FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Wingnut Deputy Att. General fired for anti-protester comment





handfleisch
One less wingnut in our political system. Notice his crazed rants conflating "liberals" with "thugs" and "leftists". Sounds familiar, actually.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/indiana-official-jeff-cox-live-ammunition-against-wisconsin-protesters
Quote:

Update: The Indiana attorney general's office has confirmed to Mother Jones that Jeff Cox was terminated Wednesday. The full statement and screen captures of the now-defunct blog are posted here.

On Saturday night, when Mother Jones staffers tweeted a report that riot police might soon sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin capitol building—something that didn't end up happening—one Twitter user sent out a chilling public response: "Use live ammunition."

From my own Twitter account, I confronted the user, JCCentCom. He tweeted back that the demonstrators were "political enemies" and "thugs" who were "physically threatening legally elected officials." In response to such behavior, he said, "You're damned right I advocate deadly force." He later called me a "typical leftist," adding, "liberals hate police."

Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana.
...
But he evinces contempt for political opponents—from labeling President Obama an "incompetent and treasonous" enemy of the nation to comparing "enviro-Nazis" to Osama bin Laden, likening ex-Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Service Employees International Union members to Nazi "brownshirts" on multiple occasions, and referring to an Indianapolis teen as "a black teenage thug who was (deservedly) beaten up" by local police. A "sensible policy for handling Afghanistan," he offered, could be summed up as: "KILL! KILL! ANNIHILATE!"
watersoul
Some strong stuff from a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana!

Politics seem perhaps a little boring here in UK compared to that bloke! Shocked
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
One less wingnut in our political system. Notice his crazed rants conflating "liberals" with "thugs" and "leftists". Sounds familiar, actually.


Was that the same guy who was firing up the protesters “to get a little bloody” in a not so veiled threat of violence? Or was he one of the group who stalked the governor’s private home to send a clear message of we know where you live?
Bikerman
'Governor's private home'.
That is a matter of public record, so anyone could easily find it by just looking:
http://www.whitepages.com/maps/directions?fname=mitch&fname_begins_with=1&log_listing_id=Telco_QDX|23fbc92c-c63d-40cb-9361-4b5fe4443201&lower=5&more_info=1&name=daniels&search_id=03231351824706172694&search_type=findperson&where=indiana

I'm not sure how you 'stalk' a home, but presuming you mean 'hung around with obviously some intent to scare' then that could be any loonatic - left-wing, right-wing, no-wing, all-mixed-up-wing or whatever.
It isn't like he is a hard man to find - he spends quite a lot of time at the Governor's mansion which is signposted from quite a distance....
deanhills
Quote:
The Indiana Attorney General’s Office conducted a thorough and expeditious review after “Mother Jones” magazine today published an article attributing private Twitter postings and private blog postings to Cox.

@Handfleisch: I wonder how "private" "private" is these days? Does this mean that my place of work can fire me when I say something during a discussion in Frihost for example that isn't quite to their liking? As of course we all have pseudonyms, and are posting anonymously for good reasons, particularly that they are our personal views and are not work related.

It would be interesting to see whether Cox is going to fight his dismissal along these lines or sue Twitter, him being quite shrewd as far as legal matters are concerned. I'm almost certain that he must have known what his legal limits would have been with making his comments on Twitter, who knows, maybe he was hoping for this outcome?

@jmi: Do you know whether the Governor's Mansion is public property? And what are the rules with regard to "hanging out" around a Governor's Mansion are? Are they different from private properties?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Quote:
The Indiana Attorney General’s Office conducted a thorough and expeditious review after “Mother Jones” magazine today published an article attributing private Twitter postings and private blog postings to Cox.

@Handfleisch: I wonder how "private" "private" is these days? Does this mean that my place of work can fire me when I say something during a discussion in Frihost for example that isn't quite to their liking?
Probably - it depends on your contract of employment but it will probably have some 'catch-all' phrase which would allow the firing.
Quote:
As of course we all have pseudonyms, and are posting anonymously for good reasons, particularly that they are our personal views and are not work related.
DeanHills in an interestingly precise pseudonym...also one should never rely on anonymity - anyone who really wants to find someone will normally do so, with even basic knowledge of the net - it's normally just a case of putting the effort in.
Governor's mansion:
Quote:
The Governor's Residence, located at 4750 N. Meridian Street, is the sixth official governor's residence. The Governor's Residence Commission acquired the six and one half acre estate in 1973 to serve as the official Governor's Residence for then-Governor and Mrs. Otis R. Bowen.

There would be no federal law especially applicable to a Governor's mansion, but there may be state laws....In practice a number of laws can be invoked (certainly in the UK) - from loitering to trespass, obstruction, threatening violence (assault), and so on.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Probably - it depends on your contract of employment but it will probably have some 'catch-all' phrase which would allow the firing.
I would like to hear about this from Cox however, as I'm almost certain that as a legal expert he would have been fully aware of his limitations. Either he wanted to be fired, deliberately, or he had decided that if it should come to this that he would have legal grounds to contest their decision. If he is as dumb as it sounds, then I feel very disappointed in the State of Wisconsin's ability to employ suitable staff in their highest legal positions. Cox was a Deputy Attorney General, and those guys are usually nifty, shifty and shrewd. They calculate all their actions well in advance.
Bikerman wrote:
also one should never rely on anonymity - anyone who really wants to find someone will normally do so, with even basic knowledge of the net - it's normally just a case of putting the effort in.
Totally agreed. And this should be a good lesson to us all as well. The Internet is always public, and even more public than ever with the use of bots as I would imagine there must be security people monitoring discussion groups for certain words, such as Cox has been using. Again, I would be very surprised if he had been unaware of this, as he must have known that his discussion would have been monitored.
Bikerman wrote:
There would be no federal law especially applicable to a Governor's mansion, but there may be state laws....
Right, I was curious whether jmi might have known whether there are such laws.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
One less wingnut in our political system. Notice his crazed rants conflating "liberals" with "thugs" and "leftists". Sounds familiar, actually.


Was that the same guy who was firing up the protesters “to get a little bloody” in a not so veiled threat of violence? Or was he one of the group who stalked the governor’s private home to send a clear message of we know where you live?

Your point? That one makes the other okay? That there is some kind of equivalency between what "some guy" supposedly said and what a deputy attorney general says ("use live ammunition" on protesters)? You're actually defending the deputy AG?
Voodoocat
Jeff Cox got what he deserved.

Handfliesch is correct- this is one less wingnut in our political system, and it is a good thing.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
@jmi: Do you know whether the Governor's Mansion is public property? And what are the rules with regard to "hanging out" around a Governor's Mansion are? Are they different from private properties?

I would assume it’s public property, but the issue isn’t trespassing but rather the threats of violence and physical harm from these people. The hate, bigotry and violence – not to mention hypocrisy- commonly displayed by the Left is simply scary, and in this case the special interests groups have bussed in some pretty sick people to Wisconsin to make their point.
What Cox was accused of doing if he did it was wrong (I haven’t seen the tweet yet, so I can’t really comment), and he was right to step down if that’s the case. Many people have come out and condemn those types of actions, but what I have also seen is the Left’s typical tactics on display in Wisconsin. I wonder where the outrage and denunciation are? A case of “implied endorsement/consent” from Obama and the Democrats? I’m sure all those who condemn the entire Tea Party movement because of a few individuals will quickly condemn all Democrats/socialist/communists/liberals/progressives/fascists/stateists/leftists/etc now. But I won’t hold my breath. Obama has already taken the time to comment on the situation in favor of these nutjobs, so I wonder why he wouldn’t also condemn these actions.



















Bikerman
Well,I understood Capnuano completely differently. I didn't hear a threat at all. What I heard was him rousing people to go onto the streets and 'risk getting a little bloody'. I understand what he's saying and it ISN'T to go looking for blood. Everytime you attend a contentious demo you stand to get abused - verbally for sure but sometimes physically as well. That isn't a 'party' point - it's observation based on experience, and can happen with right, left, or even centrist rallies. This guy is saying that people need to be willing to 'get their hands dirty' - even though they might get hurt. I've been to plenty of meetings where similar rhetoric is used and everyone knows what they are saying - basically stand up and be counted, not go looking for fights.
I don't know the chap and he may be a terrible gangster/manipulator for all I know, but as someone who has done a fair amount of listening to speeches and attending demos, I know that language - I know that speech. It isn't a call to violence, it's a slightly macho call to join in rather than avoid the risk..
ocalhoun
I agree this guy was way out of line, and it's a good thing he was fired.

(Do keep in mind though, that "This guy was way out of line" + "This guy was a _____" =/= "All _____ are way out of line".)
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
I agree this guy was way out of line, and it's a good thing he was fired.

(Do keep in mind though, that "This guy was way out of line" + "This guy was a _____" =/= "All _____ are way out of line".)
Left-wingers can be ****** - hey, there I said it Smile
Of course they can. They don't tend to be violent, unless we go to the point where left and right meet in fascistic groupings or trotskyist power-cliques, but GOD they can bore a reasonable person into knawing his own leg off to escape another 30 minutes on the Marxist analysis of then banking crises in terms of a new theory of alienation which shows that once 90% of the capital is controlled by 5% of the population, the dialectic crisis will inevitably lead to the agents of production taking control of....etc etc.

I find right-wing political gatherings generally more 'civilsed' (or petty bourgoise depending on stance), better organised, with often an uncomfortable 'air' of intolerance being generated as the more overt bigotries are left unspoken.
I find left-wing polotical gatherings more disorganised, with crappy food, if any; much more heated debate - often on appoarently pedantic points of principle, and normally containing several 'political theorists' who are normally analogous with the folk who think they can prove Einstein got Relativity wrong on science forums (ie wrong, deluded, stubbornly wedded to a silly or irrelevant position, and completely unable to compromise or change their fundamentally flawed 'system' or 'hypothesis'.

I prefer the latter, on balance Smile
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Left-wingers can be ****** - hey, there I said it Smile
Of course they can. They don't tend to be violent, unless we go to the point where left and right meet in fascistic groupings or trotskyist power-cliques, but GOD they can bore a reasonable person into knawing his own leg off to escape another 30 minutes on the Marxist analysis of then banking crises in terms of a new theory of alienation which shows that once 90% of the capital is controlled by 5% of the population, the dialectic crisis will inevitably lead to the agents of production taking control of....etc etc.

I don’t know what’s more disturbing: The possibility that you either are ignorant of - or misrepresenting - the deep, dark history of genocide, murder, extortion and human rights violations perpetrated by the Left; Or that you may genuinely believe this bunk. Does, tens of millions killed in the Soviet Union by Stalin and his gang ring a bell? Or how about Hitler and the National Socialists’ attempted genocide of the Jewish people? Or how about Communist China? Or Cuba? Or the Democrats and KKK in the South (USA) who lynched blacks who dared exercise their rights after Lincoln and the Republican freed them? Yeah, they just bored everyone to death, but “don’t tend to be violent.” More rubbish. At the end of the day, the Left’s doctrine can be summed up as simply using brute force and gang rule to take what they want. You can try to revise history all you want, but facts remain.



Bikerman wrote:
I find right-wing political gatherings generally more 'civilsed' (or petty bourgoise depending on stance), better organised, with often an uncomfortable 'air' of intolerance being generated as the more overt bigotries are left unspoken.

See what you did there? You attempted to smear based on something that doesn’t happen. While the Left finds a minority, any minority such as Jews, blacks, businessmen, “the rich”, etc, and use them as scapegoats to target and attack, its followers then try to project the Left’s actual actions as some type of “air” on others when the finger is pointed directly at them. Bigotries and intolerance by the Left are not “left unspoken” but rather acted on, as we have seen time and time again in modern times.



Bikerman wrote:
I find left-wing polotical gatherings more disorganised, with crappy food, if any; much more heated debate - often on appoarently pedantic points of principle, and normally containing several 'political theorists' who are normally analogous with the folk who think they can prove Einstein got Relativity wrong on science forums (ie wrong, deluded, stubbornly wedded to a silly or irrelevant position, and completely unable to compromise or change their fundamentally flawed 'system' or 'hypothesis'.

I prefer the latter, on balance Smile

So the worst part about the genocide, murder, rape, extortion, etc. exhibited by the Left in your mind is that they have “crappy food?” It’s simply incredible that someone could make such a claim with a straight face.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Left-wingers can be ****** - hey, there I said it Smile
Of course they can. They don't tend to be violent, unless we go to the point where left and right meet in fascistic groupings or trotskyist power-cliques, but GOD they can bore a reasonable person into knawing his own leg off to escape another 30 minutes on the Marxist analysis of then banking crises in terms of a new theory of alienation which shows that once 90% of the capital is controlled by 5% of the population, the dialectic crisis will inevitably lead to the agents of production taking control of....etc etc.

I don’t know what’s more disturbing: The possibility that you either are ignorant of - or misrepresenting - the deep, dark history of genocide, murder, extortion and human rights violations perpetrated by the Left; Or that you may genuinely believe this bunk. Does, tens of millions killed in the Soviet Union by Stalin and his gang ring a bell? Or how about Hitler and the National Socialists’ attempted genocide of the Jewish people? Or how about Communist China? Or Cuba? Or the Democrats and KKK in the South (USA) who lynched blacks who dared exercise their rights after Lincoln and the Republican freed them? Yeah, they just bored everyone to death, but “don’t tend to be violent.” More rubbish. At the end of the day, the Left’s doctrine can be summed up as simply using brute force and gang rule to take what they want. You can try to revise history all you want, but facts remain.
LOL...You can safely assume that I know 19th and 20th Century history and politics well enough to know quite a lot about Stalin and the USSR. I could gto into a long reply, outlining the millions killed by the US in more recent times, but there is no real point. What I said was clearly (and quite explicitly) referring to MODERN socialisrs/communists/anarcho-syndicalists, not looking back to an era before I was born.
If you want to debate right vs left atrocity in my lifetime then bring it on. That's a 50 year span and includes a lot of Mao's work, so it's not exactly cherry picking.
(I thought we had established some time ago that people are culpable for what THEY do and what THEY have the power to do and don't do. They are not guilty or responsible for what Stalin did 70 years ago, in conditions that most Americans can barely imagine.)
(This same Stalin was the one who, in 1938/9, before the War, offered to transfer 1 million Russian troops to commands along the borders with Germany. Had Britian and France accepted, the whole of European history in the mid-late 20th century would have been very different).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html
We turned him down and that forced him into a treaty he didn't want and didn't trust, with the Germans. He is also the one who , more than any other leader, was responsible for the defeat of Hitler and the Reich. 20 million dead soldiers testify to Russia's incredible sacrifice.

Sure, he turned into a Paranoid megalomaniac after the war - many leaders do - power absolutely does corrupt. He became a repressive tyrannical despot who nobody I know would wish to defend - certainly not I.

Hitler and his regime were not left-wing, any more than Mussolini and the Fascists were. They were ultra-nationalist authoritarian regimes of the far right, absolutely and diametrically opposed to any idea of socialism - as witnessed by their fear and loathing of Russia.

(Trying to catagorise Fascism and Natzism (and to some extent even Stalinism) on a 'left<->right' axis doesn't actually make much sense. The identifying characteristic were the authoritarianism, the brutality and the fanaticism, rather than any considerations of state-ownership vs private capital).

As for Cuba? This is the place that the US had marked out for exploitation off-shore - but most of the Cubans didn't want it that way and revolted. Cuba has done remarkably well considering that the world superpower next door had been intent on invading, bombing and finally starving the island. for 50 years. Castro's Cuba was no model communist state, but it DID do much of what it set out to do - raise the standard of living for the average Cuban into the 20th Century. The education, health and social services are high standard - above anything seen in any of the various puppet regimes the US has setup in South and Cenral America since the war/ All that despite vindictive and crippling sanctions from the US and various organised attempts to kill Castro and cripple Cuba's exonomy.

As for counting 'the South' and the 'KKK' as 'left-wing....that is not only re-writing history, it is, frankly, taking the piss.

The oft-repeated mantra that Lincoln led the North into battle to fight the good fight against slavery is a nice little fairy story for republican conventions, but not for serious political debate. Lincoln has ONE goal - saving the Union. He was quite clear that if it was slavery or the Union then it should be the Union.
Lincoln wrote:
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.


On a wider, global picture, I haven't added up the totals. There is a detailed and seemingly scholarly paper on this below, setting out the numbers killed in various attrocities over the 20th century.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

I could add up the various totals and I think that, even counting the huge numbers from Mao and Stalin, there will not be much in it between deaths attributable to left wing and right wing regimes/leaders.

If we stick to the present, however, then it is no contest. There are only 4 socialist countries in the world - China, Vietnam, Cuba and Laos.
Quote:
See what you did there? You attempted to smear based on something that doesn’t happen. While the Left finds a minority, any minority such as Jews, blacks, businessmen, “the rich”, etc, and use them as scapegoats to target and attack, its followers then try to project the Left’s actual actions as some type of “air” on others when the finger is pointed directly at them. Bigotries and intolerance by the Left are not “left unspoken” but rather acted on, as we have seen time and time again in modern times.
I didn't smear anyone. The fact that socialism STARTS from a philosophical position of equality means that you will not find many socialists expressing overtly racist, sexist, homophobic views, since it is hard to see how anyone with such views could also believe in a society based on equal power-relationships with no hierarchical management or control structures, and common ownership of, and responsibility for, the means of wealth production.

Bigotry is the irrational belief in one's own, or ones 'group' superiority. Socialism starts with an absolute rejection of that.

Right-wing/capitalist politics start from an almost opposite starting point. There is no desire/imperative for equality - individual reward is seen as the only 'rational' way of driving society, and the fact that this leads to massive inequalities is just the way things are. Right-wing folk tend to be very centred on family and local community (a generalisation, but not, I think, an unfair one).

If you want comparisons, look at a socialist newspaper and compare it with a right-wing paper.
You probably don't get socialist papers in the US so here's a helpful list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Socialist_newspapers

Now, gather some editions and count up the impled and explicit bigotry contained. Then compare with equivalent right-wing papers.
(In the UK the right-wing tabloids (Daily Mail and Express) are infamous for their anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant, anti-gay/lesbian positions, whereas the centre-left Guardian is seen as politically correct and timid in comparison. The same holds for media outlets throughout Europe (I don't know the US well enough to comment).

This doesn't, of course, mean that capitalist= bigot, but it does provide a more fruitful ground for such bigotry to develop.

I have no doubt you can find some racist or homophobic socialists, but they must be pretty mixed-up individuals, to my way of thinking, to be able to rationalise the absolute central contradiction that involves. Rather like Creationist Scientists.

Socialists don't appear in my history books oppressing Jews*, Blacks or other minorities. Which Socialists have you got in mind? Indeed, it was the 'socialist' influence that probably did the most to end slavery (and here I'm thinking of the Quakers and other more 'communal' Christian sects & the inflience of the French revolution).

*Jews are prominently associated with the development of Socialism in the west - amongst the abuse heaped on them by Hitler was the charge that they were communist sympathisers, waiting to invite Stalin into Germany.
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Left-wingers can be ****** - hey, there I said it :-)
Of course they can. They don't tend to be violent, unless we go to the point where left and right meet in fascistic groupings or trotskyist power-cliques, but GOD they can bore a reasonable person into knawing his own leg off to escape another 30 minutes on the Marxist analysis of then banking crises in terms of a new theory of alienation which shows that once 90% of the capital is controlled by 5% of the population, the dialectic crisis will inevitably lead to the agents of production taking control of....etc etc.

I don’t know what’s more disturbing: The possibility that you either are ignorant of - or misrepresenting - the deep, dark history of genocide, murder, extortion and human rights violations perpetrated by the Left; Or that you may genuinely believe this bunk. Does, tens of millions killed in the Soviet Union by Stalin and his gang ring a bell? Or how about Hitler and the National Socialists’ attempted genocide of the Jewish people? Or how about Communist China? Or Cuba? Or the Democrats and in the South (USA) who lynched blacks who dared exercise their rights after Lincoln and the Republican freed them? Yeah, they just bored everyone to death, but “don’t tend to be violent.” More rubbish. At the end of the day, the Left’s doctrine can be summed up as simply using brute force and gang rule to take what they want. You can try to revise history all you want, but facts remain.
LOL...You can safely assume that I know 19th and 20th Century history and politics well enough to know quite a lot about Stalin and the USSR. I could gto into a long reply, outlining the millions killed by the US in more recent times, but there is no real point. What I said was clearly (and quite explicitly) referring to MODERN socialisrs/communists/anarcho-syndicalists, not looking back to an era before I was born.
If you want to debate right vs left atrocity in my lifetime then bring it on. That's a 50 year span and includes a lot of Mao's work, so it's not exactly cherry picking.
...
As for counting 'the South' and the 'KKK' as 'left-wing....that is not only re-writing history, it is, frankly, taking the piss.


Here we go again. Jmi says the KKK is left wing, in the latest of a long line of, as you charitably call it, "taking the piss". That pretty much sums up his veracity, yet again. Now let's watch the contortionist act to try to get out of it, or maybe just the disappearing/gone deaf act.
deanhills
Perhaps there has been a mis-use of labels here. Both left and right-wingers can be extremists. The KKK most certainly are extremists. Hitler and Stalin, who were both fanatics, were also extremists:
Quote:
Extremism is any ideology or political act far outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards. In democratic societies, individuals or groups that advocate the replacement of democracy with a authoritarian regime are usually branded extremists, in authoritarian societies the opposite applies.

The term is invariably, or almost invariably, used pejoratively. Extremism is usually contrasted with moderation, and extremists with moderates. (For example, in contemporary discussions in Western countries of Islam, or of Islamic political movements, it is common for there to be a heavy stress on the distinction between extremist and moderate Muslims. It is also not uncommon to necessarily define distinctions regarding extremist Christians as opposed to moderate Christians, as in countries such as the United States).

Political agendas perceived as extremist often include those from the far left or far right as well as fundamentalism or, as a more general term, fanaticism.
Source: Wikipedia

I don't have all the facts in front of me, but if I look at the News Reports, I think that for the most part the protesters were non-extremist, but that there were extremists in the wings who were trying to get them to riot, Egyptian style. It did not work, as the Wisconsin and Egyptian protests were different in essence and also the protesters in Wisconsin completely different from those who had protested in Egypt.
jmi256
jmi256 wrote:
I don’t know what’s more disturbing: The possibility that you either are ignorant of - or misrepresenting - the deep, dark history of genocide, murder, extortion and human rights violations perpetrated by the Left; Or that you may genuinely believe this bunk. Does, tens of millions killed in the Soviet Union by Stalin and his gang ring a bell? Or how about Hitler and the National Socialists’ attempted genocide of the Jewish people? Or how about Communist China? Or Cuba? Or the Democrats and KKK in the South (USA) who lynched blacks who dared exercise their rights after Lincoln and the Republican freed them? Yeah, they just bored everyone to death, but “don’t tend to be violent.” More rubbish. At the end of the day, the Left’s doctrine can be summed up as simply using brute force and gang rule to take what they want. You can try to revise history all you want, but facts remain.

Bikerman wrote:
Hitler and his regime were not left-wing, any more than Mussolini and the Fascists were. They were ultra-nationalist authoritarian regimes of the far right, absolutely and diametrically opposed to any idea of socialism - as witnessed by their fear and loathing of Russia.

More BS. Hitler and the National Socialists (aka NAZIs), as well as Mussolini and his fascist government, were clearly on the Left, and it is very clear when you read their party platform(s). They stood for nationalization of means of production ‘for the public good’ and used the Left’s “public good” argument to attack Jews and other minorities (Mussolini not as much, though). Arguing that they fought Russia is some type of evidence that they weren’t Left wing is simply silly. That’s like saying Barack Obama isn’t a Democrat because he fought Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. They were simply a group of thugs fighting over the same prize: control of Europe.
It doesn’t even pass the sniff test if you take ten seconds to think about it, but let’s break it down to show how silly your reasoning is. Your argument basically is that Soviet Russia was leftist, and because Soviet Russia fought Hitler and the National Socialists and Mussolini, then they can’t be leftists too. But as usual you ignore history and the fact that the US and Britain fought Hitler and the National Socialists and Mussolini. You ten make claims that boil down to the ridiculous argument that Stalin really wasn’t all that much a lefty. Simply ridiculous, and I think you know it.
The Left’s ideology is based on bigotry, racism and violence, as we have seen over and over in history. It is always the “rights” of the gang (whatever gang it happens to be at the moment) and more government control over the rights of the individual and less intrusive control. But apologists like Bikerman and Handfleisch don’t want to own up that their ideology is based on what it is based on, so they try to project those historical actions and policies on others. And it simply doesn’t make sense if you think about it even for a few seconds. Socialism, communism and fascism all necessitate a strong, controlling government, while true capitalism (and I’m not talking about the mixed economy that is found in some “capitalist” countries that are really a shade off from socialism) calls for smaller, less intrusive government and individual rights over rights over the rights of the “collective”, whatever the collective is: racist and bigoted Germans, racists Democrats in the US’s south, union members, etc. Those groups have no rights as groups if they infringe on the rights of an individual, but the Left claims the opposite:That the “rights” of the collective outweigh the rights of those individuals and therefore should be subject to whatever nastiness they can come up with, torture, murder, theft of personal property, rape, ethnic cleaning, etc. to take what they want.

Bikerman wrote:
As for Cuba? This is the place that the US had marked out for exploitation off-shore - but most of the Cubans didn't want it that way and revolted. Cuba has done remarkably well considering that the world superpower next door had been intent on invading, bombing and finally starving the island. for 50 years. Castro's Cuba was no model communist state, but it DID do much of what it set out to do - raise the standard of living for the average Cuban into the 20th Century. The education, health and social services are high standard - above anything seen in any of the various puppet regimes the US has setup in South and Cenral America since the war/ All that despite vindictive and crippling sanctions from the US and various organised attempts to kill Castro and cripple Cuba's exonomy.

The Cuban people have suffered immensely under Castro’s dictatorship and communist rule (has there ever been any communist system not based on dictatorship?), and to claim that they have “done remarkably well” is another clear example of your ridiculous ideology playing with your mind.

Bikerman wrote:
As for counting 'the South' and the 'KKK' as 'left-wing....that is not only re-writing history, it is, frankly, taking the piss.

See above^^

Bikerman wrote:
The oft-repeated mantra that Lincoln led the North into battle to fight the good fight against slavery is a nice little fairy story for republican conventions, but not for serious political debate. Lincoln has ONE goal - saving the Union. He was quite clear that if it was slavery or the Union then it should be the Union.

Even more BS (you’ve really laid it on this time). Lincoln and the Republicans were clear in their intentions of ending slavery, and the Left had a conniption and threatened to secede from the Union. If Lincoln’s “one goal” was to save the Union, he and the Republicans would have simply backed off on their intentions to free the slaves. Instead they pressed forward and were willing to fight the Civil War to make it happen. The Democrats fought him every step (literally and figuratively), and the KKK was started in the south with the help of many prominent left wingers/Democrats who were threatened by Lincoln and the Republican’s principles that the individual rights of a black person outweighed the collective “rights” of the racists to take away a black person’s freedoms.

jmi256 wrote:
See what you did there? You attempted to smear based on something that doesn’t happen. While the Left finds a minority, any minority such as Jews, blacks, businessmen, “the rich”, etc, and use them as scapegoats to target and attack, its followers then try to project the Left’s actual actions as some type of “air” on others when the finger is pointed directly at them. Bigotries and intolerance by the Left are not “left unspoken” but rather acted on, as we have seen time and time again in modern times.

Bikerman wrote:
I didn't smear anyone.

No you didn’t. You tried to smear and failed.

Bikerman wrote:
The fact that socialism STARTS from a philosophical position of equality means that you will not find many socialists expressing overtly racist, sexist, homophobic views, …

Again, only if you ignore the history of socialism. And facts.

Bikerman wrote:
…since it is hard to see how anyone with such views could also believe in a society based on equal power-relationships with no hierarchical management or control structures, and common ownership of, and responsibility for, the means of wealth production.

That’s exactly how it is based. “Equal power-relationships” enforced at the end of a gun is not equal. The one with the gun pointed at his head does not have equal power by any stretch of the imagination.

Bikerman wrote:
Bigotry is the irrational belief in one's own, or ones 'group' superiority. Socialism starts with an absolute rejection of that.

Again, history and facts are against your claim. At socialism’s core is the belief that the good of the “group”, whatever group is in power at the time, is more important that individuals or whatever minority group exists, and are more than happy to steal, murder, etc. to take what they can from whoever isn’t in their definition under “the public good” at that particular time. The ideology is designed to fail, however, because the result is gang after gang taking power and oppressing whoever they can. In essence it is just power by force.

Bikerman wrote:
Right-wing/capitalist politics start from an almost opposite starting point. There is no desire/imperative for equality - individual reward is seen as the only 'rational' way of driving society, and the fact that this leads to massive inequalities is just the way things are.

More BS, that just shows you’re the fundamental need for left wingers to distort anything that threatens their ideology in order to preserve it. Equality is at the core of capitalism. It is based on the ideal of competition and rewards for those who have produced. When you speak of “equality” you really mean taking out any competition based on ability and results, and instead basing rewards on whatever irrational belief you have that your group is more “deserving” of what others have produced. (i.e. “the irrational belief in one's own, or ones 'group' superiority”.)
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:

More BS. Hitler and the National Socialists (aka NAZIs), as well as Mussolini and his fascist government, were clearly on the Left,


Bikerman wrote:

Hitler and his regime were not left-wing, any more than Mussolini and the Fascists were. They were ultra-nationalist authoritarian regimes of the far right, absolutely and diametrically opposed to any idea of socialism - as witnessed by their fear and loathing of Russia.


Rolling Eyes

Oh you two... I think I need to break out the diagram again and explain...

Hitler and the other fascists were not especially left OR right wing.
The national socialist party was a melding of two parties: the far-right nationalist party and the far-left socialist party. Both of these parties were feeling pressure from a libertarian/anarchist oriented party, and decided to band together to defeat this threat.
It inherited the worst attributes of both. (It was the ultimate 'bipartisan' movement, if you will. ^.^)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Hitler and the other fascists were not especially left OR right wing.
The national socialist party was a melding of two parties: the far-right nationalist party and the far-left socialist party. Both of these parties were feeling pressure from a libertarian/anarchist oriented party, and decided to band together to defeat this threat.
It inherited the worst attributes of both. (It was the ultimate 'bipartisan' movement, if you will. ^.^)
I don't see the KKK in the diagram, oh yes, just for the sake of Handfleisch, I don't see the Tea Party either? Twisted Evil

By the way, who put the diagram together? I'm not so sure I agree with all of it. Hitler was definitely left-wing. So was Stalin. Just for starters.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Hitler and the other fascists were not especially left OR right wing.
The national socialist party was a melding of two parties: the far-right nationalist party and the far-left socialist party. Both of these parties were feeling pressure from a libertarian/anarchist oriented party, and decided to band together to defeat this threat.
It inherited the worst attributes of both. (It was the ultimate 'bipartisan' movement, if you will. ^.^)
I don't see the KKK in the diagram, oh yes, just for the sake of Handfleisch, I don't see the Tea Party either? Twisted Evil

By the way, who put the diagram together? I'm not so sure I agree with all of it.

It's not 100% comprehensive, nor is it necessarily 100% accurate with where it places historical figures.

It's just there to illustrate the point of how Hitler and the Nazis could be neither left nor right wing.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
It's just there to illustrate the point of how Hitler and the Nazis could be neither left nor right wing.
Then I can't agree with it. Hitler was definitely left-wing. Take the society he was living in at the time, and he was radically left. He completely abolished the monarchy, wiped out class differences, legalized abortion, banned smoking.

Killing off the monarchy to me is action to the left, not to the right of the political spectrum. So this diagram does not solve the left wing right wing equation successfully for me.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
I don’t know what’s more disturbing: The possibility that you either are ignorant of - or misrepresenting - the deep, dark history of genocide, murder, extortion and human rights violations perpetrated by the Left; Or that you may genuinely believe this bunk. Does, tens of millions killed in the Soviet Union by Stalin and his gang ring a bell? Or how about Hitler and the National Socialists’ attempted genocide of the Jewish people? Or how about Communist China? Or Cuba? Or the Democrats and KKK in the South (USA) who lynched blacks who dared exercise their rights after Lincoln and the Republican freed them? Yeah, they just bored everyone to death, but “don’t tend to be violent.” More rubbish. At the end of the day, the Left’s doctrine can be summed up as simply using brute force and gang rule to take what they want. You can try to revise history all you want, but facts remain.

Bikerman wrote:
Hitler and his regime were not left-wing, any more than Mussolini and the Fascists were. They were ultra-nationalist authoritarian regimes of the far right, absolutely and diametrically opposed to any idea of socialism - as witnessed by their fear and loathing of Russia.

More BS. Hitler and the National Socialists (aka NAZIs), as well as Mussolini and his fascist government, were clearly on the Left, and it is very clear when you read their party platform(s). They stood for nationalization of means of production ‘for the public good’ and used the Left’s “public good” argument to attack Jews and other minorities (Mussolini not as much, though). Arguing that they fought Russia is some type of evidence that they weren’t Left wing is simply silly. That’s like saying Barack Obama isn’t a Democrat because he fought Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. They were simply a group of thugs fighting over the same prize: control of Europe.

So you think the fact that 'socialism' was in the title makes it socialiist? ROFLMAO. There is a foreign office guide which basically states that the less democratic the country, the more likely to be n the title. I checked it and it works. There are currently 7 that I know of:

1. Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe
3. Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste
3. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
4. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
5. People's Democratic Republic of Algeria
6. Democratic Republic of the Congo
7. Lao People's Democratic Republic
8. Democratic People's Republic of Korea

AS for the other nonsenses - read a few books sometime * and try to read some that actually know and can describe what socialism is, rather than some ill informed rant or badly researched opinion piece.

(I suspect that one reason right-wing pundits keep making this basic mistake over Hitler/Mussolini is that they often don't know the basics of what socialism actually is, let alone the various communist/anarchist strands of basic Marxist theory).
In your case, I don't expect you to be able to talk sense about Marx, so I'm not surprised there, but I would have thought that reading a bit of serious literature about socialism wasn't too difficult, even in the USA. IT seems that all you have read 9or understiood) is the G.W.BUSH primer.

The Socialist agenda is to overthrow capitalism by transferring the ownership of the means of production to those doing the producing. That's about as simple as I can make it for you.
Neither the Nazi Party or Hitler wanted to abolish capitalism or empower workers.*

Most people who spout this nonsense have taken their (very brief) background from a couple of third rate 'historians' and a whole lot of repeated hearsay and anecdote.
A good example is this 'nationalisation' nonsense. Socialists don't advocate nationalisation just to piss the capitalists off. It isn't an end in itself. It is a method of delivering managerial control away from private capitalism into a wider ownership.

The Nazi party SAID that they would nationalise rail, steel and private trusts. Thie was a populist move calculated to gain some support from working-class socialist voters. It didn't actually work very well - most left-wing voters stuck with the Communist party (KPD) or the 'Social Democrats' (SPD) - both genuine socialist'left-wing parties. The Nazis came to power because they were supported by the centerist and centre-right parties (the DVNP and the Catholic People's Party) AGAINST the left/socialist KPD and CPD. Not only do these pundits not know the basic politics of the era, they don't even bother to check what happened to the 'manifesto' promises of nationalisation.
Was the train service nationalised ? Were privat trusts nationalised? Surely at least the larger industries? In fact none of them were privatised. The only real privatisation was of the rail tracks (not the rolling stock), just before WW2, in order to garantee efficient troop movement. Business stayed in capitalist hands - the Nazis certainly DID expropriate many Private holdings - Jewish ones - and handed them straight on (or more commonly sold them) to their friends - the people running the rail, large industries etc - the capitalist owners. It is laughable how often this 'nationalisation' claim is made, as if it were both decisive and authoratitive when in fact it simply indicates lazyness and a need to believe.

* There was a very small section of the party, in 1932 before it won power, tbat DID have some socialist credentials/ideas - influenced and unoficially led by left-wing thinkers such as Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm. They had some genuine left-wing ideas focussed on moving against big business/corporations and breaking them up into 'regionally controlled co-operatives. Strasser and Rohm were isolated as the Nazi party gained power in 1933, and later both murdered on the 'Night of the Long Knives' in 34, which saw Hitler and the Nazi party isolate themselves, in the act of gaining power, from any 'leftish' Nazi strands (as they promised their right-wing backers).

So your overwhelming evidence can be summarised thusly:
1. 'National Socialism' is Socialism by definition.
2. Some in the early Nazi party talked about large scale nationalisation - which is socialism.
3. You just think that it is true.

Not a particularly solid case - more like third-hand recycling of tosh, without any citation or reference as support, or facts/reports as evidence.

Now we have started to follow this path through the looking-glass, we may as well continue:
Quote:
It doesn’t even pass the sniff test if you take ten seconds to think about it, but let’s break it down to show how silly your reasoning is.
Oh PLEASE do.
Quote:
Your argument basically is that Soviet Russia was leftist, and because Soviet Russia fought Hitler and the National Socialists and Mussolini, then they can’t be leftists too.
Err...no. I would never have made such a childish statement. The USSR wasn't 'leftist' - it was the first State to declare itself 'Socialist' and was seen as an inspiration and leader by many left-wing thinkers and politicians until well after WW2 - some taking a very long time to realise the truth, sadly.
The point is that the USSR was a full colour picture of the dream, for left-wing thinkers and politicians. The Nazi party, from the start, based their entire core around 2 central posistions:-
a) Opposition to 'Marxist' communism - particularly to the USSR (Judeo-Bolshevism was Hitler's term for the Soviet system).
b) Führerprinzip - the 'leadership principle'.

These are not just eccentric variations on Marxism and other left-wing thinking, they are DIRECTLY and irreconcilably opposed to such thinking. Instead of giving power to the workers, Nazis were clear that it should go to the top Nazi and not even be subject to official party consultation - again a model typical of Right-wing dictatorships.
Quote:
But as usual you ignore history and the fact that the US and Britain fought Hitler and the National Socialists and Mussolini.
Why would I forget that?
Quote:
You ten make claims that boil down to the ridiculous argument that Stalin really wasn’t all that much a lefty. Simply ridiculous, and I think you know it.
Huh? 10 claims? Stalin wasn't a lefty? Are you simply making this up, or is there some script other than what I actually write?
Quote:
The Left’s ideology is based on bigotry, racism and violence, as we have seen over and over in history.
Specifically? You are very good at making authoratitive sounding statements, and total rubbish at actually MAKING them authoratitive, or even credible, by actually supporting them.
Quote:
It is always the “rights” of the gang (whatever gang it happens to be at the moment) and more government control over the rights of the individual and less intrusive control.
Which is, once more, nothing to do with socialism.
Quote:
But apologists like Bikerman and Handfleisch don’t want to own up that their ideology is based on what it is based on, so they try to project those historical actions and policies on others.
Apologist for what? My own views? You don't really understand basic socialism, so I wouldn't try to work out what my views are until you have at least some basic grounding, because anarcho-syndicalism requires a fair bit of understanding.
Quote:
And it simply doesn’t make sense if you think about it even for a few seconds. Socialism, communism and fascism all necessitate a strong, controlling government, while true capitalism (and I’m not talking about the mixed economy that is found in some “capitalist” countries that are really a shade off from socialism) calls for smaller, less intrusive government and individual rights over rights over the rights of the “collective”, whatever the collective is: racist and bigoted Germans, racists Democrats in the US’s south, union members, etc. Those groups have no rights as groups if they infringe on the rights of an individual, but the Left claims the opposite:
Complete rubbish, which I presume you just invented. Many forms of socialism advoocate completely banning ANY central gopvernment.
Most EEC countiries have a large element of socialism in their politics.
Is the US Government smaller and less intrusive than the 'socialist' European countries? [My guest asserts that it is bigger, but I don't have any facts on that].
Quote:
That the “rights” of the collective outweigh the rights of those individuals and therefore should be subject to whatever nastiness they can come up with, torture, murder, theft of personal property, rape, ethnic cleaning, etc. to take what they want.
More tosh. There IS NO single 'collective' in socialism (other than, perhaps, the global working population). There are individuals who belong to various groupings to perform various tasks. So they would belong to a 'work' collective for their daily tasks. They would belong to a 'union' or 'worker committee' collective for the purposes of running the factory. There is no 'overall' collective in genuine socialism - the 'top' decision making body is simply a meeting of those appropriate representatives from the body 'below' and is disbanded once the function, meeting, decision or policy is made. This stops vested interest being created (other than the desirable vested interest of the individual worker in their own productivity.
Quote:
The Cuban people have suffered immensely under Castro’s dictatorship and communist rule (has there ever been any communist system not based on dictatorship?), and to claim that they have “done remarkably well” is another clear example of your ridiculous ideology playing with your mind.
Says who? Their health system IS BETTER THAN YOURS in several important measures and little worse in ANY other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba

Has there ever been a socialist country? Not really, no. Socialism cannot exist stably in competition with capitalism so any socialist system inevitably compromises basic principles simply to fend-off capitalist depredations.
Spain in the 1930s was probably as close as we have come to a true socialist system.
http://www.socialismtoday.org/102/spain.html

NOTE. I went to bed and left this unposted last night. A guest staying with us decided to finish and post it for me. He unfortunately didn't use the same checking I normally do and posted some wrong/spurious claims about various things. I've now edited this posting back to what I wrote and asked my guest, kindly, to post their own Smile If I spot any more changes I'll edit them.

Quote:
Even more BS (you’ve really laid it on this time). Lincoln and the Republicans were clear in their intentions of ending slavery, and the Left had a conniption and threatened to secede from the Union. If Lincoln’s “one goal” was to save the Union, he and the Republicans would have simply backed off on their intentions to free the slaves. Instead they pressed forward and were willing to fight the Civil War to make it happen. The Democrats fought him every step (literally and figuratively), and the KKK was started in the south with the help of many prominent left wingers/Democrats who were threatened by Lincoln and the Republican’s principles that the individual rights of a black person outweighed the collective “rights” of the racists to take away a black person’s freedoms.
Democrats are NOT Left Wing, let alone Socialists. Do they advocate collective ownership of the means of production? Do they wish to bring down capitalism?
As for the KKK, my history says
Quote:
The first branch of the Ku Klux Klan was established in Pulaski, Tennessee, in May, 1866. A year later a general organization of local Klans was established in Nashville in April, 1867. Most of the leaders were former members of the Confederate Army and the first Grand Wizard was Nathan Forrest, an outstanding general during the American Civil War. During the next two years Klansmen wearing masks, white cardboard hats and draped in white sheets, tortured and killed black Americans and sympathetic whites. Immigrants, who they blamed for the election of Radical Republicans, were also targets of their hatred. Between 1868 and 1870 the Ku Klux Klan played an important role in restoring white rule in North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia.
At first the main objective of white supremacy organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, the White Brotherhood, the Men of Justice, the Constitutional Union Guards and the Knights of the White Camelia was to stop black people from voting. After white governments had been established in the South the Ku Klux Klan continued to undermine the power of blacks. Successful black businessmen were attacked and any attempt to form black protection groups such as trade unions was quickly dealt with.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkkk.htm
That has nothing to do with 'left wing' politics, let alone socialism.
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
The fact that socialism STARTS from a philosophical position of equality means that you will not find many socialists expressing overtly racist, sexist, homophobic views, …
Again, only if you ignore the history of socialism. And facts.
What facts? Have you actually produced one yet?
.....
Quote:
Again, history and facts are against your claim.
So produce some - any would be a start....
Quote:
At socialism’s core is the belief that the good of the “group”, whatever group is in power at the time, is more important that individuals or whatever minority group exists, and are more than happy to steal, murder, etc. to take what they can from whoever isn’t in their definition under “the public good” at that particular time. The ideology is designed to fail, however, because the result is gang after gang taking power and oppressing whoever they can. In essence it is just power by force.
Complete rubbish. Nothing in that paragraph has the slightest relationship to socialism, as you would know if you knew anything about the subject. Read about the dialectic, the historical drivers and imperatives, the power dynamics, the nature of capitalist power and the inherent failures - and the other basic marxist primer materials before you try to tell us what socialism is, because right here and now you have no clue.

NO group is 'more important' than the individual in socialism. A group decision is binding on those in the group only. Groups are not structural - they are 'situational' - they arise when they are required and then disband when the role is performed. Different inedividuals will belong to many groups at different times, but no single group for the majority of that time.

* I could give you a long reading list (based on the published literature) but you are unlikely to read it, so I'll recommend 2 sources.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/spe%281975%29.pdf


If and when you are ready for the adult literature then start with Durkheim, Engels, Peters and Marx himself, and work through to Popper, Chomsky, Herr etc...THEN you can come and say something intelligent about socialism (or at least something which might be in some way relevant and accurate).
Deanhills wrote:
Then I can't agree with it. Hitler was definitely left-wing. Take the society he was living in at the time, and he was radically left. He completely abolished the monarchy, wiped out class differences, legalized abortion, banned smoking.
That now holds my record for the most wrong in the shortest space.
He didn't abolish the monarchy or 'wipe out class differences' - even if that were possible in a short time. He PARTIALLY legalised abortion (only for 'inferior' races) and he didn't ban smoking - he restricted it by stopping smoking in public places - rather like many modern states have done.

On the other hand he DID BAN:
TRADE unions; strikes, atheism;

HE EVEN anticipated your comments in 'MEIN JKAMPf'
A. HITLER wrote:
the suspicion was whispered in [many] circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists... We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims. '


PS - My guest made some quite rude comments about you Dean, which I have removed and apologise for.
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:

AS for the other nonsenses - read a few books sometime * and try to read some that actually know and can describe what socialism is, rather than some ill informed rant or badly researched opinion piece.
...
In your case, I don't expect you to be able to talk sense about Marx, so I'm not surprised there, but I would have thought that reading a bit of serious literature about socialism wasn't too difficult, even in the USA. IT seems that all you have read 9or understiood) is the G.W.BUSH primer.


I commend you on your patient takedown of this rubbish, but unfortunately it's possible that JMI has indeed read a book or two and not the GWBush primer. The historical revisionism and lunatic theories he expounds gained mainstream exposure through Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" which came out in 2008. Since then (and before too) the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Michael Savage and others have been pounding these ludicrous ideas from it into the dumbed-down brains of Americans, so you get more and more of them who will spout the nonsense as if it were fact.

The only thing I would disagree with you on is that when we talk about Cuba we should be clear to separate its positive achievements vis a vis the comparable countries around it from the fact that it is a overt dictatorship with a lousy human rights record.
Bikerman
Unfortunately much of it was wrong, and not mine. (See comments about 'guest' above).
I think I've corrected the most obvious mistakes.

I certainly don't say that Castro was some Socialist hero - he was not. I am happy to condemn many of the things he did which were indeed contrary to human rights. To portray Cuba as an example of the evils of communism, however, is wrong and completely ignores many of the good things that happened in Cuba despite HUGE interference and sabotage from the US.

The British Socialist Party has an article on Cuba which gives an insight into mainstream socialist thinking on the matter: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/3209
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Deanhills wrote:
Then I can't agree with it. Hitler was definitely left-wing. Take the society he was living in at the time, and he was radically left. He completely abolished the monarchy, wiped out class differences, legalized abortion, banned smoking.
That now holds my record for the most wrong in the shortest space.
He didn't abolish the monarchy or 'wipe out class differences' - even if that were possible in a short time. He PARTIALLY legalised abortion (only for 'inferior' races) and he didn't ban smoking - he restricted it by stopping smoking in public places - rather like many modern states have done.

On the other hand he DID BAN:
TRADE unions; strikes, atheism;

HE EVEN anticipated your comments in 'MEIN JKAMPf'
A. HITLER wrote:
the suspicion was whispered in [many] circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists... We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims. '


PS - My guest made some quite rude comments about you Dean, which I have removed and apologise for.
I'm not sure I get "My guest" part of the blue statement, but no apology needed. It is however noted in appreciation from an "ignorance is bliss" point of view. Very Happy
Im not so sure how you get the Mein Kampf quote to link up with what I said, other than that communism was left-wing as well - Stalin chose communism, Hitler went for national socialism, but both were left of the establishments they toppled.
jwellsy


I also disagree with the location of the word 'Progressive' on this chart. Progressing towards what? Progressive is a code word of Fabian Socialist and should be in the lower left quadrant.
Bikerman
As simplistic diagrams go it isn't too bad. Obviously no diagram is going to capture all the important points, but as a general sort of guide it seems OK...
Related topics
Top Chinese General Warns US Over Attack
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
Can anyone (preferrably a Republican fan-boy) splane this?
The Middle East Conflict
People of Iran realise that Islam is being forced on them
Freemasons – What do you think?
Hilary Clinton to be next President of U.S.
Why people hate Mac-OS (users)?
What you think about our president?
Obama Sides With RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Music Trac
Obama and Dems Using Unions to Attack
Things only a Republican could believe
Is there a 'general anti-Christian sentiment' in this forum?
Joomla! 3.0 support
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.