Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by definity

---

Using your strawman definition to define what is "right wing" would lead anyone to reject conservative politics. Categorizing with half truths might speak well to the choir but it ain't gonna convince anyone else.

..In this sense communism is always libertarian or anarchist, as the abolition of the wage brings about the abolition of the relation of command which structures the organs of state power such as the police, army and bureaucracy.

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

Contrary to popular misconception, the goal of Communists was ultimately to abolish the State altogether. Basic Communist ideology holds that the purpose of "the State" is to enforce social and economic disparity. According to Marxist thinking the State developed as a tool for a minority of people to oppress other people.

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by stanguilles7

---

I never said the man walked on water or broke bread with 12 disciples. Show me a President that hasn't had their own little wars during their term. Obama has Central Africa, Libya and likely Syria by the end of things. Maybe even Iran. Clinton had Kosovo and a new push followed by a VERY humiliating defeat in Somalia. Carter had Iran and almost had the whole region in his lap before the Camp David Accords. Ford did nothing but keep a seat warm....and you REALLY don't want to go to Johnson for Presidents running dirty dirty covert wars...do ya?

Sorry if every President has an ugly side, but even our early ones were just human.

I simply noted it's been 1988 and Reagan since America has had the opportunity to see Conservative approaches to our problems. I would have said Carter represented the last time America saw the disaster of the EXTREME left...but then Obama came along.

It sounds like you look at Bush and think Right Wing when I look at Bush as the closest to a Facist President we've had since Lincoln ruled over the civil war.

If we use Reagan or even Nixon or that matter...and talk domestic ideas along conservative ideas, I think we find ourselves in a radically different discussion.

Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.

The Labour Party was created in 1900: a new party for a new century. Its formation was the result of many years of hard effort by working people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of changing the British Parliament to represent the interests of everybody. Ignored by the Tories and disillusioned with the Liberals, a coalition of different interests came together to push for change at a Conference on Labour Representation in London's Memorial Hall in February 1900.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by ANOK

---

You just tried to prove 'all leftists are anarchists' by claiming they are all Marxists?

You know the anarchists actively and aggressively opposed the Marxists, right?

The disconnect is astounding.

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

...This is not to say that it cannot be argued that all these political system are fundamentally the same, that their differences, no matter how violent, are secondary to certain essential features that all have in common. But the point is that it is necessary to argue the case, to marshal some evidence, to know a phenomenon before condemning it. One can't simply begin with the conclusion.