Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(01-30-2019, 11:35 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: (01-30-2019, 06:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Eventually I'm sure this thread will get back to making fun of Trump. We may still be bashing him, though 
Somebody here seems to be very protective of a personality cult. Dissent is treason!
(No, dissent with a flawed leader is reason -- and a high form of patriotism).
You can continue making fun of Trump as I continue making fun of you guys. Back in the day, 20 blues vs 1 American red with some limited blueish support was about even.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(01-30-2019, 03:37 PM)David Horn Wrote: Consider much of what you see and hear in the Political Arena as a faux sport. All the posturing and name calling is similar to professional wrestling: neither real or important.
Is that what you truly believe or just saying?
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(01-31-2019, 12:15 AM)taramarie Wrote: Sole vs soul
Sole may be used as a noun to mean 1.) the underside of a human foot, the underside of a shoe or sandal, the floor of a ship’s cabin 2.) an edible, flat seafish 3.) in British English, a shipping forecast are in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. Sole may be used as an adjective to mean the one and only, without others, not shared, solitary. Sole is often used as a verb to mean applying a new underside to a shoe, related words are soles, soled and soling.
A soul may be 1.) the spiritual, immortal part of a person or animal 2.) emotional or spiritual force, embodiment 3.) the spirit of a dead human being which has separated from the physical body 4.) African-American culture, expressed in the arts and heritage.
https://grammarist.com/homophones/sole-vs-soul/
Yes, yes, yes, I know that my written language and writing skills suck. I've been made aware of it many times and I've been made fun of about it many times as well. Well, I don't right for a living or read books as my primary hobby. So, it is what it is. Like I said, this is Amateur Hour and in my opinion there is no need to be perfect while participating in Amateur Hour. Now, if you were to offer me a half a million dollars or so to switch to a more lucrative political writing career, I'd be willing go back to school and brush up on them again. If not, I'll just stick with what I do for a living and continue doing this as an occasional hobby.
Posts: 409
Threads: 31
Joined: Sep 2018
(01-30-2019, 06:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (01-30-2019, 05:50 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: (01-29-2019, 09:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Christian fundamentalism and evangelical churches really have little in common with what Jesus actually taught. The religious right in the USA is a political movement. It is motivated largely today by opposition or revulsion against the counter-culture, feminism, secular humanism, and other movements that came to the fore in the sixties, as they perceive it. Fundamentalism actually goes back some decades before, toward the beginning of the century, but was more often aligned with Democrats and liberals back then, as with W.J. Bryan and the social gospel. Religious fundamentalism is a traditional religious counter-awakening that could be said to have, like other Awakening trends, skipped along from 2T to 2T, and gaining power in the 3T and losing some ground in the 4T.
Neo-liberalism or individualist free-market ideology like Rand's does glorify personal achievement, especially in making money. But the two movements have fused in our time, and in fact were mostly never apart in our times, going back to before the 2T. "Christian character," and especially "American Christian character," is seen to consist in self-reliance, and in opposition to socialism and communism which, being "godless," is quite anti-Christian in their mind. So, charity and taxes for welfare are not compatible, in their view, since liberal programs are seen as socialist in essence (as per Classic Xer). And Marxism is explicitly atheist, and was excoriated as such during the Cold War, preparing the ground for this sentiment among many patriotic and allegedly self-reliant red-state and rural/small town Americans today.
Sometimes, some Christians have a problem with the latest representative of mammon in political power, Mr. Trump, such as Mormons in Utah; but they still vote for him more often than for Democrats, because they see their religion in politics orientation as supporting the good character of self-reliance and opposing communism and socialism.
In Britain, High Tories always preferred traditionalist values to bourgeois values. Their idea of an ideal human being is an old fashioned landowner. (Think of Tolkien's Shire. Tolkien was a High Tory) In France, Catholic fundamentalists like Lefebvre have been even more critical of capitalism and even the American revolution, which they see as a masonic plot. Like the American evangelicals, Lefebvre's brand of paleo-Catholicism has also become influential during the last 2T, as a reaction against the spirit of 1968.
Marxism is obviously atheistic, but it also belongs to the bourgeois Western civilisation since it's in principle a form of scientism. All serious Christians I know despise Marxism, maybe except the supporters of liberation theology in America. But nowadays there are no really influential Marxist movements, so anti-communism only serves as a distraction from all more serious problems I have described in my Western civilisation thread.
What you describe as Lefebvre seems a bit contradictory, since the spirit of 1968 was also anti-capitalist, although not communist. It was the Third Revolution breaking out in Europe.
I agree Marxism is a form of scientism, as you say. But his Catholicism cannot be compared to the American fundamentalist Protestants. His paleo-catholicism might have some similarity to the social gospel of the previous 2T circa 1900, insofar as it is critical of capitalism. The evangelical fundies of America since the 1970s 2T (and some people from earlier) see anti-communism as central, but like Classic Xer here they identify anti-communism with opposition to the Democratic Party post-sixties and social welfare programs and other ideas of the Left in America today. So, it doesn't matter to them if Marxism doesn't really exist in America; for them, it does. And for the American right-wing, religious or not, the opposite of Marxism, the free-market, is, as it were, gospel. Libertarian economics or neo-liberalism is the heart of the right-wing today.
IIRC Lefebvre claimed that both communism and capitalism are Jacobin in origin. He gave conditional support to Franco and Vichy government in France, viewing these systems as lesser evil than market liberalism. IDK if this was similar to Missionaries' social gospel in any way, except being critical of capitalism. The Missionaries seem to have been mostly moderate Left as a generation. Having been born in 1905, Lefebvre was either Lost or GI, take your pick. Both generations are known for their fascist leanings.
The spirit of 1968 was definitely anti-capitalist, but it was also sex-positive, and maybe that horrified Lefebvre. BTW, many Missionaries were sex-positive too, though others were quite puritanical (look at the social purity movement).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Lef..._positions
Posts: 409
Threads: 31
Joined: Sep 2018
(01-30-2019, 11:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm anti Communist/Marxist but I'm not a Evangelical Fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination. I don't have interest in saving your sole from damnation or an interest in keeping you from straying off the righteous path. Marxism belief still exists in America. We're seeing it and we are hearing it as it being promoted by the Democrats again. I doubt Kamala lives like a socialist but she seems to understand the value of it to those she needs to have the support of in order to remain in office and advance her political career/ambitions.
Is Kamala promoting the concept of class struggle? If not, she's not a Marxist - full stop.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(01-31-2019, 05:20 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: (01-30-2019, 11:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm anti Communist/Marxist but I'm not a Evangelical Fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination. I don't have interest in saving your sole from damnation or an interest in keeping you from straying off the righteous path. Marxism belief still exists in America. We're seeing it and we are hearing it as it being promoted by the Democrats again. I doubt Kamala lives like a socialist but she seems to understand the value of it to those she needs to have the support of in order to remain in office and advance her political career/ambitions.
Is Kamala promoting the concept of class struggle? If not, she's not a Marxist - full stop.
Good point, but not one that will be heard. C-Xer has a Fox Network view of Communism -- one that seems to ignore Vladimir Putin while encapsulating Democrats to the right of his mythical centerline. I try to argue specifics with him for that reason. Is it OK for poor people to starve rather than tax the rich, for instance. That isn't truly successful either, but he rarely fully embraces cruelty as a preferred option.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(01-30-2019, 11:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (01-30-2019, 06:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (01-30-2019, 05:50 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: (01-29-2019, 09:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Christian fundamentalism and evangelical churches really have little in common with what Jesus actually taught. The religious right in the USA is a political movement. It is motivated largely today by opposition or revulsion against the counter-culture, feminism, secular humanism, and other movements that came to the fore in the sixties, as they perceive it. Fundamentalism actually goes back some decades before, toward the beginning of the century, but was more often aligned with Democrats and liberals back then, as with W.J. Bryan and the social gospel. Religious fundamentalism is a traditional religious counter-awakening that could be said to have, like other Awakening trends, skipped along from 2T to 2T, and gaining power in the 3T and losing some ground in the 4T.
Neo-liberalism or individualist free-market ideology like Rand's does glorify personal achievement, especially in making money. But the two movements have fused in our time, and in fact were mostly never apart in our times, going back to before the 2T. "Christian character," and especially "American Christian character," is seen to consist in self-reliance, and in opposition to socialism and communism which, being "godless," is quite anti-Christian in their mind. So, charity and taxes for welfare are not compatible, in their view, since liberal programs are seen as socialist in essence (as per Classic Xer). And Marxism is explicitly atheist, and was excoriated as such during the Cold War, preparing the ground for this sentiment among many patriotic and allegedly self-reliant red-state and rural/small town Americans today.
Sometimes, some Christians have a problem with the latest representative of mammon in political power, Mr. Trump, such as Mormons in Utah; but they still vote for him more often than for Democrats, because they see their religion in politics orientation as supporting the good character of self-reliance and opposing communism and socialism.
In Britain, High Tories always preferred traditionalist values to bourgeois values. Their idea of an ideal human being is an old fashioned landowner. (Think of Tolkien's Shire. Tolkien was a High Tory) In France, Catholic fundamentalists like Lefebvre have been even more critical of capitalism and even the American revolution, which they see as a masonic plot. Like the American evangelicals, Lefebvre's brand of paleo-Catholicism has also become influential during the last 2T, as a reaction against the spirit of 1968.
Marxism is obviously atheistic, but it also belongs to the bourgeois Western civilisation since it's in principle a form of scientism. All serious Christians I know despise Marxism, maybe except the supporters of liberation theology in America. But nowadays there are no really influential Marxist movements, so anti-communism only serves as a distraction from all more serious problems I have described in my Western civilisation thread.
What you describe as Lefebvre seems a bit contradictory, since the spirit of 1968 was also anti-capitalist, although not communist. It was the Third Revolution breaking out in Europe.
I agree Marxism is a form of scientism, as you say. But his Catholicism cannot be compared to the American fundamentalist Protestants. His paleo-catholicism might have some similarity to the social gospel of the previous 2T circa 1900, insofar as it is critical of capitalism. The evangelical fundies of America since the 1970s 2T (and some people from earlier) see anti-communism as central, but like Classic Xer here they identify anti-communism with opposition to the Democratic Party post-sixties and social welfare programs and other ideas of the Left in America today. So, it doesn't matter to them if Marxism doesn't really exist in America; for them, it does. And for the American right-wing, religious or not, the opposite of Marxism, the free-market, is, as it were, gospel. Libertarian economics or neo-liberalism is the heart of the right-wing today.
I'm anti Communist/Marxist but I'm not a Evangelical Fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination. I don't have interest in saving your sole from damnation or an interest in keeping you from straying off the righteous path. Marxism belief still exists in America. We're seeing it and we are hearing it as it being promoted by the Democrats again. I doubt Kamala lives like a socialist but she seems to understand the value of it to those she needs to have the support of in order to remain in office and advance her political career/ambitions.
Yes, as I said, "like Classic Xer here they identify anti-communism with opposition to the Democratic Party post-sixties and social welfare programs and other ideas of the Left in America today." But I'm glad you don't want to save my sole from damnation. My shoes are doing OK; I just have to make sure I get new ones every year or so.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(01-31-2019, 01:04 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (01-31-2019, 12:15 AM)taramarie Wrote: Sole vs soul
Sole may be used as a noun to mean 1.) the underside of a human foot, the underside of a shoe or sandal, the floor of a ship’s cabin 2.) an edible, flat seafish 3.) in British English, a shipping forecast are in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. Sole may be used as an adjective to mean the one and only, without others, not shared, solitary. Sole is often used as a verb to mean applying a new underside to a shoe, related words are soles, soled and soling.
A soul may be 1.) the spiritual, immortal part of a person or animal 2.) emotional or spiritual force, embodiment 3.) the spirit of a dead human being which has separated from the physical body 4.) African-American culture, expressed in the arts and heritage.
https://grammarist.com/homophones/sole-vs-soul/
Yes, yes, yes, I know that my written language and writing skills suck. I've been made aware of it many times and I've been made fun of about it many times as well. Well, I don't right for a living or read books as my primary hobby. So, it is what it is. Like I said, this is Amateur Hour and in my opinion there is no need to be perfect while participating in Amateur Hour. Now, if you were to offer me a half a million dollars or so to switch to a more lucrative political writing career, I'd be willing go back to school and brush up on them again. If not, I'll just stick with what I do for a living and continue doing this as an occasional hobby.
Right, you don't right for a living, you write for the Right
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
01-31-2019, 11:54 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2019, 11:58 AM by Eric the Green.)
(01-30-2019, 09:22 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I came up with a nickname for Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Reminded of Comical Ali, the hack propagandist of Saddam Hussein, I came up with "Comical Sally".
Michelle Wolf got criticized for making fun of Sanders at the White House correspondents' dinner, and at first I went along with the critique of her jokes as having been in bad taste. But the more I see of SHS, the more I think Michelle's rap on her was spot on, and on target.
"she burns fat, and uses the ash to create a perfect smoky eye. Maybe she's born with it, or maybe it's lies. Yeah, it's probably lies"
Yeah, it's definitely her constant lies.
Posts: 409
Threads: 31
Joined: Sep 2018
01-31-2019, 12:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2019, 12:34 PM by Bill the Piper.)
(01-31-2019, 11:10 AM)David Horn Wrote: (01-31-2019, 05:20 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: (01-30-2019, 11:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm anti Communist/Marxist but I'm not a Evangelical Fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination. I don't have interest in saving your sole from damnation or an interest in keeping you from straying off the righteous path. Marxism belief still exists in America. We're seeing it and we are hearing it as it being promoted by the Democrats again. I doubt Kamala lives like a socialist but she seems to understand the value of it to those she needs to have the support of in order to remain in office and advance her political career/ambitions.
Is Kamala promoting the concept of class struggle? If not, she's not a Marxist - full stop.
Good point, but not one that will be heard. C-Xer has a Fox Network view of Communism -- one that seems to ignore Vladimir Putin while encapsulating Democrats to the right of his mythical centerline. I try to argue specifics with him for that reason. Is it OK for poor people to starve rather than tax the rich, for instance. That isn't truly successful either, but he rarely fully embraces cruelty as a preferred option.
Putin is absolutely not a Marxist. He is a Russian nationalist and a supporter of Christian values which for him mean being against Chechen "terrorists", feminists and gays. I like to call it "locker room Christianity" (I saw such people on personality cafe), according to these types having gay sex once takes you to hell, but sleeping with 508 women a year just means you are a real man and Jesus is proud of you  . Putin even praised the former Israeli PM for raping a woman! If I had to name Putin's political orientation, I'd call him a neoreactionary, or if you want to be more precise in his case that means Stalinism without the class struggle. Stalin's methods of control and views on culture and ethnicity are retained, but the economic system is not. There also is a "techno-libertarian" variety of neoreaction, focused more on worshipping the free market and condemning the majority of our species for not wanting it. They also like Putin for his tough stance on cultural leftists and Muslims.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(01-31-2019, 12:21 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote: (01-31-2019, 11:10 AM)David Horn Wrote: (01-31-2019, 05:20 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: (01-30-2019, 11:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm anti Communist/Marxist but I'm not a Evangelical Fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination. I don't have interest in saving your sole from damnation or an interest in keeping you from straying off the righteous path. Marxism belief still exists in America. We're seeing it and we are hearing it as it being promoted by the Democrats again. I doubt Kamala lives like a socialist but she seems to understand the value of it to those she needs to have the support of in order to remain in office and advance her political career/ambitions.
Is Kamala promoting the concept of class struggle? If not, she's not a Marxist - full stop.
Good point, but not one that will be heard. C-Xer has a Fox Network view of Communism -- one that seems to ignore Vladimir Putin while encapsulating Democrats to the right of his mythical centerline. I try to argue specifics with him for that reason. Is it OK for poor people to starve rather than tax the rich, for instance. That isn't truly successful either, but he rarely fully embraces cruelty as a preferred option.
Putin is absolutely not a Marxist. He is a Russian nationalist and a supporter of Christian values which for him mean being against Chechen "terrorists", feminists and gays. I like to call it "locker room Christianity" (I saw such people on personality cafe), according to these types having gay sex once takes you to hell, but sleeping with 508 women a year just means you are a real man and Jesus is proud of you . Putin even praised the former Israeli PM for raping a woman! If I had to name Putin's political orientation, I'd call him a neoreactionary, or if you want to be more precise in his case that means Stalinism without the class struggle. Stalin's methods of control and views on culture and ethnicity are retained, but the economic system is not. There also is a "techno-libertarian" variety of neoreaction, focused more on worshipping the free market and condemning the majority of our species for not wanting it. They also like Putin for his tough stance on cultural leftists and Muslims.
Very good summary; you get the Meece gold star on that one
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(01-31-2019, 05:20 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: (01-30-2019, 11:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm anti Communist/Marxist but I'm not a Evangelical Fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination. I don't have interest in saving your sole from damnation or an interest in keeping you from straying off the righteous path. Marxism belief still exists in America. We're seeing it and we are hearing it as it being promoted by the Democrats again. I doubt Kamala lives like a socialist but she seems to understand the value of it to those she needs to have the support of in order to remain in office and advance her political career/ambitions.
Is Kamala promoting the concept of class struggle? If not, she's not a Marxist - full stop.
I didn't say she was a Marxist - full stop as you say. Does she have to promote the concept of class struggle to those who already identify and associate themselves with class struggle as you say? I said she was more likely capitalist minded pertaining to her own views and pertaining the economic means and lifestyle that she'd prefer to retain for herself and those who contribute the most to funding her campaign.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(01-31-2019, 12:21 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote: (01-31-2019, 11:10 AM)David Horn Wrote: preferred option.
Putin is absolutely not a Marxist. He is a Russian nationalist and a supporter of Christian values which for him mean being against Chechen "terrorists", feminists and gays. I like to call it "locker room Christianity" (I saw such people on personality cafe), according to these types having gay sex once takes you to hell, but sleeping with 508 women a year just means you are a real man and Jesus is proud of you . Putin even praised the former Israeli PM for raping a woman! If I had to name Putin's political orientation, I'd call him a neoreactionary, or if you want to be more precise in his case that means Stalinism without the class struggle. Stalin's methods of control and views on culture and ethnicity are retained, but the economic system is not. There also is a "techno-libertarian" variety of neoreaction, focused more on worshipping the free market and condemning the majority of our species for not wanting it. They also like Putin for his tough stance on cultural leftists and Muslims.
I agree, I don't see Putin as a communist. He's a typical military dictator like Musharraf or the old Pakistani dictator.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(01-31-2019, 11:46 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (01-31-2019, 01:04 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (01-31-2019, 12:15 AM)taramarie Wrote: Sole vs soul
Sole may be used as a noun to mean 1.) the underside of a human foot, the underside of a shoe or sandal, the floor of a ship’s cabin 2.) an edible, flat seafish 3.) in British English, a shipping forecast are in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. Sole may be used as an adjective to mean the one and only, without others, not shared, solitary. Sole is often used as a verb to mean applying a new underside to a shoe, related words are soles, soled and soling.
A soul may be 1.) the spiritual, immortal part of a person or animal 2.) emotional or spiritual force, embodiment 3.) the spirit of a dead human being which has separated from the physical body 4.) African-American culture, expressed in the arts and heritage.
https://grammarist.com/homophones/sole-vs-soul/
Yes, yes, yes, I know that my written language and writing skills suck. I've been made aware of it many times and I've been made fun of about it many times as well. Well, I don't right for a living or read books as my primary hobby. So, it is what it is. Like I said, this is Amateur Hour and in my opinion there is no need to be perfect while participating in Amateur Hour. Now, if you were to offer me a half a million dollars or so to switch to a more lucrative political writing career, I'd be willing go back to school and brush up on them again. If not, I'll just stick with what I do for a living and continue doing this as an occasional hobby.
Right, you don't right for a living, you write for the Right
Did you like that one? I actually did that one on purpose.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(01-31-2019, 08:25 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (01-31-2019, 12:21 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Putin is absolutely not a Marxist. He is a Russian nationalist and a supporter of Christian values which for him mean being against Chechen "terrorists", feminists and gays. I like to call it "locker room Christianity" (I saw such people on personality cafe), according to these types having gay sex once takes you to hell, but sleeping with 508 women a year just means you are a real man and Jesus is proud of you . Putin even praised the former Israeli PM for raping a woman! If I had to name Putin's political orientation, I'd call him a neoreactionary, or if you want to be more precise in his case that means Stalinism without the class struggle. Stalin's methods of control and views on culture and ethnicity are retained, but the economic system is not. There also is a "techno-libertarian" variety of neoreaction, focused more on worshipping the free market and condemning the majority of our species for not wanting it. They also like Putin for his tough stance on cultural leftists and Muslims.
I agree, I don't see Putin as a communist. He's a typical military dictator like Musharraf or the old Pakistani dictator.
If you examine the Communist system under Brezhnev, for instance, you'll b hard pressed to see any remnants of the class struggle there either. It was a slightly less capitalistic version of a one-party state than the Chinese have today. They also claim to be communists.
I've always subscribed to a three-axis political compass:
- Communal, with pure individualism at one extreme and something akin to a hive at the other,
- Economic, with pure laisse faire and Marxism as the extremes, and
- Authority, with pure democracy (or even anarchy) and totalitarianism at the extremes.
Feel free to add religion, if you need another axis. I have from time to time myself. All it shows is the complexity of human and societal interaction.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(02-01-2019, 02:49 PM)David Horn Wrote: (01-31-2019, 08:25 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (01-31-2019, 12:21 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Putin is absolutely not a Marxist. He is a Russian nationalist and a supporter of Christian values which for him mean being against Chechen "terrorists", feminists and gays. I like to call it "locker room Christianity" (I saw such people on personality cafe), according to these types having gay sex once takes you to hell, but sleeping with 508 women a year just means you are a real man and Jesus is proud of you . Putin even praised the former Israeli PM for raping a woman! If I had to name Putin's political orientation, I'd call him a neoreactionary, or if you want to be more precise in his case that means Stalinism without the class struggle. Stalin's methods of control and views on culture and ethnicity are retained, but the economic system is not. There also is a "techno-libertarian" variety of neoreaction, focused more on worshipping the free market and condemning the majority of our species for not wanting it. They also like Putin for his tough stance on cultural leftists and Muslims.
I agree, I don't see Putin as a communist. He's a typical military dictator like Musharraf or the old Pakistani dictator.
If you examine the Communist system under Brezhnev, for instance, you'll b hard pressed to see any remnants of the class struggle there either. It was a slightly less capitalistic version of a one-party state than the Chinese have today. They also claim to be communists.
I've always subscribed to a three-axis political compass:
- Communal, with pure individualism at one extreme and something akin to a hive at the other,
- Economic, with pure laisse faire and Marxism as the extremes, and
- Authority, with pure democracy (or even anarchy) and totalitarianism at the extremes.
Feel free to add religion, if you need another axis. I have from time to time myself. All it shows is the complexity of human and societal interaction.
There is a thread on the political spectrum, but this classification could suggest a cube in which the axes are A (authority), C (communialism/collectivism), and E (economics). I would have a positive-negative scale with positives for the authoritarian side, the collectivist-communal side, and the side of economic regimentation. Using a scale of -5 to 5 on these three matters, Nazi Germany would be 5 (any question about a political order that has the power of life and death over everyone?), 5 (practically a hive), and 3 (private ownership and consumer indulgence were realities). In coordinate geometry such could be expressed as (5, 5, 3)
Britain during the Blitz was about 3 (heavily regimented and secretive), 5 (practically a hive), and nearly 5 (Surprise! Britain then had about the same level of economic regimentation as the Soviet Union at the time). It had been about (-4, -3, -4) in the mid-thirties. A (-4, -3, -4) society might be as good a place to live as the level of economic development allows, but it isn't going to win any wars. (5, 5, 5) describes Stalin's Soviet Union and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge very well.
I might consider hierarchy (an H axis?), with a slave society at 5 and a very egalitarian one at -5.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
02-01-2019, 06:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2019, 07:04 PM by Eric the Green.)
(02-01-2019, 02:49 PM)David Horn Wrote: (01-31-2019, 08:25 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (01-31-2019, 12:21 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Putin is absolutely not a Marxist. He is a Russian nationalist and a supporter of Christian values which for him mean being against Chechen "terrorists", feminists and gays. I like to call it "locker room Christianity" (I saw such people on personality cafe), according to these types having gay sex once takes you to hell, but sleeping with 508 women a year just means you are a real man and Jesus is proud of you . Putin even praised the former Israeli PM for raping a woman! If I had to name Putin's political orientation, I'd call him a neoreactionary, or if you want to be more precise in his case that means Stalinism without the class struggle. Stalin's methods of control and views on culture and ethnicity are retained, but the economic system is not. There also is a "techno-libertarian" variety of neoreaction, focused more on worshipping the free market and condemning the majority of our species for not wanting it. They also like Putin for his tough stance on cultural leftists and Muslims.
I agree, I don't see Putin as a communist. He's a typical military dictator like Musharraf or the old Pakistani dictator.
If you examine the Communist system under Brezhnev, for instance, you'll b hard pressed to see any remnants of the class struggle there either. It was a slightly less capitalistic version of a one-party state than the Chinese have today. They also claim to be communists.
I've always subscribed to a three-axis political compass:
- Communal, with pure individualism at one extreme and something akin to a hive at the other,
- Economic, with pure laisse faire and Marxism as the extremes, and
- Authority, with pure democracy (or even anarchy) and totalitarianism at the extremes.
Feel free to add religion, if you need another axis. I have from time to time myself. All it shows is the complexity of human and societal interaction.
On the existing two-axis and two-quadrant Nolan grid, that would be the vertical axis for anarchy (or libertarian) at the top vs. totalitarian, (or statist) at the bottom, upper right vs. lower left for economics, and upper left vs. lower right for individual rights vs. social conservatism (group power/hive mentality); normally called the cultural or social axis. I think those are adequate. Religious conservatism in politics is just another hive mentality or group power type. Examples of these conservative groups are nations, races, and religions. In many cases they are all fused, as in fascist Italy. Hitler was an extreme example of all three group types as part of their ideology, and the religious aspect was uppermost, consisting of the final solution to the Jewish "problem." Donald Trump is another example of this fusion, although not always explicitly stated; but Trump can lie and obfuscate by changing his statements at a moment's notice.
On the European political compass, the axes are exactly the same, but they are placed at different locations around the wheel. In that chart, the cultural/social axis or individualism/civil rights vs. group power is the vertical axis. Economics is the left vs. right axis, and the anarchy vs. totalitarian axis falls at lower right vs. upper left. No revision is needed to these wheels in my opinion.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(01-31-2019, 08:32 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (01-31-2019, 11:46 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (01-31-2019, 01:04 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (01-31-2019, 12:15 AM)taramarie Wrote: Sole vs soul
Sole may be used as a noun to mean 1.) the underside of a human foot, the underside of a shoe or sandal, the floor of a ship’s cabin 2.) an edible, flat seafish 3.) in British English, a shipping forecast are in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. Sole may be used as an adjective to mean the one and only, without others, not shared, solitary. Sole is often used as a verb to mean applying a new underside to a shoe, related words are soles, soled and soling.
A soul may be 1.) the spiritual, immortal part of a person or animal 2.) emotional or spiritual force, embodiment 3.) the spirit of a dead human being which has separated from the physical body 4.) African-American culture, expressed in the arts and heritage.
https://grammarist.com/homophones/sole-vs-soul/
Yes, yes, yes, I know that my written language and writing skills suck. I've been made aware of it many times and I've been made fun of about it many times as well. Well, I don't right for a living or read books as my primary hobby. So, it is what it is. Like I said, this is Amateur Hour and in my opinion there is no need to be perfect while participating in Amateur Hour. Now, if you were to offer me a half a million dollars or so to switch to a more lucrative political writing career, I'd be willing go back to school and brush up on them again. If not, I'll just stick with what I do for a living and continue doing this as an occasional hobby.
Right, you don't right for a living, you write for the Right
Did you like that one? I actually did that one on purpose.
ha ha yes that's a laugh
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(02-01-2019, 06:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: On the existing two-axis and two-quadrant Nolan grid, that would be the vertical axis for anarchy (or libertarian) at the top vs. totalitarian, (or statist) at the bottom, upper right vs. lower left for economics, and upper left vs. lower right for individual rights vs. social conservatism (group power/hive mentality); normally called the cultural or social axis. I think those are adequate. Religious conservatism in politics is just another hive mentality or group power type. Examples of these conservative groups are nations, races, and religions. In many cases they are all fused, as in fascist Italy. Hitler was an extreme example of all three group types as part of their ideology, and the religious aspect was uppermost, consisting of the final solution to the Jewish "problem." Donald Trump is another example of this fusion, although not always explicitly stated; but Trump can lie and obfuscate by changing his statements at a moment's notice.
On the European political compass, the axes are exactly the same, but they are placed at different locations around the wheel. In that chart, the cultural/social axis or individualism/civil rights vs. group power is the vertical axis. Economics is the left vs. right axis, and the anarchy vs. totalitarian axis falls at lower right vs. upper left. No revision is needed to these wheels in my opinion.
I highlighted the religion comment as an example of why two axes don't get the job done. Religion is neither conservative nor liberal, communal nor individual. Your beliefs in astrology fall fully within the religious sphere, and you are anything but conservative. I would put you more in the communal than individual class too, but others can feel otherwise. After all, there are monks who go off to live isolated and pure lives, and they are certainly driven by their religious beliefs. On that axis, strength of belief or non-belief is the measure, not affiliation with other beliefs. Other axes can also be assigned, but only if they are uncorrelated with the axes already defined. I've never had much luck with more than 4.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(02-01-2019, 06:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: On the existing two-axis and two-quadrant Nolan grid, that would be the vertical axis for anarchy (or libertarian) at the top vs. totalitarian, (or statist) at the bottom, upper right vs. lower left for economics, and upper left vs. lower right for individual rights vs. social conservatism (group power/hive mentality); normally called the cultural or social axis. I think those are adequate. Religious conservatism in politics is just another hive mentality or group power type. Examples of these conservative groups are nations, races, and religions. In many cases they are all fused, as in fascist Italy. Hitler was an extreme example of all three group types as part of their ideology, and the religious aspect was uppermost, consisting of the final solution to the Jewish "problem." Donald Trump is another example of this fusion, although not always explicitly stated; but Trump can lie and obfuscate by changing his statements at a moment's notice.
Hitler, Mussolini. and Stalin were all horrible people whom no religious tradition could ever accept. All three exploited the hierarchical tendencies, street theater, and rigid authority within the Catholic Church in Austria and Italy and the Orthodox Church in Georgia/Russia to create the patterns of political devotion inherent in a totalitarian state. The processions of the saints (with parish priests carrying the images) within Catholicism and Orthodoxy are themselves benign and even quaint. Icons of the saints and martyrs are harmless because the saints and martyrs cannot do bad things to people. But turn the procession of the saints into a procession of live political hacks and military equipment along with a deprecation or opponents and pariahs as demons, and the procession becomes a menace. Replacement of an icon of Saint Peter with the Great and Glorious Leader creates great potential for abuse.
Before anyone says that such is exclusive to the Catholic Church or to Eastern Orthodoxy, we need remember that the 1915 Klan, hostile to the Catholic Church, aped Catholic ritual, ceremony, and hierarchy. Maybe German Protestants (Catholics in Germany were less amenable to Hitler) envied the processions and icons and got those in the form of street theater, marching, and symbolism until Hitler became an object of adulation. It is easy for me to compare Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin to Satan because they had great power and used it entirely for destructive and dehumanizing purposes.
I cannot say that Satan is real in the sense that religious believers recognize God as the definitive reality. Is "Satan" a demigod, a rival who would be God, a mere personification of evil, or simply human fallibility (as in a perverse superego -- harshly judgmental, but cruel and amoral)? To be a fascist, Nazi, Klansman, or Stalinist is to be a servant of Satan.
Quote:On the European political compass, the axes are exactly the same, but they are placed at different locations around the wheel. In that chart, the cultural/social axis or individualism/civil rights vs. group power is the vertical axis. Economics is the left vs. right axis, and the anarchy vs. totalitarian axis falls at lower right vs. upper left. No revision is needed to these wheels in my opinion.
Fascists and Commies pose as antitheses, but their differences are of identity. The fanatic seems to have the best-defined political identity, but the identity is hollow. To build a totalitarian cause requires rapid conversions of people, and that comes with rapid, if hollow, changes in identity and loyalty. Perhaps it is of little surprise that Nazis under Allied custody proved extremely hollow and shallow. They did not have to contemplate the consequences of what they were told to do until the Allies confronted them with the consequences of believing that it was acceptable to round up the Jews in a village in Ukraine and mow them down or to select Jews shipped in from Holland or Hungary in cattle cars for quick death from gassing or for slow death from excessive toil on starvation rations.
Trump has so far taken baby steps along the course to torture chambers and shooting pits in contrast to the giant leaps that Hitler did, but even Hitler imposed his horror incrementally. We must resist the dubious progress of Trump in dehumanizing America before we can repudiate and reverse the horrid tendency.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
|
