No, no no...I know you're not supporting the neo-cons. I just think you're naively enabling them. Probably about what you think about me and the Neoliberals.
Actually I bet we have a boatload in common on many issues, and after reading your post, I know we do. What a great conversation over some fine beer we would have, table pounding, raised voices, "Oh Come ON!" , and laughter. I love engaging with your kind of thinking. I can't stand talking to 'centrists', or supporters of the status quo. It's so frustrating. When I was writing my reply, I was thinking that we were quite a bit closer than the path this discussion took, but you can't stop it once it starts coming out. I'd go through your post, point by point, but it would be half hearted. I agree with you on most points, as you did with me, once it was broken down into bite sized pieces. I think that the problem you and I, and some others on the list here and I, have is that we're both the slippery slope towards the poles of authoritarianism. You are the slippery slope to the Right, and I'm the slippery slope to the left. Thinking about it, I think that the fascist leanings here in the US, and historically, could be considered a centrist movement. A rigid centrism without tolerance of those to the left and right. It's forced conformity in service of the Authority, be it the State or the Economy. I don't really have a hard and fast ideology, and to talk about the original post, Ideology it seems to me, is simply Dogma, and Dogma can't be challenged. Those people who seek out their own kind and only communicate and socialize with those 'equally yoked' have the same kind of faith that the Religious Right has - they have a faith that is not strong enough to be challenged. I find that to be a very weak faith. Ideology is a faith that relies on being in the majority, it's a dogma that cannot stand to be challenged. In terms of my political heritage, I was a Progressive before it became the mainstream definition of the center left. I have a more historical take on Progressivism which includes Teddy Roosevelt (domestically) and excludes Wilson. I don't think JFK was that magnificent. I like your brand of thinking more than that of the Clintons. I don't mind guns. I'd rather see anarchism over centralized control, but I think that regulation is important, as decentralization makes every man an island and there is strength in numbers. The herd can be a safe place and can trample a predator. I took the political compass test again, and am -8, -6 . It seems as if I'm going more commie as my hair grays. I'm actually quite proud of my club down there, Gandhi & the Dali Lama. It could be worse. Regarding the Orthogonal construct (thanks for the new word): There's a difference between authority and authoritarianism. The difference is getting grounded or a spanking and getting beaten. There is nothing wrong with authority. It is a good thing. When it is crushing, stifling and ideologically driven it becomes Authoritarianism and that's bad. If you can't protect people from exploitation, fraud and abuse by economic predators without authoritarianism then you can't have protection from exploitation, fraud and abuse by social predators without authoritarianism. If it takes authoritarianism to regulate the economy, it takes authoritarianism to regulate violent crime. In which case, it's not a skewed, constuct, it's a shifted orthogonal construct. I do think that it should not be vertical and horizontal axis, as "this or that", black or white, is not a fair representation of people and their values. Heck the 4 choices in the test were not enough for me with some of the questions. on Criticism # 2: I wasn't there either, but I do know that fascism was violent and abusive to large sections of society. It was brutal and charismatic, and it was effective. That's the real problem. It's an effective system. It's fast, efficient and productive. Let's combine the two criticisms a bit... What if it's not a this or that orthogonal graph, what if it's a descending spiral, a funnel with fascism being the small end and freedom and democracy being the top of the funnel. It would make sense in that it's a struggle to stay up on top, and we're always in danger of falling in, and spiraling down. I don't know about you, but I'm kind of offended that the authoritarians get to be way up there on top. What's up with that? Thanks for the great morning discussion! Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Mar 21, 2008, at 6:21 AM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: > Hello, > > After reading this, I think you're under the impression that I'm > making an argument for the Neocons -- for the dominant faction of the > Republican Party. I'm not! > > Replies below. > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I found it quite apt, actually. > > > > Did it really need disputing? > > > > Nazi's despised communism. > > That's debatable. Communism in Nazi Germany seems to have played the > same role that Islam plays in the USA under the Neocons today. It's > used as a way to scare people, and as a scape goat. > > > That's what they went to war against. > > Are you referring to the Reichstag fire? > > Although it's debatable (since I wasn't actually there), the Reichstag > fire was used as an excuse to go forward with an already planned set > of wars. > > > Over here the most anti-Red were trying their damnedest to bring > > fascism over here. They LOVED Hitler! LOVED him! He made the trains > > run on time. He drove Germany to the pinnacle of efficiency and > > productivity. He was a hero to the economic conservative movement. I > > highly doubt that the top industrialists were touting his > 'socialist' > > and 'commie' leanings. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEly8nXA6Oo > > Socialism works great for the top industrialists. Why wouldn't they > support it. > > Communism on the other hand doesn't work great for the top > industrialists. But not one country that I know of that claimed to be > Communist (or others claimed to Communist) was actually Communist. > They were all Socialist. > > > He busted unions, protected the national character, and built a > > powerful political and economic juggernaut out of the ravages of the > > Great War. Hitler was the very face of Fascism. > > What about Mussolini? > > If you define Fascism as being exactly the same as Nazism, then of > course, nothing else can be Fascist. > > But 60 years ago, what many people referred to as Fascism was > something different. (That's what I was referring to in the statement > I made liking what is currently called Progressivism with what was > once called Fascism.) > > [...] > > > To take this a bit further, the mix up between left and right and > the > > meaningless nature of the '-isms' in political discourse, look at > the > > USSR of the cold war and China of today. They are communist, right? > > Here's where it becomes an argument of semantics (if it wasn't > already).... > > No. Neither are Communist. Both were/are Socialist. > > Although many people today use the word Communism to mean Socialism. > And it can get confusing when people are referring to what the word > Communism originally meant. > > > Well, why don't the people own the state then? Why don't the people > > own the powers of production? That's Marxist Socialism, or > Communism, > > right? > > Because neither was actually Communist. They were Socialist. > > > No it's totally not right, we're told. Communism is an autocratic > > anti-democratic dictatorship where people are subjected to the whims > > and needs of the state, and Socialism is the same thing, only less > > overt. They can't be both. Free Markets and no government are > > freedom, and anything less is a dangerous threat to civilization. > > > > China and the former USSR are/were a perversion of Marxist > Socialism, > > much like US and to a lesser degree, Western civilization (probably > > should be better called Northern Civilization > > Not that it really matter for this argument, but... why Northern? > > > - yet another > > conventional wisdom misnomer that never gets challenged...) are > > nothing but a perversion of Adam Smith's capitalism. > > > > We are no more capitalistic here in the States than Stalin or China > > are Communist. > > Agreed. > > The Neocons also aren't Conservatives... if you want to add something > to the list. > > > It's a lie to feed people's historical notions to > > manipulate them. Hitler was not a Democratic Socialist. He outlawed > > political parties, turned media into a propaganda instrument of the > > state, and took over the powers of production and led his people > on a > > suicide mission of Global Domination. Hitler was an Anti-Democratic > > Fascist, plain and simple. Just because he lied to his people and > > pretended to be something he was not, telling them he was 'for the > > People', to get them to trust and to follow them doesn't make it > true. > > I think you're trying to draw parallels with the Neocons. And I agree. > > I wasn't making an argument in support of the Neocons. > > > Bush is not a clear thinking conservative, he's a wild eyed radical. > > He called himself a 'Compassionate Conservative' does that mean that > > I should hate compassion? That Compassion is bad? 60 years from now > > is someone going to conflate the 'Compassion of George Bush' with > > compassion and make the same kind of revisionist historical argument > > you made that prompted my short flippant reply? > > > > I hope not. But I'll tell you, if we have 60 years of TERRORISM is > > going to kill your children, and WAR is the path to PEACE, > > SURVEILLANCE is FREEDOM, and IGNORANCE is STRENGTH, I'll bet you > > dollars to donuts that many, many people will make that argument. > > Again, I wasn't making an argument for the Neocons. The discussion > just didn't go there at the time. > > > Google the 14 points of fascism. That's some interesting reading. > > Find out if it's the left, or the right that's pushing us towards > > that end. Screw it... Here they are: > > > > 1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism > > 2. Disdain for the importance of human rights > > 3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause > > 4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism > > 5. Rampant sexism > > 6. A controlled mass media > > 7. Obsession with national security > > 8. Religion and ruling elite tied together > > 9. Power of corporations protected > > 10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated > > 11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts > > 12. Obsession with crime and punishment > > 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption > > 14. Fraudulent elections > > These may be properties that Nazi Germany had. But this is not a > definition of Fascism as I know it. > > > Wow it looks like the Republican Party Platform, doesn't it? > > I'd agree. Again, not arguing for the Neocons. > > > So, tell me once again that Progressives, that Liberals, are > > Fascists. That's crazy talk, man. Crazy... > > OK.... From what I can tell, what people are currently calling > "Progressivism" is virtually the same as "Fascism" :-) > > But don't take any of what I said as an argument for the Neocons. > It's not. The Neocons have many similarities with Nazi's. And the > Neocons aren't Conservatives. But that's has nothing to do with what > "Progressivism" is or isn't. > > See ya > > -- > Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. > http://ChangeLog.ca/ > > Motorsport Videos > http://TireBiterZ.com/ > > Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
