Right? Left! Left? Right!

[Richard Cribb]

*Shrug* why was anyone playing with semantics? It's fairly clear what the OP's position with regards to left and right wing is being in the opening post and all.

If I hadn't expected it from them, I wouldn't have bothered with this thread.
And speaking about semantics:

Feck knows. I have given fair hearing to just about every political ideology. At one time or another i could crow that i was anything from an uber-capitalist, communist, anarchist, libertarian, authoritarian, eco-fascist etc. blah, etc blah.

I guess i am finally finding a home in pragmatic/spiritual/morallism (warning! made up word). as in if it works, is moral and god is groovy with it then its ok in my book.

But yeah the whole left/right mental paradigm is a pile of steaming you know whats.

BTW last time i looked, 5 mins ago, the US is a semi-marxist state (like china but lazier), i mean just who exactly owns the major industries and banks now, it wouldn't be the state would it? whoops bye bye capitalism hello marxism.

All I can gather from this apart you didn't read the thread carefully is that you are in dire need of studying Marx if you think that the current USA has anything marxist about it.
I have already somewhere else explained that there are nationalizations and nationalizations.

Ouch. All I can say in my defence is that minus Walter's beard, they look somewhat similar. And the beard was barely discernible on that photo. Still

Indeed.

True. "Right" and "Left" are such words. If you've got the entire political spectrum of a nation lined up and the leftmost is still described as being "on the right", you can not use these terms to discuss differences between these people/parties, but only to discuss differences between them and, excuse me for repeating this, marginal fringe ideologies that have, at least for the time being, ceased to exist for all practical purposes. How often would you need to do that?

I recommend you to read the thread before you post, so I don't have to rewrite what both I and others (innonimatu, aelf) already have pointed out. You will then see that the "practical purposes" vary not unrelated to how hip you find it to be square.

Not in politics, but in descriptive speech (for lack of a better term).

This thread is about politics.

You're most welcome.

Thanks. I hope I can rely on you in the future as well.

If you say so...
But I've got another one: do you happen to know what unit was called "ein Ulb" in DDR?

I do. I know a lot of DDR jokes. And USSR jokes. And since I am currently staying in Poland, Polish jokes from the socialist era. Unfortunately though, the worst Polish jokes seems to be ruling the country for the moment.
But since this is off-topic, I have no intention to derail the thread further. This sort of things you may post in the humour section of the forum.

I believe we are both well past the phase where we knew everything.

Regarding this, I can and will only speak for myself.

However, there seem to be some matters we are quite convinced about. So I give no quarter.

You will not get any either.

 

[Fifty]

I honestly don't know. Its not just that the terms are ambiguous, its that I'm not even sure what my views are on a lot of issues! My intuition leans left in most cases, though.

 

[warpus]

I didn't even know my views on a lot of issues until I started posting on forums on the 'tubes.

 

[abefar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by abefar View Post
far-right reactionary
Ah, a honest person. Capital!

Hehe just writing the least evil, lefties accuse me of being when discussing polical views.

 

[thetrooper]

I'm a member of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions. I'm just pragmatic.

Is that honest enough for you Mr. Cribb?

 

[Kerozine]

Whatever, as long as nobody accuse me of being an interesting, independent free-thinking individual.

That is not a valid answer.

 

[7ronin]

Following orders as directed Sarn't. Sign me up on the Right.

 

[zenspiderz]

@richie crib - my marxist america comment was slightly tongue in cheek just to let you know.

State ownership of major industry and finance is also called fascism apparently which is supposed to be (according to some) to be the opposite of marxism which in essence is the same thing. further proof if you need it that left/right paradigm is a load of feckturds.

 

[Theige]

I honestly don't know. Its not just that the terms are ambiguous, its that I'm not even sure what my views are on a lot of issues! My intuition leans left in most cases, though.

I feel like this a lot as well.

Also I find myself leaning "left," but wanting to stay close to the center

 

[innonimatu]

State ownership of major industry and finance is also called fascism apparently which is supposed to be (according to some) to be the opposite of marxism which in essence is the same thing. further proof if you need it that left/right paradigm is a load of feckturds.

No, in fascism the state allies with private interests, but doesn't take outright ownership over industries. Not does it allow democratic control over even what does belong to the state. Profits remain in private hands.

I think that soviet-style communism also lacked effective democratic control over the state-owned means of production, so I can see where the confusion originates. The most damning evidence of that lack of democratic control was the way how after the collapse of the USSR property over all those state-owned companies easily passed from the state to a handful of businessman/"oligarchs". Had the workers truly controlled (had practice in controlling!) those state-owned companies, that theft would never have been possible. It proved a fatal flaw with the soviet model. But perhaps I'm wrong: it's true that in the early 1990s, while Yeltsin and the other petty ex-soviet strongman were driving the former soviet economy into the ground, many factories kept operating despite the collapse of finance, lack of payment of wages, etc. Something unthinkable in a capitalist economy.
Anyway, workers were at least supposed to get the benefits from state-control (nothing was discounted as profit), but that certainly seemed an empty advantage to many people by 1990. Without local control, with the economy planned from Moscow, profits were automatically redistributed by the state anyway according to national priorities, which must have been somewhat frustrating - socialism without real participation let to apathy, which led to the collapse of the regime, or at least that's my view...

 

[Richard Cribb]

Following orders as directed Sarn't. Sign me up on the Right.

Good answer again. I must admit I have a sweet spot for genuine reactionaries.
Might have turned up to be one myself if things had turned out differently.

Hehe just writing the least evil, lefties accuse me of being when discussing polical views.

You should hear what people call me.

I'm a member of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions. I'm just pragmatic.

Is that honest enough for you Mr. Cribb?

No.
But good luck with Rome anyway. As far as I remember it is commercial and has a UU which is a mixture of swordman and pikeman so it must be quite good.

That is not a valid answer.

Very well sir. Personally I think it was.
But I think you can safely place me on the left without too many protesting.

@richie crib - my marxist america comment was slightly tongue in cheek just to let you know.

State ownership of major industry and finance is also called fascism apparently which is supposed to be (according to some) to be the opposite of marxism which in essence is the same thing. further proof if you need it that left/right paradigm is a load of feckturds.

You need to read up on fascism as well. Fascists love private ownership. And the USA is not a fascist state. It is only working on becoming one. Fascistoid might be a good description.
And it is Cribb with two Bs. Just as the famous pugilist.

No, in fascism the state allies with private interests, but doesn't take outright ownership over industries. Not does it allow democratic control over even what does belong to the state. Profits remain in private hands.

I think that soviet-style communism also lacked effective democratic control over the state-owned means of production, so I can see where the confusion originates. The most damning evidence of that lack of democratic control was the way how after the collapse of the USSR property over all those state-owned companies easily passed from the state to a handful of businessman/"oligarchs". Had the workers truly controlled (had practice in controlling!) those state-owned companies, that theft would never have been possible. It proved a fatal flaw with the soviet model. But perhaps I'm wrong: it's true that in the early 1990s, while Yeltsin and the other petty ex-soviet strongman were driving the former soviet economy into the ground, many factories kept operating despite the collapse of finance, lack of payment of wages, etc. Something unthinkable in a capitalist economy.
Anyway, workers were at least supposed to get the benefits from state-control (nothing was discounted as profit), but that certainly seemed an empty advantage to many people by 1990. Without local control, with the economy planned from Moscow, profits were automatically redistributed by the state anyway according to national priorities, which must have been somewhat frustrating - socialism without real participation let to apathy, which led to the collapse of the regime, or at least that's my view...

The USSR had faults, but this is off-topic.I think they went far in eliminating basic injustice anyway, as your own example indicates.
I might also mention that I am about to return home after 3 weeks in Poland at my parents-in-law. I have noticed what 20 years with freedom and christianity have done for the underpriviliged here, and mind you I am in one of the most advanced and prosperous parts of the country.
I am not amused.

 

[amadeus]

I might also mention that I am about to return home after 3 weeks in Poland at my parents-in-law. I have noticed what 20 years with freedom and christianity have done for the underpriviliged here, and mind you I am in one of the most advanced and prosperous parts of the country.
I am not amused.

You'd be far less amused if you were visiting 20 years ago... we had a Polish newspaper editor quite a few years ago detail the kind of misery and malaise that Poland experienced and how he managed to live a life below that of our lower income groups despite holding a somewhat prominent position.

As I recall, one of the benefits from his job was to receive a bar of soap and roll of toilet paper along with his salary, since you couldn't regularly find those in the state stores...

 

[Richard Cribb]

You'd be far less amused if you were visiting 20 years ago... we had a Polish newspaper editor quite a few years ago detail the kind of misery and malaise that Poland experienced and how he managed to live a life below that of our lower income groups despite holding a somewhat prominent position.

As I recall, one of the benefits from his job was to receive a bar of soap and roll of toilet paper along with his salary, since you couldn't regularly find those in the state stores...

I just showed your post to my wife, my father-in-law and my mother-in-law and they still can't stop laughing.
I reckon you will become some sort of humourist super-hero around here. Please check your e-mail carefully the coming days for invitations to humour festivals down here.
PS: You may quit you day job any time!

 

[amadeus]

I just showed your post to my wife, my father-in-law and my mother-in-law and they still can't stop laughing.

For a real good laugh, check out the last Polish parliamentary elections.

After all, how is it that the (European) liberal and conservative parties managed to carry 75% of the vote, while the remnants of socialists and communists finished third with a measly 13%?

 

[Richard Cribb]

For a real good laugh, check out the last Polish parliamentary elections.

You think I haven't? Contrary to you I go here on regulary basis. I try to keep up with the events down here, I even toy with the idea of settling permanently since the climate, price level and availability of gluten-free food is more than agreeable.
And I laugh of this as well, but without any "goodness". Ignorant people can be found everywhere.

After all, how is it that the (European) liberal and conservative parties managed to carry 75% of the vote, while the remnants of socialists and communists finished third with a measly 13%?

Beats me too, even if I have a few theories about it which I might reveal when it causes more damage.
But things might change, and as earlier expressed, I have no wish to derail my precious thread..
However I can't refraain from asking, when did you vist Poland last time and do you have any more convincing sources concerning the country's present and past?

 

[amadeus]

However I can't refraain from asking, when did you vist Poland last time and do you have any more convincing sources concerning the country's present and past?

Ah, the fallacy of being there = knowing more.

Let me know if you happened to visit Pinochet's Chile, apartheid South Africa, Batista's Cuba, or Chiang's Taiwan before you start opining on them again.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Ah, the fallacy of being there = knowing more.

Let me know if you happened to visit Pinochet's Chile, apartheid South Africa, Batista's Cuba, or Chiang's Taiwan before you start opining on them again.

I just asked you a civil question. You might answer it or refrain to do so without any further ado. I don't recall last time I voiced any strong opinion about Taiwan either, but that is irrelevant. It seems to me that: YOU FORGOT POLAND!
Also note well that my question was in two parts and that you for some reason chose to ignorance the second part of it. Interesting...
And finally, considering your age, level of education, life experience and posts I am convinced that my knowledge generally surpasses yours. Anything else would have been improbable at the least. And moreover, I don't think your knowledge about this very topic, Poland, is exactly impressing. So I propose that we don't discuss this further and return to the topic of the thread. Because to be frank, this is embarassing. And not the most for me, I am afraid.

 

[aelf]

After all, how is it that the (European) liberal and conservative parties managed to carry 75% of the vote, while the remnants of socialists and communists finished third with a measly 13%?

Well, why do workers vote for the BNP? Populism, appeal to baser instincts and the fact that they feel let down by parties that traditionally represent them (i.e. "Labour" in the UK - no one said that workers' parties have all done a great job representing their base; certainly many workers felt it could be better). Nothing extremely surprising, though sad.

 

[luiz]

Well, why do workers vote for the BNP? Populism, appeal to baser instincts and the fact that they feel let down by parties that traditionally represent them (i.e. "Labour" in the UK - no one said that workers' parties have all done a great job representing their base; certainly many workers felt it could be better). Nothing extremely surprising, though sad.

But it wasn't the BNP who won, it was the Conservatives. The BNP vote was not that big, really.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

But compared to 0 seats, 2 is gigantic.