Extreme Left is COMPLETE TOTALITARIAN/ Extreme Right is COMPLETE ANARCHY

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
OP, people seem to be mistaking the false left right for the true left right.

Left, Totalitarian.

Right, Anarchy.

The true Left Right in regards to the control parameters.

Left-Communist, Socialists, National Socialists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc.

Right-True Anarchists, Libertarians.

For those spouting off that those that KNOW this are stupid, it seems someone should actually apologize.

I highly doubt you will, when taught by elitists, one tends to become one.

Stick that in your Cuban and smoke it.

Just left of Anarchist myself in the Libertarian fold.

I like to say it this way, Give me LIBERTY or give me DEATH.




posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
OP, people seem to be mistaking the false left right for the true left right.

Left, Totalitarian.

Right, Anarchy.

The true Left Right in regards to the control parameters.

Left-Communist, Socialists, National Socialists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc.

Right-True Anarchists, Libertarians.

For those spouting off that those that KNOW this are stupid, it seems someone should actually apologize.

I highly doubt you will, when taught by elitists, one tends to become one.

Stick that in your Cuban and smoke it.

Just left of Anarchist myself in the Libertarian fold.

I like to say it this way, Give me LIBERTY or give me DEATH.


Seriously... your ignorance is pretty frustrating.

ONCE AGAIN PEOPLE- THE VAST MAJORITY OF ANARCHISTS AND ANARCHIST THOUGHT IS LEFT-WING.

And "real" Anarchists laugh at people like you because you don't understand what you're talking about.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

The most logical/correct diagram of the left/right spectrum is this:




posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   
how can you be left wing and an anarchist ?

i mean dosent the meaning of the two when merged change into a different TERM describing the symbios of the two like " leftwing separatist"

you can say your left wing with anarchistic tendencies but your sill left wing

your either one not both, thats bad grammar

besides as an "anarchist" you dennounce the right to citizenship and all that jazz in what ever nation on this planet you live in or go , ...



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


Here's more information on Left Anarchism.
en.wikipedia.org...
I personally believe Anarchy can be both left and right on the political compass.
However you see it. Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. A lot of people on the left are against the state. Anarchists may widely disagree on what additional criteria are required in anarchism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


to me it seams your mixing up separatism and anarchy very very badly and so goes for the most of you ,



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


to me it seams your mixing up separatism and anarchy very very badly and so goes for the most of you ,



Can you tell me where I'm mixing up anarchy and separatism please! What are your views on Anarchy?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


anarchy is pretty much "stateless king of the hill without the hill nor king",

as soon as you find hierarchy or some sort of law/state/commune/rulership you no longer have anarchy ,

its a term widely miss used and has been since 60´s,

if your an anarchist , send me your pass port and id card and denounce your citizenship to me , at the same time you can start filing requests to nations for refuge, doubt there is that many left in the world that would take you in since your an anarchist , meaning you denounce any type of rulership..



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
This is terribly over-simplistic.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Someone here used the Nolan Chart to create a better descriptor.

Let me see if I can find it.

Here it is at this thread-Modified Nolan Chart

Here is the Nolan Chart-



And here is the authors version-



But when only speaking left right, you are assuming only the totalitarian components, not any economic, that is designed on purpose. To get people to believe that the left are not actually totalitarian.

The LEFT has ALL the tyrants.

This was always a left-statist right-anarchist debate.

Sorry, until the invention of marxism the argument or debate has ALWAYS been the Statists vs the Anarchists.

With the change in debate, obfuscation is tempered and furthered to blur the lines to the true debate.

Sorry, no such thing as a Socialist Anarchist. THAT is a 5th column movement.

Sorry to break the false left right paradigm.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Luke.11

1. [17] But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.


I believe that the Bible states it best division of thought makes for an unsettled nation.

If we were to follow all of the precepts and commandments of God whether you believe in Him or not you still would end up with a better living standard than believing that men can come up with what is right and what is wrong.

And yes if you do something that is wrong there should be a punishment.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 


What is God to you? People interpret God different each other. Why doesn't he show himself in front of his followers if we want's us to follow him? What is he hiding?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
how can you be left wing and an anarchist ?

i mean dosent the meaning of the two when merged change into a different TERM describing the symbios of the two like " leftwing separatist"

you can say your left wing with anarchistic tendencies but your sill left wing

your either one not both, thats bad grammar

besides as an "anarchist" you dennounce the right to citizenship and all that jazz in what ever nation on this planet you live in or go , ...





Left-wing and Anarchist are absolutely NOT contradictory.

Please see my political graph up above... it's a very simple, accurate, and common sense breakdown of political leanings. Some left-wingers are authoritarian, some are Libertarian. Some right-wingers are authoritarian, some are Libertarian.

A far left/right Libertarian is an Anarchist.

The majority of Anarchist history and thought, however, is left-wing. The facts are the facts.

Separatism has nothing fundamentally to do with it...

You seem to have a strange understanding of an Anarchist. Being an Anarchist doesn't mean you HAVE to renounce the right to citizenship... you really can't. People are stuck in the system whether they like it or not... do you really think the state is going to recognize people who just step out of the system? Do you really think the state will respect your right not to be prosecuted by their laws? It can't happen unless it's off-the-grid or via revolution. That's why Anarchists NEED to work within the system because the system is EVERYWHERE, it's virtually inescapable unless you have enough money to buy your own island... which most Anarchists are NOT wealthy, and nowhere near enough to buy a large plot of their own land and start an Anarchist utopia... so we do what we can when we can. Imperfection is NOT a contradiction to one's beliefs. An ideological Anarchist can remain one no matter his/her actions... One's actions/lifestyles are a separate matter from their beliefs.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Someone here used the Nolan Chart to create a better descriptor.

Let me see if I can find it.

Here it is at this thread-Modified Nolan Chart

Here is the Nolan Chart-



And here is the authors version-



But when only speaking left right, you are assuming only the totalitarian components, not any economic, that is designed on purpose. To get people to believe that the left are not actually totalitarian.

The LEFT has ALL the tyrants.

This was always a left-statist right-anarchist debate.

Sorry, until the invention of marxism the argument or debate has ALWAYS been the Statists vs the Anarchists.

With the change in debate, obfuscation is tempered and furthered to blur the lines to the true debate.

Sorry, no such thing as a Socialist Anarchist. THAT is a 5th column movement.

Sorry to break the false left right paradigm.



Lol... you just misunderstood your own graph, dude.

Once again you're dead-wrong on your assertions. How many times must I knock them down and you'll just ignore the facts??

If ANYBODY has hijacked language and corruptly manipulated it to their own use (at least in America) it's been statist right-wingers. It's disgusting what people like Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, the Bush Admin, etc. have done to re-write history and language to mean what it NEVER meant. They're quasi-fascists whether they know it or not.

The left DOES NOT have "all the tyrants". Did you even look at the graphic I posted? SOME right-wing tyrants are as follows: Hitler, Pinochet, Bush, Thatcher, du Gaulle, etc.

There ARE such things as Socialist Anarchists... are you kidding? PLEASE DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND STOP LISTENING TO THE RIGHT-WING PROPAGANDA MACHINE. Here... I'll even help you out:

en.wikipedia.org...

www.anti-state.com...


SM2

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
first you have to understand the fact that some people are thinking on two different scales. There is European left and right, being communism and fascism respectively, then there is the American left and right which is socialism and anarchy respectively. Hitler was a right wing dictator, but a European right wing dictator. In American hitler would be a Left wing dictator. Left wing in America is all about toltarianism. Obama is left, Ron Paul is right. In America, communism, socialism and fascism are all on the left. Anrachy and libertarians are the right. It is pretty impossible to a left wing anarchist, because you can't possibly believe that all forms of government are evil and against human nature, and at the same time think that government should control everything all the time.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Tell me, HISTORICALLY speaking, where were the socialists, fascists and communists before they existed?

I am SPEAKING of the Historical meanings.

Yes, even the chart I found here could be construed as backing your thesis.

BUT, using even YOUR reference, let us take a LOOKY at the historical shall we?

Wiki-historical political spectrum!

On this page it goes over the spectrum of the differing ideas in regards to left right.

I myself and MANY others that speak of the general and historical meaning of left right, ARE talking about the power of government compared to the power of the people.

Statist vs Individual
or
Totalitarian vs Anarchist

I see what YOU are saying, do you even understand the contextual nature of the argument or are you being daft?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
OP, people seem to be mistaking the false left right for the true left right.

Left, Totalitarian.
Right, Anarchy.
The true Left Right in regards to the control parameters.
Left-Communist, Socialists, National Socialists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc.
Right-True Anarchists, Libertarians.
For those spouting off that those that KNOW this are stupid, it seems someone should actually apologize.
I highly doubt you will, when taught by elitists, one tends to become one.
Stick that in your Cuban and smoke it.
Just left of Anarchist myself in the Libertarian fold.
I like to say it this way, Give me LIBERTY or give me DEATH.


(Quote edited to remove double spacing)

I had an debate with a friend a few months ago or so about this exact question.

He's a union guy and a total Liberal. When he asked me what my views were, I told him I was to the extreme right, a borderline anarchist, but I view myself as a Libertarian.

He started telling me how I was wrong about which is left and right. I sorta laughed in his face, and told him he probably flunked poli-sci. He obviously wasn't happy with me but, he sorta does this from time to time, and I can't help to point out his ignorance.

I occasionally post about a man I knew, I credit him for giving me a copy of Harry Browne's book "Being Free in an Unfree World"

If you want to see the Libertarian light, read that book.


I guess I should mention I'm from the USA, in our democracy there can't be a totalitarian leader, so we pretty much only have, Left and Right ideologies.. here are the extremes that I was taught many years ago.

(Communism/Socialism ---- Libertarian/Anarchy)

Those new charts are interesting, but I don't see the point necessarily. Either you want more government or less government. Seems like a simple idea, doesn't it?

[edit on 30-8-2010 by sticky]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sticky
 


Being older myself, and reading historical references, I always placed the left with government control and the right with less control.

Now, you can even see how the MSM here uses the exact same scenario.

Does someone honestly believe, when they are talking about (say the president) moving toward the center or to the right, that they are talking about Fascism?

Yes, if you are speaking specifically about giving the corporations control of government, or making them partner up with government, that is fascism.

Being a global forum here, this may be part of the problem.

BUT, historically speaking, the left has to do with government control and the right has to do with more individual control.

It does not matter if it is economic or social. As someone brought up, how could you equate an Anarchist with economic control by the government. It makes NO sense at all.

If the government has economic control, they are going to exert social control. PERIOD.

They do not want one without the other.

There is no limit to an entity once they begin to consolidate control.

The basis of individual governance is property rights and individual rights. If you remove the property rights from the individual, there is no social individual power. They are one and the same.

Thanks for the comment.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2
first you have to understand the fact that some people are thinking on two different scales. There is European left and right, being communism and fascism respectively, then there is the American left and right which is socialism and anarchy respectively. Hitler was a right wing dictator, but a European right wing dictator. In American hitler would be a Left wing dictator. Left wing in America is all about toltarianism. Obama is left, Ron Paul is right. In America, communism, socialism and fascism are all on the left. Anrachy and libertarians are the right. It is pretty impossible to a left wing anarchist, because you can't possibly believe that all forms of government are evil and against human nature, and at the same time think that government should control everything all the time.


You're actually wrong... the political spectrum is fairly universal. Within each country is a different breakdown within mainstream politics, BUT overall looking at the entire world/history the political spectrum is essentially static.

Fascism is still Fascism in America as it is in Europe. It is a right-wing ideology, this is known universally. Communism is likewise universally known as a left-wing ideology.

Socialism (if you actually do your homework on it) is NOT top-down authoritarian control over everything. If you actually read about REAL theories on Socialism, you'll see that it's far more Democratic than Capitalism. It is more a socio-economic framework which calls for worker control of the means of production via Democratic/equal/consensus-based structures. Thus a cooperative would be a great example of this:

en.wikipedia.org...

ONCE AGAIN- the vast majority of Anarchism is left-wing, you can't re-write history and say all of a sudden Anarchism is right-wing when it absolutely isn't. Of course Anarchists can span both sides of the spectrum... but the majority of history, thought, and support within Anarchism is overwhelmingly leftist, and rightfully so.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


I wasn't a political science major, so I'll have to admit I don't understand the world scale you are talking about.

There are two types of political systems I'd like to see.
#1. Communism (With God as my government)
#2. Anarchy (upholding Jesus's laws)
Looks like they both are the same thing to me.

Left = More governemnt involvment
Right = Less government involvment
I can't fathom how Anarchy could be on the side of "More government"

Maybe I should study up on this... Your comments are starting to make me feel like my brain fell out while traveling along the bumpy road of life.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by sticky]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Tell me, HISTORICALLY speaking, where were the socialists, fascists and communists before they existed?

I am SPEAKING of the Historical meanings.

Yes, even the chart I found here could be construed as backing your thesis.

BUT, using even YOUR reference, let us take a LOOKY at the historical shall we?

Wiki-historical political spectrum!

On this page it goes over the spectrum of the differing ideas in regards to left right.

I myself and MANY others that speak of the general and historical meaning of left right, ARE talking about the power of government compared to the power of the people.

Statist vs Individual
or
Totalitarian vs Anarchist

I see what YOU are saying, do you even understand the contextual nature of the argument or are you being daft?


You're not making much sense, man...

I am absolutely speaking of HISTORICAL meanings. Studying the past is studying history, and when you study the past the conclusions are the same. Now if you want to cherry pick one little spot here and there that fits your worldview then you're not coming from a sane, scientific, or factual point of view. If we are to discuss political breakdowns, especially in the modern sense, then what I've illustrated is undeniable.

Of course everything is relative, but again all we must do is zoom out a bit to see the entire picture. When we zoom out maximally and view the full history/scope of the political spectrum then something like the political compass (i.e. the graphic I posted) makes the most sense. Even the Nolan chart makes sense. However, both charts more or less reinforce my points and give ZERO credence to notions that Anarchism is ONLY right-wing or left-wing, nor to notions that authoritarianism is limited to one side of the spectrum.

I think what baffles us left-wing Anarchists about many "newbie" right-wing Libertarians is that they don't understand that collectivism can and has ABSOLUTELY existed in the absence of a state, hierarchy, and authority figures. Just as individualism has.

A collectivist society DOES NOT exclude the individual, it is merely an amalgamation OF individuals into a collective that serves OPTIONAL means for each individual. Essentially, a collective is doing as a group what you cannot accomplish easily or at all as an individual, and this is perfectly natural/intelligent/crucial for humans. You DO NOT have to hand over your thoughts/lives to a collective... a collective can span any level of one's life. A tribe, for instance, is a very tight-knit and encompassing collective, but still the people retain more/less their own personalities, decisions, and say in the tribal order. A cooperative (as I linked previously) is merely an economic collective that you leave behind when you go home. It doesn't extend as a family, per se, or into your religion or anything else, it is merely an economic and/or job structure that's superior to Capitalism if we want Democratic workplaces with the best deal for the largest number of employees/workers. In a non-hierarchical collective... there's not an immovable apparatus of coercion which cannot be escaped as there is with large/centralized/hierarchical markets and governments.

Essentially... collectivism and individualism can and does co-exist ALWAYS. There is no possibility of a purity of either, as we both NEED other people and belonging to a group as well as we NEED our own individual minds/drives/preferences. Though sometimes these things conflict, they can also (and for the most part) complement each other. The argument with Anarchism is that we can be both individuals and collectives at once and function just fine WITHOUT the need for a domineering state or market to control us, whether directly/indirectly, whether by coercion/threat (military/police) or sterilizing any diversity/localization/alternatives (i.e. creating uniform market monopolies/globalization like Wal-Mart, Exxon or McDonalds). This is what brings us to a breakdown WITHIN Anarchism- there are multiple schools of thought with many overlapping similarities as well as differences, spanning the right and left of the spectrum. One good thing about most Anarchist thought is that it ALLOWS for DIVERSITY of lifestyles. So you can have one collective over here living in a socialist free market, one over here living without any markets and instead sharing in an egalitarian society, and another over there living free market with private property. Of course these are all theoretical and in practice would overlap even more possibly as well as evolve (as needed/desired).





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join