I'm trying to figure out what the political demographic is in the miniature wargaming community.
If you feel comfortable posting, please tell us why/state details (but keep it somewhat short)

political debates are fine, but lets stay away from the promethium-fights (flame wars).

I'll start this off by stating my involvement with the PSL

I don't fit very well into any of those categories. You should try posting a question set, many people who self identify as a party do not actually belong to it with their views.

None of the above. I'm myself, and I hold views about things on a case by case basis.

Likewise...I don't belive any single category would suit me as I tend to have very "liberal" leanings in some areas and very "Conservative" views on others.

Agreed. I actually put 'Republican' (or non-US equivalent), because I am to the right of the British political spectrum, but actually, a British conservative is a vastly different creature to their American counterparts. Socially, I'm very liberal on a lot of issues, and I'm anything but 'republican'!

I think a two axis poll might be of more value: fiscal/social, liberal/conservative.

I mean, few people really fit the slots defined by the titles. I'm a social progressive that's also in favor of gun rights and has deep reservations about affirmative action. I also tend to view the legal arguments on substantive due process (things like abortion) to be very weak.

I am a staunch Bjornist, holding that a new ruling class for the world be established from people currently or formerly known as Bjorn, based solely on how goddamn awesome they must be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
moreover, I demand a Bjornist choice on the poll, or I will call racism, sir or madam!

Albatross wrote:Agreed. I actually put 'Republican' (or non-US equivalent), because I am to the right of the British political spectrum, but actually, a British conservative is a vastly different creature to their American counterparts. Socially, I'm very liberal on a lot of issues, and I'm anything but 'republican'!

In my experience the British right is still left of the democratic party. My dad was a ardent supporter Tory but when he came to the US he identified with the democrats more thoiugh he thought they were a bit right. (he can't vote though, decided to keep his British citizenship)

Yes personally I think its silly to have differing political parties, all they do is bicker about who is screwing up the country more rather then dealing with situations in a more fluid manner, I think in business terms they call it a Contingent Management style though that could eb wrong, but basically you deal with different situations in different ways.

I put down Democrat only because here in Australia although they dont have any power like they do in the US they seem to be the only sane group. Sociualism is also a descent system in theory but not effective in practice, it tends to take the fact that humans get power crazy out of the equation. However true Socialism has not yet been fully tested, lets not bring up Mao, Stalin or any other the other "Commies", there is a reason their political systems are named after them, Maoism, Stalinism, Nazism etc.

I think its sad that over here in Australia then next 3 competing political parties after Liberal, labour and Greens is Christian Democrats, Shooters/Fishers Party and Pauline Hanson

Our voters should be ashamed of themselves, if any of these groups came to power I would seriously consider changing national affiliation, especially if its Pauline, she's dangerous and Australia would gain nothing by electing her.

Bromsy wrote:I am a staunch Bjornist, holding that a new ruling class for the world be established from people currently or formerly known as Bjorn, based solely on how goddamn awesome they must be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
moreover, I demand a Bjornist choice on the poll, or I will call racism, sir or madam!

Would you make an exception for magnus ver magnuson, thats also pretty awesome

hmm... maybe for a mid level cabinet position; but hobviously not any of the truly high level positions - unless there was a hyphen situation. Bjorn-Magnus ver Magnuson, hereditary Duke of Conneticut; doesn't that just roll off the tongue a little better?

I put Democrat for similiar reasons as Coldfire, but I am suprised there was no IOM option...?

Where's the option for other?

Exactly, friend. This (allegedly) racist poll is spiting in all of our (Bjornist) faces!

I chose moderate because it was in the middle...

Honestly I don't know if I can claim myself to an affiliation.... I'm not too well versed in politics. Its funny, though, because when I was younger... maybe mid to late teens... there was a time where I thought I was for communism/socialism.

In a perfect world, i would be communist. Due to McCarthy and the Soviets, commies have had their names slandered. In conversation, I say I'm liberal.

And I am idealist Communist, not Soviet.

Went with Libertarian as that is the closest match but is far from exact. My examples below are going to be based around the US government and location.

I believe in a very small government
I believe in very little government regulation in buisness
I believe in zero government regulation in my private/social life with the caveat of anything I do that threatens or removes the liberties of others should be regulated
I do believe in some social welfare programs, (WIC, Welfare, Medicare, ect) but I think they should be ran via the state/local government and regulated better.
I do not believe in gun control, regulation or registration
I do not believe the federal government should regulate Abortion, and that if there are going to be laws on it needs to be at the local level.
Religion has no place in the government, but the Fed needs to ensure that the State is allowing free exercise of Religion (or lack there of) and if they fail in this, the Fed has the power to enforce
I do believe in some Federal programs like Education, Social Security, ect.
I do believe in a federal military, but believe they should be streamlined and the vast majority removed to the US boarders
While I think we involve ourselves to much in the affairs of others, I do not think we need to take up another isolationist position, just not jump into every little thing.
I do not mind federal funding for natural disasters or foreign aid.
I do believe that all States/Locals should have their own Police/Fire/EMS and other orgs. It is up to the States to budget their own balance
I think there is a ridiculous amount of fat that needs to be trimmed from federal agencies, especially from politicians. Mainly from some of their entitlements. I see fellow people in the military getting $180 extra per day for 6 months in per Diem for places like Cyprus, if the grunts are getting this, what are the senators getting when they leave the country?

Those are just some off the top of my head

Bromsy wrote:hmm... maybe for a mid level cabinet position; but hobviously not any of the truly high level positions - unless there was a hyphen situation. Bjorn-Magnus ver Magnuson, hereditary Duke of Conneticut; doesn't that just roll off the tongue a little better?

Alright how about sgt major max fightmaster surely such a manly name would allow for quite a bit of power

Well, you've included his title in the post, but I imagine he could easily be sergeant major of the armies, or some such position (basically telling any non general officers what's what.)

I'm the one who put Tea Party. But honestly, if we cou;ld all just get the feth along, I'd be a Commie.

But since we can't (against human nature) I choose the hard line/ traditionalist view point.

Disolve the Federal Goverment!

Tough one for us, because I think a UK conservative is more like a US democrat.

Sckitzo wrote:Went with Libertarian as that is the closest match but is far from exact. My examples below are going to be based around the US government and location.

I believe in a very small government
I believe in very little government regulation in buisness
I believe in zero government regulation in my private/social life with the caveat of anything I do that threatens or removes the liberties of others should be regulated
I do believe in some social welfare programs, (WIC, Welfare, Medicare, ect) but I think they should be ran via the state/local government and regulated better.
I do not believe in gun control, regulation or registration
I do not believe the federal government should regulate Abortion, and that if there are going to be laws on it needs to be at the local level.
Religion has no place in the government, but the Fed needs to ensure that the State is allowing free exercise of Religion (or lack there of) and if they fail in this, the Fed has the power to enforce
I do believe in some Federal programs like Education, Social Security, ect.
I do believe in a federal military, but believe they should be streamlined and the vast majority removed to the US boarders
While I think we involve ourselves to much in the affairs of others, I do not think we need to take up another isolationist position, just not jump into every little thing.
I do not mind federal funding for natural disasters or foreign aid.
I do believe that all States/Locals should have their own Police/Fire/EMS and other orgs. It is up to the States to budget their own balance
I think there is a ridiculous amount of fat that needs to be trimmed from federal agencies, especially from politicians. Mainly from some of their entitlements. I see fellow people in the military getting $180 extra per day for 6 months in per Diem for places like Cyprus, if the grunts are getting this, what are the senators getting when they leave the country?

Those are just some off the top of my head

Have you researched any of these ideas?

Im personally completely against Libertarian political ideals, its flawed for the same reasons as Socialism, Human Nature but at a far more distressing and dangerous way.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Sckitzo wrote:Went with Libertarian as that is the closest match but is far from exact. My examples below are going to be based around the US government and location.

I believe in a very small government
I believe in very little government regulation in buisness
I believe in zero government regulation in my private/social life with the caveat of anything I do that threatens or removes the liberties of others should be regulated
I do believe in some social welfare programs, (WIC, Welfare, Medicare, ect) but I think they should be ran via the state/local government and regulated better.
I do not believe in gun control, regulation or registration
I do not believe the federal government should regulate Abortion, and that if there are going to be laws on it needs to be at the local level.
Religion has no place in the government, but the Fed needs to ensure that the State is allowing free exercise of Religion (or lack there of) and if they fail in this, the Fed has the power to enforce
I do believe in some Federal programs like Education, Social Security, ect.
I do believe in a federal military, but believe they should be streamlined and the vast majority removed to the US boarders
While I think we involve ourselves to much in the affairs of others, I do not think we need to take up another isolationist position, just not jump into every little thing.
I do not mind federal funding for natural disasters or foreign aid.
I do believe that all States/Locals should have their own Police/Fire/EMS and other orgs. It is up to the States to budget their own balance
I think there is a ridiculous amount of fat that needs to be trimmed from federal agencies, especially from politicians. Mainly from some of their entitlements. I see fellow people in the military getting $180 extra per day for 6 months in per Diem for places like Cyprus, if the grunts are getting this, what are the senators getting when they leave the country?

Those are just some off the top of my head

Have you researched any of these ideas?

Some more so then others, but yes, though you'd have to be more specific if your asking about on in particular.

I do realize some of these are a pipe dream, and if they would even work would require such a massive overhaul of the current system I don't see it happening.

Were there certain ones you meant in particular or were you asking if I was talking out of my ass? Which is fine btw, people tend to do that when politics come up and I don't mind being questioned on it.

Also, these are just my ideals, I realize they may not be the best choice for everyone, but just what I believe would work well enough, and best for me personally.

The first three choices are the same and should be grouped together.

Also, there's substantial difference between "Ultra Right" and "Tea Party". Tea Partiers tend to fall in as either "Conservatives" (not an option on the poll) or "Libertarians."

There's no option for "Yeah, I totally hate politicians, but [Party] sucks and [Other Party] rules! I just say I hate politicians to be cool and counter cultural!"

Because that's what I am.

biccat wrote:The first three choices are the same and should be grouped together.

Your views entertain me

And as others have said I am going to have to go with "none of the above" for the reason that you have chosen a very unrepresentative spread of political viewpoints, none of which conforms to my political views. Indeed, very few political parties (and here I talk about the UK, as we actually have political parties rather than 2 parties that are almost exactly the same) have a good match on my political leanings.

biccat wrote:Also, there's substantial difference between "Ultra Right" and "Tea Party".

Right, the ultra-right tend to be more educated and less poor on average, heh.

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:The first three choices are the same and should be grouped together.

Your views entertain me

Merely in jest.

Although if the OP thinks that the tea party should be grouped with far right, then it may be closer to the truth...

You're not going to get a good view using the self selected members of the Dakka Off Topic Forum. Its not stastically valid...at all.

He is not trying to get an overview, but specifically for "wargamers". And I believe that Dakka is the largest wargaming community in the world.

Edit: Though there will still be some bias.

I picked "moderate", as I really don't sit anywhere in the political arena. I have some views that PO Conservatives, and some views that PO Liberals. My fiscal views are Conservative, my Environmental views are Liberal (though not to the point of mass sterilizations/abortions), and my social views tend to be very Libertarian, meaning I think you can do whatever the heck you want, just as long as you don't hurt others. I just make everybody mad, and call it a day...*sigh*.

_Tim?

Liberal technocratic socialist myself.

SilverMK2 wrote:He is not trying to get an overview, but specifically for "wargamers". And I believe that Dakka is the largest wargaming community in the world.

Edit: Though there will still be some bias.

Statistically its not a large enough survery; its self selected; and only inludes a tiny subsegment of "wargamers."

Troy wrote:Statistically its not a large enough survery; its self selected; and only inludes a tiny subsegment of "wargamers."

Indeed, hence my edit. I assumed you were referring to this survey only covering wargamers, rather than the general population when you made your initial statement.

I guess the closest would be Communist, but I am not so extreme. This is true communism rather than the current communism governments.

I'm a pragmatist, which isn't on your poll list. But I guess moderate is on there, so that's fine.
Being ideologically unwavering is foolish, imo.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-7.25&soc=-3.69

make your own!
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Edit:
where some other figures in history fall

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-3.50&soc=-0.92

Though I think on that test almost everyone comes out with that result.

I'm ans Democrat as they come, Borderline commie. I do how ever believe in a strong military presence in the world. I believe in a strong federal government because and the south showed years ago, states can't self police themselves fairly, neither can Big corporations hence regulations. Neither can the world hence our military presence. Given the chance people would be a holes.

SilverMK2 wrote:Though I think on that test almost everyone comes out with that result.

I didn't save mine, but I was just flipped over the authortarian/libertarian arm from Friedman (presumably Milton, not Thomas).

biccat wrote:I didn't save mine, but I was just flipped over the authortarian/libertarian arm from Friedman (presumably Milton, not Thomas).

The last thread featuring the political compass had only a handful of members on the right/auth side of things

I vote for the lesser of the evils.

Usually that means I vote liberal, but I have voted conservative for some local elections.

It's about what I expected.

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:I didn't save mine, but I was just flipped over the authortarian/libertarian arm from Friedman (presumably Milton, not Thomas).

The last thread featuring the political compass had only a handful of members on the right/auth side of things

"I don't know how Nixon won, I don't know ANYBODY who voted for him."

Seems about right.

Just what I thought.

interesting responses...

I think the biggest thing (but not the only thing) that governs the liberal/conservative leaning is who you think should have more power: business or government.

personally, I'd rather put more power to the institution that I voted for directly (the government). Although ideally people would eliminate the middle man and vote on laws directly, catering to the "mixed politics" demographic that seems prominent on this forum. I doubt there is anyone who agrees with their political affiliation wholeheartedly.

Fine with me.

FITZZ wrote: Likewise...I don't belive any single category would suit me as I tend to have very "liberal" leanings in some areas and very "Conservative" views on others.

I'm the same ----^

Here's my chart:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.38&soc=-2.62

I'm surprised at how moderate I really am. Well, according to this test.

okay, I bit. i came out about where i'd guessed i would have.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-8.88&soc=-5.23

I'm a Puritan Monodominant.

Nah, I got this result. Not sure what this means. In America, it must mean I'm a socialist although I would evaluate myself as a moderate.

Manchu wrote:I'm a Puritan Monodominant.

That's got to be a Rockin' good time on a Friday night!

Odd.

I've drifted left since the last time I took this quiz.

alarmingrick wrote:

Manchu wrote:I'm a Puritan Monodominant.

That's got to be a Rockin' good time on a Friday night!

You better fething believe it.

It's all in your brain apparently.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/08/brain-scans-lean-left-right/
I originally found this on yahoo, but when I went to look for it this was the first place I found it. Please don't crusify me for using a fox news article. I really don't ever check there.



Some of those questions were pretty BS, but here I am. Looks like we are almost all lefty liberals to one degree or the other, or the test is skewed.

Andrew1975 wrote:It's all in your brain apparently.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/08/brain-scans-lean-left-right/

Clearly, and from the most trusted and unbiased source!

Andrew1975 wrote:It's all in your brain apparently.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/08/brain-scans-lean-left-right/
I originally found this on yahoo, but when I went to look for it this was the first place I found it. Please don't crusify me for using a fox news article. I really don't ever check there.

Some of those questions were pretty BS, but here I am. Looks like we are almost all lefty liberals to one degree or the other, or the test is skewed.

I'll totally believe anything fox says, they are fair and balanced.

What questions were BS? They are pretty easy to answer truthfully. Also, the questions are based on more of a world view of left and right rather than the hilarity and idiocy we have in the US that defines our politics.

Maybe you don't really think the way the party you identify with does, or the test haxxed your brain. One of the two.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Maybe you don't really think the way the party you identify with does, or the test haxxed your brain. One of the two.

There are more options than that.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:It's all in your brain apparently.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/08/brain-scans-lean-left-right/
I originally found this on yahoo, but when I went to look for it this was the first place I found it. Please don't crusify me for using a fox news article. I really don't ever check there.

Some of those questions were pretty BS, but here I am. Looks like we are almost all lefty liberals to one degree or the other, or the test is skewed.

I'll totally believe anything fox says, they are fair and balanced.

What questions were BS? They are pretty easy to answer truthfully. Also, the questions are based on more of a world view of left and right rather than the hilarity and idiocy we have in the US that defines our politics.

Maybe you don't really think the way the party you identify with does, or the test haxxed your brain. One of the two.

No, the test is pretty worthless. Many questions are phrased in a biased manner, and "random statement because random reason: agree or disagree?" isn't a very good gauge of feelings on complex issues. You can agree with the statement but not the reason, feel the reason actually justifies a different statement than the one provided, agree with part of the statement but not the rest, etc. That said, I wound up with roughly what I expected from it, even if I don't think it means anything. With the point near one line, one could theoretically answer almost exactly opposite for the related questions, simply preserving the ratios, and get the same result.



I don't disagree with the economics as much, even if it lacks depth, as one dimensional graphs are wont to do, but the authoritarian/libertarian axis is too culturally weighted. I believe in a strong government, and a great deal of very authoritarian measures, but at the same time strongly disagree with the quite farcical authoritarian policies the modern "right" pushes, on the grounds that the policies either a) don't actually accomplish anything but wasting time and resources (like the TSA), b) actively create new problems, in addition to exacerbating the ones they're allegedly meant to address (such as the war on drugs), c) are based solely on ridiculous premises that have no bearing in reality (like sexual repression measures such as anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion/contraception/sex-ed movements), or d) some combination of the above. Before anyone says "but wait, Democrats also support some of those things!", that's because their leadership is center-rightist, and in the case of things like the TSA and War on Drugs, not supporting it is political suicide in most cases, since "this is a terrible way of solving the problem it's meant to solve, we should go about it in a sane way" is spun as "I love terrorists and cocaine! Woohoo!" by their political opposition.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:It's all in your brain apparently.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/08/brain-scans-lean-left-right/
I originally found this on yahoo, but when I went to look for it this was the first place I found it. Please don't crusify me for using a fox news article. I really don't ever check there.

Some of those questions were pretty BS, but here I am. Looks like we are almost all lefty liberals to one degree or the other, or the test is skewed.

I'll totally believe anything fox says, they are fair and balanced.

What questions were BS? They are pretty easy to answer truthfully. Also, the questions are based on more of a world view of left and right rather than the hilarity and idiocy we have in the US that defines our politics.

Maybe you don't really think the way the party you identify with does, or the test haxxed your brain. One of the two.

No my results were pretty much right where I expected them. Although I would have thought I was more right (libertarian) then left.

You apparently read the questions with the same care that you read my post.

"Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence." What if it's prescribed?
"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all." Who says it doesn't represent anything, who makes that call?
"Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity." What does make peace mean. Learning and playing by the rules is important, accepting them is another question
"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." It is an advantage to the party, but maybe not to me. Quick government can both be good and bad.
"Sex outside marriage is usually immoral." What if I think that morality doesn't even play a part in this question? What if I think it's always immoral?

These are just a few. Maybe you don't read critically enough.

I haven't taken it in a while, I imagine if I went through it again with the idea in mind to see if the questions seemed biased, I would probably have a different opinion.

I think the point is to ask you a bunch of questions and get your off the cuff response, not have you over-analyze them as you have above. I imagine they probably want you to think about the heart/spirit of the question, rather than break it down into other hypotheticals. Like the first question is basically asking, "should marijuana be illegal or legal" its just asking it in a different form. I imagine "making peace" would be accepting the rules of society, not necessarily liking them.

Let me know if you find a better one, its just a quiz that tries to graph your social leanings. Of course its not going to be totally accurate, most people have more depth than that. The forum I saw this on initially, there were quite a few people who were NOT on the left side of the graph, so I think it can swing either way.

Generally people's answer is massively based on the "phrasing" of the question from what I've seen, during the HCR debacle there were polls all the time, and depending on how questions were asked, the responses varied wildly.

That's about right.

Interestingly the questions seem to have changed from what I recall. It appears as though this is an improvement, as last time many decidedly conservative people came out on the left side of he y-axis.

You may call it biased towards the Left, but most U.S. officials(all of them in fact) were on the Right.


From what I can tell, even Democrats in America are somewhat to the Right.

surprisingly very few US politicians are left. we have left leaning moderates : )

Obama is closer to a moderate then a left.

Mike Noble wrote:From what I can tell, even Democrats in America are somewhat to the Right.

Depends on if you're talking "mainstream" Democrats or Democrats as a whole.

As a whole, many far-leftists exist in the Democrat party, mainly because they tend to associate more with their policies than Republicans. Democrats are oriented towards socialism and redistributionist policies than Republicans (although Republicans do so to a limited extent as well), so they tend to attract the left wingers.

frgsinwntr wrote:Obama is closer to a moderate then a left.

President Obama is pretty much a contrarian. He espouses some very far left (at least from an American perspective, I don't think he has called for lynching the Bourgeoisie) positions, and then backtracks and governs from a more centrist perspective, although tilting left pretty heavily.

So really, it depends on if you're juding him based on his actions or deeds. Heck, the same thing applies to President Bush. He talked up some right-wing issues, but was also pretty liberal on the economic side of things.

so apparently in the same slot as stalin

I think most presidents find that their ability to act is less than they expect when campaigning. For all of Bush's rhetoric, there was little socially conservative action during his terms. Likewise the gay rights movement is furious with Obama over his lack of action.

The president is, after all, the manager of a pretty huge apparatus. Anybody that's taken over as a manager knows that there's not much you can do to really change operations.

Hmm... according to this, I'm further right than most of the Americans here. Interesting...

@biccat - Could you explain why Obama is so far left that it requires the word 'very' in italics in front of the word 'left'...?

I'm an anarchist. All government systems are eventually ruined by corruption and greed, and end up enslaving the people they once sought to protect. I believe in an end to the paradigm of artificial scarcity of resources that create a poor underclass. This alone would eliminate the need for welfare, social security and most other government aid since there would be no poor people that would need it. However, since it is the tendency of the rich to get richer my any means, no matter how wicked, and the poor to get poorer as an inevitable result of those means, I really don't care what the special-interest whores in Washington DC or anyplace else call themselves.

Do you think that the weak will be better off without a government at all?

It seems to me that absent a government, the strong will simply enslave the weak.

Albatross wrote:@biccat - Could you explain why Obama is so far left that it requires the word 'very' in italics in front of the word 'left'...?

Sure.

First, take his position on health care reform. In '03 (or thereabouts), he was certainly for a 'single payer' health care system. From a US perspective, this is pretty far left. We don't do a lot of socialism-style benefits. Now, obviously social security and medicare are moving in that direction, but there seems to be a sharp ideological divide between those who favor and those who oppose single-payer.

Second, the (in)famous "Joe the Plumber" situation, where he straight-up said that it is necessary to "redistribute wealth." Again, this is a far left issue from the perspective of American Politics.

Third, while campaigning for Senate (or possibly as an Illinois Senator) he referred to the Warren Court as "not very radical." This is quite at odds with the perspective of most historians, who view the Warren Court's decisions on race issues to be a sharp departure from previous jurisprudence. In order to see these as "not very radical," you would have to have a pretty wide view of "radical."

Finally, his anti-war positions before his election were quite liberal:
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops," Obama said in his speech. “Not in six months or one year -- now"

Again, from the perspective of the US, he has taken some very liberal positions, but the results of his administration (which are due to a myriad of causes, not just his own) have been generally left of center.

It's not just governments that become corrupt and take what they can regardless of how it affects others- thats humans.

It will happen whatever the situation. People will always find ways to get rich at the expense of others.

Saying Obama is left is a bit odd to us. I don't know a huge amount about US politics but I can't think of any true left sided politians that actually get anywhere.

Polonius wrote:Do you think that the weak will be better off without a government at all?

It seems to me that absent a government, the strong will simply enslave the weak.

No, some government is needed, but we also need to get back to the general mindset that if the government becomes corrupt, the people should have the will and ability to force change. Most people today are little better than sheep, more interested in American Idol or wasting their time and effort fighting for some artificial left/right paradigm to see the truth.

4M2A wrote:Saying Obama is left is a bit odd to us. I don't know a huge amount about US politics but I can't think of any true left sided politians that actually get anywhere.

Perhaps you could explain what a "leftist" is in MOE? Or, why do you think Obama is "right"?

warpcrafter wrote:

Polonius wrote:Do you think that the weak will be better off without a government at all?

It seems to me that absent a government, the strong will simply enslave the weak.

No, some government is needed, but we also need to get back to the general mindset that if the government becomes corrupt, the people should have the will and ability to force change. Most people today are little better than sheep, more interested in American Idol or wasting their time and effort fighting for some artificial left/right paradigm to see the truth.

Sounds like your problem today is more with the governed, not the government.

warpcrafter wrote:

Polonius wrote:Do you think that the weak will be better off without a government at all?

It seems to me that absent a government, the strong will simply enslave the weak.

No, some government is needed, but we also need to get back to the general mindset that if the government becomes corrupt, the people should have the will and ability to force change. Most people today are little better than sheep, more interested in American Idol or wasting their time and effort fighting for some artificial left/right paradigm to see the truth.

Emphasis mine, in order to make a point

That's just one interpretation; one person's truth is another's propaganda. Assuming that only you and your compatriots know the "truth" is a very dangerous route to take, it can lead to instances of groupthink which, as the war in Iraq has shown us, never leads to anything good.
Also, on a more pragmatic level, it seems foolish to insult potential supporters when campaigning for political ends, as the average man dislikes being called "unthinking," even more so when the statement is followed with an inferred statement of mental superiority such as "but we see the truth."
Just some thoughts, no offence meant.

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:@biccat - Could you explain why Obama is so far left that it requires the word 'very' in italics in front of the word 'left'...?

Sure.

First, take his position on health care reform. In '03 (or thereabouts), he was certainly for a 'single payer' health care system. From a US perspective, this is pretty far left. We don't do a lot of socialism-style benefits. Now, obviously social security and medicare are moving in that direction, but there seems to be a sharp ideological divide between those who favor and those who oppose single-payer.

Second, the (in)famous "Joe the Plumber" situation, where he straight-up said that it is necessary to "redistribute wealth." Again, this is a far left issue from the perspective of American Politics.

Third, while campaigning for Senate (or possibly as an Illinois Senator) he referred to the Warren Court as "not very radical." This is quite at odds with the perspective of most historians, who view the Warren Court's decisions on race issues to be a sharp departure from previous jurisprudence. In order to see these as "not very radical," you would have to have a pretty wide view of "radical."

Finally, his anti-war positions before his election were quite liberal:
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops," Obama said in his speech. “Not in six months or one year -- now"

Again, from the perspective of the US, he has taken some very liberal positions, but the results of his administration (which are due to a myriad of causes, not just his own) have been generally left of center.

Yeah, hes left for an American, but from the overall world perspective, Leftism is not too common here, mostly just left leaning moderates who are considered far left because of how they compare to the rest.

Mike Noble wrote:Yeah, hes left for an American, but from the overall world perspective, Leftism is not too common here, mostly just left leaning moderates who are considered far left because of how they compare to the rest.

So...what is a leftist?

You've said that Obama is on the right, and that the moderates in England are "left-leaning," but what makes a leftist?

Not too shocking. Surprised I wasn't more authoritarian though. I should be. The quiz doesn't have enough questions to really determine that in my mind.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:

Polonius wrote:Do you think that the weak will be better off without a government at all?

It seems to me that absent a government, the strong will simply enslave the weak.

No, some government is needed, but we also need to get back to the general mindset that if the government becomes corrupt, the people should have the will and ability to force change. Most people today are little better than sheep, more interested in American Idol or wasting their time and effort fighting for some artificial left/right paradigm to see the truth.

Emphasis mine, in order to make a point

That's just one interpretation; one person's truth is another's propaganda. Assuming that only you and your compatriots know the "truth" is a very dangerous route to take, it can lead to instances of groupthink which, as the war in Iraq has shown us, never leads to anything good.
Also, on a more pragmatic level, it seems foolish to insult potential supporters when campaigning for political ends, as the average man dislikes being called "unthinking," even more so when the statement is followed with an inferred statement of mental superiority such as "but we see the truth."
Just some thoughts, no offence meant.

No statement of superiority was intended. The average person is ignorant of the reality of the world because that's the way the powers that be engineered it. I believe that if they were allowed to hear the likes of George Soros, Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller speak candidly about their plans for us, they would be in the streets demanding change, all of them and no amount of riot police could do anything about it. By the way, the aforementioned three, they are the ones who claim mental superiority. Just so you know.

I ended up with the Dali Lama which is a little more lefty than expected but then again it is a bit different every time I take when this same post gets made every four months and leads inevitably to that same test.

Ahtman wrote:I ended up with the Dali Lama...

Dirty hippy!

Ahtman wrote:I ended up with the Dali Lama which is a little more lefty than expected but then again it is a bit different every time I take when this same post gets made every four months and leads inevitably to that same test.

The test is really gakky. The questions are awful and lead to many often conflicting interpretations, often many at once. It's unfortunate because the formats good.

Sounds about right, though I was unsure about the question on Corporations and plantlife, so I just disagreed.

Polonius wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I ended up with the Dali Lama...

Dirty hippy!

I get my bi-weekly shower in!

Utilitarian. Which isn't on the list, I see..

wow... i took that test and I was almost in the bottom left corner! i was farther left than I was down... but lol thats funny

Samus_aran115 wrote:Utilitarian. Which isn't on the list, I see..

Probably because thats not a political philosophy.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Utilitarian. Which isn't on the list, I see..

Probably because thats not a political philosophy.

biccat wrote:

Mike Noble wrote:Yeah, hes left for an American, but from the overall world perspective, Leftism is not too common here, mostly just left leaning moderates who are considered far left because of how they compare to the rest.

So...what is a leftist?

You've said that Obama is on the right, and that the moderates in England are "left-leaning," but what makes a leftist?

I think now would be as good a time as any to say I don't claim to know anything. I'm just going off of the test here.



As you can see, they put Obama in the same quadrant as Palin and McCain. Not as far in, but there.

I'm not sure I understand you're question, are you not sure what a Leftist is or something?

Mike Noble wrote:

biccat wrote:

Mike Noble wrote:Yeah, hes left for an American, but from the overall world perspective, Leftism is not too common here, mostly just left leaning moderates who are considered far left because of how they compare to the rest.

So...what is a leftist?

You've said that Obama is on the right, and that the moderates in England are "left-leaning," but what makes a leftist?

I think now would be as good a time as any to say I don't claim to know anything. I'm just going off of the test here.



As you can see, they put Obama in the same quadrant as Palin and McCain. Not as far in, but there.

I'm not sure I understand you're question, are you not sure what a Leftist is or something?

That doesn't make any sense. If obama took the test he would likely score in the same lower left mid area that most of us did. The test is gak. To score that high on conservative or authoritarian he would have to strongly agree on half the racism and totalitarian control questions on there without actually considering any of their meanings. Hell, to go past 30% to the right you basically have to be an insane anti environment corporatist who hates minorities. That doesn't line up to the actual test at all.

The 'Do Nothing Party', vote us in and we won't fix anything, but we won't mess anything up either.

I get really fething tired of having positions held by one side being defined by the other side.
do i really think Elrustbo or Glen Beck know what's in a liberal(or Progressive, forgot they
changed the Buzz word! ) persons heart or mind? No. or if Chris Matthews knows
what is in Sarah Palins heart or mind? again, no.

but that's all part of the warfare of the political arena.
"Say it loud enough and often enough, it becomes the truth."

This apparently translates to "Completely apathetic about politics." I just wanna be left alone to do what I want and I think we would be better off that way as a whole. I think i'm probably just naive though.

Mike Noble wrote:I'm not sure I understand you're question, are you not sure what a Leftist is or something?

You're saying that Democrats are moderate/right, and Obama himself is right of center. I'm simply asking, if Democrats aren't left of center, who is?

I can define positions that are right of center, and most of them don't fit the DNC or the President. For example:

Small government
Legislate on moral issues
Pro-life
Pro-business
Opposing social welfare

So what are some left-wing ideas? How do they not conform to the Democrats, or President Obama?

I'm genuinely curious.

I believe that in a perfect state, the government would control a few necessary industries for the good of all. For example, state run education and healthcare. Taxes would be high, but people would get much out of this. This is basically a socialist ideal, but I must recognize that this will never happen in the USA. So while I chose Socialism, I'm usually going to side with the democrats. However I find that people must view each decision independently of party lines, and I find myself siding with republicans (the sane ones) surprisingly often. If you're wondering what I mean by "the sane ones", I'm talking about the smart ones who don't get much screen time because they don't scream about "how we must checkwhat members of the government are pro-american or anti-american" or that Obama "is trying to kill grandma with death panels", or "socialism is going to kill your dog and brainwash your kid!". You get the point.

The one question that bothers me is about astrology.

What does pseudoscience have to do with one's political leaning?

At any rate:

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:You're saying that Democrats are moderate/right, and Obama himself is right of center. I'm simply asking, if Democrats aren't left of center, who is?

In the US? Neither major party is particularly left-winged.

biccat wrote:Legislate on moral issues
Pro-life

Those aren't right-winged ideas, those are authoritarian ideas.

Polonius wrote:
It seems to me that absent a government, the strong will simply enslave the weak.

And probably create a government to boot.

There should be an option for 'nothing as complex as politics can be described by single word descriptors, and if your politics can be so simply described then your opinions are likely terrible'.

Here's a different political a compass although it has a bigger Canadian bias, but it might be a bit better than the current one being passed around.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/votecompass/

Melissia wrote:The one question that bothers me is about astrology.

What does pseudoscience have to do with one's political leaning?

People who believe pseudoscience like astrology probably tend to be more liberal.

People who believe pseudoscience like faith healing probably tend to be more conservative.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:You're saying that Democrats are moderate/right, and Obama himself is right of center. I'm simply asking, if Democrats aren't left of center, who is?

In the US? Neither major party is particularly left-winged.

So maybe you can answer the question: what makes one left-winged?

Our incessant need to break down everything into silly/dumb/wrong one or two word descriptors is really agitating to me.


On the Canadian election scale I am about in the same spot I am now except a little further up. I am pretty much on the say place on the X axis, but right on the dividing line between the top and bottom of the Y axis. Couldn't answer some of the questions since I'm not really sure what they are.

biccat wrote:So maybe you can answer the question: what makes one left-winged?

Left-leaning economics is marked by public (government) ownership of companies. That's kinda why people tried to claim that Obama was socialist when he tried to bail out the banks-- that was the CLOSEST either of the parties got to being left-winged.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:So maybe you can answer the question: what makes one left-winged?

Left-leaning economics is marked by public (government) ownership of companies. That's kinda why people tried to claim that Obama was socialist when he tried to bail out the banks-- that was the CLOSEST either of the parties got to being left-winged.

But not when the government owned the majority of GM, correct?

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:The one question that bothers me is about astrology.

What does pseudoscience have to do with one's political leaning?

People who believe pseudoscience like astrology probably tend to be more liberal.

People who believe pseudoscience like faith healing probably tend to be more conservative.

What?

biccat wrote:But not when the government owned the majority of GM, correct?

That was another bailout that was objected and called "socialist".

But I would hesitate to call it such as it is/was intended as a temporary to stabilize the capitalist economy.

Manchu wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:The one question that bothers me is about astrology.

What does pseudoscience have to do with one's political leaning?

People who believe pseudoscience like astrology probably tend to be more liberal.

People who believe pseudoscience like faith healing probably tend to be more conservative.

What?

I think he is presuming the faith healers and those being faith healed are Christian whereas the ones who believe in astrology are "new age" pagan wannabe types.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:But not when the government owned the majority of GM, correct?

That was another bailout that was objected and called "socialist".

But I would hesitate to call it such as it is/was intended as a temporary to stabilize the capitalist economy.

OK, so when the government takes over a company, it's left-wing socialism.

When the government props up a failing industry and imposes demands on that industry, it's not left-wing socialism.

When the government partially takes over a company but promises at some point in the future to sell it back to private investors (which it still hasn't done), it's not left-wing socialism.

This is quite confusing.

@c.a.f.: Yeah, but still -- what? I guess I am expressing deep incredulity at that statement.

Manchu wrote:Yeah, but still -- what? I guess I am expressing deep incredulity at that statement.

I think the second layer of implications is that most "new agers" are liberal whereas most american Christians are conservative which is more than a little nonsensical...

biccat wrote:This is quite confusing.

The world is neither black and white nor is it shades of grey, it is in full color.

I wonder if you would call ANY government right wing these days, given your confusion over this issue.

corpsesarefun wrote:I think he is presuming the faith healers and those being faith healed are Christian whereas the ones who believe in astrology are "new age" pagan wannabe types.

You don't have to be Christian to believe in "Faith Healing" - which is the idea that god/gods/whatever is 'healing' your wounds. But yeah, most people who believe in it are Christian.

The idea of "astrology" or other pseudosciences tend to be more of the pagan wannabe type, who tend to be more liberal.

Idiots all of them, but I was trying to be diplomatic and include crazy right-wingers in my post.

If the government permantly controls buisnesses it is socialist. A lot of socialism is to do with having the state in control of industry.

What Obama did is just support the banks for the benefit of the country with the intention of them becoming stay private. This isn't socialist

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:This is quite confusing.

The world is neither black and white nor is it shades of grey, it is in full color.

I wonder if you would call ANY government right wing these days, given your confusion over this issue.

I was simply asking for a definition of "left wing" that would clearly distinguish President Obama and the DNC as "right wing" as opposed to "left wing." Yours doesn't fit.

Manchu wrote:@c.a.f.: Yeah, but still -- what? I guess I am expressing deep incredulity at that statement.

OK, you're right, only crazy people can be right-wingers. You sir have bested me in interwebz debate. I doff my hat to you.

biccat wrote:
Small government

What is a small government?

biccat wrote:
Legislate on moral issues

Pro-choice, gay marriage, social justice, environmental justice, etc. aren't, or at least cannot be, moral issues?

biccat wrote:
Pro-business

The Democrats are pro-business in all meaningful senses.

biccat wrote:
Opposing social welfare

So does this mean that the GOP is left-of-center? They certainly don't oppose social welfare, not in any material sense.

biccat wrote:
OK, so when the government takes over a company, it's left-wing socialism.

When the government props up a failing industry and imposes demands on that industry, it's not left-wing socialism.

When the government partially takes over a company but promises at some point in the future to sell it back to private investors (which it still hasn't done), it's not left-wing socialism.

This is quite confusing.

Hoe is that confusing? You seem to have made good sense of the matter as described, and then feigned confusion in order to throw in a snide jab to illustrate your own ideology.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:This is quite confusing.

The world is neither black and white nor is it shades of grey, it is in full color.

I wonder if you would call ANY government right wing these days, given your confusion over this issue.

I was simply asking for a definition of "left wing" that would clearly distinguish President Obama and the DNC as "right wing" as opposed to "left wing." Yours doesn't fit.

Manchu wrote:@c.a.f.: Yeah, but still -- what? I guess I am expressing deep incredulity at that statement.

OK, you're right, only crazy people can be right-wingers. You sir have bested me in interwebz debate. I doff my hat to you.

Maybe we should just call each other people, not crazy? That seems a bit touchie for someone saying "what?", imho/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:This is quite confusing.

The world is neither black and white nor is it shades of grey, it is in full color.

I wonder if you would call ANY government right wing these days, given your confusion over this issue.

I was simply asking for a definition of "left wing" that would clearly distinguish President Obama and the DNC as "right wing" as opposed to "left wing." Yours doesn't fit.

Manchu wrote:@c.a.f.: Yeah, but still -- what? I guess I am expressing deep incredulity at that statement.

OK, you're right, only crazy people can be right-wingers. You sir have bested me in interwebz debate. I doff my hat to you.

Maybe we should just call each other people, not crazy? That seems a bit touchie for someone saying "what?", imho?

Here you go Biccat

Broad left-wing:
"We're all in this together."

Broad right-wing:
"F you I got mine."

Now, that is horribly generalized, because its hard to break down people into quick and easy sound-bytes. People sure try hard though.

I'm still wondering why the political spectrum is taken seriously as a means of describing political parties and their policies.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
OK, so when the government takes over a company, it's left-wing socialism.

When the government props up a failing industry and imposes demands on that industry, it's not left-wing socialism.

When the government partially takes over a company but promises at some point in the future to sell it back to private investors (which it still hasn't done), it's not left-wing socialism.

This is quite confusing.

Hoe is that confusing? You seem to have made good sense of the matter as described, and then feigned confusion in order to throw in a snide jab to illustrate your own ideology.

It's confusing because:
1: Government takes over a company = socialism.

Got it, this is clearly understood. "Taking over" implies two elements: a) the government is using collective wealth to support the industry; and b) conditions on the industry are imposed by governmenet actors, not private ones.

2: Government props up a company and imposes demands on that company = not-socialism.

Not sure how this follows. By propping up a company, the government is using tax dollars (government money, collective wealth, what have you) to support the industry. By imposing demands on that company, conditions are imposed by government actors, not private ones.

3: Government buys part of a company, promises to sell back the company later = not-socialism.

Still using taxpayer dollars to support an industry. Still imposing demands, only instead of those demands being by force of law (see #2), they are based on ownership as a shareholder. This is much closer to example #1 than example #2.
------------

Yes, this means that the Republicans have some socialist/left wing tendencies, or at least, have in the past.

Note that Republican =/= "right wing."

*Also, I didn't address the rest of your post because it's not relevant to the present issue. I am not dodging the issues you raised, it's just that they are immaterial to the point being discussed.

biccat wrote:The idea of "astrology" or other pseudosciences tend to be more of the pagan wannabe type, who tend to be more liberal.

Like these notorious hippies:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Here you go Biccat

Broad left-wing:
"We're all in this together."

Broad right-wing:
"F you I got mine."

Now, that is horribly generalized, because its hard to break down people into quick and easy sound-bytes. People sure try hard though.

I'm not sure how this distinguishes Obama as a "center/right" or "not leftist" president.

President Obama wrote:we’re in this thing together

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

biccat wrote:The idea of "astrology" or other pseudosciences tend to be more of the pagan wannabe type, who tend to be more liberal.

Like these notorious hippies:

I'm not sure what clever point you think you're making. Did you notice that I said "X tend to be Y"? The existence of outliers doesn't disprove the statement.

Clever, but irrelevant.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:This is quite confusing.

The world is neither black and white nor is it shades of grey, it is in full color.

.

TBone the Terrible disputes that statement. In fact, weiner legions everywhere call such statements about the myth of color as heresy!

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure how this distinguishes Obama as a "center/right" or "not leftist" president.

President Obama wrote:we’re in this thing together

I guess I didn't realize you were asking specifically about Obama, I was just giving you general definitions I thought fit left and right wing mentality (most of the time).

Obama favors compromise and consensus, and seems like more of a pragmatist when it comes to trying to get things done to me. I wouldn't say he is terribly on one side or the other. They felt they had to save GM, so they did by propping it up, and they probably saved quite a few jobs in the process. They don't feel like they need to go after executives/arseholes at banks that precipitated the global crash, so they haven't (even though I wish they would).

Besides, why do you want to assign an easy one/two-word descriptor to our president? Wouldn't you rather him have more depth than that?

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:This is quite confusing.

The world is neither black and white nor is it shades of grey, it is in full color.

I wonder if you would call ANY government right wing these days, given your confusion over this issue.

I was simply asking for a definition of "left wing" that would clearly distinguish President Obama and the DNC as "right wing" as opposed to "left wing." Yours doesn't fit.

Manchu wrote:@c.a.f.: Yeah, but still -- what? I guess I am expressing deep incredulity at that statement.

OK, you're right, only crazy people can be right-wingers. You sir have bested me in interwebz debate. I doff my hat to you.

Evidently Melissia's definition is closer to communists as left wing with everyone else as right wing. Thats...interesting. Its also not particularly helpful for US politics as everything is a spectrum. For example, Franco would have considered Reagan and everyone else a Leninist hippy, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is a Leninist hippy. Every country has a spectrum.

biccat wrote:Clever, but irrelevant.

Not intended to be clever but I do think it's relevant. I don't find convincing your association of the New Age movement with liberal political views or your idea that faith healing is associated with conservative political views. I'm not sure that these observations are based in anything but anecdotes, the equivalent of which is pointing out that Nancy Reagan maintained a court astrologer.

The astrology question has come up in other threads about this particular questionnaire. I don't think it's been answered yet is all.

It'd have to be socialism or communism to be left-leaning to me, yes.

I don't associate "left wing" or "right wing" with anything social.

And in case you weren't paying attention when you were talking about your weiner dogs (not that anyone can blame you, they are after all weiner dogs), I said that it was a complex spectrum. "Left" to me implies a non-capitalist economic leaning, IE towards socialism or communism. Right-wing extremist, to me, implies a pure (or close to pure) capitalist leaning.

And most people in the US are right wing by this definition, with Democrats being closer to economic centrism while Republicans typically lean towards a further right wing economic theory. That social issues are often tied into the definition to make a two dimensional scale is exactly what I try to avoid with this definition.

Social progressivism is left-wing without being socialism or communism. I don't get your point, M.

Okay, with you edits I do get your point and agree with you.

Melissia wrote:It'd have to be socialism or communism to be left-leaning to me, yes.

I don't associate "left wing" or "right wing" with anything social.

Your view of socialism is limited, and further does not reflect the spectum of political views in the US. If the standpoint is "anyone who doesn't believe in full unfettered control of pproperty is a commie pinko," then your standard is not relevant. As a person discussing the world as a melange of color your view is remarkably monochrome.

Frazzled wrote:If the standpoint is "anyone who doesn't believe in full unfettered control of pproperty is a commie pinko," then your standard is not relevant.

This standard was paraded on many an anti-Obama picketing sign last year. In that sense, it is relevant.

Manchu wrote:Social progressivism is left-wing without being socialism or communism.

Not to me.

Social progressivism (as opposed to economic) has nothing to do with either left or right wing.

Okay, but you're not using a spectrum common to most people.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If the standpoint is "anyone who doesn't believe in full unfettered control of pproperty is a commie pinko," then your standard is not relevant.

This standard was paraded on many an anti-Obama picketing sign last year. In that sense, it is relevant.

And in a greater sense, its not.

Manchu wrote:Okay, but you're not using a spectrum common to most people.

That's because most people want to oversimplify everything and put it on an inaccurate two-dimensional scale.

The two-dimensional "left-right" scale is a lie.

Frazzled wrote:And in a greater sense, its not.

Exactamundo!

Manchu wrote:The astrology question has come up in other threads about this particular questionnaire. I don't think it's been answered yet is all.

Changing from "Strongly disagree" on the astrology question to "strongly agree" moves 0.46 from "libertarian" to "authoritarian." Presumably if you disagree you're more likely to question authority. Not sure how that follows.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Okay, but you're not using a spectrum common to most people.

That's because most people want to oversimplify everything and put it on an inaccurate two-dimensional scale.

The two-dimensional "left-right" scale is a lie.

You're not getting it are you. Thats what you are being accused of.

biccat wrote:
It's confusing because:
1: Government takes over a company = socialism.

Got it, this is clearly understood. "Taking over" implies two elements: a) the government is using collective wealth to support the industry; and b) conditions on the industry are imposed by governmenet actors, not private ones.

2: Government props up a company and imposes demands on that company = not-socialism.

Not sure how this follows. By propping up a company, the government is using tax dollars (government money, collective wealth, what have you) to support the industry. By imposing demands on that company, conditions are imposed by government actors, not private ones.

3: Government buys part of a company, promises to sell back the company later = not-socialism.

Still using taxpayer dollars to support an industry. Still imposing demands, only instead of those demands being by force of law (see #2), they are based on ownership as a shareholder. This is much closer to example #1 than example

Ah, I see. You're reasoning from the broadest understanding of socialism, not the understanding of socialism that prevails in US politics.

Frazzled wrote:You're not getting it are you. Thats what you are being accused of.

So when I am specifically expressing that things are not as simple as people claim them to be, I'm trying to oversimplify things? When I say that economic beliefs are not tied to social beliefs, I'm oversimplifying things? So when I say that the world is full of a wide spectrum of differing beliefs which do not fit on the traditional two-dimensional scale used by pundits, I'm oversimplifying things?

*muttermuttermutter*

Have I woken up in bizarro world or something?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You're not getting it are you. Thats what you are being accused of.

So when I am specifically expressing that things are not as simple as people claim them to be, I'm trying to oversimplify things? When I say that economic beliefs are not tied to social beliefs, I'm oversimplifying things? So when I say that the world is full of a wide spectrum of differing beliefs which do not fit on the traditional two-dimensional scale used by pundits, I'm oversimplifying things?

*muttermuttermutter*

Have I woken up in bizarro world or something?

Maybe you invented it. Your statements are meaningless when you then say that a leftwinger is only a person advocating government control of the means of production. IN the words fo the immortal bard: "sucker please."

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:The astrology question has come up in other threads about this particular questionnaire. I don't think it's been answered yet is all.

Changing from "Strongly disagree" on the astrology question to "strongly agree" moves 0.46 from "libertarian" to "authoritarian." Presumably if you disagree you're more likely to question authority. Not sure how that follows.

Exactly. I think this is a strange little example of bias here. Associating astrology in the contemporary sense with either of libertarian or authoritarian worldviews seems to come packaged with all sorts of weird assumptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@M: I would like to know how economic and social beliefs are not tied to one another . . .

dogma wrote:Ah, I see. You're reasoning from the broadest understanding of socialism, not the understanding of socialism that prevails in US politics.

There's a consistent "understanding of socialism that prevails in US politics"? If so, what is it, and how is it relevant to distinguish the American Left from the more generic "Left"?

So we're back to square one. Can anyone provide a definition of "left wing" that clearly distinguishes Democrats and President Obama? The assertion has been made a number of times that the "American Left" is really center/right, but no one really has offered a good definition that establishes that fact.

edit: Sorry Daedalus Templarius, I missed your post.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Besides, why do you want to assign an easy one/two-word descriptor to our president? Wouldn't you rather him have more depth than that?

I'm not trying to do so. It has been asserted that President Obama and the DNC are moderate/right. I'm simply asking for clarification as to what constitutes "left" so as to distinguish between a "generic leftist" and "American leftist". Melissia's definition wasn't bad, but it proves too much.

To snark, I'd love it if our President was deep, thoughtful, and capable of sophisticated political opinions. Unfortunately, you play the hand you're dealt.

Frazzled wrote:Maybe you invented it. Your statements are meaningless when you then say that a leftwinger is only a person advocating government control of the means of production. IN the words fo the immortal bard: "sucker please."

Meh. I'm not sure if this is worth the effort... so I'm going to pull from wikipedia instead:

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

This contrasts with....

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit

Left versus right, economically. No first world government adopts either to the extreme-- instead they take a more centrist stance, and more properly are said to lean from center towards one or the other (the US government typically leaning more right wing, while European governments have typically leaned more left-wing in comparison to eachother).

But then, the traditional definition of right-wing also incorporates conservative social views. And yet, you do not have to have conservative social views to be a free-market capitalist. nor do you have to be a free-market capitalist to believe in conservative social views (in fact, I've seen it argued that many communist states-- which exist on the extreme of left wing, complete public ownership of all property and wealth-- were extremely socially conservative).

Therefor it is illogical to tie the two together as most pundits do. Instead, I use the terms "socially conservative" or "socially liberal" in conjunction with "left wing economics" or "right wing economics". While this is still somewhat oversimplifying it, it's better than saying "right wing" and assuming everyone who is right wing is socially conservative, which is false (see Libertarians, who are socially liberal while being economically right wing).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:@M: I would like to know how economic and social beliefs are not tied to one another . . .

I would like to know how they ARE.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:@M: I would like to know how economic and social beliefs are not tied to one another . . .

I would like to know how they ARE.

How people are taxed is as much of a social as it is an economic question. Laying aside the idea of funding government programs, let's just look at the deduction of charitable giving. This is an economic provision specifically design to effect a social end.

Manchu wrote:How people are taxed is as much of a social as it is an economic question.

Which is oversimplifying the right wing stance down to a single action.

But I present to you two hypothetical people (who aren't actually all that hypothetical, as I know people with these views):

Both people argue for smaller government, less taxes (especially for the rich, whom they view are overtaxed and instead want a flat tax), cutting government spending on social services, etc.

But one of them argues that abortion should be made illegal in all cases (even when it threatens the mother's life and health), that gay marriage should be outlawed (as permanently as it can be given our legal structure) through a constitutional amendment, that marijuana should remain banned and in fact penalties should be harsher for possession and use, and that all illegal immigrants need to be deported along with their families (including children who were born in the US, whom he believes don't deserve citizenship).

And the other person argues for the availability of the choice of abortion regardless of situation, doesn't believe the government has a right to regulate marriage between consenting adults (including polygamy for example), believes that marijuana should be legal for recreational and medicinal use and taxed just like cigarettes and alcohol are, and believes in trying to nationalize illegal immigrants and only deporting them after exhausting all efforts to convince them to nationalize.

Which one is right wing according to your viewpoint? Their economic views are the same. Their social views are dramatically different. According to my view, they're both right wing, but one of them is socially conservative while the other is socially liberal.

Not all positions are both economic and social. Why would they need to be?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:How people are taxed is as much of a social as it is an economic question.

Which is oversimplifying the right wing stance down to a single action.

No, this is an ideologically neutral statement. It has nothing to do with either leftist or rightist perspectives.

Manchu wrote:Not all positions are both economic and social. Why would they need to be?

You're the one that's trying to combine the two by disagreeing with my separation of economic and social positions.

I am saying that there is no necessary disconnect between economic and social issues. I believe they are very often tied together, as in the charitable giving deduction example I provided to you.

Granted, there are certainly many people who believe the governments should deliver all sorts of programs or enforce all sorts of laws against all sorts of behaviors without ever giving any thought to how these sorts of things should be funded, but that's as may be.

The main point is that your separation of economic from social issues does not reflect the complexity you are trying to demonstrate. Rather, it is an oversimplification.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Not all positions are both economic and social. Why would they need to be?

You're the one that's trying to combine the two by disagreeing with my separation of economic and social positions.

Social programs cost money, "socialists" tend to like those. The money required for spending on such programs in many cases comes from taxes, which involves (at least tangentially) economics.

I hope I put enough qualifiers in there to appease the Pedantry Brigade.

Monster Rain, that's the sort of pedantry up with which I shall gladly put.

Manchu wrote:The main point is that your separation of economic from social issues does not reflect the complexity you are trying to demonstrate. Rather, it is an oversimplification.

And yet, combining the two like you suggest is also an oversimplification.

I provided two very good examples in the previous page.

biccat wrote:
There's a consistent "understanding of socialism that prevails in US politics"? If so, what is it...

Sure, in US politics socialism is most often simply another word, generally a pejorative, for the left in general. Of course, this is an anecdotal determination, but that's basically what follows from any argument from the prevalence of definition X.

biccat wrote:
So we're back to square one. Can anyone provide a definition of "left wing" that clearly distinguishes Democrats and President Obama? The assertion has been made a number of times that the "American Left" is really center/right, but no one really has offered a good definition that establishes that fact.

Nor has anyone offerred a good definition of what the right side of the spectrum constitutes, and why it does not include Obama or the American left. Conservatives? If so, what kind of conversvative? Fiscal? Social? If either, then is it conservatism in the strict sense of wanting to maintain the status quo, or in the broad sense of desiring a certain set of political outcomes arising from what has been termed progressivism in the past?

This sort of ambiguity is why I made my earlier comment about the meaninglessness of political spectra, particularly those that discuss the left and the right as opposed to the right as defined by this spectrum or the left as defined by this spectrum.

biccat wrote:
...and how is it relevant to distinguish the American Left from the more generic "Left"?

In a material sense it isn't, but then spectra aren't usually about material politics. They're about how people feel about political positions, and the rhetoric used to justify them. In general this means that any US politician is going to be viewed as right of center, because in US politics socialism is a dirty word.

To illustrate, who is further to the right, the guy that wants to abolish corporate taxes, or the guy that wants to impose a 1% corporate tax in order to fund an office of accounting standards?

Melissia wrote:I provided two very good examples in the previous page.

I would suggest re-reading MonsterRain's post.

To wit: Those who want abortion made illegal and what the laws against abortion enforced must consider that this will entail an expense to the government greater than the allowing legal abortions to be privately funded. Now, it is certainly possible that a person who wanted abortions to be legal would also, on balance, favor less spending by the government. But to say that every social issue is utter independent of any economic issue is a much greater oversimplification than saying that all social issues have inextricable economic implications.

I couldn't care less about any politics, but at a push I'd say I like or agree with communisn, and I mean proper communism, not what americans pretend communism is.

Stella Cadente wrote:I couldn't care less about any politics, but at a push I'd say I like or agree with communisn, and I mean proper communism, not what americans pretend communism is.

What would you say that Americans pretend communism is -- that's actually one of the current points of debate so you have perfect timing!

Stella Cadente wrote:I couldn't care less about any politics, but at a push I'd say I like or agree with communisn, and I mean proper communism, not what americans pretend communism is.

You do know for speaking your mind on the internet you'd probably be in a gulag under "proper communism" right? First you wouldn't be allowed access to the inernet, second for utilizing free speech you'd be a dead man.

Manchu wrote:

Stella Cadente wrote:I couldn't care less about any politics, but at a push I'd say I like or agree with communisn, and I mean proper communism, not what americans pretend communism is.

What would you say that Americans pretend communism is -- that's actually one of the current points of debate so you have perfect timing!

I don't debate politics, it's about as much a waste of time as 2 40k players debating which space marine chapter has larger cod pieces, a complete waste of time with neither side listening to what the other says.

I posted what I like or agree with, and that's that, I'm happy enough to keep my reasons to myself and avoid the brick wall headedness of political debates.

It depends on what S.C. meant by "proper." Communism doesn't necessarily entail authoritarianism, but that could just be an American pretending.

I think he means a true communist Scotsman.

Manchu wrote:It depends on what S.C. meant by "proper." Communism doesn't necessarily entail authoritarianism, but that could just be an American pretending.

Huh? How does it not necessarily entail authoritarianism? How else do you ensure that everyone contributes and doesn't leech off of the system?

Why not try democracy?

Manchu wrote:Why not try democracy?

Then it wouldn't be communism now would it Manchu.

They aren't exclusive, my dear fellow.

It depends on what S.C. meant by "proper." Communism doesn't necessarily entail authoritarianism, but that could just be an American pretending.

I think she meant the Utopian ideal that many communists have. It's a beautiful thing, utter fiction, but beautiful none the less.

Manchu wrote:They aren't exclusive, my dear fellow.

respectfully, and I say that because your angry ork avatar makes the weiners nervous, they are. To obtain the ideal communist endgame all power has to go to the centralized collective in order to properly reorganize and re-educate the propulation. Thats the antithesis of democracy.

You sound like Lenin!

The sad truth is that the facts are on your side while I only have lifeless concepts . . .

Manchu wrote:You sound like Lenin!

The sad truth is that the facts are on your side while I only have lifeless concepts . . .

And really sharp pointy teeth!

Isn't Utopian communism called Marxism generally? It has succeeded in small scale tests, but that is when you are using only volunteers for the test subjects. It would not work on a large scale.

micahaphone wrote:Isn't Utopian communism called Marxism generally? It has succeeded in small scale tests, but that is when you are using only volunteers for the test subjects. It would not work on a large scale.

Or when one of the volunteers has a burp gun.

Frazzled wrote:

micahaphone wrote:Isn't Utopian communism called Marxism generally? It has succeeded in small scale tests, but that is when you are using only volunteers for the test subjects. It would not work on a large scale.

Or when one of the volunteers has a burp gun.

As proven in Russia, lead is a key ingredient in making people agree with you!

I am a Socialist.

I wish that those who use the term actually knew what it meant. It seems that Republicans use the term "Socialist" in the same way they use the word "Terrorist".

Karon wrote:I am a Socialist.

I wish that those who use the term actually knew what it meant. It seems that Republicans use the term "Socialist" in the same way they use the word "Terrorist".

Everyone knows that "Socialist" doesn't mean the same thing as "Terrorist."

It's just that not everyone knows that the former is a subset of the latter.

Not a great joke, biccat. :(

And if it wasn't a joke then it's pretty much trolling without further explanation.

Manchu wrote:Not a great joke, biccat. :(

I refuse to apologize for having a bad sense of humor.

This image comes to mind:

Manchu wrote:This image comes to mind:

Oh wow, who took the "after" photo of me?

I didn't know you had had a chest hair transplant?

How's it working out?

Certainly not a player of the game, but I do so love the fluff. So I suppose I count. I'm a Fascist Reactionary with Bonapartist leanings.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Okay, but you're not using a spectrum common to most people.

That's because most people want to oversimplify everything and put it on an inaccurate two-dimensional scale.

The two-dimensional "left-right" scale is a lie.

Left-right is a one dimensional scale. Economic left-right paired with social conservative-progressive is two dimensional, like the political compass test.

Manchu wrote:I am saying that there is no necessary disconnect between economic and social issues. I believe they are very often tied together, as in the charitable giving deduction example I provided to you.

Granted, there are certainly many people who believe the governments should deliver all sorts of programs or enforce all sorts of laws against all sorts of behaviors without ever giving any thought to how these sorts of things should be funded, but that's as may be.

The main point is that your separation of economic from social issues does not reflect the complexity you are trying to demonstrate. Rather, it is an oversimplification.

I'd hazard a guess that "economic" is meant to refer specifically to issues like taxation, regulations, social programs, and public infrastructure, while "social" refers to what are effectively moral judgments legislated by the government that have few, or less obvious, economic implications.

Frazzled wrote:

Stella Cadente wrote:I couldn't care less about any politics, but at a push I'd say I like or agree with communisn, and I mean proper communism, not what americans pretend communism is.

You do know for speaking your mind on the internet you'd probably be in a gulag under "proper communism" right? First you wouldn't be allowed access to the inernet, second for utilizing free speech you'd be a dead man.

I'm assuming "proper communism" means "(actual) marxism" (as in, what Marx actually proposed), which isn't so much a system as a "path to Anarchism", so to speak. The idea is for the working class to revolt and establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that would serve to coordinate the logistics of the transition to Anarchism, then stand down and return to work. Naturally, this doesn't actually work, but it's a far cry from Stalinism or any other "communist" regime we've seen. Now Anarchism, as a system, demonstrably works, with the caveat that it only works in very small groups, no more than a few hundred. We see it in both horticultural tribes and hippy communes, and in both it functions, but it doesn't scale up beyond those numbers, at which point the "crime protection" of "everyone knows and is familiar with everyone else" breaks down due to the limits of the human brain, and logistics become too burdensome for chaotic organization to work everything out.

Sir P is a smart person.

dogma wrote:Nor has anyone offerred a good definition of what the right side of the spectrum constitutes, and why it does not include Obama or the American left.

I think I have offered legitimate reasons to distinguish President Obama from the "Right" side of the spectrum. You may not agree with them, but ideas like single-payer health care, opposition to the war, support for an expansionist view of "civil rights" and government control and support for industry are all "left" ideas.

Others have suggested that Obama is right-of-center. I'm simply asking for an explanation or definition of what "left" means, and how that definition can exclude the President. At least Melissia made an attempt, even if it was too restrictive, and didn't distinguish.

Opposition to unnecessary foreign wars is classically Right, being entirely in keeping with noninterventionist and Libertarian doctrine.

Civil Rights are nothing more than an extrapolation or fulfillment of the rights granted us in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Government control and support for industry is a fact of life in all modern governments. It's how it's done that makes it Right or Left. Done one was it's Facism; which Mussolini considered the merger of state and corporate power.

How are the democrats right wing?

If Obama was to run for office in any other country in the developed world, and attempted to run on moving the country towards social structures and tax rates he's currently trying for in the US, he'd be on the fringe of the right wing. Probably so far on the fringe he'd be unelectable in all but most conservative parts of the country.


In other news, it's actually pretty much impossible to create a universal scale of left and right, because politics varies so much from location to location. Abortion, for instance, is actually still illegal in several states in Australia, but openly practiced*. Access to abortion is widely supported by the general population, and the folk who campaign against are treated very harshly, I'd say unfairly. Yet technically abortion is more restricted in Australia than it is in the US, but access isn't, and nor is it mentioned at all in the lead up to elections. So how do you put that on a left right scale that also includes the US position.

There's also problems with splitting things along left/right, authoritarian/libertarian. If I support strict drug laws but also support gay marriage, am I more or less authoritarian than someone else?

Ultimately you just use the labels when vague descriptors are good enough, and when they're not you have to drop them talk about what people actually believe.




*The law in two states in Australia, WA and QLD, says abortion can be performed if there is a risk to the mother's life, but abortion as an operation is safer than childbirth, so technically every abortion is protecting the mother... this loophole is used to have legal abortions even though the act is still officially illegal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Huh? How does it not necessarily entail authoritarianism? How else do you ensure that everyone contributes and doesn't leech off of the system?

Because communism can simply mean that the state owns the means of production. Getting a job and keeping a job, and therefore getting paid, would still be up to the individual.

There's this idea, bizarrely agreed by both the left and the right for entirely different reasons, that there was no poverty or homelessness in communism. There was.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:[snip]

Herp derp. I keep forgetting zero is a point, while one is two points.

Frazzled wrote:Then it wouldn't be communism now would it Manchu.

While I think modern communist thinkers need to do a lot of work in describing why communism has resulted in oppressive states and why it wouldn't happen in future communist states, and that it speaks very poorly of them that they aren't doing that work, it doesn't do much to advance the anti-communist cause to just keep bleating 'authoritarian!'

If the bulk of society voted to nationalise industry, and kept voting for this, you'd have a communist society that was also democratic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:respectfully, and I say that because your angry ork avatar makes the weiners nervous, they are. To obtain the ideal communist endgame all power has to go to the centralized collective in order to properly reorganize and re-educate the propulation. Thats the antithesis of democracy.

None of what you've said there is true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

micahaphone wrote:Isn't Utopian communism called Marxism generally? It has succeeded in small scale tests, but that is when you are using only volunteers for the test subjects. It would not work on a large scale.

Marxism is a term used by some communists to differentiate what they want want from how communism has actually worked out in the real world. "That wasn't communism, that was Leninism". "That wasn't communism, that was Maoism."

They then claim what they're aiming for, Marxism, is totally different, because ummm, oh look over there a factory worker in Guatamala is being oppressed, vote Socialist Party #1


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I refuse to apologize for having a bad sense of humor.

Ironically enough, that was pretty funny.

sebster wrote:

micahaphone wrote:Isn't Utopian communism called Marxism generally? It has succeeded in small scale tests, but that is when you are using only volunteers for the test subjects. It would not work on a large scale.

Marxism is a term used by some communists to differentiate what they want want from how communism has actually worked out in the real world. "That wasn't communism, that was Leninism". "That wasn't communism, that was Maoism."

They then claim what they're aiming for, Marxism, is totally different, because ummm, oh look over there a factory worker in Guatamala is being oppressed, vote Socialist Party #1

So in essence, communism only works in theory, not practice?

biccat wrote:
Others have suggested that Obama is right-of-center. I'm simply asking for an explanation or definition of what "left" means, and how that definition can exclude the President.

As I've said, in most cases, "left" and "right" have more to do with rhetoric than policy. Considering rhetoric, and using your understanding of the term, Obama supports war (campaigned on expanding operations in Afghanistan), tax cuts (campaigned on reducing the overall tax burden, extended Bush tax cuts), has a reasonably aggressive foreign policy (Libya), and maintains a desire to export democracy (basically all the rhetoric surrounding the ME/NA protests). All of which still put him to the left of a lot of US politicians due to his stance on DADT, gay marriage. abortion (marking him as socially progressive, rather than socially conservative), and healthcare reform. Really I think what this comes to is whether or not you consider political spectra to be relative or absolute. I'm fairly certain you're in the latter camp.

Additionally, I basically agree with Mannahnin in that, excepting single-payer healthcare, all the ideas you listed have alternately been elements of both the left and right sides of the political spectrum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

micahaphone wrote:
So in essence, communism only works in theory, not practice?

It doesn't really work in theory either. The ideology as espoused by Marx never really defines what a dictatorship of the proletariat is, or how it would bring about a worker's paradise. In fact, just about every Marxist in history has made his name by trying to solve both of those problems.

There's this idea, bizarrely agreed by both the left and the right for entirely different reasons, that there was no poverty or homelessness in communism. There was.

So in essence, communism only works in theory, not practice?

It never works in practice.
It works in theory, when you theorize it working in Utopia. However being Utopia most things work there.
It does work in the mind of every naive university freshman who thinks that capitalism is inherently evil (its' not, well not more than any other system) and wants to be Radical (guilty).That's really about it!
The amount of poverty and homelessness in Soviet Russia was very large(not that capitalism has fixed this), not to mention the political murders.

micahaphone wrote:So in essence, communism only works in theory, not practice?

Maybe, I don't know. I know that authoritarianism never works, in theory or in practice, and every communist government we've seen has been authoritarian. And so, like authoritarian capitalist societies, they've been doomed to economic stagnation, political oppression and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

For that to change, you'd have to look at a democratically elected communist government... which we've never seen. And that's the trick to the question I hinted at above.

See, everyone asks "why are all communist governments undemocratic?" but they're putting the bull before the horns. Because we the pattern they've assumed is that countries have taken on communism, then dismantled their democratic systems. But no democracy has ever embraced communism. Instead we see un-democratic states, typically failed states, with a general revolution or a coup, replace one authoritarian government with a new, communist authoritarian government.

At which point we can see that while non-democratic societies can become communist, but at least so far in history, it appears democracies do not become communist.

Suddenly the question isn't "why are all communist states undemocratic?", but "why don't democracies ever become communist?"

And the answer to that question is "because no society actually wants it."

Whether it could ever actually work or not, no society has ever actually wanted it. When they have played with it, like the UK did in the wake of WWII, they've backtracked about as fast as possible.

Andrew1975 wrote:

There's this idea, bizarrely agreed by both the left and the right for entirely different reasons, that there was no poverty or homelessness in communism. There was.

So in essence, communism only works in theory, not practice?

It never works in practice.
It works in theory, when you theorize it working in Utopia. However being Utopia most things work there.
It does work in the mind of every naive university freshman who thinks that capitalism is inherently evil (its' not, well not more than any other system) and wants to be Radical (guilty).That's really about it!
The amount of poverty and homelessness in Soviet Russia was very large(not that capitalism has fixed this), not to mention the political murders.

It's more complex than that, since "communism" is frequently used to mean a number of different things: at its broadest any command economy, more narrowly the whole of the extremely disparate movements that have claimed to be communist, and at its most specific the actual ideas put forward by Marx. The last of which I don't think works on paper either; that's just a cliche that gets repeated ad nauseum, like "at least the trains ran on time!" or some variation thereof in reference to Fascism. What's important to note, however, is that even many of the "failed" attempts at Marxism worked better than the Capitalism Marx was familiar, as he lived at the height of the excesses of Victorian Capitalism, a system so horrific that even the Soviet Union comes out looking good. Shown the post-New Deal USA, and the Stalin-era USSR, he probably would have favored the former, as it curtailed the worst excesses of Capitalism, while the Soviet Union descended into paranoid fratricide and poverty.

A command economy actually works, however. Even the poorly implemented and focused, run-by-thugs-and-assassins USSR managed to go from war-torn agricultural backwater to contemporary industrial power in a couple of decades, before being burned to the ground again, only to defeat an army that conquered almost the whole of Europe, despite being led by an incompetent sociopath who had his entire military leadership killed prior to the war. Afterwards, it emerged the second most powerful country on Earth and managed to survive another half century before bankrupting itself in Afghanistan and collapsing, while the most powerful nation tried to undermine and bring it down, and it actively advocated an ideology at odds with its own actions, with its leaders being chosen with a game of courtiership and assassination, neither of which translate well to actually running a country. Was it a brutal regime prone to economic oversights causing shortages and poverty? Of course, but it still came out second despite the odds against it. A command economy with modern technology that's not waging a constant war on its own citizenry and pursuing a bizarre mix of hypocrisy and Marxism would almost certainly work quite well; there's no chance of one actually being implemented anywhere, and if it were you can bet it would be sabotaged by ideologues and criminals seeking personal gain, but the fundamentals behind it are functional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Whether it could ever actually work or not, no society has ever actually wanted it. When they have played with it, like the UK did in the wake of WWII, they've backtracked about as fast as possible.

Right, because American interference and wealthy interests investing in anti-communist propaganda couldn't have had any influence on that...

Sir Pseudonymous wrote
It's more complex than that..........

The basic psychology of communism doesn't work. Humanities main motivational instincts are survival, followed by greed. Capitalism thrives because it understands it is easier and more productive to nurture these drives and then regulate them, whereas communism tries to deny they exist or at least espouses that they are wrong(well to the masses anyway).

I don't think communism saved the Soviets during world war 2, Totalitarianism did! The USSR may have been the number 2 military power in the world, but they were far from being anywhere near the west in an economic sense, Seriously the country has 2 large metropolitan cities, Moscow and St.Petersburg, the rest is medium size cities and ......well nothing! They have the infrastructure of a third world nation and one of the worst primary and secondary education systems in the modern world. Lots of natural resources though.

Don't get me wrong, I love the place, but when I lived there for a while my friends and I just couldn't understand how they were ever really considered number 2. We didn't even have heat and hot water in our dormitories 90% of the time!

That being said, not pure form of communism or capitalism will ever work.

There are a lot of societies that existed without greed being the major element of their culture. Greed from exterior cultures wiped out a lot of those cultures but they do show that greed isn't second behind survival. It is our culture that has told us this, though the reasons vary depending on the researchers varying from it being the most natural state (thanks CATO) to a rationalization for being horrible people. It is obliviously an element but whether it is a base element is up for debate, not set in concrete.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Right, because American interference and wealthy interests investing in anti-communist propaganda couldn't have had any influence on that...

In 1948? No, it wasn't a factor. You need to look at least a decade later to start seeing the CIA beginning to feth around in other people's politics. Even, then their influence in developed countries wasn't that great.

And in all of them the communist party remained legal but never won an election. Because ultimately there's never been a majority population that wants to hand the means of production over to the state.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote
It's more complex than that..........

The basic psychology of communism doesn't work. Humanities main motivational instincts are survival, followed by greed. Capitalism thrives because it understands it is easier and more productive to nurture these drives and then regulate them, whereas communism tries to deny they exist or at least espouses that they are wrong(well to the masses anyway).

The majority of human history has been served in de facto second stage communism (Anarchism). Prior to the advent of agriculture, all known societies were effectively anarchist: everyone who is able works, everyone eats, no one has any authority beyond the respect of others. This isn't compatible with the larger societies agriculture made possible, nor the more permanent land ownership agriculture requires (horticulturalists being either semi-nomadic, or simply frequently (every couple of years) changing their fields), and obviously couldn't support all the modern comforts we have today, like running water and medicine, but it does work, and has historically been the most prevalent form of human society. To quote what I said by the end of the last page:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:I'm assuming "proper communism" means "(actual) marxism" (as in, what Marx actually proposed), which isn't so much a system as a "path to Anarchism", so to speak. The idea is for the working class to revolt and establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that would serve to coordinate the logistics of the transition to Anarchism, then stand down and return to work. Naturally, this doesn't actually work, but it's a far cry from Stalinism or any other "communist" regime we've seen. Now Anarchism, as a system, demonstrably works, with the caveat that it only works in very small groups, no more than a few hundred. We see it in both horticultural tribes and hippy communes, and in both it functions, but it doesn't scale up beyond those numbers, at which point the "crime protection" of "everyone knows and is familiar with everyone else" breaks down due to the limits of the human brain, and logistics become too burdensome for chaotic organization to work everything out.

Further, a command economy, in and of itself, is not Communism. If you had a technocratic government who nominally owned all business, industry, and agriculture, and thus employed all the citizenry, you'd have a command economy, even if it provided luxuries and rewarded skill much like a capitalist system does. I'd go so far as to say such a setup would be the only way a post-labor/scarcity society could function, for instance, as Capitalism breaks down if there's no need for workers (if no one needs employees, there'll be no one with money to buy any products or services, after all).

I don't think communism saved the Soviets during world war 2, Totalitarianism did!

Their massive population and the government control over the remaining industrial infrastructure, coupled with the hostile climate, the small, overextended forces the Nazis could bring to bear, as well as the monumental incompetence of the Nazi command (which probably made up for Stalin offing the Soviet military leadership), are what led them to victory. The fact that they managed that under communism isn't to say that Capitalism would have failed in such a circumstance, only that having a command economy didn't lead to their downfall.

The USSR may have been the number 2 military power in the world, but they were far from being anywhere near the west in an economic sense, Seriously the country has 2 large metropolitan cities, Moscow and St.Petersburg, the rest is medium size cities and ......well nothing! They have the infrastructure of a third world nation and one of the worst primary and secondary education systems in the modern world. Lots of natural resources though.

Don't get me wrong, I love the place, but when I lived there for a while my friends and I just couldn't understand how they were ever really considered number 2. We didn't even have heat and hot water in our dormitories 90% of the time!

That being said, not pure form of communism or capitalism will ever work.

It certainly didn't bring about luxuries or comfort, but it still managed a great deal of industrial development and scientific progress, and considering its conditions (when the Czars were toppled, Russia was basically to the rest of the developed world what it is to the rest of the developed world today, if not worse off) I don't think Capitalism would necessarily have done much better, though had the Bolsheviks not seized power after revolutionaries overthrew the Czars, it may have ended up better off, more like Scandinavia.

Andrew1975 wrote:I don't think communism saved the Soviets during world war 2, Totalitarianism did! The USSR may have been the number 2 military power in the world, but they were far from being anywhere near the west in an economic sense

Thing is, communism works to turn agrarian societies into industrial societies really, really quickly. They can't really innovate or build new industry, but they can copy the industry already developed elsewhere in the world, and just pick up peasants and pile them into new factories in a way that free economies just can't.

The same thing is happening in China now. Most of their growth is just in pure inputs, drawing labour off the farms and into the factories, bringing in more and more natural resources from the rest of the world, and building more and more factories.

The thing is, it doesn't last, because sooner or later the inputs have all been maximised, and to keep growing you need to do things better and more efficiently. And communism does not do efficiency.


Oh, and Russia wasn't the number 2 military after WWII. It was number 1. By a long fething way.

Ahtman wrote:There are a lot of societies that existed without greed being the major element of their culture. Greed from exterior cultures wiped out a lot of those cultures but they do show that greed isn't second behind survival. It is our culture that has told us this, though the reasons vary depending on the researchers varying from it being the most natural state (thanks CATO) to a rationalization for being horrible people. It is obliviously an element but whether it is a base element is up for debate, not set in concrete.

If greed represents greed for power than I'd disagree strongly. Can you cite examples?

dogma wrote:Really I think what this comes to is whether or not you consider political spectra to be relative or absolute. I'm fairly certain you're in the latter camp.

I have said this a number of times before. I believe (and have shown) that Obama is left of center in American politics. Others have suggested that Obama is "right of center," or that the US doesn't have a "real left." This is an absolute statement, yet one no one has been willing to defend it (ok, no one except Melissia).

Fer feths sake, is it really that difficult for people to explain what they mean when they make statements like this? Could you please address the issue, or, if you disagree that Obama is generic-right (or that generic-right has any meaning), avoid making meaningless posts about the relativity of political labels?

Hey, I stand by my position

I don't appear to be doing a very good job at explaining it though :(

Andrew1975 wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote
It's more complex than that..........

The basic psychology of communism doesn't work. Humanities main motivational instincts are survival, followed by greed.

I'm pretty sure humans have more motives than just a desire for excess wealth whether it's the lonely guy who wants a girlfriend or friends, the sports jock who wants to score the winning goal to boost his bloated

ego, the nerdy kid who does good in school because he wants to be a doctor, there are many examples that show people have different priorities/values over one another and sometimes wealth is going to be pretty low

on that list.

Melissia wrote:Hey, I stand by my position

I don't appear to be doing a very good job at explaining it though :(

Thanks for taking the time to seriously address the issue. Despite the fact that I think you're wrong (that is, your definition doesn't distinguish), I appreciate the discussion.

Melissia wrote:Hey, I stand by my position

I don't appear to be doing a very good job at explaining it though :(

AS noted, you did stand up and try to explain it though so kudos to you.

biccat wrote:
I have said this a number of times before. I believe (and have shown) that Obama is left of center in American politics. Others have suggested that Obama is "right of center," or that the US doesn't have a "real left." This is an absolute statement, yet one no one has been willing to defend it (ok, no one except Melissia).

A statement that the US lacks a "real left" doesn't need to be taken as an absolute one

biccat wrote:
Fer feths sake, is it really that difficult for people to explain what they mean when they make statements like this? Could you please address the issue, or, if you disagree that Obama is generic-right (or that generic-right has any meaning), avoid making meaningless posts about the relativity of political labels?

Why are post like that meaningless? I'm making an explicit claim (political labels generally are relative, especially when they're generic by intention) , and arguing for that claim, which certainly indicates the presence of meaning.

The point attached to the end of my lat post was meant to illustrate the crux of the disagreement between both sides here; namely that some posters are using a spectrum governed by the relative positions of extant politicians (which would allow Obama to be centrist relative to both people like Pelosi, and people like Gingrich) and others are using an absolute spectrum (which places Obama roughly center-left, in most cases). Then there are people arguing from a global perspective, which places Obama roughly center-left wit the rest of US politics, and others speaking from a Western spectrum which places Obama center-right (again, together with most US politicians).

I would argue that Obama is, relative to US politics, center-left if only due to his behavior in office (I don't think we know enough about his personal positions to comment). He pushed for DADT, Health care reform, and withdrew troops from Iraq (all leftist issues, except perhaps Iraq) while also extending the Bush Tax Cuts, sending troops to Afghanistan, and refusing to close Gitmo (all right issues, except perhaps Afghanistan). He also hasn't taken a position on gun control, or illegal immigration, which to me says either indifferent, or centrist. And, while he certainly acted to intervene in corporate activity, he didn't do so in a way which was overly intrusive, or really even particularly unpopular amongst other American politicians; meaning that whether or not you see the spectrum as absolute or relative is going to determine where you place it.

Globally, Obama is obviously going to be influenced by his presence in the United States, which is itself right-leaning. In this context he comes out further to the right of just about every leader in the Western world, and really only to left of people like Hu Jintao, Dilma Rousseff, Pratibha Patil, and maybe Angela Merkel.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
I have said this a number of times before. I believe (and have shown) that Obama is left of center in American politics. Others have suggested that Obama is "right of center," or that the US doesn't have a "real left." This is an absolute statement, yet one no one has been willing to defend it (ok, no one except Melissia).

A statement that the US lacks a "real left" doesn't need to be taken as an absolute one.

Um...what?

If politics is relative, then the US has a "real left." Unless you're using a global relative scale, at which point you still have to define what quantifies someone as left/right.

dogma wrote:Why are post like that meaningless? I'm making an explicit claim (political labels generally are relative, especially when they're generic by intention) , and arguing for that claim, which certainly indicates the presence of meaning.

Because you're not advancing the issue. When the claim is made "He isn't a true scotsman," and someone asks for the definition of a true scotsman, you can't respond to the 2nd person by saying there's no such thing as a true scotsman. You're casting doubt on the original premise rather than addressing the question presented.

Although, if you were to agree that the idea that Obama is "right of center" is absurd, you would be on topic.

dogma wrote:Globally, Obama is obviously going to be influenced by his presence in the United States, which is itself right-leaning. In this context he comes out further to the right of just about every leader in the Western world, and really only to left of people like Hu Jintao, Dilma Rousseff, Pratibha Patil, and maybe Angela Merkel.

Wait, Hu Jintao, the communist leader of the largest communist country in the world who is making moderate capitalist reforms under strong internal and external pressure, is on the "right"? While a capitalist leader of the largest capitalist country in the world who is making moderate socialist reforms is not on the "left"?

I see that your scale lacks clarity. Although I appreciate the effort to answer the question.

Here is another one http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php, though only 10 questions but pretty quick if not horribly accurate. Though it put me in Libertarian leaning towards Liberal and Centrist.

Apologies if this one already got posted.

I haven't seen it before. Interesting.

The flaw from a foreign perspective is that most other developed countries are basically more socialist/collectivist than the USA, so our citizens are likely to score towards the blue pentagon.

It seems like if I were to use the standard that is assumed to declare "communism doesn't work in practice," I should also be saying "capitalism doesn't work in practice." Or is the difference that capitalism is supposed to create, at least incidentally, some of the problems that communism claims to be able to fix?

Manchu wrote:It seems like if I were to use the standard that is assumed to declare "communism doesn't work in practice," I should also be saying "capitalism doesn't work in practice." Or is the difference that capitalism is supposed to create, at least incidentally, some of the problems that communism claims to be able to fix?

Well both systems struggle at absolutes, but a capitilist society will grow and develop, while a communist one will often stagnate, or at best keep up.

Communism doesn't work because no country has had success over anything approaching a long term. Capitalism has a far better track record.

If nothing else, capitilism relies on human nature, regulated and controlled by the state (not unlike the criminal code, religion, etc). Communism relies on the state essentially repressing the human nature.

Sckitzo wrote:Here is another one http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php, though only 10 questions but pretty quick if not horribly accurate. Though it put me in Libertarian leaning towards Liberal and Centrist.

Liberal towards centrist (no bias toward either libertarian or statist).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:If nothing else, capitilism relies on human nature, regulated and controlled by the state (not unlike the criminal code, religion, etc). Communism relies on the state essentially repressing the human nature.

Very interesting and truly couched in the spirit of '76. Of course, the same criticisms apply: whose view of human nature is the one to capitalism matches so well?

Oh, and Russia wasn't the number 2 military after WWII. It was number 1. By a long fething way.

Bigger, yes; better, questionable; as capable, doubtful. I think the soviets would have been destroyed in the air, which is all that mattered by the end of WWII. All of which didn't matter if the button got pressed, on either side.

I'm pretty sure humans have more motives than just a desire for excess wealth whether it's the lonely guy who wants a girlfriend or friends, the sports jock who wants to score the winning goal to boost his bloated

ego, the nerdy kid who does good in school because he wants to be a doctor, there are many examples that show people have different priorities/values over one another and sometimes wealth is going to be pretty low

on that list.

Greed isn't just money you know. Of course there are other driving forces, I was just listing the two that are strongest amongst the general population.

The majority of human history has been served in de facto second stage communism (Anarchism). Prior to the advent of agriculture, all known societies were effectively anarchist: everyone who is able works, everyone eats, no one has any authority beyond the respect of others.

Anarchism doesn't have anything to do with Marxism, neither does a forced economy. Well not in the context that I was speaking anyway. The facts are, systems that deny human motivations fail, systems that harness this same power are more likely to work. Now maybe through generations of reeducation you can change human drive, but no one has ever really succeeded with this.

There is also the question of how many losses the Soviets could have absorbed in a hypothetical direct confrontation with the US in 1945. They were worn out, and couldn't keep losing men like they did in 1942, while the US was still ramping up in 1945. Dont' write off the Soviet air force, though.

I think arguing that the the Soviet Military was the most improtant to the allied success in the war is a pretty solid point. Yes, it was successful due to economic aid and the opening of other fronts, but it still essentially beat the germans at their own game.

biccat wrote:
Um...what?

If politics is relative, then the US has a "real left." Unless you're using a global relative scale, at which point you still have to define what quantifies someone as left/right.

This isn't that hard. If politics are relative, then the US can be said to lack a "real left" (using colloquial parlance) to the extent that its relative scale is significantly to the right of many other relative, national scales. Quantitatively we might reprsent this by saying that, when placed in a set of numbers 100-500 the number 100 is rather low, but when placed in a set including the numbers 1-100 it is rather high. By this measure Obama might be to the left in US politics, but to the right in global politics due to the absence of any significant leftist trend in US politics, or at least a prevailing right leaning trend.

Anyway, it isn't a matter of quantification (-1 point per check on the left side, one point per check on the right?), its a matter of qualification, and even that ultimately just leads to an even left/right split without any sort of degree.

biccat wrote:
Because you're not advancing the issue. When the claim is made "He isn't a true scotsman," and someone asks for the definition of a true scotsman, you can't respond to the 2nd person by saying there's no such thing as a true scotsman. You're casting doubt on the original premise rather than addressing the question presented.

Of course I am, because the issue being discussed is itself absurd. This is a 7 page thread about what artificially restrictive category of political ideology a single person fits in, which is almost hilariously preposterous.

biccat wrote:
Wait, Hu Jintao, the communist leader of the largest communist country in the world who is making moderate capitalist reforms under strong internal and external pressure, is on the "right"?

You mean Hu Jinato the socially conservative, authoritarian, mixed economy advocate. I place him on the right because he advocates maintaining the status quo, for the most part.

biccat wrote:
While a capitalist leader of the largest capitalist country in the world who is making moderate socialist reforms is not on the "left"?

Pratibha Patil is a socialist in a country with a long tradition of socialism, this marks her as politically conservative, and therefore roughly consistent with my definition of the political right which basically amounts to "general conservatism".

Also, incidentally, while Patil might be an over socialist, the person who actually controls the political action of India, Manmohan Singh, is not. In fact, I'd put him to the left of Patil.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Globally, Obama is obviously going to be influenced by his presence in the United States, which is itself right-leaning. In this context he comes out further to the right of just about every leader in the Western world, and really only to left of people like Hu Jintao, Dilma Rousseff, Pratibha Patil, and maybe Angela Merkel.

Wait, Hu Jintao, the communist leader of the largest communist country in the world who is making moderate capitalist reforms under strong internal and external pressure, is on the "right"? While a capitalist leader of the largest capitalist country in the world who is making moderate socialist reforms is not on the "left"?

I see that your scale lacks clarity. Although I appreciate the effort to answer the question.

Dogma nailed it. Within the context of the US, Obama's policies and political acts have been centrist, a little to the left. Within the context of every other first world nation, he's also pretty centrist, but solidly right of center.

Sckitzo wrote:Here is another one http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php, though only 10 questions but pretty quick if not horribly accurate. Though it put me in Libertarian leaning towards Liberal and Centrist.

Apologies if this one already got posted.

Almost dead center, with a slight lean towards statism and conservatism.

dogma wrote:This isn't that hard. If politics are relative, then the US can be said to lack a "real left" (using colloquial parlance) to the extent that its relative scale is significantly to the right of many other relative, national scales. Quantitatively we might reprsent this by saying that, when placed in a set of numbers 100-500 the number 100 is rather low, but when placed in a set including the numbers 1-100 it is rather high. By this measure Obama might be to the left in US politics, but to the right in global politics due to the absence of any significant leftist trend in US politics, or at least a prevailing right leaning trend.

OK, I see we're using two different meanings of "relative".

If Left/Right is relative to other political actors, then there must obviously be a "political left" in the US, because there's a "political right". We draw the line down the center and you've got your left/right divide.

However, it appears you're using the term to mean each country has it's own political issues that makes someone left or right. So a socialist in a communist country is a CRAAAAAAZY right-winger, while a socialist in a capitalist country is a left-wing nutjob.

Or maybe you're using the two interchangably.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Because you're not advancing the issue. When the claim is made "He isn't a true scotsman," and someone asks for the definition of a true scotsman, you can't respond to the 2nd person by saying there's no such thing as a true scotsman. You're casting doubt on the original premise rather than addressing the question presented.

Of course I am, because the issue being discussed is itself absurd. This is a 7 page thread about what artificially restrictive category of political ideology a single person fits in, which is almost hilariously preposterous.

...Yeah, that's kind of the point. Saying "Obama is a righty" is meaningless outside of context, I'm just curious what context people are using to make such a statement.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Wait, Hu Jintao, the communist leader of the largest communist country in the world who is making moderate capitalist reforms under strong internal and external pressure, is on the "right"?

You mean Hu Jinato the socially conservative, authoritarian, mixed economy advocate. I place him on the right because he advocates maintaining the status quo, for the most part.

See, this is where you're using the other 'relative' definition above. I agree that, if politics is local, then he's on the right in terms of Chinese Politics. But using a global scale, he's most certainly on the left (that is, being mostly communist). And if "maintaining the status quo" is the measure, then there's no way that Merkel is a right winger. Heck, you could call Thatcher a leftist by that definition, which doesn't really fit with the standard perception of the left/right divide.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:While a capitalist leader of the largest capitalist country in the world who is making moderate socialist reforms is not on the "left"?

Pratibha Patil is a socialist in a country with a long tradition of socialism, this marks her as politically conservative, and therefore roughly consistent with my definition of the political right which basically amounts to "general conservatism".

Also, incidentally, while Patil might be an over socialist, the person who actually controls the political action of India, Manmohan Singh, is not. In fact, I'd put him to the left of Patil.

See, here you're on definition #2 of relativism. Which is why your post above was confusing. You seem to switch between "left/right is based on existing social structure" and "left/right is based on other politicians."

I think that if you assume left/right is based on social change vs. maintaining the status quo, Obama is probably left of center. HCR (whatever the hell the acronym is), DADT, DOMA, these are all against the status quo, which would put him squarely on the left.

Sckitzo wrote:Here is another one http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php, though only 10 questions but pretty quick if not horribly accurate. Though it put me in Libertarian leaning towards Liberal and Centrist.

Apologies if this one already got posted.

Lower left corner of centrist(near liberal and statist), about where I would expect. Questions seemed decent, answers you could definitely feel the slant on a few, but I think that is intended as you are supposed to "answer as close as you feel".

No fascists? I must honestly say I'm surprised; alot of fascists I know play warhammer.

You know when your post has "relative" more than five times in it, unless you are from Arkansas you really should be challenged to a whippy stick duel, just for our (meaning mine and the weiners) amusement. En garde!

I think arguing that the the Soviet Military was the most improtant to the allied success in the war is a pretty solid point. Yes, it was successful due to economic aid and the opening of other fronts, but it still essentially beat the germans at their own game.

No way, I don't think they could have ever beaten Germany at their own game. What they did was change the game! That the Soviets won WWII for the allies, there is little doubt. They certainly never did it with air power though! Soviet air power has never been anywhere near as capable as US air power, not by a long shot in any of the of the metrics that matter. Air dominance is key, and I just don't see any era in which the Soviet air force could have threatened dominance over the US.

How left-wing is Obama compared to the Communist Party of the USA?

Kilkrazy wrote:How left-wing is Obama compared to the Communist Party of the USA?

Depends on how much one uses socialism as a synonym for communism I would venture. We have that problem in the US.

Kilkrazy wrote:How left-wing is Obama compared to the Communist Party of the USA?

Well there may be only a few hundred of them, akin to militias. I'd proffer striking them and whatever the Nazi party here is as out as frankly my high school graduating class is porbably bigger than both combined

That's infinitely more than my graduating class. Since I didn't have one.

There are a lot more than a few hundred people involved in militias. I don't know if I'd call them "akin" to militias, either. US Communists tend to be college radicals or old hippies, and in either case unarmed.

Mannahnin wrote:That's infinitely more than my graduating class. Since I didn't have one.

There are a lot more than a few hundred people involved in militias. I don't know if I'd call them "akin" to militias, either. US Communists tend to be college radicals or old hippies, and in either case unarmed.

And on drugs!

Mannahnin wrote:That's infinitely more than my graduating class. Since I didn't have one.

There are a lot more than a few hundred people involved in militias. I don't know if I'd call them "akin" to militias, either. US Communists tend to be college radicals or old hippies, and in either case unarmed.

You have to define a militia
You have a rosey eyed view of communist types, the fellow travellers of the Weathermen and the eco terrorists that spike trees which can kill or maim lumberjacks.

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:That's infinitely more than my graduating class. Since I didn't have one.

There are a lot more than a few hundred people involved in militias. I don't know if I'd call them "akin" to militias, either. US Communists tend to be college radicals or old hippies, and in either case unarmed.

You have to define a militia
You have a rosey eyed view of communist types, the fellow travellers of the Weathermen and the eco terrorists that spike trees which can kill or maim lumberjacks.

I see what you did there.

You have a bad tendency to equivocate things which aren't the same. Eco terrorists =/= communists. And the Weathermen finally died out thirty years ago. Find me a news article about a communist terrorist in the US more recent than the Weathermen. Or I'm going to have to conclude that you're pulling the idea out of your backside.

Militias have declined, with estimates showing their peak ~1996 with around 858 groups, variously estimated totaling 20,000-60,000 members. The wiki article shows ~80 currently active groups as of 2010. And some of those have certainly been engaging in illegal terrorist activities pretty recently.

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:That's infinitely more than my graduating class. Since I didn't have one.

There are a lot more than a few hundred people involved in militias. I don't know if I'd call them "akin" to militias, either. US Communists tend to be college radicals or old hippies, and in either case unarmed.

You have to define a militia
You have a rosey eyed view of communist types, the fellow travellers of the Weathermen and the eco terrorists that spike trees which can kill or maim lumberjacks.

Mannahnin is right an extremist is still a threat to your safety despite their political leanings, just look at Kaczynski or McVeigh, opposite ends of the spectrum (from my understanding) but go far enough in one direction or another and it all meets back up (at crazy). These are unique examples though. As for militias, they are generally right wing fellows, but I actually know quite a few from the scenes I involve my self with. They can bit a bit paranoid at times or have a slanted view stereotypically, but their not as a collective view some huge horrible threat. A lot of them just feel very strongly about their perceived/actual duty in the protection of America, hell one of the groups actually dimed out McVeigh to the Feds when he started making his threats. But you have your bad ones, just like you have you bad lefties such as ALF and the such.

Sckitzo wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:That's infinitely more than my graduating class. Since I didn't have one.

There are a lot more than a few hundred people involved in militias. I don't know if I'd call them "akin" to militias, either. US Communists tend to be college radicals or old hippies, and in either case unarmed.

You have to define a militia
You have a rosey eyed view of communist types, the fellow travellers of the Weathermen and the eco terrorists that spike trees which can kill or maim lumberjacks.

Mannahnin is right an extremist is still a threat to your safety despite their political leanings, just look at Kaczynski or McVeigh, opposite ends of the spectrum (from my understanding) but go far enough in one direction or another and it all meets back up (at crazy). These are unique examples though. As for militias, they are generally right wing fellows, but I actually know quite a few from the scenes I involve my self with. They can bit a bit paranoid at times or have a slanted view stereotypically, but their not as a collective view some huge horrible threat. A lot of them just feel very strongly about their perceived/actual duty in the protection of America, hell one of the groups actually dimed out McVeigh to the Feds when he started making his threats. But you have your bad ones, just like you have you bad lefties such as ALF and the such.

Indeed. My point is that one should never equivocate extremists as not capable of violence. Just because most of the ones a particular person knows about are loser college kids on daddy's money, doesn't mean they all are. Neither should these super paranoid groups be viewed as the realistic end of each spectrum. They have to be a materially large group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:That's infinitely more than my graduating class. Since I didn't have one.

There are a lot more than a few hundred people involved in militias. I don't know if I'd call them "akin" to militias, either. US Communists tend to be college radicals or old hippies, and in either case unarmed.

You have to define a militia
You have a rosey eyed view of communist types, the fellow travellers of the Weathermen and the eco terrorists that spike trees which can kill or maim lumberjacks.

I see what you did there.

Its not often one can say fellow traveller in a sentence.

Lol here in Britain we don't even have anyone as looney as the Republicans.

The Conservatives would fit in with Democrats...

Plus, the American political parties aren't exactly ideologically divulgent from one another (hear me out); if they are the "big tents" that they are painted to be, where you can have Obama and Lieberman in the same party... well, one Republican and a Democrat may have more in common than two Demmys... I think the only real issue seperating them is their stances on state intervention.

Anyway, I'm New Labour... So I went for "Democrat"... despite my disagreement with an American deciding there must be "equivalents" out there; many Dems are to my right.

Frazzled wrote:

Sckitzo wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:That's infinitely more than my graduating class. Since I didn't have one.

There are a lot more than a few hundred people involved in militias. I don't know if I'd call them "akin" to militias, either. US Communists tend to be college radicals or old hippies, and in either case unarmed.

You have to define a militia
You have a rosey eyed view of communist types, the fellow travellers of the Weathermen and the eco terrorists that spike trees which can kill or maim lumberjacks.

Mannahnin is right an extremist is still a threat to your safety despite their political leanings, just look at Kaczynski or McVeigh, opposite ends of the spectrum (from my understanding) but go far enough in one direction or another and it all meets back up (at crazy). These are unique examples though. As for militias, they are generally right wing fellows, but I actually know quite a few from the scenes I involve my self with. They can bit a bit paranoid at times or have a slanted view stereotypically, but their not as a collective view some huge horrible threat. A lot of them just feel very strongly about their perceived/actual duty in the protection of America, hell one of the groups actually dimed out McVeigh to the Feds when he started making his threats. But you have your bad ones, just like you have you bad lefties such as ALF and the such.

Indeed. My point is that one should never equivocate extremists as not capable of violence. Just because most of the ones a particular person knows about are loser college kids on daddy's money, doesn't mean they all are. Neither should these super paranoid groups be viewed as the realistic end of each spectrum. They have to be a materially large group.

Crap, I missquoted Mannahnin, meant to quote you Frazzled. While I never assume extremists are not capable of violence, I actually assume anyone and everyone is capable of violence, but you need intent, ability/capability and opportunity for me to actually worry about it.

Frazzled wrote:

Sckitzo wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:That's infinitely more than my graduating class. Since I didn't have one.

There are a lot more than a few hundred people involved in militias. I don't know if I'd call them "akin" to militias, either. US Communists tend to be college radicals or old hippies, and in either case unarmed.

You have to define a militia
You have a rosey eyed view of communist types, the fellow travellers of the Weathermen and the eco terrorists that spike trees which can kill or maim lumberjacks.

Mannahnin is right an extremist is still a threat to your safety despite their political leanings, just look at Kaczynski or McVeigh, opposite ends of the spectrum (from my understanding) but go far enough in one direction or another and it all meets back up (at crazy). These are unique examples though. As for militias, they are generally right wing fellows, but I actually know quite a few from the scenes I involve my self with. They can bit a bit paranoid at times or have a slanted view stereotypically, but their not as a collective view some huge horrible threat. A lot of them just feel very strongly about their perceived/actual duty in the protection of America, hell one of the groups actually dimed out McVeigh to the Feds when he started making his threats. But you have your bad ones, just like you have you bad lefties such as ALF and the such.

Indeed. My point is that one should never equivocate extremists as not capable of violence. Just because most of the ones a particular person knows about are loser college kids on daddy's money, doesn't mean they all are. Neither should these super paranoid groups be viewed as the realistic end of each spectrum. They have to be a materially large group.

I'm not talking about just people I know.

I gave numbers earlier. Approx 20k-60k militia members at their peak in the mid 90s. ~80 current militia groups in the US as of 2010. What happened with the Hutarees recently, again? Weren't they plotting to kill cops?

I asked if you could come up with any examples of violent communist terrorists in the US more recent than the Weathermen, who disbanded literally thirty years ago, and last committed a criminal act in the 70s.

You equivocating the number of dangerous, armed communists in the US with the number of armed militia members is pretty absurd, since it's so significantly at odds with reality.

biccat wrote:
OK, I see we're using two different meanings of "relative".

If Left/Right is relative to other political actors, then there must obviously be a "political left" in the US, because there's a "political right". We draw the line down the center and you've got your left/right divide.

However, it appears you're using the term to mean each country has it's own political issues that makes someone left or right. So a socialist in a communist country is a CRAAAAAAZY right-winger, while a socialist in a capitalist country is a left-wing nutjob.

Or maybe you're using the two interchangably.

You've basically hit it on the head with the second.

biccat wrote:
...Yeah, that's kind of the point. Saying "Obama is a righty" is meaningless outside of context, I'm just curious what context people are using to make such a statement.

Well, if that's all you want, then anyone who is a communist, anarchist, syndicalist, or uncompromising socialist (ie. refuses to negotiate on principle) is likely to view Obama as on the right side of the spectrum, especially if they are surrounded by people with similar views. In fact, there was a guy that used to post here who would have said almost exactly that.

biccat wrote:
See, this is where you're using the other 'relative' definition above. I agree that, if politics is local, then he's on the right in terms of Chinese Politics. But using a global scale, he's most certainly on the left (that is, being mostly communist). And if "maintaining the status quo" is the measure, then there's no way that Merkel is a right winger. Heck, you could call Thatcher a leftist by that definition, which doesn't really fit with the standard perception of the left/right divide.

In regards to Jintao: my claim is that his social conservatism and authoritarian tendencies outweigh his attempt at economic reform for the purposes of classification. In essence, he's more conservative than progressive, and so on the right end of the spectrum. I would make the reverse argument as regards Thatcher. Similarly, I place Merkel on the right due to the consistency of her rule with those of her predecessors, with the only major departure that I can think of being the whole "multiculturalism has failed" thing, and even that is arguable.

I admit, my political spectrum is not conventional, but I think its considerably more useful than the traditional two-dimensional spectrum that is basically stuck in Cold War politics.

biccat wrote:
See, here you're on definition #2 of relativism. Which is why your post above was confusing. You seem to switch between "left/right is based on existing social structure" and "left/right is based on other politicians."

I think that if you assume left/right is based on social change vs. maintaining the status quo, Obama is probably left of center. HCR (whatever the hell the acronym is), DADT, DOMA, these are all against the status quo, which would put him squarely on the left.

You equivocating the number of dangerous, armed communists in the US with the number of armed militia members is pretty absurd, since it's so significantly at odds with reality.

And how feth all is that relevant to the topic?

I'll let you duck the point. You're not responsible to give factual data to support your opinions.

How is it relevant? Good question. KK asked how Left Obama is compared to US Communists. You suggested (if I follow corrently) that it wasn't relevant, since there are so few of them, and that we should similarly ignore Nazis at the other end of the spectrum. I think I agree with you on this. However, while making that reasonable point, you also opined that militias are a similarly negligible, practically-nonexistent faction, and I disagreed. You also seemed to suggest that armed violent communist terrorists exist in this country.

I suppose the greater relevance is probably that I wanted to challenge a false notion I've seen some Obama opponents put forth, that there are dangerous leftist terrorists in the US. Which there really aren't. There are, OTOH, some armed and crazy right-wing groups which have recently committed crimes.

Read some of the Federal and Local LEO releases on domestic terrorists, you'll find a few mentions of communist groups that are worth paying attention to. For the most part though, their just "left-wing" and "right-wing" though, and sometimes they have no real political motivation, it could just be religious, or plain out nuts. A vast majority of these guys are never going to make the news, and that means the FBI and NSA are doing their job. Just because they are not on the news doesn't mean they don't exist, but the whole communist threat thing really lost it's steam after the Cold War. From what I hear and read, it's mostly Eco's and Anti-Government ones, some like to blow up office buildings, others like to burn down labs.

Sckitzo, I know there are a lot of nuts out there, and I give credit to our state and federal LEOs for keeping tabs on them.

I don't ever hear about any armed and organized Communist groups in this country. If you can name one, I'd like to hear about it.

Mannahnin, gimme a bit to search, I gotta find something that is general release but I go into work tonight so I'll ask around to see if anyone has at least a name. As I mentioned, their pretty rare I don't remember the last time I heard about one in the states (did get a few warnings in Germany) but the last few years they've really gone out of "style" M19CO comes to mind, but their dated here is a general release paper to the DOE, it's 10 years old but worth reading http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/left.pdf

On the subject of politics, I live in Northern Ireland, so that quagmire has been what I have to deal with.
All I will say is that ALL forms of government have their good policies.
Castro's Cuba has seen the literacy and qualification rate skyrocket over the course of the regime from 37% to 92%.
Hitler's Germany saw the link between smoking and lung cancer in the mid-30s, almost twenty years before US scientists saw it, which could have saved millions of lives.
(Sadly the fact that Adolf was a monster overules this.)
I tolerate all political views, as long as some lobbyist doesn't try to persuade me with a box of Maltesers.

Interesting... took the quiz and apparently I'm on the line between centrist and libertarian, quarter way between the center and liberal. Liberal?

...

Libertarian.