberalism is antithetical to contemporary liberalism. I guess classical liberalism has been "translated" in the same sense as Obama's position on same-sex marriage has "evolved". Your socialist ideology has nothing to do with John Locke or Adam Smith, and uncomfortable for you as it may be, has far more in common with Nazism and communism.

What does this have to do with the OP? Edited July 10, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I'm not going to go around this circle with you any more. I've clearly articulated the ideological parallels between the contemporary left and ideologies like communism and Nazism. I've explained how centralisation of control in both the economic and social spheres are values that are virtually exclusive to the left. I've explained how the only immunity a society can have to such tyranny is through a greater respect for the sovereignty of the individual. I've also explained how advocating on behalf of a greater degree of individual sovereignty and a rolling back of the state's encroachment on our economic and social liberties almost exclusively comes from the right. The narrative of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology has been broken, and it's been exposed as a facet of dishonest leftist historical revisionism to imply that there is a parallel on the right to communism. You then accuse me of trolling when it is you that is insulting me while hinting that you wish for me to be silenced. Thank you for exposing the mentality of the left.

The Left. The Left. The Left.

What does this have to do with the OP?

[Canuckistani]

I'm not going to go around this circle with you any more. I've clearly articulated the ideological parallels between the contemporary left and ideologies like communism and Nazism. I've explained how centralisation of control in both the economic and social spheres are values that are virtually exclusive to the left. I've explained how the only immunity a society can have to such tyranny is through a greater respect for the sovereignty of the individual. I've also explained how advocating on behalf of a greater degree of individual sovereignty and a rolling back of the state's encroachment on our economic and social liberties almost exclusively comes from the right. The narrative of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology has been broken, and it's been exposed as a facet of dishonest leftist historical revisionism to imply that there is a parallel on the right to communism. You then accuse me of trolling when it is you that is insulting me while hinting that you wish for me to be silenced. Thank you for exposing the mentality of the left.

The modern right and corporate capitalism certainly doesn't have much to do with Adam Smith either. He's far too left for them.

[cybercoma]

The modern right and corporate capitalism certainly doesn't have much to do with Adam Smith either. He's far too left for them.

Corporate capitalism would disgust Smith and the authoritarian order proposed by this guy would disgust Locke. I'm certain he's never actually studied either of these guys' writings.

[kraychik]

The Left. The Left. The Left.

What does this have to do with the OP?

So you derailed the the thread, I challenged and wrecked your false assertions, and now you're criticising me for being off-topic? That's rich.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm not going to go around this circle with you any more. I've clearly articulated the ideological parallels between the contemporary left and ideologies like communism and Nazism. I've explained how centralisation of control in both the economic and social spheres are values that are virtually exclusive to the left.....

Except the Nazi economy was anything but centralized. It was more a collection of competing personal empires that vied for resources through guile and individual power. The famous tank general, Heinz Guderian, found this out first hand when Hitler made him Inspector General of Armored Forces. I highly recommend his 2nd book if you're interested in the inner workings (and combat accounts) of the Third Reich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_Leader_(book)

Guderian is, of course, the father of the Blitzkrieg.

[kraychik]

The modern right and corporate capitalism certainly doesn't have much to do with Adam Smith either. He's far too left for them.

Actually, the contemporary right is all about implementing a greater degree of Adam Smith's teachings. Have a conversation with a conservative, like myself, and you'll see that we're all about increased (classical) liberalism in the market. We want more freedom in our markets, whereas leftists like yourself want more management and centralised control.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, the contemporary right is all about implementing a greater degree of Adam Smith's teachings.

I just posted about a Republican initiative to have hard-core religious education funded by the state. How do Adam Smith's teachings relate to that implementation ?

[kraychik]

Except the Nazi economy was anything but centralized. It was more a collection of competing personal empires that vied for resources through guile and individual power. The famous tank general, Heinz Guderian, found this out first hand when Hitler made him Inspector General of Armored Forces. I highly recommend his 2nd book if you're interested in the inner workings (and combat accounts) of the Third Reich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_Leader_(book)

Guderian is, of course, the father of the Blitzkrieg.

Centralisation can mean more than simply mass nationalisation of industries. High levels of regulation and taxation are another form of centralisation of control. This was certainly the case in Nazi Germany. You don't need to abolish private property like a pure Marxist to centralise an economy, you can do so with regulation that strangles the market and prevents new entrants from coming in (for example, today's CRTC preventing foreign companies from competing in the telecommunications industry in Canada is a form of centralisation).

Another broad measurement for quantifying the degree of centralisation of the economy is to look at government spending as a share of GDP. At its peak, I think over 60% of Nazi Germany's economy was composed of government spending, but I will look for specific details later. I really can't recall off the top of my head.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that Nazi Germany didn't have a heavily regulated and taxed economy, as per leftist ideology.

[kraychik]

I just posted about a Republican initiative to have hard-core religious education funded by the state. How do Adam Smith's teachings relate to that implementation ?

Since the state already has taken over much of the education industry, it stands to reason that various groups want their education funded as well (in line with the message of freedom articulated by folks like Adam Smith). It's entirely compatible with the classical liberalism of Adam Smith in the context of the current educational system, which is primarily state-run. In other words, considering the state has already hijacked most of the education system, what Republicans have been trying to do for many years now is to introduce market elements in the existing system. You are not providing the full context of this story, which is unsurprising.

Edited July 10, 2012 by kraychik

[Canuckistani]

Actually, the contemporary right is all about implementing a greater degree of Adam Smith's teachings. Have a conversation with a conservative, like myself, and you'll see that we're all about increased (classical) liberalism in the market. We want more freedom in our markets, whereas leftists like yourself want more management and centralised control.

Like this:

Smith had a critical view on property, saying "Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality ... Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

or this:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."[116] "The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

or this:

It was the role of the government to provide goods "of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual" such as roads, bridges, canals, and harbours. He also encouraged invention and new ideas through his patent enforcement and support of infant industry monopolies. he supported public education and religious institutions as providing general benefit to the society.

wiki

Edited July 10, 2012 by Canuckistani

[Black Dog]

I'm not going to go around this circle with you any more. I've clearly articulated the ideological parallels between the contemporary left and ideologies like communism and Nazism. I've explained how centralisation of control in both the economic and social spheres are values that are virtually exclusive to the left.

Except they aren't. Your whole theory is based on a false premise.

[kraychik]

Like this:

or this:

or this:

wiki

So it is your contention that the contemporary right is composed of anarchists who want an abolition of government? What you're doing is erecting a strawman argument through insinuation.

Your first quote is also intentionally taken out of context, which is clear considering the first link in Google that matches it is from a Marxist website.

Here is the full quote in context:

It is in the age of shepherds, in the second period of society, that the inequality of fortune first begins to take place, and introduces among men a degree of authority and subordination which could not possibly exist before. It thereby introduces some degree of that civil government which is indispensably necessary for its own preservation: and it seems to do this naturally, and even independent of the consideration of that necessity. The consideration of that necessity comes no doubt afterwards to contribute very much to maintain and secure that authority and subordination. The rich, in particular, are necessarily interested to support that order of things which can alone secure them in the possession of their own advantages. Men of inferior wealth combine to defend those of superior wealth in the possession of their property, in order that men of superior wealth may combine to defend them in the possession of theirs. All the inferior shepherds and herdsmen feel that the security of their own herds and flocks depends upon the security of those of the great shepherd or herdsman; that the maintenance of their lesser authority depends upon that of his greater authority, and that upon their subordination to him depends his power of keeping their inferiors in subordination to them. They constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves interested to defend the property and to support the authority of their own little sovereign in order that he may be able to defend their property and to support their authority. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.

The very first line of this chapter provides the necessary context that your quote intentionally omits in order to portray Smith as a socialist. Here it is:

The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires, too, very different degrees of expence in the different periods of society.

In other words, Smith is articulating differences between periods of time in human history. Your out of context quote, however, implies that this is something Smith saw in a timeless manner.

Edited July 10, 2012 by kraychik