There was something in the media the other day about health related issues with smoking. I'll see if I can find it.
By the way, I hear that you are only physically addicted for about 48 hours after quitting. After that, it's all mental, baby. Maybe a good time to stick it to the cancer companies and save a bundle of cash at the same time.
Note: Smoking father died of lung cancer, smoking mother-in-law died of lung cancer. It's hell on the kids. And my partner smokes. Yes, I have issues.
Would you consider the ban on smoking in theaters as a vast communist plot?
No, just standard nanny state overprotectiveness. Theaters, with those high ceilings and concrete floors, are about the best indoor venue for smoking we have.
No, that would be Marxist-Leninism. Don't you guys cover the various forms of communism and socialism in school there in the US?
Hahaha Tim, know many Baptists? They're like Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, et al - they swear they're sorry come Sunday morning for all the sins they commited Saturday night but they're right back at the juke joint the next evening. ;)
++, sorry to hear about the family. I've got 2 parents that smoke, a grandfather, and hubby's mom. I don't look forward to the next decade or two.
Um, communists are the asshats that wave old USSR flags and block all the commerce in the Friuli-Venezia-Giulia region on a regular basis no? Or are they the ones that riot on police in Rome when the Italians threaten to cut their holiday time short and make them work like respectable people?
Um, communists are the asshats that wave old USSR flags and block all the commerce in the Friuli-Venezia-Giulia region on a regular basis no?
"Communism" is a pretty wide label. USSR-flag waving asshats would be Marxist-Leninists or Stalinists, who are communists. But it's like saying that Hitler was a right-winger. He was, but few right-wingers are nazis.
Hitler was a left-winger as was Mussolini and all fascists. The Nazi party was a socialist party. It implemented a vast array of social welfare programs which accounted for much of it's support by the German people. The two major differences between fascists and other socialists are:
1. Fascists believe that socialism should be done in a more practical fashion.
2. Fascists believe in nationalism and patriotism, not internationalism.
Generally speaking fascism was an attempt by some socialists to overcome the failure of socialism to get the support of the working classes.
Nazism added a truly pathological hatred of Jews.
Hitler said that he was so left-wing he was right-wing as a way of emphasizing his differences with the Communists.
Some actual conservative parties in Germany at the time include:
This is just more general nannyism and busybodiness. Most people can't get ahold of any power without turning into little Hitlers -- or Stalins.
The most arrogant are the lawmakers who sock tobacco users with sales taxes designed to punish smoking "for the sake of the children." Every time some bastard wants to run other people's lives, notice that it's ALWAYS "for the children."
Those who can best afford the tobacco tax are shoving around those who are too poor to afford it. The poor, don't you know, really need the rest of us constantly lecturing them about their morality. It isn't like it already sucks enough to be poor...
Hitler was a left-winger as was Mussolini and all fascists.
Sorry Wince, but Hitler and Mussolini were on the extreme right wing. Their ideology was in no way socialist. All forms of socialism believe in some level of collectivization, whereas all forms of fascism have been corporatist and violently anti-socialist.
There are several schools of thought that attempt to place fascism in the ranks of the left, but they're all weak arguments. I'd suggest taking a good look at modern fascist movements and which political philosophies they align with.
Or you could take a look at their own words. Mussolini:
Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right", a Fascist century.
Or Hitler:
'National' and 'Social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it National Socialist. We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it.
As Hitler equated socialism and Marxism as Jewish philospohies (unsurprisingly - many early socialists were Jewish, including Marx), it's difficult to understand how proponents of the Fascist==Left-Wing theory resolved that little gem.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
What cigarette smokers don't know is that cigarettes neutralize advailable Vitamin C in the blood stream.
How about knowing that cigarette smoking hastens your death? Primary reason for quitting smoking - significantly increasing your chances of spending quality time with your grandchildren.
Well, not quite. I was a Camels unfiltered man, and they brought me much pleasure.
The whole dying horribly thing got to me though, and I figured it was a poor trade-off. I miss booze as well, but am much healthier, and I sleep better. Oh, and there's the extra money thing, that's nice too.
I remember when you started smoking in your early twenties. I also remember you saying it would be no big deal to quit. Well, a decade later is a lot longer than I thought it would take. It sounds like a great time to quit. I mean you will have a few days head start once you are out of surgery.
Good Luck, Sis!!!! If anyone can quit...you can. You told me so!!!!
Mussolini was far right but Hitler was far left. Hitler spit on Marxism because it was a competing theory. He was allied with Mussolini because Fascism was no threat to him.
This is like having a conversation with left wingers who insist that Stalin was a right-winger.
He was allied with Mussolini because Fascism was no threat to him.
Assuming you've read this somewhere, you're reading some pretty bizarre stuff.
Seriously, what the hell is left-wing about Hitler? He hated all forms of communism, thought that class distinctions in a society were a good thing, supported capitalism and corporatism, supported or allied himself with three other right-wing fascist governments, and did not even pay lip service to the socialist ideals of a classless co-operative society. Even Stalin pretended that the state was a temporary measure before arriving at a classless communist society. Hitler believed that the state was a holy instrument to advance his race.
I base my characterization of Fascism on it's history and it's philosophy. Mussolini was a socialist who tried to improve socialism. He called the improvement Fascism. Marx called his improvement Communism. Other communists call it Marxism.
Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Nazism and Fascism all glorify the power of the state and believe the state should be supreme. All believe that the government should be take care of the people. All support government control of the means of production, some to greater extents than others. Marxism and Nazism are totalitarian ideologies. (Mussolini was never as totalitarian as Hitler, Stalin or Mao.)
All of these groups are statists.
By contrast the right wing was capitalist and sometimes even monarchist. Sometimes it supported various social programs with the aim of forestalling actual socialism. It was not totalitarian. The center favored a mix of capitalism and socialism as well, and could be described as liberal and democratic. Socialism, on the center left, favored less capitalism and more socialism. It was not totalitarian either.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
decade later
Closer to two decades is more accurate. The woman with the bum knee is breaking down in her old age. ;-) Hey, you know I'm only kidding.....barely though. You'll emerge from this thing great since you're a strong woman, but watch out for those pain pills - they'll get you if you're not careful.
My oh my, on in the Queen's court can we go from knee surgery, to smoking, to Stalin versus Marx versus Hitler versus Musolinni. Daym this is an interesting crowd.
And no Rose, cold turkey anything is not good. I cold turkey caffine one deployment. That first MONTH was not plesant - it skyrocketed my migraine quotent and chocolate (my other legal drug of choice) did nothing to combat it.
Good luck on the knee. Here's to hobblin' around pain free soon!
No he didn't. "Communism" was a term that had been around for at least a century by the time that Marx used it, and it represented a well-defined societal state.
Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Nazism and Fascism all glorify the power of the state...
Complete and utter nonsense. Fascism glorified the state. Marxism criticized the state as a tool of oppression, and said that it was a necessary but temporary tool toward a communist society. The term "Socialism" includes Anarchism, which rejects the state totally. "Communism" defines a communal society without a state at all.
Do you really feel that you know enough about these ideologies to comment so confidently about them?
It was not totalitarian.
Fascism and Nazisim are right-wing nationalist political philosophies, and authoritarian to the core. Right-wingers have generally been authoritarian throughout history, with libertarians being a notable exception (although in my experience also quick to support authoritarian measures when they feel they need to).
The woman with the bum knee is breaking down in her old age.
Don't talk to me about old age. Me, I just turned fifty, but I eat right, I don't smoke, I don't drink, I drink decaf (Shit, I could qualify as Mormon or Islamic), I take fistfuls of dietary supplements, I bike commute to work on the order of about eighty miles a week, I go for long wilderness hikes. Yet I've had a raging case of tendinitis in my elbow for about three months now.
You can't beat the reaper, just postpone the appointment.
On the positive side, on my ride home last night I noticed a topless woman at one of the downtown beaches near my bike route. As this is legal here in Canuckistan, maybe it's the start of a trend.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
When discussing Left vs Right and looking at Hitler, Stalin, Marx etc, there is absolutely NO correlation between what is left and right today in the United States or Europe. A left-leaning democrat in today's society is nowhere near a slippery slope of advocating a "final solution" except in regards to universal health care. If anything, today's right wingers are more xenophobic and nationalistic, but I doubt they'd advocate genocide or anything close to those lines.
Well, maybe they might go so far as to advocate making it illegal for property owners to rent to illegal aliens, fortunately that was shot down in the court.
We are essentially talking about two different ages where left and right then have no real meaning in today's left versus right political arena.
I think some righties on this blog just enjoy getting a rise out of giving Hitler to the left - "here, you guys take him, we've already got David Duke and Michael Savage, why do we need Hitler too?"
No he didn't. "Communism" was a term that had been around for at least a century by the time that Marx used it, and it represented a well-defined societal state.
I did make an error in not distinguishing Communism from Marxism. In the context of Germany in the 20's and 30's and among the combatants in WWII there weren't any significant Communist political parties which were not Marxist.
But early Christians lived communally, and there have been many experimental communes all over the world. The ones that have lasted the longest all seem to be monasteries.
Do you really feel that you know enough about these ideologies to comment so confidently about them?
I'm commenting about them from the basis of my own ideology, so, within that context, yes.
You aren't going to play the foolish game where Canadians (especially you) are all so educated and the Americans (especially me) are all so ignorant again. You should have learned better by now.
Complete and utter nonsense, yourself.
Marxism SAID that the state was a necessary but temporary tool. I know, I know. It's supposed to wither away. In practice Marxism glorified the state. Why do you think it ALWAYS resulted in a bloody state run cult of personality?
Anarchism is socialism? No way. They are polar opposites. Socialism makes the group (society) king. Anarchism makes every individual king.
"Communism" defines a communal society without a state at all.
Right. Pull the other one. Communism may define communal society without a state at all, but in practice those societies always have very strict rules about who gets to use what and how things are actually shared. The rules are the law, and they enforced by a political structure within that society. It's a state in all but name. You and everything else belongs to the commune and it takes care of you. When my friend Yossi left the kibbutz for the freedom of the U.S. he left with almost nothing. The product of all his work belonged to the kibbutz.
You must be commenting about these philosophies from the basis of your ideology, too. The theory of the pure philosophies never seems to match the practice.
BTW, Democratic Socialism is much, much (continue adding the much until repeated about fifty times) better than all it's ideological cousins.
In the context of Germany in the 20's and 30's and among the combatants in WWII there weren't any significant Communist political parties which were not Marxist.
Again, wrong. There were significant numbers of anarchists in Germany at the time as well, and the majority of socialists in the country were actually social democrats.
Stop anticipating arguments.
Right. Pull the other one. Communism may define communal society without a state at all, but in practice those societies always have very strict rules about who gets to use what and how things are actually shared.
From Wikipedia: Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. Communism is an ideal, and, strictly speaking, communists are those following political, social, and economic ideologies that are intended to lead to that ideal. Critiquing that ideal as unattainable is fair game, but changing the definition to suit your argument is not.
It's not as if a single spectrum from left to right really is an accurate way to map political positions.
Duh. But those who equate Stalin with Hitler are doing exactly that, they're looking at politics as a single-dimensional axis, that of state control of the individual. Politics is far more than just that.
Anarchism is socialism? No way. They are polar opposites. Socialism makes the group (society) king. Anarchism makes every individual king.
Wince, do you ever tire of getting the most basic elements of your arguments completely wrong? I know that it's starting to tire me out.
I was an anarchist for years. I know a little bit about the ideology.
From Wikipdia: Different anarchists prefer several different economic systems. Most favor some form of socialism, some free-market left-libertarianism, and some free market capitalism. Various anarchists differ from each other fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.
From your knowledge of socialist history, you may recall that the first person to be considered an Anarchist was Pierre Prouhdon, who argued for the abolition of private property and the replacement of the state with the commune.
You may recall that the most influential anarchist in the nineteenth century was Mikhail Bakunin who was prominent in the First International.
Maybe you've read the influential Mutual Aid by Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin that argued that communism was the natural state of humans?
Maybe you're familiar with the anarcho-syndicalists of Spain who were fighting Franco's fascists, who believed that the state could be replaced with trade unions?
What on earth are you basing these weird assertions on, Wince?
There were significant numbers of anarchists in Germany at the time as well, and the majority of socialists in the country were actually social democrats.
I was anticipating an argument.
Yeah, like this one: That's one reason I said parties. There are libertarians in the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party. Some libertarians are almost anarchists. That doesn't mean that the Liberatarian party is really an anarchist party.
The other reason I said parties was that when I did my pitiful little research before writing I investigated, umm, parties. And the list I had didn't have any parties which were Communist without being Marxist. Perhaps we are having a classification problem. I'm drawing a distinction between Socialist and Communist.
Critiquing that ideal as unattainable is fair game, but changing the definition to suit your argument is not.
Sure. My ideology critiques these philosophies on the basis of what they do and the results they get, not their daydreams. What part of "Marxism glorifies the state" is a definition? Did I say that Marxism is defined as glorifying the state? No. I said Marxism actually glorifies the state.
If I want to post a definition I usually link a dictionary. That way I'm more accurate. Otherwise it's usually a rhetorical flourish, like 'but that practically defines glorifying the state'.
What on earth are you basing these weird assertions on, Wince?
All the anarchists I know are libertarian, individualistic, capitalistic anarchists, horrified at the very mention of socialism. They think the two ideas are mutually exclusive.
When all the anarchists a person knows are vehemently anti-socialist one gets these weird ideas.
BTW, I'm not sure why you are complaining about my characterization of anarchists, when yours was equally faulty until you quoted Wikipaedia. You characterized anarchists as socialists, when it is more accurate to say:
Various anarchists differ from each other fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.
In other words I was half right! Anarchists are NOT Socialists. Some Anarchists are and some are not.
You should trust my intution more, ++ungood. I'm a good guesser.
What on earth gives you the weird idea that your half assed generalizations are better than my half assed generalizations?
Anarchists are socialist anti-statists. Libertarians are free-market and individualist anti-statists.
No. I said Marxism actually glorifies the state.
That too is wrong. It excuses the state under certain circumstances, but as it is devoted to a stateless end condition, it cannot be said to glorify the sate. Fascism's ideal society included a perpetual state.
Then stop typing, throw up your hands and give up.
I'm getting close to that.
You should trust my intution more, ++ungood. I'm a good guesser.
You did not guess that "some Anarchists are and some are not", Wince. You proclaimed that anarchists were in direct opposition to socialism, which is laughable. But as you seem to have forceful opinions on things based on guesses, I'm not sure where to go from here. Are you comfortable with having that kind of reputation? Or would you rather be taken seriously?
But as you seem to have forceful opinions on things based on guesses, I'm not sure where to go from here.
I see the problem. You think this is forceful:
Anarchism is socialism? No way. They are polar opposites. Socialism makes the group (society) king. Anarchism makes every individual king.
That was a toss off, throwaway line. Hardly forceful.
Are you comfortable with having that kind of reputation? Or would you rather be taken seriously?
What, here? Are you implying this is a serious forum? Look, I've tried serious discussions here. It was not helpful. shep was gravely serious. Thank goodness he left. All that serious, hateful prose can't be good for a man to actually write. Tim the Soldier has the best idea. But, alas, he is funny and I am not.
Some people think we learn best via play. My guess is that you must think we learn best by lecturing each other in a dry tone.
I'm not having a serious discussion here. I might have started that way, but I don't have the energy for it. I'm fooling around with ideas and throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks.
I would think you might get the idea I'm having fun from this passage:
You should trust my intution more, ++ungood. I'm a good guesser.
What on earth gives you the weird idea that your half assed generalizations are better than my half assed generalizations?
Or maybe this one:
The other reason I said parties was that when I did my pitiful little research before writing I investigated, umm, parties.
I'm not having a serious discussion here. I might have started that way, but I don't have the energy for it. I'm fooling around with ideas and throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks.
Ah, good. Then I can just make crap up and express opinions formed from vapor.
Upon further reflection, I need to apologize to ++ungood. His comments remind me of a persistant criticism I also get from my wife. I think I need to change the way I phrase my comments to be more humble. Here is a bad example:
Anarchism is socialism? No way. They are polar opposites. Socialism makes the group (society) king. Anarchism makes every individual king.
Here it is rewritten:
Anarchism is socialism? Wow. I never heard that. I thought it meant no government. All the anarchists I know are extreme libertarian capitalists. And the socialists I know all want more government, not less. What gives?
There are socialist anarchists too. Just like there are libertarian socialist, and liberal socialists. Oxymorons all but socialists were never know for playing fair with words.
By the way, I hear that you are only physically addicted for about 48 hours after quitting. After that, it's all mental, baby. Maybe a good time to stick it to the cancer companies and save a bundle of cash at the same time.
Note: Smoking father died of lung cancer, smoking mother-in-law died of lung cancer. It's hell on the kids. And my partner smokes. Yes, I have issues.
Would you consider the ban on smoking in theaters as a vast communist plot?
Maybe she's just a zealous Baptist. They hate smoking, drinking, AND dancing. At least communists drink and dance ;-)
No, that would be Marxist-Leninism. Don't you guys cover the various forms of communism and socialism in school there in the US?
No, just standard nanny state overprotectiveness. Theaters, with those high ceilings and concrete floors, are about the best indoor venue for smoking we have.
No, that would be Marxist-Leninism. Don't you guys cover the various forms of communism and socialism in school there in the US?
That was a long time ago. How would I remember?
Yours,
Wince
I kicked cocaine, crystal meth, pot, and heroin. Don't tell me my smoking is mental after 48 hours. I freaking know that.
Great.
No I'm cranky too.
This forced abstinence is blows. Bah humbug. I'm going swimming, since I can still do that.
Where did I say "only"?
++, sorry to hear about the family. I've got 2 parents that smoke, a grandfather, and hubby's mom. I don't look forward to the next decade or two.
Um, communists are the asshats that wave old USSR flags and block all the commerce in the Friuli-Venezia-Giulia region on a regular basis no? Or are they the ones that riot on police in Rome when the Italians threaten to cut their holiday time short and make them work like respectable people?
We're all cranky here Rose. :D
Good for you, Alex.
Yours,
Wince
"Communism" is a pretty wide label. USSR-flag waving asshats would be Marxist-Leninists or Stalinists, who are communists. But it's like saying that Hitler was a right-winger. He was, but few right-wingers are nazis.
1. Fascists believe that socialism should be done in a more practical fashion.
2. Fascists believe in nationalism and patriotism, not internationalism.
Generally speaking fascism was an attempt by some socialists to overcome the failure of socialism to get the support of the working classes.
Nazism added a truly pathological hatred of Jews.
Hitler said that he was so left-wing he was right-wing as a way of emphasizing his differences with the Communists.
Some actual conservative parties in Germany at the time include:
German National People's Party. It wanted a return to the monarchy.
The Bavarian People's Party.
See also the German presidential election, 1925.
Yours,
Wince
The most arrogant are the lawmakers who sock tobacco users with sales taxes designed to punish smoking "for the sake of the children." Every time some bastard wants to run other people's lives, notice that it's ALWAYS "for the children."
Those who can best afford the tobacco tax are shoving around those who are too poor to afford it. The poor, don't you know, really need the rest of us constantly lecturing them about their morality. It isn't like it already sucks enough to be poor...
Take a lot vitamin C before your surgery. Like in the grams/day range.
You can't overdose on it and any extra turns into slightly expensive urine and its a good anti-oxidant.
What cigarette smokers don't know is that cigarettes neutralize advailable Vitamin C in the blood stream.
That's why long term heavy smokers all have craggy lines in their pallored facial skin.
Take a lot vitamin C before your surgery. Like in the grams/day range.
You can't overdose on it and any extra turns into slightly expensive urine and its a good anti-oxidant.
What cigarette smokers don't know is that cigarettes neutralize advailable Vitamin C in the blood stream.
That's why long term heavy smokers all have craggily lines in their pallored facial skin.
Don't let the surgery people get you down, for them its an in and out deal and you wont see most of them again.
Doc McK
Sorry Wince, but Hitler and Mussolini were on the extreme right wing. Their ideology was in no way socialist. All forms of socialism believe in some level of collectivization, whereas all forms of fascism have been corporatist and violently anti-socialist.
There are several schools of thought that attempt to place fascism in the ranks of the left, but they're all weak arguments. I'd suggest taking a good look at modern fascist movements and which political philosophies they align with.
Or you could take a look at their own words. Mussolini:Or Hitler: As Hitler equated socialism and Marxism as Jewish philospohies (unsurprisingly - many early socialists were Jewish, including Marx), it's difficult to understand how proponents of the Fascist==Left-Wing theory resolved that little gem.
How about knowing that cigarette smoking hastens your death? Primary reason for quitting smoking - significantly increasing your chances of spending quality time with your grandchildren.
Downsides to quitting - none.
Well, not quite. I was a Camels unfiltered man, and they brought me much pleasure.
The whole dying horribly thing got to me though, and I figured it was a poor trade-off. I miss booze as well, but am much healthier, and I sleep better. Oh, and there's the extra money thing, that's nice too.
Good Luck, Sis!!!! If anyone can quit...you can. You told me so!!!!
And this is based on what?
This is like having a conversation with left wingers who insist that Stalin was a right-winger.
He was allied with Mussolini because Fascism was no threat to him.
Assuming you've read this somewhere, you're reading some pretty bizarre stuff.
Seriously, what the hell is left-wing about Hitler? He hated all forms of communism, thought that class distinctions in a society were a good thing, supported capitalism and corporatism, supported or allied himself with three other right-wing fascist governments, and did not even pay lip service to the socialist ideals of a classless co-operative society. Even Stalin pretended that the state was a temporary measure before arriving at a classless communist society. Hitler believed that the state was a holy instrument to advance his race.
Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Nazism and Fascism all glorify the power of the state and believe the state should be supreme. All believe that the government should be take care of the people. All support government control of the means of production, some to greater extents than others. Marxism and Nazism are totalitarian ideologies. (Mussolini was never as totalitarian as Hitler, Stalin or Mao.)
All of these groups are statists.
By contrast the right wing was capitalist and sometimes even monarchist. Sometimes it supported various social programs with the aim of forestalling actual socialism. It was not totalitarian. The center favored a mix of capitalism and socialism as well, and could be described as liberal and democratic. Socialism, on the center left, favored less capitalism and more socialism. It was not totalitarian either.
Yours,
Wince
Closer to two decades is more accurate. The woman with the bum knee is breaking down in her old age. ;-) Hey, you know I'm only kidding.....barely though. You'll emerge from this thing great since you're a strong woman, but watch out for those pain pills - they'll get you if you're not careful.
And no Rose, cold turkey anything is not good. I cold turkey caffine one deployment. That first MONTH was not plesant - it skyrocketed my migraine quotent and chocolate (my other legal drug of choice) did nothing to combat it.
Good luck on the knee. Here's to hobblin' around pain free soon!
No he didn't. "Communism" was a term that had been around for at least a century by the time that Marx used it, and it represented a well-defined societal state.
Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Nazism and Fascism all glorify the power of the state...
Complete and utter nonsense. Fascism glorified the state. Marxism criticized the state as a tool of oppression, and said that it was a necessary but temporary tool toward a communist society. The term "Socialism" includes Anarchism, which rejects the state totally. "Communism" defines a communal society without a state at all.
Do you really feel that you know enough about these ideologies to comment so confidently about them?
It was not totalitarian.
Fascism and Nazisim are right-wing nationalist political philosophies, and authoritarian to the core. Right-wingers have generally been authoritarian throughout history, with libertarians being a notable exception (although in my experience also quick to support authoritarian measures when they feel they need to).
Don't talk to me about old age. Me, I just turned fifty, but I eat right, I don't smoke, I don't drink, I drink decaf (Shit, I could qualify as Mormon or Islamic), I take fistfuls of dietary supplements, I bike commute to work on the order of about eighty miles a week, I go for long wilderness hikes. Yet I've had a raging case of tendinitis in my elbow for about three months now.
You can't beat the reaper, just postpone the appointment.
On the positive side, on my ride home last night I noticed a topless woman at one of the downtown beaches near my bike route. As this is legal here in Canuckistan, maybe it's the start of a trend.
Well, maybe they might go so far as to advocate making it illegal for property owners to rent to illegal aliens, fortunately that was shot down in the court.
We are essentially talking about two different ages where left and right then have no real meaning in today's left versus right political arena.
I think some righties on this blog just enjoy getting a rise out of giving Hitler to the left - "here, you guys take him, we've already got David Duke and Michael Savage, why do we need Hitler too?"
I did make an error in not distinguishing Communism from Marxism. In the context of Germany in the 20's and 30's and among the combatants in WWII there weren't any significant Communist political parties which were not Marxist.
But early Christians lived communally, and there have been many experimental communes all over the world. The ones that have lasted the longest all seem to be monasteries.
Do you really feel that you know enough about these ideologies to comment so confidently about them?
I'm commenting about them from the basis of my own ideology, so, within that context, yes.
You aren't going to play the foolish game where Canadians (especially you) are all so educated and the Americans (especially me) are all so ignorant again. You should have learned better by now.
Complete and utter nonsense, yourself.
Marxism SAID that the state was a necessary but temporary tool. I know, I know. It's supposed to wither away. In practice Marxism glorified the state. Why do you think it ALWAYS resulted in a bloody state run cult of personality?
Anarchism is socialism? No way. They are polar opposites. Socialism makes the group (society) king. Anarchism makes every individual king.
"Communism" defines a communal society without a state at all.
Right. Pull the other one. Communism may define communal society without a state at all, but in practice those societies always have very strict rules about who gets to use what and how things are actually shared. The rules are the law, and they enforced by a political structure within that society. It's a state in all but name. You and everything else belongs to the commune and it takes care of you. When my friend Yossi left the kibbutz for the freedom of the U.S. he left with almost nothing. The product of all his work belonged to the kibbutz.
You must be commenting about these philosophies from the basis of your ideology, too. The theory of the pure philosophies never seems to match the practice.
BTW, Democratic Socialism is much, much (continue adding the much until repeated about fifty times) better than all it's ideological cousins.
In some ways we are discussing entirely different subjects. I have found the arguments which lump statist philosphies together persuasive, particularly since Nazism and Marxism have pretty much the small horrible results.
I have heard many people comment that Hitler and Stalin were two peas in a pod, and the WWII was really a war between totalitarian systems.
Yours,
Wince
particularly since Nazism and Marxism have pretty much the same horrible results.
I think some righties on this blog just enjoy getting a rise out of giving Hitler to the left.
No, this is the influence of the libertarians lumping all the totalitarians together.
It's not as if a single spectrum from left to right really is an accurate way to map political positions.
Yours,
Wince
Again, wrong. There were significant numbers of anarchists in Germany at the time as well, and the majority of socialists in the country were actually social democrats.
Stop anticipating arguments.
Right. Pull the other one. Communism may define communal society without a state at all, but in practice those societies always have very strict rules about who gets to use what and how things are actually shared.
From Wikipedia: Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. Communism is an ideal, and, strictly speaking, communists are those following political, social, and economic ideologies that are intended to lead to that ideal. Critiquing that ideal as unattainable is fair game, but changing the definition to suit your argument is not.
It's not as if a single spectrum from left to right really is an accurate way to map political positions.
Duh. But those who equate Stalin with Hitler are doing exactly that, they're looking at politics as a single-dimensional axis, that of state control of the individual. Politics is far more than just that.
Wince, do you ever tire of getting the most basic elements of your arguments completely wrong? I know that it's starting to tire me out.
I was an anarchist for years. I know a little bit about the ideology.
From Wikipdia: Different anarchists prefer several different economic systems. Most favor some form of socialism, some free-market left-libertarianism, and some free market capitalism. Various anarchists differ from each other fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.
From your knowledge of socialist history, you may recall that the first person to be considered an Anarchist was Pierre Prouhdon, who argued for the abolition of private property and the replacement of the state with the commune.
You may recall that the most influential anarchist in the nineteenth century was Mikhail Bakunin who was prominent in the First International.
Maybe you've read the influential Mutual Aid by Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin that argued that communism was the natural state of humans?
Maybe you're familiar with the anarcho-syndicalists of Spain who were fighting Franco's fascists, who believed that the state could be replaced with trade unions?
What on earth are you basing these weird assertions on, Wince?
I was anticipating an argument.
Yeah, like this one: That's one reason I said parties. There are libertarians in the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party. Some libertarians are almost anarchists. That doesn't mean that the Liberatarian party is really an anarchist party.
The other reason I said parties was that when I did my pitiful little research before writing I investigated, umm, parties. And the list I had didn't have any parties which were Communist without being Marxist. Perhaps we are having a classification problem. I'm drawing a distinction between Socialist and Communist.
Critiquing that ideal as unattainable is fair game, but changing the definition to suit your argument is not.
Sure. My ideology critiques these philosophies on the basis of what they do and the results they get, not their daydreams. What part of "Marxism glorifies the state" is a definition? Did I say that Marxism is defined as glorifying the state? No. I said Marxism actually glorifies the state.
If I want to post a definition I usually link a dictionary. That way I'm more accurate. Otherwise it's usually a rhetorical flourish, like 'but that practically defines glorifying the state'.
Yours,
Wince
All the anarchists I know are libertarian, individualistic, capitalistic anarchists, horrified at the very mention of socialism. They think the two ideas are mutually exclusive.
When all the anarchists a person knows are vehemently anti-socialist one gets these weird ideas.
Yours,
Wince
Then stop typing, throw up your hands and give up.
Yours,
Wince
Various anarchists differ from each other fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.
In other words I was half right! Anarchists are NOT Socialists. Some Anarchists are and some are not.
You should trust my intution more, ++ungood. I'm a good guesser.
What on earth gives you the weird idea that your half assed generalizations are better than my half assed generalizations?
Yours,
Wince
Anarchists are socialist anti-statists. Libertarians are free-market and individualist anti-statists.
No. I said Marxism actually glorifies the state.
That too is wrong. It excuses the state under certain circumstances, but as it is devoted to a stateless end condition, it cannot be said to glorify the sate. Fascism's ideal society included a perpetual state.
Then stop typing, throw up your hands and give up.
I'm getting close to that.
You should trust my intution more, ++ungood. I'm a good guesser.
You did not guess that "some Anarchists are and some are not", Wince. You proclaimed that anarchists were in direct opposition to socialism, which is laughable. But as you seem to have forceful opinions on things based on guesses, I'm not sure where to go from here. Are you comfortable with having that kind of reputation? Or would you rather be taken seriously?
I see the problem. You think this is forceful:
Anarchism is socialism? No way. They are polar opposites. Socialism makes the group (society) king. Anarchism makes every individual king.
That was a toss off, throwaway line. Hardly forceful.
Are you comfortable with having that kind of reputation? Or would you rather be taken seriously?
What, here? Are you implying this is a serious forum? Look, I've tried serious discussions here. It was not helpful. shep was gravely serious. Thank goodness he left. All that serious, hateful prose can't be good for a man to actually write. Tim the Soldier has the best idea. But, alas, he is funny and I am not.
Some people think we learn best via play. My guess is that you must think we learn best by lecturing each other in a dry tone.
I'm not having a serious discussion here. I might have started that way, but I don't have the energy for it. I'm fooling around with ideas and throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks.
I would think you might get the idea I'm having fun from this passage:
You should trust my intution more, ++ungood. I'm a good guesser.
What on earth gives you the weird idea that your half assed generalizations are better than my half assed generalizations?
Or maybe this one:
The other reason I said parties was that when I did my pitiful little research before writing I investigated, umm, parties.
Yours,
Wince
Ah, good. Then I can just make crap up and express opinions formed from vapor.
You're right, much less work.
Yours,
Wince
Anarchism is socialism? No way. They are polar opposites. Socialism makes the group (society) king. Anarchism makes every individual king.
Here it is rewritten:
Anarchism is socialism? Wow. I never heard that. I thought it meant no government. All the anarchists I know are extreme libertarian capitalists. And the socialists I know all want more government, not less. What gives?
See above for more examples.
Mostly I need to write less.
Yours,
Wince
There are socialist anarchists too. Just like there are libertarian socialist, and liberal socialists. Oxymorons all but socialists were never know for playing fair with words.