Extreme Left is COMPLETE TOTALITARIAN/ Extreme Right is COMPLETE ANARCHY

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sticky


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]


It's not that simple though, as you can see. Like most things in this world- Anarchism is NOT black and white, neither is statism. it must be viewed through a complex/adaptable and accurate lens taking full account of varying viewpoints.

It doesn't just come down to less or more government because you need an ALTERNATIVE to centralized governments and hierarchy, and thus the debate within Anarchism/Libertarianism kicks in (which as I've said repeatedly, includes both right and left wing lines of thought).




posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by saabacura
 


and total real anarchy is total order



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

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.



The basis of individual governance is not property rights. Property rights are an invention of our civilization and historically came hand-in-hand with nation-states and hierarchy.

When humans began to create surpluses, increasing population they started to conquer land and take a view of ownership of land/property, in order to defend this 'right' to property and land, governments were created. Of course... those who were richest (had the most surplus of the most value, usually currency) had the most state protection and thus an oligarchy/plutocracy develops. These are who we call the elites, for they both dominate us economically and therefore politically. Of course religion has a role to play but it is also deeply intertwined with wealth and power.

If we are to look at prehistory and tribal/band societies... we'll see that the vast majority of them didn't practice strong (or any) ownership, let alone to the complexity/extent we do today. They certainly recognized territory to a certain extent, but once again it was fundamentally different than property rights/ownership we know today. Since people also didn't accumulate an over-abundance of material possessions and were able to create what they needed from scratch from the natural environment, there was ultimately no need to protect "property" with codified laws. Of course people would defend their tribes/villages from attack, anybody would, but the function was different in many key ways from 'civilization'.

In the realm of the environment, taking an ownership mindset has proven destructive. When we are lead to believe (whether by religion, government, culture, etc.) that we OWN things and that we DOMINATE and CONQUER and RULE things then we tend not to take the proper care of those things as a species. Our civilization right now believes that we are above other lifeforms, that we rule over them and that they are there for our use/indulgence then we very tragically tend to nonchalantly destroy ecosystems which we have NO inherent right or business destroying. What we're seeing now is our environmental conquest mindset is starting to bite us in the ass and may swallow us whole if we reach certain tipping points.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

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


Turn that image a quarter turn counter-clockwise and stop fighting over something so stupid.

[edit on 8/30/2010 by eNumbra]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Here are some good links on private property and Anarchism (from both perspectives):

www.infoshop.org...

www.anarchism.net...

www.anti-state.com...

flag.blackened.net...



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sticky
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]


lol, I don't think you lost your brain, perhaps just a re-calibration will do in regards to the political landscape.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Sorry, no such thing as a Socialist Anarchist. THAT is a 5th column movement.


There's a LOT of misrepresentations and confusion in this thread but I'll start with this because it's my interest.

Most people use the term 'Socialism' incorrectly to mean social programs provided by the state. This is not what socialism is, and is not the definition used by Socialists or Anarchists.

Let's start with what the Anarchists have to say, I'll start with Bakunin who is known as the Father of Anarchism...


We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.


uncyclopedia.wikia.com...

Anarchism and socialism have always traditionally gone together.
Anarcho-Syndicalism for example is a way to achieve socialism through worker organization using unions.

The problem is most people do not know what Socialism is. So from an Anarchist website here is how Anarchists define Socialism...


Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.


flag.blackened.net...

So Socialism is simply the 'workers ownership of the means of production'.

It has nothing to do with PROPERTY RIGHTS. It has nothing to do with taking anyone's property. All it does is take the power from the few capitalists and put it in the hands of the majority, the workers.

The capitalists can keep their property, but given a choice between working at a collective, where the profits made go to you the worker, or for the capitalist, who pays you an hourly wage and takes the profit for themselves, then where would you work?

Private property in this context does not mean your personal property, or any rights you have to do what you want with it. No one is going to stop you trying to use your property to exploit workers, but if the workers new they had a choice and were educated about it then why would they work for you when they can work for themselves?

It needs neither government or state, it only needs worker organization and cooperation for the good of the community as a whole instead of personal financial gain.

A good, and the only, example of Anarchist Socialism in practice was Spain during the revolution when the workers collectivized farms and factories and increased production by 20%.

wiki.infoshop.org...

'Libertarian Socialism' is a well known, and used term, and means the same thing as Anarcho-Socialism. Chomsky is a Lib Soc, go read some of his work if you doubt me.


Chomsky is one of the most well-known figures of the American left. He defines himself in the tradition of anarchism, a political philosophy he summarizes as seeking out all forms of hierarchy and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified. He especially identifies with the labor-oriented anarcho-syndicalist current of anarchism.

www.fact-index.com...

www.chomsky.info...

As far as left and right Anarchism has always traditionally been of the left. Right had always represented authority and it's extreme is fascism. America seem to be the only country confused about this and in your arrogance you can't fathom the rest of the world not seeing it the same way. You've been taught that right wing stands for conservatism and other BS that it really is not.

But that said the left/right thing is meaningless and I personally don't associate with either term as they are not black and white terms. Not all rightists associate with fascism or Hitler, just as not all lefties associate themselves with Stalin or Marx. In my experience left/right is a label someone else sticks on you to stereotype you.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Alright, you socialist leaners are making my head hurt.

Explain to me the DIFFERENCE between a collectivist (socialized or whatever) controlled means of production and a government controlled production.

With both, you would necessarily have a management component with the hierarchy. Period.

Socialists love to say it is the workers that control it, Pfffft.

Yeah, 210 million individuals in the US controlling the means of production.

Nope, you would have a GOVERNMENT or PARTY controlling the means of production.

Co ops exist in the United States. These are possibly what you are talking about? Or partnerships? Or are you talking EVERY single thing in the country?

Still gets back to a government controlled means of production, which ends right at communism.

Sorry, individual property and rights.

Do not want to work for someone, work for yourself. A means of enforcing the basic law of the peaceful universe, do no harm to another and do not infringe on their rights of Life, Liberty and Property. The more I think about it the more I am leaning toward pure Anarchy using private courts and enforcement looks better and better.

Libertarian myself, pure Libertarian. Absolute freedom of social and economics. With the SMALLEST necessary government to ONLY enforce those individual rights.

My postulation is EXACTLY this, you cannot have socialism WITHOUT enforcement of it. PERIOD.

That is why I and others state that the RIGHT is only Anarchism and Libertarians and the LEFT have all the control parameters.

Hence, the TRUE left right.

Heck, if I had my way in the US, every state could do what they wanted, they could even adopt total socialism if they wanted. But as we all know, socialism CANNOT compete with a free market capitalist society. The FM capitalist society is too lean and mean. It is able to adjust to necessary innovations and problems much easier.

Heck, even Marx agrees with me. Would you like me to quote?



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Americans are so funny.... They believe the liberalism-part of libertarianism to be a right-wing thing just because reactionary American fascists and theocrats teamed up using libertarian rhetoric in order to fool some of the progressive-but-in-favor-of-order-people into their camp - if they hadn't, by now, America would have pulled through with FDR's vision. Co-opting left-wing ideas and reselling them as "rightist" in cahoots with the morality-driven theocrats was surely the best move the American fascists ever made - it's a tactic that still works today and they have completely re-written the political comapss of generations.

Well history isn't always black and white - but in this case it come pretty near: The notion of Libertarianism as we know it today in the states is a product of a pretty wild fusion that was concocted in the 1950's in order to fool people into believing that the west has a positive, teleological agenda too as the SU claimed.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Alright, you socialist leaners are making my head hurt.

Explain to me the DIFFERENCE between a collectivist (socialized or whatever) controlled means of production and a government controlled production.

With both, you would necessarily have a management component with the hierarchy. Period.


A collective is the same as a cooperative. The people who work at the collective/cooperative all own the company and instead of an hourly wage you earn directly from the profits made.

Nothing to do with government.


Yeah, 210 million individuals in the US controlling the means of production.

Nope, you would have a GOVERNMENT or PARTY controlling the means of production.


You ask and then go off on a rant based on ignorance?


Co ops exist in the United States. These are possibly what you are talking about? Or partnerships? Or are you talking EVERY single thing in the country?


Yes they do and some have been very successful.


Still gets back to a government controlled means of production, which ends right at communism.


No it doesn't, why do you keep bringing up government? What ends at communism? I think the term you are looking for is totalitarianism?

Go learn what the words mean, and it might help with understanding, on both sides of the discussion. Using 'common usage terms' in a debate is silly, all we end up doing is debating definitions.



Do not want to work for someone, work for yourself. A means of enforcing the basic law of the peaceful universe, do no harm to another and do not infringe on their rights of Life, Liberty and Property. The more I think about it the more I am leaning toward pure Anarchy using private courts and enforcement looks better and better.


No one really works for themselves. But really that is missing the point. The basics needed for life, food shelter etc., are privately owned and we the workers are exploited to produce for our needs while making money for the private owner. Those resources are kept artificially scarce in order to keep profits high for the capitalist, but hard to find for the rest of us (some countries, such as Africa, are more effected by this than others). The jobs we need to secure the needs of life are also kept artificially scarce, keeping us competing with each other for jobs (we competed with China and lost). Unemployment, and poverty, is an inevitable consequence of this as the capitalist looks for the cheapest labour, and the highest profit.


Libertarian myself, pure Libertarian. Absolute freedom of social and economics. With the SMALLEST necessary government to ONLY enforce those individual rights.


Well I'm a libertarian socialist and I want NO government.


My postulation is EXACTLY this, you cannot have socialism WITHOUT enforcement of it. PERIOD.


Enforcement of what? You need to enforce collectives? What planet do you live on? Shouting doesn't help make your point btw. Capitalism requires enforcement to protect it's assets, to protect those that have from those that haven't.


That is why I and others state that the RIGHT is only Anarchism and Libertarians and the LEFT have all the control parameters.


You are confused. There are libertarians on the left and right. Libertarianism, nor conservatism or Anarchism define left or right.


Heck, if I had my way in the US, every state could do what they wanted, they could even adopt total socialism if they wanted. But as we all know, socialism CANNOT compete with a free market capitalist society. The FM capitalist society is too lean and mean. It is able to adjust to necessary innovations and problems much easier.

Heck, even Marx agrees with me. Would you like me to quote?


Free-markets are not capitalism. Capitalism is the 'private ownership of the means of production', it does not define free-markets, it allows them and so can socialism theoretically.

The rest of your claims are baseless as there is no evidence exists to prove them right. What are you going to compare them with?

[edit on 8/31/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by saabacura
 


You're just totally wrong. I don't even know how to address you, you've been thoroughly brainwashed by being kept from the totality of the facts. That's why you complain about me being "nit picky". Well... being "nit picky" about the facts is called being INTELLIGENT and knowing what you're talking about.

Hitler WAS RIGHT-WING. Once again, EVERY RESPECTED HISTORIAN and respected political theorist (which are the experts on this) will agree on this. Hitler USED Socialism to appeal to people, but he went back on promises, corrupted the unions, and ACTIVELY worked to DESTROY socialism and communism. The Nazis, once in power, were notoriously anti-communist, anti-liberal, anti-gay, pro-corporate power, etc. They were right-wing no matter what name they called themselves. Just like many Communist regimes call themselves Democratic Republics... does that mean THEY ARE democratic republics? NO! Just like the National Socialists were NOT socialists.

Seriously... do your homework or STOP spouting uneducated propaganda bout this. You're doing more harm than good, and I'm sick of hearing the disinformation.

Some of the MOST SUCCESSFUL AND PROSPEROUS countries are partially socialist. Look at the Scandinavian countries... they have the highest marks on just about every test of a country's well-being, happiness, prosperity, crime, etc. etc. and they all have very socialized social programs- universal health-care, free/cheap schooling, paid maternity leave, mandatory vacations, living wages, etc.

Here in the US, when we let the "market" dictate things... it turns into another form of TYRANNY except this time coming from markets, businesses, and financial schemes rather than government authority figures. Yes government is tyrannical but SO are right-wing market schemes. The housing bubble and banking corruption were due to DE-REGULATION of markets. The reason markets are so de-regulated in America is because the rich banking/corporate special interests more or less CONTROL our government. The Federal Reserve ITSELF is a PRIVATE institution, NOT a federal one (despite its name, once again).

Greece and many other economies are collapsing because America is collapsing. It's a domino effect that has nothing to do with workers rights, regulation or social benefits/safety nets getting in the way of economies. The nature of Capitalism is to drag the rest of humanity (and the planet) through its booms and busts... the result is, we're not gonna f*ckin take it anymore. Not from the right-wing or the left-wing, not from governments or from markets/businesses.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by NoHierarchy]


You say a lot of different things which makes me confused. You hate the right but still see how left can be bad. You are good in my opinion and youre point of view should matter to everyone.

What I was saying is that the US is actually the only country in the world where we are right in between the extreme right and left. We may be in constant battle to lean more left or right.... but at the end we are at the middle.

Sweden, Finland etc etc are small countries with population less than 5 million/ and HOMOGENEOUS. Do not look into these little tiny countries and expect the US with population over 360 million to immitate these tiny little scandinavian countries OKAY??

Plus, these tiny little swedish countries have their own problems as well. Such as IMMIGRATION and how these new immigrants take advantage of their socialist state.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
[edit on 31-8-2010 by saabacura]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:50 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.


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

Right-True Anarchists, Libertarians. "

Is a good way to put it. Thanks



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry
This is terribly over-simplistic.


Like my other posts, we live in a dualistic world which means that there are ONLY TWO extreme ends.

In this case an extreme left and right. Period.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:58 AM
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.



Great graph, I only post stuff on ATS when I am drunk. I will look into this tommorow when I am less drunk.
Thank you for the diagram.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
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.


Please do not bring God or Creator in this discussion. It makes it more difficult and confusing...?



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
The idea that Hitler himself was a Socialist or that he even promoted one true socialist policy that was not a secondary measure to further authoritarian goals is just ludicrous and stands against the whole of the historic record.

I am aware of the fact that Mises, Rothbard and co - together with lesser "thinkers"/schock jocks like Jonah Goldberg have spent their life promoting the Hitler-was-a-socialist meme and that it had some effect in America. In the rest of the world as well as within the professional historic community in the US the idea is not even laughed at because it's so far away from the truth.

Hitler was neither a Socialist nor a Corporatist. History is seldom as black and white. What is true though, and can not be refuted is the fact that Hitler got to power by the backing of the traditional conservative elite, an elite that was very fond of free-market rhetoric prior to the great depression. What is also true is that, except for the nutty public consumption of arms, which is not socialist but rather a conservative perversion of public spending the Nazis did not implement one policy that can be construed as Socialist in the Continental sense.

This is true for the time before they took power as well as the times well after. If you would delve into the subject you would come to understand that using the "Socialist" title was a ploy taken from the German minority in Moravia where Germanic supremacists called themselves National Socialists in order to co-opt the Unions with nationalistic concepts rather than those of class warfare.
It was a simple ploy to gain traction among the working class, a pretty smart one to since the First World War proved that the national community's cohesive appeal was stronger than that of the class communities. Usually you judge a party by the policy it implements, not by the name it choses to give itself - again, in America things tend to be opposite... But not in the rest of the world where there were no Fascist millionaires hell-bent on redefining the political terminologies.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

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


Turn that image a quarter turn counter-clockwise and stop fighting over something so stupid.

[edit on 8/30/2010 by eNumbra]



I really hope that was a joke?


If you would turn something that way you would skew the readings of the whole chart.

You can't just turn charts and diagrams to your liking to get the results you prefer.

Member 'NoHierarchy' is absolutely right about that Anarchy exists on both the Left and the Right sides on a 2 axes political spectrum where you have one axis for the traditional Left/Right (Economical axis) and the authoritarian/Libertarian (Social) axis.

Anarchism/Libertarianism can both be on the Left and the right side of the spectrum.

We can't just measure ONE simple economical axis to make a correct political analysis of a society - you would also need at least the social axis to make the correct analysis.

Historically, Anarchism in the European worker communities has strong connection to the Left.

Many of these political ideologies were also invented in Europe - so to disregard European political history in the matter when making your analysis would also give you a flawed analysis regarding Fascism/Anarchism/Communism/Neo-liberalism.

To be fair though! and to get correct readings one must also understand that the whole political spectrum has drifted to the right, towards more authoritarian and towards more economical neo-liberalism the last 40 years.







The most fair reading you would get by a 3 axes model though, but those models are very rare and is mostly used at the University and institutions for political research.

I'm going to see if I can find one and post it here.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Chevalerous]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Summarize,
At the extreme left is all about absolute laws, regulations, authority etc

At the extreme right is all about no laws, no regualtions, no authority etc...


What I was trying to say is that neither is actually good for us.

And that USA is actually right in between the two. No other country has this right balance.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by saabacura]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by saabacura
Summarize,
At the end of the left is all about absolute laws, regulations, authority etc

At the end of the right is all about no laws, no regualtions, no authority etc...


What I was trying to say is that neither is actually good for us.


No that is totally wrong my friend - because you CAN'T just use one axis to measure this - it's impossible to include social issues with just SOLEY the economical axis.


The end of the Left CAN also be Left-libertarian down in the left corner on a two axes political spectrum like traditional Left Anarchism.

And the end of the Right CAN also be in the top of the economical right corner, but still be in the top as Authoritarian/Fascism


Libertarian socialism is a political philosophy dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy.

Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin was the first major proponent of the philosophy of libertarian socialism in the historical perspective.


Bakunin summarized the philosophy: "We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin's conflict with Marx (discussed above under Conflict with Marxism) was the most visible and well-known split between "authoritarians" and "libertarians" to take place in the nineteenth century working class movement.

www.wordiq.com...

(That link has quite good description but since it is an American link they wrongly say they want the abolition of private property - when it should say "private ownership of the means of the production" instead in many places - this is part of the wrongly American description of Socialism in general, which the American Industrialists & the elite used to brainwash the American people/workers with)

More on Bakunin:

flag.blackened.net...

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 31-8-2010 by Chevalerous]





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join