Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

One of my mates in Corps had a degree in Political science, and he told me that you basically chart the gak on a circle, and that's why extreme right and extreme left are more or less identical, but they still are left/right, they just meet in the middle.

A circular graph could work, but not the way you describe it. Rather, imagine a circle where the center is centrism, the top is authoritarianism, the bottom is libertarianism, the left is socialism, and the right is laissez faire capitalism. The edges are extremist (extremist libertarian would be anarchism, for example), while those closer to the center are moderates.

That works much better.

dæl wrote:They made no attempt to reach communism, communism is a stateless being, neither Stalin or Mao would have ever advocated no state, neither gave public ownership of resources but instead state ownership, there was a distinctive political class. They weren't 'not really communist' they were nothing even similar or even an attempt to achieve such, they were a way of installing themselves as a new bourgeoisie.

Ideas, especially political ideas, exist in the real world, not just in political pamphlets. You can't just say 'it was different to what Marx said' and pretend the ideas of communism played no part in what happened in the USSR. You have to study why it was different, and then explain how future revolutions might more closely match Marx and Engel's predictions.

It's just basic laziness to say 'neither Stalin nor Mao would have ever advocated no state', without then going on to examine exactly what kind of political circumstances would be needed to produce a political body that would dissolve the state. Each point above needs to be examined in the same way, especially the one about preventing the rise of a new bourgeoisie.

If you can do all that, if you can really produce a new vision of communism that can plausibly do all of the above*, and then build serious political support for that vision, then you'll have a communist idea that exists in the real world, with greater fealty to Marx, and then maybe you have some claim to dismiss the regimes of the USSR and China as not really communist. But in the mean time that term is going to be used to describe the regimes that existed in the real world that took the teachings of Marx and Engels and tried to apply them as they could.




*And guess what? That vision will inevitably have very, very little to do with the way Marx and Engels saw the revolution going down, because the history of the 20th century has shown us armed revolution has an absolutely terrible record of producing leaders who happily cede power back to the people. I have a great deal of time for Marx and enormous respect for his contributions to Economic History, but you have to know when to seperate the good from the bad. And the idea that a violent overthrow of the existing power structure will then see the revolution's leaders simply returning to be equals with no greater status among the people is one of the bad ideas. Not as bad as the Labour Theory of Value, but pretty bad.

@Matty "New" labour isn't really socialist compared to it's roots, but then Camerons conservatives aren't really true to theirs either, in fact i'd say the three main parties these days are arguing over a pin head in the centre, all their policies they steal off each other and if they do it it's great but if the opposition do it it's awful. I'd still say our most left party, the greens, would be a nicer proposition than our most right, the national front, I mean BNP .

Blair went to a good school, Fettes, and was quite open about it, in fact the only real working class bloke they had was Prescott and he's like some sort of caricature. People should show pride in their past, but I'd rather have someone that earned their place at a decent uni than someone who got there on daddy's money and spent his entire time there snorting.

As for brainwashing, do you think we'd be able to cut disability benefit from amputees without public outcry without the media witch hunt on benefit scroungers?

@sebster For what it's worth I advocated reform ahead of revolt earlier in the thread. And you do indeed raise valid points, but I attempted to qualify it as ideological communism, rather than practical, mainly because practical hasn't come to fruition anywhere. Didn't Marx say something about the path to statelessness taking generations after which society will be its own law or something?

Melissia wrote:A circular graph could work, but not the way you describe it. Rather, imagine a circle where the center is centrism, the top is authoritarianism, the bottom is libertarianism, the left is socialism, and the right is laissez faire capitalism. The edges are extremist (extremist libertarian would be anarchism, for example), while those closer to the center are moderates.

That works much better.

That exact thing is commonly represented, except the 'circle' bit is dropped as its kind of pointless, and replaced with a simple two axis graph. You would have seen it in that political quiz that gets posted here from time to time.


Anyhow, the point of the circle is to show that the extremes of your beliefs are directly tied to your authoritarianism. The two axis graph makes the assumption that these thing can be independant, while the circle idea mattyrm pointed out is making the point that as your economic beliefs become stronger, whether right or left wing, you will inevitably become more authoritarian, and taken to the extreme that's basically all you end up as, an authoritarian. That is, where leftist revolutionaries came to power, such as Cuba, the result was authoritarian government. And in countries where reactionaries came to power, such as Pinochet in Chile, the result was authoritarian government.

It's a fairly loose concept, with a handful of exceptions, but it's a good way of keeping in mind that there is a strong relationship between economic convictions and a tendency to authoritarianism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:@sebster For what it's worth I advocated reform ahead of revolt earlier in the thread. And you do indeed raise valid points, but I attempted to qualify it as ideological communism, rather than practical, mainly because practical hasn't come to fruition anywhere. Didn't Marx say something about the path to statelessness taking generations after which society will be its own law or something?

The issue with reform, presumably democratic reform, is that nobody wants it. Any party that moves anywhere left of centre left quickly moves to minority status at best, and outright obscurity in many countries.

And yeah, Marx did say that, or something pretty close to it. He felt that such a society would develop because we would move to post scarcity, and with wealth no longer an indicator of status and our basic needs met then there'd be no need to claim higher position in society. He didn't predict the next hundred years of gadgets increasing our expectations for living, which is hardly his fault given the world at the time, but it would be remiss of us today to not apply our greater understanding to his concepts.

Freedom of Speech for all is better than selective freedom of speech. It should only be restricted when there's a risk of harm - hence exceptions for defamation and incitement.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

That's pretty dumb, or sad, or both... I don't care much about what happens on the Internet, because it's the Internet and you would be a fool to care too much about it... but if you go around and publicly assemble to shout that kind of dangerous propaganda, then you deserve to get repeatedly punched in the face for it. At least I hope that the U.S. judges are lenient when condemning acts of violence directed toward neo-nazi scum...

How is racially-demeaning propaganda more dangerous than say, protests advocating against NAFTA?

You simply don't like it, but that alone doesn't give you the right to prohibit it.

@sebster post scarcity would be achievable within a half century if we wished it, the problem with capitalist democracies is rather than each person equalling a single vote, you have lobbyists and such buying influence to maintain the status quo. Also, I think a party could retain support while taking a left turn if it could provide a better standard of living, but theres a lot of what ifs there.

Still, bring on the singularity, then we can hand over to our infinitely wise robot masters.

Joey wrote:
Having said that, it is true that the tory cabinet are toffs, and should be despised as such. Blue bloods bleed red, and all that.

Mate, I know you like to come across as a contrarian, but some of the gak you type is just flat out mental.

mattyrm wrote: One of my mates in Corps had a degree in Political science, and he told me that you basically chart the gak on a circle, and that's why extreme right and extreme left are more or less identical, but they still are left/right, they just meet in the middle.

Regards more moderate stuff, I think that the Labour party (centre left) use far sneakier propaganda techniques and sew discord with half truths and organised brainwashing than the Tories do (centre right), which Is why despite living in the labour heartland I am a staunch Tory and absolutely loathe "socialists"

The way that they basically spent 13 years brainwashing a generation speaks volumes. Pretty much all of my friends from the Boro seem to think that Cameron is "posh" and Miliband is a fething miner that lives on a council estate.

They are all rich, but the Labour party has managed to pull the wool over the general public's eyes. And you don't manage gak like that unless you did in on fething purpose!

Id rather vote for a posh bastard than someone equally posh who pretends he is "with it" frankly. I find it offensive that they think I am stupid enough to swallow it.

And more importantly.. I think the bloke in charge should have went to the best school in the country, not some brain dead fether who went to a gak school and spent his entire time there smoking.

Unfortunately Cameron didn't go to the best school in the country.

So name the names. List all the people in your immediate area who are doing any of the following "1) claim allegiance to the political practice of paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, when they say that, if they would have power, they would 2) practice paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, and 3) when they take steps to assemble like-minded people on the public area". Then tell me exactly what steps, even radical ones, you are planning to take against this person.

Unless you can actually name a nazi/bigot/white supremacist that you are personally going to punch/send angry anonymous emails to/whatever, then otherwise it's going to be obvious that you're just another kid in love with political drama. I mean, unless you name names I think I might end up picturing you in a beret.

Of course, you can assume that since I don't already have targets I'm just talking big. That's your interpretation, and one which will always be available when talking to someone on the Internet. Some people mean what they say, even if that meaning isn't going to be realized in real life immediately. The fact that I do not have a target isn't a proof that I wouldn't have targets, especially since there are no fascist political party, popular or unpopular, in my vicinity. Something I did say I was thankful for ; I love my peaceful existence.

How is racially-demeaning propaganda more dangerous than say, protests advocating against NAFTA?

You simply don't like it, but that alone doesn't give you the right to prohibit it.

That's another criticism that will always be available to you : ''You don't like it''. I admit that's true, and that it's possible that my (heavy) dislike of fascists could be the origin of my position. That doesn't mean that the rationalization behind radical protest and radical engagement is necessarily invalid : you dislike things intuitively that you later learn to dislike for actual reasons all the time. I hate racism, misogyny, and the crass form of pseudo-intellectualism that the fascist try to hide behind. Still, I think there are plenty of perfectly valid reasons why racism, sexism, propaganda, etc, should be objectively discarded as political options. Fascism is all that put togheter, inside a political structure that makes it ridiculously hard to change things from inside. So my dislike is, to me, but one of the reasons why oppose it radically

In the same vein of thinking, there are plenty of reasons why a public assembly advocating racial violence should be seen as more dangerous than a protest against NAFTA. For starters one oppose a clearly defined plan, and not a group. And if they were to oppose the group of people behind the plan, well that group is pretty damn well protected, what with all the security forces and the army. And the opposition toward NAFTA isn't made in order to deny the capitalists or the government official's right to live, but their right to enact a certain economical program. In the case of fascism and racial violence, we're in front of an historical prejudice, which I think gives us the right to go a few extra steps in it's prevention then what we would normally do.

I don't think you get it. Putting aside violence (inciting others to violence is generally unprotected speech), why should people not be allowed to voice their prejudice and advocate for others to join it? Stop thinking about fascism for a moment.

If you are talking about crappy behavior like the Westboro's or provocation from White Supremacist, like I said, if they do not claim publicly that they would use violence against the group they hate, then no, I don't think we should be violent toward them. But I still think that a judge would be wise to understand how one could lose control when facing such a hurtful rhetoric, and be lenient in those cases. It might already be the case.

I think the public display of the Swastika should be outlawed. Like I said, my opposition is much more radical toward fascist than toward racists, because the first compound their sins with every other possible. 'Fascism' could be made a crime, and if it were applied to its intended aim, I would have little problems with the fact that it's a thought-crime. I admit that it probably shouldn't be the case, because then government would have an additional tool to abuse. Which is why I advocate for such a movement to rise from the populace.

Kovnik Obama wrote:If you are talking about crappy behavior like the Westboro's or provocation from White Supremacist, like I said, if they do not claim publicly that they would use violence against the group they hate, then no, I don't think we should be violent toward them. But I still think that a judge would be wise to understand how one could lose control when facing such a hurtful rhetoric, and be lenient in those cases. It might already be the case.

I think the public display of the Swastika should be outlawed. Like I said, my opposition is much more radical toward fascist than toward racists, because the first compound their sins with every other possible. 'Fascism' could be made a crime, and if it were applied to its intended aim, I would have little problems with the fact that it's a thought-crime. I admit that it probably shouldn't be the case, because then government would have an additional tool to abuse. Which is why I advocate for such a movement to rise from the populace.

I see you have now moved from the violent repression of the right to speak and assemble to the repression of the religious symbol of billions. That kind of oppression sounds awful fascist.

"Hate speech could lead others to violence, we'd better punch their lights out."

lol sound logic there.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:"Hate speech could lead others to violence, we'd better punch their lights out."

lol sound logic there.

Beating people up who spread hate, is not the same as beating people up because of the colour of their skin.

The German and Austrian postwar criminal code makes the public showing of the Hakenkreuz (the swastika) and other Nazi symbols illegal and punishable, except for scholarly reasons. It is even censored from the illustrations on boxes of model kits, and the decals that come in the box. Modellers seeking an accurate rendition often have to either stencil on the marking, or purchase separate decals. It is also censored from the reprints of 1930s railway timetables published by the Reichsbahn. The eagle remains, but appears to be holding a solid black circle between its talons. The swastikas on Hindu and Jain temples are exempt, as religious symbols cannot be banned in Germany.

Apparently, the Law can be applied conscientiously and reasonably. Shock and Awe!

In Hungary, it is a criminal misdemeanour to publicly display "totalitarian symbols", including the swastika, the SS insignia and the Arrow Cross, punishable by fine.[83] Display for academic, educational, artistic or journalistic reasons is allowed. Note that the communist symbols of hammer and sickle and the red star are also regarded as a totalitarian symbols and have the same restriction by Hungarian criminal law.

In Poland, public display of Nazi symbols, including the Nazi swastika, is a criminal offence punishable by up to eight years of imprisonment

The use of the swastika or any Nazi symbol, their manufacture, distribution or broadcasting, with the intent to propagate Nazism is a crime in Brazil as dictated by article 20, paragraph 1, of federal statute 7.716, passed in 1989. The penalty is a two to five years prison term and a fine

And the Hindu will stop having no right to an opinion the day they stop teaching Mein Kampf at University level

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/5182107/Indian-business-students-snap-up-copies-of-Mein-Kampf.html

So it's bad for the Hindu to buy copies of Mein Kampf but it's okay for Christians to buy them?

We need a sarcastica font. But no, I'm just a bit offended at seeing Mein Kampf taught as 'an example of brilliant entrepreneurship'. Like the link quoted from wikipedia on the German post-war Law, you can ban the swastika under 'totalitarian symbols' and not under 'religious symbols'.

Mein Kampf is boss-eyed lunacy. I couldn't get past the first chapter.

It's still more fun than The Crucible.

Isn't Crucible a play? Plays are NEVER fun to read...

I like reading plays...

IMO they're not really formatted for enjoyable reading... they're formatted for acting.

Fair enough.

dæl wrote:
Blair went to a good school, Fettes, and was quite open about it, in fact the only real working class bloke they had was Prescott and he's like some sort of caricature. People should show pride in their past, but I'd rather have someone that earned their place at a decent uni than someone who got there on daddy's money and spent his entire time there snorting.

See, where do people get this idea that one can simply waltz into an Oxbridge university if one has sufficiently wealthy parents? It's difficult to get into Oxford and Cambridge because the entry requirements are stringent, not because it's expensive. It isn't really that expensive, compared to other UK universities, and lower-income students can get financial assistance in order to study there. I know a girl who did just that. She writes children's books now. Kinda seems a waste.

As for brainwashing, do you think we'd be able to cut disability benefit from amputees without public outcry without the media witch hunt on benefit scroungers?

If someone can work, they should work, not sit on benefits. That shouldn't be a controversial thing to say, but then we've had over a decade of Labour bolstering its constituency by means of financial inducement, so now forcing people to take responsibility for their own lives is a 'witch-hunt'.

Oh, and to answer the earlier point about left-wing politics and authoritarianism: Redistribution of wealth is oppressive. It just is. It's a sliding scale, mind you - all government is oppression, after all. The greater the redistribution, the greater the oppression, and this is more typical of the Left than Right.

Joey wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:"Hate speech could lead others to violence, we'd better punch their lights out."

lol sound logic there.

Beating people up who spread hate, is not the same as beating people up because of the colour of their skin.

But that's not what we're talking about, is it?

dæl wrote:@sebster post scarcity would be achievable within a half century if we wished it, the problem with capitalist democracies is rather than each person equalling a single vote, you have lobbyists and such buying influence to maintain the status quo. Also, I think a party could retain support while taking a left turn if it could provide a better standard of living, but theres a lot of what ifs there.

Still, bring on the singularity, then we can hand over to our infinitely wise robot masters.

I agree that it looks like in 50 years we'll so much material wealth that it seems like no-one could want for anything, but 50 years ago people looking at the wealth we've got today would have thought the same thing. We could be post scarcity right now, if only we didn't all want so much stuff.

I can't really see that changing until you start theorising near infinite energy supply coupled with fully automated manufacturing available at the household level. Even then you'd still have to speculate that man wouldn't find some way to use material possessions to mark status (a shift to whatever objects couldn't be replicated, perhaps).

Spoiler:

Oh err, did that axis test, seems I'm kind of an extreme left liberatarian (as if I didn't know)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08

Most people end up being told they're left libertarian according to that site. As in the fringe right of dakka gets put kind of in the centre on the economic axis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Of course, you can assume that since I don't already have targets I'm just talking big. That's your interpretation, and one which will always be available when talking to someone on the Internet. Some people mean what they say, even if that meaning isn't going to be realized in real life immediately. The fact that I do not have a target isn't a proof that I wouldn't have targets, especially since there are no fascist political party, popular or unpopular, in my vicinity. Something I did say I was thankful for ; I love my peaceful existence.

Well, yes, the fact that you don't have any targets means that all you are doing is talking big. I mean 'I would use violence against group that needed it but fortunately none do' can't be seen as anything but talking big.

Scrabb wrote:I like reading plays...

As do I.

The Glass Menagerie is particularly fun.

Melissia wrote:So it's bad for the Hindu to buy copies of Mein Kampf but it's okay for Christians to buy them?

It's remarkable how many copies of Mein Kampf you'll see in India. It's in the front window of most bookstores, and every streetside bookseller will have at least one copy.

That said, this doesn't come from any kind of rampant anti-semitism. Hitler is understood only vaguely, sort of as a man of action. The main appeal of the book is to appear edgy, much like people in the West will buy a Che Guevara shirt. I doubt many people who read the book get past about the fifth page.



*In comparison, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is about as popular in Brunei, and that really does represent a serious anti-semitic streak in the country.

Albatross wrote:

As for brainwashing, do you think we'd be able to cut disability benefit from amputees without public outcry without the media witch hunt on benefit scroungers?

If someone can work, they should work, not sit on benefits. That shouldn't be a controversial thing to say, but then we've had over a decade of Labour bolstering its constituency by means of financial inducement, so now forcing people to take responsibility for their own lives is a 'witch-hunt'.

These benefits (DLA) are given to those in work as well as out, its to pay for mobility issues and now most of them are having to give up work. And BTW Work Capability Assessments that find someone in a coma fit for work are not fit for purpose. I agree that if capable you should work, thats a entirely reasonable mind set, but the current system doesn't work like that, it finds people it shouldn't as fit for work, appeals against this have a 40% success rate but take over a year. It has also caused a number of suicides. All of this is wrong.

Abolition of DLA will cause-

56% of the people in work said they would have to stop or reduce work if they lost DLA;

16% suggested cuts to DLA will result in higher NHS use; and

14% suggested a likely need for more use of council services.
Source

sebster wrote:
I agree that it looks like in 50 years we'll so much material wealth that it seems like no-one could want for anything, but 50 years ago people looking at the wealth we've got today would have thought the same thing. We could be post scarcity right now, if only we didn't all want so much stuff.

I can't really see that changing until you start theorising near infinite energy supply coupled with fully automated manufacturing available at the household level. Even then you'd still have to speculate that man wouldn't find some way to use material possessions to mark status (a shift to whatever objects couldn't be replicated, perhaps).

Not quite infinite, but certainly sufficient energy could be easily achieved if we stopped trying to profit from it, legislate that every new house must have a ground source heat pump, offer grants to retrofit houses with them too, stick a lot more funding into the fusion reactor in oxford, then soon enough everyone pays bill of a few pence a year to pay for upkeep of the national grid.

dæl wrote:Not quite infinite, but certainly sufficient energy could be easily achieved if we stopped trying to profit from it, legislate that every new house must have a ground source heat pump, offer grants to retrofit houses with them too, stick a lot more funding into the fusion reactor in oxford, then soon enough everyone pays bill of a few pence a year to pay for upkeep of the national grid.

I wish it was that simple. There's definitely plenty of options available, but the idea that within 50 years we'll minimal cost energy production is very optimistic.