Systems of government -- definitions

[Ordep]

"So where does Hitler fit in? His policies where certainly about utopian views (terrible ones) rather than restoring some good old times. In the good old days Germany was certainly not in charge of the whole world, but that was what Hitler wanted to achieve. So he was left wing?"

Hitler's rose to power because, when Germany was hit hard by the great depression and the restitutions that they had to pay from WWI, he blamed the resulting poverty on the corrupting influence on "new" cultures and ideas. His stated goal was a return to an ethnicly clean and politicaly powerful Germany. Back to a time before gays, blacks, Jews, and others corrupted their traditional Christian society with their sinfull and deviant practices and traditions. Thus, Hitler used extreme right wing rhetoric to gain absolute power. I guess the fact that Hitler percieved (or at least described) his goal as a RETURN to utopia, rather then the building of a NEW, communal utopia, is what makes him right wing versus left. And his willingness to use whatever means necessary (I suppose he would argue that the ends justify the means) is what puts him on the extreme right, and what made him such an evil man.

Just as a side note: very similar extreme right views can still be seen in the great American institution of the KKK.

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

Hippo Action: This belongs in the Off-Topic forum. I suggest you keep your tone cordial, lest you find out firsthand what AOA will do should you choose otherwise.

 

[ufftyuwe]

Originally posted by Hamlet
Some people just really need to get a grip on political theory before anything else.



See other thread for why Nazism had nothing to do with socialism. If it even ever did, it died wih Rohm.



I'd say probably the nearest thing to communism we've ever seen was in fact primitive communism, essentially pre-history.

In recent times, I wouldn't say anything has come close.

True communism is a state of affairs where society works so harmoniously that there is no need for a state apparatus, and it withers away. It is essentially a Utopia, and one which has never been achieved, and probably never will.



This is false.

Don't take political definitions from dictionaries. They are inevitably useless. Look for a political glossary or something.

Fascism as an ideology/system of government has many, many tennets to it, including agressive nationalism, the belief in the neccesity of national unity, etc. it is not simply a dictatorship with a few bits shoved on the ends.



Socialism doesn't neccesarily exclude democracy. We just tend to associate democracy with a mixed/free market economy.

I've red your post...wondered how you could be american and looked up and saw you're dansk (danisch *g*) and now I know why you are so clever!
I like what you wrote, you're brainy!

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Ordep
"Left vs Right" has been skewed by context. The "right" wants the government to put things back to the way they were, while the "left" wants the government to take an active role in the progress of society

OK, that's a good start and a lot better than what the dictionary said. But what if "the way things were" depends on what year you are talking about? In Eastern Europe countries have gone from Communist to Capitalist (kind of) to Communist/Socialist. There are several political movements going on, including : 1) The old traditional Communists, 2) the ones who want both personal and economic freedom, 3) parties somewhere in between, with a mixture of both, 4) Rich people who are looking for something from either side and 5) confused people who don't really know for whom they are voting. Each one of these factions probably has an idea of "the way thing were."

From the Mel Brooks movie "History of the World Part I":

First guy: "The theater isn't what it used to be."

Second guy: "The theater NEVER WAS what it used to be."

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Cunobelin Of Hippo
Hippo Action: This belongs in the Off-Topic forum. I suggest you keep your tone cordial, lest you find out firsthand what AOA will do should you choose otherwise.

Thank Hippo, I agree 100% about keeping it friendly.

Some of this discussion is related to CIV3. For example, some of us agreed that it was wise for CIV3 not to include fascism as a form of government because it would be difficult to implement and because most people use the term "fascism" without knowing what it means.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by sumthinelse
and because most people use the term "fascism" without knowing what it means.

Indeed. It is oft misused by silly little people to describe anything that doesn't let them chew gum in class and stay up past 2100.

As a evil fascist, I welcome your interest in the future government of the world. The right is right!

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


It is oft misused by silly little people to describe anything that doesn't let them chew gum in class and stay up past 2100.

Did you notice the lack of balance in the ways the terms "right-wing" and "liberal" are used?

In the US media I keep hearing about how "the right wing" voted against something but I don't think I have ever heard the US media report that "the left wing" voted against something. In fact, in the US media the "left wing" either doesn't exist or it never does anything worth writing about.

And of course the conservative guys complain about "liberal" spending but never seem to complain about "conservative" spending.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by ufftyuwe
I like what you wrote, you're brainy!

I am actually British, heh.

Originally posted by 'Copter Pilot
So where does Hitler fit in? His policies where certainly about utopian views (terrible ones) rather than restoring some good old times.

Well, this is wrong. A lot of what Hitler promised was indeed to return Germany to the 'good old times' of pre-war imperialism, national unity and Germanic strength. Almost everything that had been introduced after the war was opposed as the work of socialists/jews etc in corrupting the German nation, with everything up to parliamentary democracy being opposed by them.

Indeed, a lot of Nazi focus was placed on returning to the days of the past in propaganda, etc. Half of what they said about the 'good old days' was utter rubbish, but that's besides the point.

You can say that all politicians are working towards some utopia, really.

Originally posted by 'Copter Pilot
In the good old days Germany was certainly not in charge of the whole world, but that was what Hitler wanted to achieve.

And you know this how?

All we know for certain is that Hitler only wanted Germany to extend somewhat further into the East than it did pre-1914. Lebensraum, essentially.

World domination is just trying to tie him in with the classic 'evil dictator' image, and is utter conjecture. He could never have achieved it anyway.

 

[Trinity]

Hitler modeled his government after Mussolini, ergo a fascist. His idyllic German Worker worked entirely for the benefit of the state. His expansionist views fit with fascism. He wanted to form his own "Roman Empire". Don't forget about the Teutons at the blessing of the Holy Roman Empire, attepted conquest of Russia as the Mongols were pulling back and they were stopped by Alexander Nevsky. Hitler wanted to succeed where the Teutons and the Kaiser failed.

His sick phobias blamed every other race in the world, especially the Jews, for Germany's problems. The right tends to play the scapegoating game no matter how far off base they are, hence Hitler was extreme right. His National Socialist Workers Party had nothing whatsoever in common with socialism. Another example of such double speak is the People's Republic of North Korea which has absolutely nothing in common with republics.

Personal observation: One of the major differences between the right and the left is that the right blames groups of people, and the left blames policies of groups of people. For example, remember Jerry Falwell blaming gays and lesbians for the events of 9-11? The context being that because of the existance of these people in the United States, God lifted his hand of protection which led to the attack. He sort of back peddled on that one by saying he shouldn't have said it, but that those view were consistent with his beliefs. Still scapegoating.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Trinity
the right blames groups of people, and the left blames policies of groups of people

"The right" also blames policies, e. g. affirmative action. Also, there are fringe elements on both extremes that blame groups. I'm not going to list extreme examples because that might start a flame war. The more responsible people on "the left" and "the right" both avoid blaming groups most of the time....

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

I knew that :

- right wing means - 'Equality of chances";
- left wing means - 'Equality of outcomes";

or at least a try-to-do this way ...

This was the debate during the French Revolution between Iacobins and Girondins.

Please correct me if I'm wrong ...

Regards

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Trinity
Personal observation: One of the major differences between the right and the left is that the right blames groups of people, and the left blames policies of groups of people. For example, remember Jerry Falwell blaming gays and lesbians for the events of 9-11? The context being that because of the existance of these people in the United States, God lifted his hand of protection which led to the attack. He sort of back peddled on that one by saying he shouldn't have said it, but that those view were consistent with his beliefs. Still scapegoating.

Oh really ???
This is a typical leftist BS !!! The left almost all the time criticise entreprenors and shareholder for the status of the working class !!!

What good counter-example for your leftist-way too see the problem ...

Regards

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by 'Copter Pilot

I'm not sure productivity in (so-called) communist eastern Europe was particularly high, or anywhere near as high as in the west. This might be mainly due to lack of ressources, in turn due to lack of economic momentum. Also corruption in communist eastern Europe wasn't really low because the governments were corrupt. It was just more organised.

The idea in Civ is that capitalist-democratic countries have high economic, scientific and industrial output at the cost of controllability (war weariness). Communism solves the problem of war weariness, but at the cost of worse economy and production, so both systems are quite balanced (and you will often find the AI using communism for prolonged wars). The even but not too low waste/corruption you get in Civ reflects the high costs for the governmental control of everything (the secret service, for example).

Just because the idea is more recent doesn't mean it's better. Also the game is American, so Communism couldn't possibly be the best form of government.

I usually use the Republic/Democracy governments (usually with Monarchy before Republic) and I have never found problems with war weariness, or with corruption. While i understand the reduction in the economy, i think that communism should be able to keep up with science and production. Also the espionage functions should be more comparable because the KGB for flawed example made do with a much lower budget than the CIA.

I think you make a valid point in the lack of resources area. We haven't really seen communism at it's optimum, although I think that's where the world is heading.

The final point you make is one I hope was not a factor, surely the team that created this great game weren't biased? I would've thought that if they were well informed, they would more likely see the flaws in their own system rather than the good points. Maybe I'm just a little idealistic.

 

[Trinity]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan


regarding my remark about Falwell

Oh really ???
This is a typical leftist BS !!! The left almost all the time criticise entreprenors and shareholder for the status of the working class !!!

What good counter-example for your leftist-way too see the problem ...

Regards

Oh really??? This is typical rightist BS!!!

I wasn't talking about the extremists. I was talking about the moderate left, and the moderate right.

Okay, I'll admit it. I'm a leftist or rather left of center. I'm pro-trade unions. I don't criticise entreprenors and shareholders, nor do my leftist friends, many of whom own their own businesses. I do not begrudge them their money.

Of course we are not extreme left. We realize that, for example, without Weyerhauser cutting down trees we would not have a house. We realize that Pacific Lumber also provides wood for houses, but we want Pacific Lumber to change their policies regarding old growth forests. And if they are unwilling to voluntarily change their policies, legislation may be necessary.

Yet we do not believe in laisez faire economics, which is the opposite of state controlled economics of socialism. Nor do we believe in total state controlled economics either. There is a balance point. Regulation is a necessary evil.

Socially, there are times when legislation is required to protect the rights of individuals who are part of an social minority. Anti-discrimination laws are an example. They, IMO, are necessary.

As I said in an earlier post, I see little difference between extremes on either end of the spectrum. Like the light spectrum, our eyes see little difference between ultraviolet and infrared. They're both invisible to the naked eye. Same with the extremes of the political spectrum.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Lots about communism..........wahoo

I really tend to agree here. Pure communism cannot work in a large society. We have too many differences.

fair do's thats your opinion, I aim to prove you wrong!

hehe, ok i'll say my bit now

to start with..communsim isn't a governement type, tis an economic theory.

And now there are so many different types of communism, you must regonise that before you go slagging it off and branding all left-wing idealogies communist.

Belive me, I am regually called a communist, yet my ideas are very different to that of a Stalinist or a Maoist (i'm an Eco-Utopian communist )

As i have said many times before, I am a big suppoter of democratic communism, as I belive people should be equal both economically and politically.

ok, thats my bit said for the moment

and guyss..go easy on the insults! it's just peoples opinions!

edit: everytime I go and put a smiley in a bracket I mess it up,

 

[deepfreeze]

Originally posted by Hamlet
Some people just really need to get a grip on political theory before anything else.



See other thread for why Nazism had nothing to do with socialism. If it even ever did, it died wih Rohm.



I'd say probably the nearest thing to communism we've ever seen was in fact primitive communism, essentially pre-history.

In recent times, I wouldn't say anything has come close.

True communism is a state of affairs where society works so harmoniously that there is no need for a state apparatus, and it withers away. It is essentially a Utopia, and one which has never been achieved, and probably never will.

You do seem well schooled in politics, therefore doesn't it seem like Communist are looking for an impossible cause? If Utopia can't be achieved then what is their goal? Dictatorial Socialists such as Mao only make their people poor. Look at China now, their economy is very poor. And yes, originally Communism is an economic theory, it's just it's idols espoused it.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
I knew that :

- right wing means - 'Equality of chances";
- left wing means - 'Equality of outcomes";

or at least a try-to-do this way ...

This was the debate during the French Revolution between Iacobins and Girondins.

Please correct me if I'm wrong ...

Regards

That's right,the left vs right fight dates back to the french revolution.Babeuf was pre-communist.
But actually we can say that the debate dates back to Ancient Greece.Democracy(left wing) vs Aristocraty,the power by the best,the most witty people(right-wing).It was seen that aristocracy actually turns very quickly into oligarchy(power by the few).People have to be educated so that they understand any issue,debates have to be led by associations and the state being there to distribute the papers per post.That's democracy.

 

[MrPresident]

"That's democracy."
I thought democracy was about voting for your rulers. But me being British I wouldn't really know.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I thought democracy was about voting for your rulers. But me being British I wouldn't really know.

sorry if I sound a bit *****y here but true democracy is where everyone makes the descions, there are is no need for 'rulers'.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Trinity
We realize that Pacific Lumber also provides wood for houses, but we want Pacific Lumber to change their policies regarding old growth forests. And if they are unwilling to voluntarily change their policies, legislation may be necessary.

This is not a problem which oppose left to right.
I guess that this is somekind of ecological issue - I have the same position related with a BS gold-mining company which this year want to raze two villages and a forest in Apuseni Mountains !!

Yet we do not believe in laisez faire economics, which is the opposite of state controlled economics of socialism. Nor do we believe in total state controlled economics either. There is a balance point. Regulation is a necessary evil.

"Laisez-faire" is a utopia ... In fact I belive THIS is the true "extrem-rigth wing" utopia ...

As I said in an earlier post, I see little difference between extremes on either end of the spectrum. Like the light spectrum, our eyes see little difference between ultraviolet and infrared. They're both invisible to the naked eye. Same with the extremes of the political spectrum.

Anyway - seems that in U.S. "right" and "left" notions have some strange conotations from a European ( better-said - Easter-European ... )

My opinion is that both "left" and "right" doctrines must be POPULAR ones. Their target must be the large mass of people.
As Damien said - anyway there exist the threat of a "autoritarian elitism" or even a "totalitarian elitism" - but IMHO this is valid for both a "right-claimed" doctrine ( see ex. of South-American Juntas ) or a "left-claimed" doctrine ( see ex. of ex-communist states ).

I wait your replies ... regards