When does it become 'politics'?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 18:35
VIEWED: 6108
PAGE 6 of 8

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 19, 2006 2:59 AM

Quote:
No, the fact that it is makes it so.

No, it is not so. Bush is in no way a conservative. He just plays one on TV.

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 19, 2006 10:40 AM

I'm not basing the idea that Imperialism is not a partisan issue on Bush, I'm basing it on Human history, most of which has nothing to do with GWB, or America.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not basing the idea that Imperialism is not a partisan issue on Bush, I'm basing it on Human history, most of which has nothing to do with GWB, or America.

I'll have to agree with you there, Citizen. A list could easily be made...

Chrisisall the Conquerer

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Bush is in no way a conservative. He just plays one on TV.

I agree Bush is not a true conservative, but he had himself snuck in, and the GOP didn't kick him out, so I think Citizen is saying, for all intents and purposes, Bush is a defacto Republican (if I'm saying that right, virus still making me loopy...).

Chrisisall the Conquered by common cold

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:43 PM

Open fire.

Imperialist conservatives. And no fair retroactively applying the term to people who predate this ideological split. I can tell you right now you are in for a beating.

Nazi Germany. A socialist left wing institution. The Nazis, as we concluded earlier, seized power after losing the election to the conservative "Junkers."

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Need I say more? Or anything at all?

Communist China. Again.

This record speaks for itself, guys.

The EU.

The Democratic Party of the United States, pick any leader at all.

The ANC/African Union. Or anywhere in Africa.

Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, or any of the self proclaimed socialist leaders of the last, oh, forever.

I got some big empires over here, and a lot of little aspiring dictatorships. I don't know what you've got, but in short: I think the claim is patently absurd. I can't think of a single one, and I'm really trying.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Open fire.

Imperialist conservatives. And no fair retroactively applying the term to people who predate this ideological split.

Oh, well, if you're gonna put that limitation to it, well then of course I have nothing for ya....

You win

Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:34 PM

I know you might at time regret having said it was job to shoot down the clay pigeons of rhetoric, but I just had to shoot this one down.

For some reason, the academic left has managed to spin anything they don't like, or that is militarily aggressive, historically, as "right wing." The absolute low point of rhetoric that I ran into recently was a special on HBO about the rise of Neo-Naziism in europe. The Nazis, which they constantly referred to as "Right wing groups" outside of their genocidal platform, which is not a partisan issue, are pretty decidedly left wing on everything else. Big govt-run social support structures, collectivism, anti-individualism, anti-independent free market, pro-corporate-govt. merger, ie. nationalization of industry. Even on the small issues, they tend to lean left. The point isn't here that the left wants them, in any way, of course not, but they're not our nightmare stalker, they are the left's. The right's nightmare stalker is the Christian fundamentalists.

But back to history, the fact is that academia has labelled empires as right wing, based on nothing other than the desire to use that as rhetorric. For example, take the peloponnesian wars. On the one hand, Pericles was the democratically elected leader of a free-market society, which could be construed as right wing. But a closer examination reveals that even before the war, Pericles was known as "the big spender" very up on the idea of massive social contracts and public works projects, top-down govt. He was a pretty left-wing politician, objectively. Sparta, on the other hand, was essentially a communist state. The Soviet constitution makes reference to Sparta at some point as the ideal state, and goes into some detail about why it was the proto-communist entity. This makes the overall conflict, like many in history, a left-left conflict.

The key underlying thing about the left's connection to imperialism is two-fold:

1. The left has a moral imperative to 'help' the world. Usually this involves changing other people's social structures to fit their (who ever is in charge of the empire) idea of justice.

2. Empire building is very expensive, and takes a big spending regime willing to invest a lot of money in potential social change, with very little real benefit locally.

The end result becomes a kind of 'white man's burder' only sometimes the empires are Asian or African.

A closer examination of a lot of the historical empires will reveal the same thing; Rome, for example, was led by big spenders, it had large social programs, govt. control and very high taxes. As the social regulations grew, so did the empire. The Roman empire, objectively, again, had far more in common with the Soviet Union than it did with the United States. For example, your profession was generally registered at birth, and it was very difficult and sometimes impossible to change that registration. Picture an America in which in order to apply for a job at a computer company, you had to be a registered programmer, and in order for that to be the case, you had to be registered with a programmers guild, and in order for that to be the case, you most like had to be born into a techno-guild member family. This is one of the reasons I oppose labor unions, because they are a move in this direction.

But more specifically, before trying to get into an argument about whether Rome was left or right wing, it's a very complicated issue overall. Rome had a democratic process, so obviously, and individual Senators would push particular platforms, and that would effect the policies of Empire. Some of these people were more left wing or right wing, but if an academic labels one as right wing because of a military policy they proposed, that's really putting the cart before the horse. One would have to look at each Senator's take on domestic issues, and then how those lead them to their foreign policy decision. What I recall from my history studies was that this showed a very similar pattern to what we see in America, and my hunch is that a more detailed a

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 19, 2006 6:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
Nazi Germany. A socialist left wing institution. The Nazis, as we concluded earlier, seized power after losing the election to the conservative "Junkers."

They also openly attacked Communists. The Nazis were neither left nor right, showing aspects of both. The Nazis wanted power, if that meant appealing to the left one minute and the right the next that's what they did. Hitler got the Christians on side by talking about a Christian empire et al, a fact that many choose to use to prove Hitler was Christian. However Hitler was quite vocally anti Christian in private.

Quote:
Imperialist conservatives. And no fair retroactively applying the term to people who predate this ideological split.

No including people who would be blatantly called right wing conservatives before the term was coined huh

Okay off the top of my head:
British Conservative governments of the 18th/19th centuries (and these really were big ones, quarter of the world and all that). In fact the entire British Imperial expansion was a right wing thing. Winston Churchill was trying to remove the Imperialist slant to the British Conservatives (unsuccessfully) as late as 1906.

Imperial Japan.

Napoleon and the French empire.

Mussolini and the Italian fascists.

Since the left is traditionally the split from the Monarchy, any Monarchy, ever. But more specifically the slew of Monarchies that are still around.

Since I've seen you using the fact that A Democrat was in office during the Second World War to prove your point before now:
Winston Churchill.

Margate Thatcher and the Falklands war. An unnecessary war that could have easily been stopped before it started, if Thatcher had wanted too.

The American Christian far right.

Quote:
The EU.

The EU is an economic union of European nations, it doesn't even have an army, nor currently any real say how members deploy their own Militaries, so what it's doing on your list I have no idea.

Edit:
Dreamtrove, if you bar me from retroactivly fitting right wing then please extend that to yourself also.

Further more many of the points you raised as to how to judge what is right, i.e. Individualism, anti-centralised government et al, were originally left wing, they were the stances of those who apposed the right wing monarchists.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 19, 2006 6:45 PM

I respectfully submit we drop the whole Right/Left thing in favour of People for the People/People for the Eliteist Rich Warmongering Scumbags removed from the realities of daily Real-Life.

Okay, shorten that second one, I guess. People for the Elite.

Simplifies things a bit, don't you think? Now you don't have to decide whether Bush is conservative or radical, he's simply 'for the Elite'.

*feels the detailed response why he's wrong coming, decides to fly*
FLAME ON!

Humantorchisall

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:01 PM

Quote:
They also openly attacked Communists.

Who didn't? Left-left conflicts abound.

Quote:
The Nazis were neither left nor right, showing aspects of both.

No. I mean, I can understand your not wanting them, and no offense, by all means, go ahead, disown them. But they do not show aspects of conservatism. Okay, yes, they were christian fundamentalists, I see you're point. But politically, they were a derivation of left and looney. But yes, I concede they were also Christian looney. I guess I think the Xtians as my nightmare follower, not an intrinsic part of conservatism. If the political left catered to their madness, they would desert the right. As, I grant, if the political right catered to Nazis, they would probably come to our side. That's why it's the lunatic fringe I guess.

Quote:
Britain

I was thinking of this one, but I wasn't sure. I need to go and check the debate on this. I remember in colonial times it was the Whigs, who we consider conservatives, and the orignal basis for the GOP, who supported an independent America, but you may be right about colonialism.

Quote:
Japan

I concede this point already.

Quote:
Napoleon

I'll have to think about this one. The french revolution was a left-wing madness. Napoleon was a monarch, outside the political debate if I recall, but I'll check it.

Quote:
Mussolini and the Italian fascists.

Not a chance. Mussolini was a mega-nationalizer.

Okay, the left-right we are talking about is liberal vs. conservative. This is not a discussion on monarchy. Left, right in the modern political sense.

Quote:
Winston Churchill.

Not arguing the point. Winston was a loser, but he was the british right's loser, and theirs to answer for :)

I have to confess that not mentioning Churchill is a logical choice for me. But in my defense, it's not as if the lefties constantly bring up Harry Truman to illustrate their points.

Quote:
Margate Thatcher and the Falklands war.

Oh, come on, this is absurd. Argentina, on a blind imperialist aggression, invaded the Fauklands, and Thatcher was nothing short of 100% correct in defending it. Defending your own country against aggression does not constitute imperialism, in any way shape or form.

Quote:
EU

Did you miss something? I doubt you did, you just want a left wing empire.

Quote:
Dreamtrove, if you bar me from retroactivly fitting right wing then please extend that to yourself also.

I wasn't. I was just illustrating that it's a complicated issue, and you can't just call everyone right wing because you oppose them.

Quote:
Further more many of the points you raised as to how to judge what is right, i.e. Individualism, anti-centralised government et al, were originally left wing, they were the stances of those who apposed the right wing monarchists.

Again, this is not about the issue of monarchism

Allow me to deconstruct this argument, and then put it permanently to bed:

What Citizen is refering to is that during the time of the French Revolution, (1789-1794) the Monarchists sat on the right, and the various sorts of Democratic-Republican sat on the left, which is where the terms originally came from.

By this logic, everyone, Democrat or Republican, or their european equivalents, is left wing.

But within a few short years, the political axis was redefined along means which had nothing to do with the concept of Monarchy. by 1824, when the two party system was first set up in the US, the left-right continuum had become what it is today. Then, for 200 years, the meaning didn't really change at all, something which I think I've demonstrated a number of times here.

No one, through the centuries of political discourse since then has used right wing to mean Monarchy, aside from possibly within the monarchical resurgence of Napoleon.

Now I see what you meant by Napoleon as right wing, you mean old right, monarchist, and so I'm ex-ing him from the list. If you were living in this century, or t

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE