Blogosphere “heavy hitters” discuss the future of conservatism.
I’m going to pause here in a few to watch it myself, but in advance of that, let me predict that “nanobot armies” and illegal immigrants have a better than 50-50 shot of getting a mention.
“Classical liberalism”? Likely not — though it’ll be there, if only in spirit.
For some reason, when the list of posts gets too long, it slants off to the Left in my browser, so that I can not even see the “Say it” button. Thus I’ll pick up on the “classical liberalism” comment here, to continue a theme from another thread.
O.K., so now that we have researched the origins of these terms “Left†and “Right†we are still faced by the fact that they are used in different ways. Rather than ‘correct†and “incorrect†we can look at what utility there is in the various uses.
One proposed usage is that â€ÂLeft†and “Right†refer only to the size of government. What utility do I see in this? Well, it does seem useful for lumping your opponents together with Nazis, i.e. for political smears. There may be other utilities but none immediately come to mine.
Now, with the way I propose to use them, we can use them as unifying themes across history. This will help us see commonalties between politics of different places and times. In France, where we all now agree the terms originated, the Right represented the monarchists, and the Left was the opposition. We can extend these terms back, anachronistically, to talk about Royalists and their opposition in England all the way back to the 1500s when parliament in its modern form began to take shape. We can also follow the terms forward from the French revolution, see what groups they applied to, and look at their commonalities.
The single most defining characteristic of my use of “Right†is that they are the traditionalist. This is true of the Monarchists, and true of modern conservatives, and all in between. The “Left†is in opposition on this point. (“Changeâ€Â)
Another unifying theme is the concentration of power in the hands of many or few. On this point, however there is one very important change along the way. Early on the Left was about extending the franchise and political power to more people. Later, the Left became more concerned with distributing economic power (i.e. $$$).
The modern Right, whatever its motivation, does favor policies that concentrate money in the hands of the wealthiest individuals. And when it comes to voting rights, we can see a battle stretching back to the 1500s still going on today in some form. Which party has been accused, in this election cycle, of tying to get too many voters registered? Which part has been accused of illegitimate voter purges?
The third unifying theme is nationalism, although this is the least obvious of the three. First, we have to remember that the monarchs WERE the state. Louis WAS France. There is a theme, stretching forward from that time of the party on the Right putting more emphasis on the importance of the state, and of national identity.
Thus it is no surprise that voters that identify there ancestry as “American†tend very strongly to vote Republican. In modern politics the Right is more concerned with maintaining the *sovereignty* of the individual state, while the Left is more willing to look to bodies like the UN, and the EU. In practical terms, the difference between the Left and the Right here shows up most in the use of military force, and questions about what circumstances justify this use.
Liberty, or lack thereof, have both been advocated by both sides on various issues. One poster brings up Cardinal Richelieu and Milton Friedman (BTW – I had one of his students as a professor and head of the graduate Finance program I studied)).
Obviously the Cardinal is an example of the suppression of freedom by the Right, particularly he advocated the concentration of political power. Milton Friedman, on the other hand is all about economic liberty, an example of the Right favoring Liberty.
Advocating for or against Liberty is neither a defining feature of the Right, or the Left in my usage. What commonalities could we find? Well, the Cardinal quite obviously advocated policies resulting in the concentration of power. Milton Friedman’s policies if extended all the way to lasse fair capitalism also result in the concentration of power. You end up with giant corporate monopolies, in effect, you’ll create a new corporate oligarchy.
Here is another use. We can understand the Soviets better, in an “animal farm†sort of way. The pigs eventually become the farmers. It started with the goal of distributing power from the farmer to the animals, but ended up just concentrating power in new hands. So here we would say Russia started on the Right, tried for a Left-wing revolution, and just ended up with what for all the world looked like the old Right-wing state, which had merely adopted Left-wing language.
The Nazis we can all agree were extremely anti-liberty. But with these categories of “Right†and “Left†they were clearly ultra-nationalists on the far Right. The monarchists here were the moderate Right. I really don’t see much of anything Leftist about them. In a previous thread, someone pointed out that even though they were not de jure socialists, they were de facto socialists, since they told you what you could do with “your†factory. But this goes more to that Left-Right definition that involves the size of government. As far as my definitions go, I really don’t see the Nazis a big proponents of spreading *any* sort of power, economic or otherwise. Someone pointed out that they wanted to take the wealth of the Jews, but the Jews were clearly the outgroup. So again, I’d see this as being about increasing the power of the German race, and the German nation.
Another poster, however, does list some economic moves to the Left the Nazis made (even using my definition of Left). There are things like guaranteed income, expanded old-age pensions, etc. So, you can find a grain of truth here. Of course this is in the time of Roosevelt’s New Deal, when all governments were moving to the Left economically. And I would see this as the Nazis just using whatever worked to increase their power, and the power of the German nation. I think seeing them as other than ultra-Right distorts history.
Perhaps one point we could agree on is that the Nazis were so totalitarian and anti-liberty and just plain evil, that trying to associate any modern politician with them (be it Bush or Obama) amounts to nothing more than a politically motivate slur. I’d also like to thank the poster who pointed out the book “liberal fascismâ€Â. I suspect it is the source of this new meme.
One final point of utility – when looking at American history, we are able to recognize that Vermont has always been on the Left, even when it had the longest unbroken Republican voting streak of any American state. It was extremely Wig-ish in its opposition to “King†Andrew. The Lincoln-Republicans formed from this Leftist group. The Democrats were the party of the Right, at least until FDR came along.
http://www.davegentile.com/philosophy/Vermont.html
Update your browser, Dave. IE 6 is the only browser that experiences that particular formatting problem. Wish I knew how to fix it, but alas, I’ve tried and failed.
But, I want my nanobot armies.
The Nazis we can all agree were extremely anti-liberty. But with these categories of “Right†and “Left†they were clearly ultra-nationalists on the far Right.
Jeebus Krispy Dave give it a rest. How’s about we agree that nationalism is not the sole province of the right? Soviet marxism may have had its roots in international socialism but once it went up against the Nazi’s the ‘Mother Russia’ propaganda and rhetoric sure got kinda loud doncha think? or is Stalin now a man of the right?
You are so set on ascribing every negative connotation ton ‘the right’ that you have become a cartoon.
Comment by Dave G. on 11/21 @ 10:53 am #
Dave is a fucking masochist.
He comes back to be cockslapped as he plays “yankee-my-wankee”.
Words mean things, Dave. If what you think they mean is not in keeping with the common definition, you need to change.
The “Left†is in opposition on this point. (“Changeâ€Â)
And as I pointed out on the other thread, this means that everyone opposed to the incoming regime is now a “leftist”, by your definition.
The modern Right, whatever its motivation, does favor policies that concentrate money in the hands of the wealthiest individuals.
Which, of course, explains why Soros, the Google boys, Warren Buffet, the Pritzker clan, etc. are all big Obama supporters. Because he’s going to “distribute” their wealth.
Cartoons in your head, my friend.
As far as my definitions go, I really don’t see the Nazis a big proponents of spreading *any* sort of power, economic or otherwise.
Which socialist or communist regime has ever “spread” “power”? Name one.
“The modern Right, whatever its motivation, does favor policies that concentrate money in the hands of the wealthiest individuals. And when it comes to voting rights, we can see a battle stretching back to the 1500s still going on today in some form. Which party has been accused, in this election cycle, of tying to get too many voters registered? Which part has been accused of illegitimate voter purges?”
Yes who are those right leaning bastards to purge the vote of Mickey Mouse.
By the way there were no accusations of “of trying to get too many voters registered”, they were fuckin fraudulently registering voters. Mickey Mouse and the O-line of the freakin Cowboys for God sakes man.
“The Nazis did not, as their foreign admirers contend, enforce price control within a market economy. With them price control was only one device within the frame of an all-around system of central planning. In the Nazi economy there was no question of private initiative and free enterprise. All production activities were directed by the Reichswirtschaftsministerium. No enterprise was free to deviate in the conduct of its operations from the orders issued by the government. Price control was only a device in the complex of innumerable decrees and orders regulating the minutest details of every business activity and precisely fixing every individual’s tasks on the one hand and his income and standard of living on the other.
What made it difficult for many people to grasp the very nature of the Nazi economic system was the fact that the Nazis did not expropriate the entrepreneurs and capitalists openly and that they did not adopt the principle of income equality which the Bolshevists espoused in the first years of Soviet rule and discarded only later. Yet the Nazis removed the bourgeois completely from control. Those entrepreneurs who were neither Jewish nor suspect of liberal and pacifist leanings retained their positions in the economic structure. But they were virtually merely salaried civil servants bound to comply unconditionally with the orders of their superiors, the bureaucrats of the Reich and the Nazi party.â€Â
-Ludwig von Mises
“Conservatives are the chief defenders of a capitalist, free-market system, and the capitalist, free-market system is perhaps the most profoundly unconservative social force in human history.”
-Jonah Goldberg
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”
– Winston Churchill
And to explain Dave G.:
“You won’t learn much about capitalism at a university. How could you? Capitalism is a matter of risks and rewards, and a tenured professor doesn’t have much to do with either.”
-Jerry Pournelle
BTW, Dave, money is “concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest individuals” by definition. That’s why they’re called “wealthy”.
You forget SBP, being wealthy is not fair. Wealth is only gained by either stealing it from others, or exploiting other peoples hard work. So by saying “concentrated in the hands of the wealthy” he is just saying that they are keeping it away from other people. Hiding it from the workers persay.
Basically he just came here to vomit a socialist/Marxist talking point.
So the question then becomes, should we go out and start mugging little old ladies on Social Security check day so we can become wealthy, too?
Dave, what say you?
Wow, Mr. Pink, great minds and all, eh?
I agree. Fuck those old bags for concentrating their wealth in their purses. How about we run up to them, smack them in the head with a loaded .45, then take their money?
Oh wait I just thought of an easier way. How about we vote for a politician that promises to do that for us so we do not face any risk? Dave I am with you brotha let’s do it.
Yeah, but it helps when the guy just throws up underhanding T-balls for us to swing at.
They both said “libertarian”, but neither said “classic liberal.”
Malkin’s critique of libertarianism put her in the camp of classical liberal; but she’s a bit too accomodating of the social cons, oftentimes.
I’ve said before that one can be a social con and govern like a classical liberal. That’s cool with me. In fact, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
Unfortunately, one cannot be a progressive and do the same, because to the progressive, the personal is the political, and the two can’t be separated.
Think how hard it would be to round up an army of illegal nanobot immigrants.
Capitalism being taught in The LA Times kids page.
“I’ve said before that one can be a social con and govern like a classical liberal. That’s cool with me. In fact, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
Unfortunately, one cannot be a progressive and do the same, because to the progressive, the personal is the political, and the two can’t be separated.”
And this is why I stay! Sure, the red pills are nice. The armadillo, when present, is awesome. The scotch is fucking fantastic. But those two mini paragraphs are the reason. I agree 100%. Thanks, again, Jeff for all you do.
“Words mean things, Dave”.
Which is exactly the problem if you start using “Left” to mean just “big government”. This uproots them from their historical context.
Dave, you’ve shown that you have absolutely no knowledge of historical context.
Repeatedly.
“The modern Right, whatever its motivation, does favor policies that concentrate money in the hands of the wealthiest individuals”
How, DaveG?
“Which is exactly the problem if you start using “Left†to mean just “big governmentâ€Â. This uproots them from their historical context.”
Raising taxes by definition increases the size of government.
Increased regulation of businesses, down to how much carbon they can admit, increases the size of government.
OI I think he regards allowing citizens and business to keep the fruits of their labor as “policies that concentrate money in the hands of the wealthiest individualsâ€Â. IMHO but that seems to be his main point.
I thought we were going to discuss Dr. Nips Helen and the Conservative Spaceship of Tomorrow!
Wait — someone read Dave’s wall of text?
I think seeing them as other than socialists — and thus coming from the left — distorts history even more offensively.
Let’s put it this way: Early on, you said that part of the reason the Nazis came to power is that the “traditionally left” universities abdicated their role in reigning in the far-right. However, if someone looks at particular individuals in the academy that advocated for the Nazis, you see that, before the advent of the Nazis, they were advocating traditionally left policies. You also see that after the Nazis, they were advocating traditionally left policies, and often are embraced by the modern left.
When you look at what those individuals advocated during the time of the Nazis you don’t find a difference — their ideas haven’t changed. Yet you draw a line with this massive discontinuity during the ’30s and ’40s.
I submit that the discontinuity is an illusion, the result of incorrectly classifying the Nazis as “of the right”. When you reclassify them, then the “failure” of the academy disappears; the discontinuity of the line goes away. Placing the Nazis on the left better fits the data you yourself pointed to.
Their rhetoric was socialist. Their practice was socialist. That they were also nationalist does not change that.
“is Stalin now a man of the right?”
Well…yes and no. I mean he sure talked a good Leftist game, but after all was said and done how different were things really than they were under the Czar? Just like the pigs in Animal farm became the farmer, Stalin morphed into the new monarch.
He had both Left-wing and Right-wing anti-liberty things going. (And maybe that is really how we get to totalitarianism). I mean yes, the socialism part is clearly Left-wing, but as you point out there is no lack of nationalism either. The anti-traditionalism is Left-wing. He pretty much did away with the church, for example. On balance he is clearly more Left than Right. But as with the Nazis, the most important feature here is not really the Leftishness or the Rightishness, it is the totalitarianism, (anti-individual liberty), that is important.
“How’s about we agree that nationalism is not the sole province of the right?”
I don’t think that I’m ready to agree to that, since I take it as an important feature of the Right. However, I will agree that not all nationalism is bad. Moderation might be needed, but the other far extreme here would be to dissolve all national bounders, and I don’t think many want to do that. (Notice immigration creeps into the picture here).
BTW – My own position is fairly Left-libertarian. I’ve voted much like Vermont. I liked Reagan. I was happy in 1994. I liked getting rid of welfare. I was never a fan of Clinton. However, I liked Bush even less, was mad in 2000, and was happy in 2006 and 2008.
A little more on-topic: I think the whole PajamasMedia thing has melted into a mess of mediocrity and hubris. They have some good people, but they bury them among the mass of second (and third) raters.
Sometimes I think that Dave is a creation of our host, which he uses as a trigger to make the commenters flesh out his arguments, shred the counterarguments, and teach his lessons with a wide variety of voices and examples.
Devilishly clever, our host.
“Which socialist…has ever “spread†“powerâ€Â? Name one.”
How about FDR, took power from the corporations and put it in the hands of labor?
That’s inadvertently hilarous…..FDR “took”, FDR “put”….now tell us, where was that power again?
What about Lenin? Was he a Mighty Morphin’ Power Socialist, too? Pol Pot? Mao? Ho Chi Minh? Hugo Chavez? Fidel Castro?
Or are we to accept your “no true Scotsman” fallacy? This, BTW, is a game we’ve seen played over and over — a leftist, when confronted by the crimes of someone unabashedly on the left, done in the name of the left’s ideals, suddenly decides that the criminal is no longer a leftist.
Category error; there is nothing “right” or “left” about nationalism.
He took power from the owners and executives of corporations and put it in the hands of the leaders of labor unions. Same shit, different day.
You may also want to look into FDR’s handling of the UMWA strike in 1943.
“the “traditionally left†universities abdicated their role in reigning in the far-right. ”
Here I mean that the academics historically tended to favor universalism or utilitarian ethics, that is – the good of all people be they in-group or out-group. They were generally unfavorably inclined towards favoring only the “in-group”, as nationalist or racists would do. This tendency suffered a collapse around this time, due to Right-Hegelian thought. Academia was temporarily willing to support Nationalistic, racist, and eugenic ideas.
You’re correct, the academics didn’t stop being interested in socialism. They were inclined that way before, during, and after WWII, but it is their attitude of being opposed to Nationalism that went into temporary remission.
On my Vermont page I identify 3 poles.
1) Liberty/Egoism
2) Socialism/utilitarianism
3) Nationalism/traditionalism
Totalitarianism is the extreme of ignoring #1.
Perhaps in order to get to that you have to move toward extremes of BOTH #2 and #3. In a previous post, I note that while best described as being on the Left, Stalin is not without his Right-wing component. And as you keep insisting, the Nazis had Left-wing components, event though I would maintain they are best described as ultra-Right. But perhaps the lesson here is that totalitarianism is what happens when Left-anti-liberty and Right-anti-liberty forces come together. In Hitler the flavor was more Right and in Stalin more Left, but wither way they were both anti-liberty totalitarians.
“where was that power again?”
Roosevelt had the political power. Labor had economic power to spend the dollars in their hand.
That’s called “a hint.”
And they did so in the name of socialism.
Mr. Pink – I think that may be his point, too.
“How about FDR, took power from the corporations and put it in the hands of labor?”
And do you agree with this? And if so, you still say you’re libertarian?
Yeah, it just seems to me that DaveG, while being exceedingly polite and cordial I might add, is basically saying that the left is good and the right is bad. That is if you fall for such simplistic notions of left and right. Yes, Mother Russia, was all about the people, wasn’t it. Please disregard the power weilding megalomanicas, though. But then they weren’t really “left” now were they? Rob, good points in #37. I’m confuzzled.
I think Jerry Pournelle did something similar to this, but that it actually made sense.
http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm
“And do you agree with this? And if so, you still say you’re libertarian?” (On Roosevelt and the unions)
For the most part, I am against labor unions. I’m not extreme here, but I think they do more harm than good. I would however, use the power of the government to mandate certain working standards, as is currently done. The whole ‘card check’ thing is actually something that I don’t think is such a great idea, but it might be best to throw the unions this bone, and then say “That’s all you get”.
OI, I used to really like the Pournelle two-axis model, but I balk at the vertical axis being “rational vs. irrational”. The Nazis used reason all the time — it was their premises which were faulty. And there are few things more irrational than a Communist economic plan. There’s also the question of libertarians being more rational than conservatives — not from what I can see!
I know what Pournelle’s trying to get at, but I think that particular axis buys into the modern left-infused zeitgeist a bit much.
“The whole ‘card check’ thing is actually something that I don’t think is such a great idea, but it might be best to throw the unions this bone, and then say “That’s all you getâ€Â.”
I don’t understand this at all. Throwing out the secret ballot is not good in any circumstance, imo. I realize you’re saying to allow it for pragmatic purposes (no more union favors), but I don’t think you capitulate on something so basic. Oh well.
“This bone” is actually a repudiation of past gains by the unions. Back when unions were a positive influence, supporting unionization could cost you your job — so the unions fought for, and got, the right to conduct secret ballots.
Now, however, most industrial workers don’t want to be unionized. So the unions want to end the right to a secret ballot in order to expose the people unwilling to support them.
The union bosses want to be able to force unions on people who don’t want them, and this is their best bet for pulling it off.
Not to mention that it would be far from the last favor for unions. Largely because giving them this makes them much, much more powerful.
Aren’t unions exempt from campaign finance restrictions?
“Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 11/21 @ 2:20 pm #
I think Jerry Pournelle did something similar to this,…”
nishi just had an orgasm.
Throw em that bone and they won’t need any more “favors.” Capitulation on anything this fundamental is to undermine the entire foundation.
Aren’t the Teamsters still in Federal receivership? Wanna throw unions a bone, remove it, next year.
“You won’t learn much about capitalism at a university. How could you? Capitalism is a matter of risks and rewards, and a tenured professor doesn’t have much to do with either.â€Â
-Jerry Pournelle
My professor was very interested in building computerized trading models for international currencies and interest rates. I don’t know how he’d be at running a business, but he was clearly interesting in making money in a capitalistic system.
That’s nice, Dave.
Rob Crawford wrote:
There’s a similar discussion here on Tim Blair’s blog. Some people make the same point you make:
“Yep, he proves the original post – Leftist ideologues become “extreme right-wingers†once they inevitably commence to killing. ” -Dave S.
That’s nice, Dave.
[pats him on the head]
The whole ‘card check’ thing is actually something that I don’t think is such a great idea, but it might be best to throw the unions this bone, and then say “That’s all you getâ€Â.
And never mind the thousands of people who will sign the cards under the watchful eyes of union thugs who are only too happy to–ah–“protect” you and your car and your house and your family from harm–if you’d just sign the card.
#1 Dave G.:
Two little work-arounds for that problem.
(1) Highlight and copy the comments into word, then you can read them.
(2) When the ‘Say It’ button disappeers from view, just type in your comment, and when you are done hit tab, which will ‘highlight’ the ‘Say It’ button for the browser. Then hit enter to post your comment.
What Dave G. is saying is that the old labels of ‘left’ and ‘right’ don’t truly do justice to any political discussion in America as those terms have historical connotations far removed from this country. That, I think, is correct.
IIRC, Steven DenBeste proposed a different scale for each question with ‘more liberty’ on one side and ‘less liberty’ on the other. On such a scale, the German Nazis and the Soviet communists would be lumped together with other nations and/or other ideologies being further away from them. Such a scale would take into account ‘liberal fascism’ by showing that while that person or group or idea has as its means of achievement the reduction of personal liberty and the concentrating of more power in the hands of the state. Thus, a ‘conservative’ person could actually be more ‘liberal’ in trying to preserve a system that grants more personal liberty, while the more ‘liberal’ person is actually trying to restrict or diminish personal liberty.
It isn’t as easy as saying Left or Right, but it is more accurate as to the actual means and effects.
How about FDR, took power from the corporations and put it in the hands of labor?
Really.
Tell that to the ghost of Jack Magid.
Virtue society proponents and social justice proponents differ from freedom seeking classical liberals in that they are both group, or tribal ideologies. In order to seek social justice, leftists have to break society down into groups to compare. For social moralists, there are those of the code and those not of the code. Only by pursuing freedom can we transcend tribalism.
Ok… I gots a question:
Who the hell is Dave G?
Well…two questions:
…and why does he think he knows how to think?
Ok. Three questions…
Is that another example more of that dialectic sophistry, ivory tower stuff? ‘Cause that’s what it looks like. You know. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…
I must be missing something in your reasoning peter, because that sounds an awful lot like saying society can be perfected.
When people are free they are also free to, er, tribalize.
Random thought: If the Nazis real goal was socialism they didn’t do a very good job of it. I mean all they managed were moves to the Left similar to what FDR managed in America. The Soviets on the other hand managed to have the state take ownership of everything. If the Nazis were socialists then they were just pikers at it.
So I’ll stick with my new summation.
Nazis = Right-wing totalitarians with some Leftish anti-liberty things thrown in for good measure.
Soviets = Left-wing totalitarians with a healthy does of Right-wing anti-liberty things thrown into the mix.
Here’s something that might please spreaders of the ‘liberal fascism’ meme. I think FDR probably had more totalitarian tendencies than any other president we’ve elected. (Here I’d note left-libertarian Vermont never came within 10% of voting for him). But on the other hand Obama won Vermont by something like 35%. In short – I don’t think Obama is an FDR.
The press seems fond of comparing him to Lincoln (I think this is because he is from Illinois and tall and skinny. plus the whole black, slavery connection). Then there is that whole lack of experience thing, and the “team of rivals” meme. But, while he has not accomplished anything yet I do think there are more serious reasons to compare his personality and outlook to Lincoln.
First of at, he is one of Keirsey’s rationals.
http://www.keirsey.com/
We don’t often elect these types. More often we elect guardians (who are fine if what you want is the status quo) and artesian types (who can be too impulsive). Eisenhower was the last rational type. Some features of the “fieldmarshal” rational type that jump out when describing Obama – valuing calm, and building organizations wherever they go.
Lincoln was also from the rational group. Also in Obama we have the first Northern president from the Northern party in a long time, coming after a long string of Southern presidents and president from the southern party. Lincoln was also a Northern president from the Northern party elected after a long period of Southern domination starting with A. Jackson. There are other indications of similar values, and I’d like to do a more in depth comparison of their statements on religion, because I suspect we’d find more commonalities there.
In short, I think as far as personality and values we have someone with much in common with Lincoln. How that will interact with the conditions of the modern world remains to be seen.
I must be missing something in your reasoning peter, because that sounds an awful lot like saying society can be perfected.
Yeah, you’re right, it sorta does, but it wouldn’t be the first time that I’ve been accused of being inordinately utopian. Since I’m not really sure what criteria a perfect society requires, I really don’t know if society can be perfected or not. Compared to what?
If it’s compared to what we have today, then yeah, maybe I am a utopian, because I don’t believe we’re anywhere near the end of the line in our social evolution, presuming of course there is an end of the line.
When people are free they are also free to, er, tribalize.
Very true. But that doesn’t mean that we’re doomed to always choose it.
So I’ll stick with my new summation.
That’s nice, Dave.
The rest of us will stick with the actual definitions of the words.
I think “utopia” can be used to mean “ideal society” rather than “perfect society.” An ideal society is the best one that can possibly be made to work with the grist that humanity can put into it.
I believe that social evolution is therefore permanently limited by the state of human evolution, and I don’t think politics, philosophy, or technology can accelerate human evolution. Rather, they tend to obstruct it — to the extent that evolution is fueled by things like natural selection, a society that is more “compassionate,” or more “enlightened,” or simply more effective at keeping people alive, will always make the evolution of the human species more difficult and cause it to progress more slowly. Many already argue that human evolution ended when man first figured out how to manage his environment rather than being managed by it.
So, I’m not so sure we’re not doomed to always choose tribalism in one form or another. The question is whether the choices always have to result in warfare. And although the history of industrial and post-industrial humanity seems to demonstrate greater effectiveness at mass killing, the number of active or simmering wars does seem to have declined.
It’s not just just their name. It’s their economic policy  straight socialism. If a corporation didn’t play along with their diktat, they took control of it. The ownership was in name only.
“The rest of us will stick with the actual definitions of the words.”
I’d argue what you are adopting is nothing more than an attempt to redefine words for political gain. There is no such thing as “liberal fascism”. There is Leftist totalitarianism, but apperently that term is no longer good enough.
Even before this new meme came along the term “conservative” had been seriously distorted from its historical meaning. Conservatives were traditionalist, but in the newer usage it also means advocates of small government. One need not imply the other. Traditionalist could be in favor of government programs and/or control, and small government libertarians can be non-traditionalists. Why the relatively new (about as old as Nixon and Reagan) meaning for conservatism? Because it is used as a unifying banner for the modern Republican party in America. It is used to say “See, we are not different factions, we all support a common cause”. It worked rather well when Soviet communism was still a bit threat. But now the “compassionate conservatives” are alienating the libertarian wing of the party.
Conservatives were traditionalist, but in the newer usage it also means advocates of small government. One need not imply the other.
Have you ever read any of the documents this country was founded on, Dave?
From another thread:
“It’s not just just their name. It’s their economic policy  straight socialism. If a corporation didn’t play along with their diktat, they took control of it. The ownership was in name only.”
There are a couple of problem with this equating of “de facto socialism” and “de jure socialism”. But first of course, there is the quite reasonable position which says
“Who cares what the ideological difference is, the effect is the same”. There is truth to that. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism.
But here are some problems. First of all, “socialism” is being over-used, to describe any Leftist movement. For example Is medicare socialist? One could reasonably argue it is movement in that direction, i.e to the Left, but it is not itself “socialist” because the government has not taken ownership of everything. Thus Leftist programs of the Nazis that look like what FDR was doing are used to argue that the Nazis were true socialsts.
The other problem comes with the differences between what we mean by “Right” and “Left”. If “Left” just means bigger government or more government control, then obviously totalitarianism is Leftist. Iit is just a tautology in that case however. But if we are using my more classical definitions of “Right” and “Left” then questions about “Why?” freedom is limited become relevant. I.e. now we need to ask whether the freedom-suppression is Leftist or Rightist.
“De jure socialism” is clearly Leftist. The government is confiscating economic power (infringement on individual liberty) for the purposes equally redistributing that economic power.
But the purposes of the Nazis were the glorification of the German nation and race. These are intrinsically Rightist goals using my classical terms. If they confiscated your factory for not going along, it was because you were not supporting German goals. The “Why” here is clearly Rightist. Now, I’ve already granted that the effects are the same. (You don’t have your factory either way). But noting the identical effects only supports the Leftist-Nazis meme if you have already chosen terms that say “Any-government-control = Left = bad”. However, if use you definitions where Left=totalitarian is not a tautological truth, then you need to ask questions about “Why?” freedom was limited (or eliminated), and then we find the motivations can be varied.
These are intrinsically Rightist goals using my classical terms.
You still don’t get to make up your own definitions, Dave.
Sorry.
But noting the identical effects only supports the Leftist-Nazis meme if you have already chosen terms that say “Any-government-control = Left = badâ€Â. However, if use you definitions where Left=totalitarian is not a tautological truth, then you need to ask questions about “Why?â€Â
And that is why when reasonable people discuss these things they try to use words that have clear definitions, and use them appropriately, rather than “chose” definitions that suit there purpose. It also keeps folks from rambling around in mindless circles like you just did.
Have you ever read any of the documents this country was founded on, Dave?”
Yep. A bunch of radical Leftists of their day. No monarch? Quite radical. I mean there was that whole English civil war, where England was briefly a Republican, but that didn’t work out so hot. Risky to try that again.
And of course classical liberals were the Adam Smith capitalists.
The founders were fans of limited govenrment, and capitalism, but they were not traditionalists. They were the Leftists of their day.
Originally the “Right” was the monarchists, and the “Left” was the opposition. I am just resisting letting those terms drift any farther from their historical mooring.
Thick as a brick, this one.
They weren’t traditionalists then, Dave, but they founded new traditions, the traditions this country was founded on. As you said: individualism, limited government, and capitalism. Those are the traditions this country was founded on, that is why we call folks in this country, today, right now, who believe in these traditions conservative.
Dave, you don’t know anything about history.
Or any other subject, apparently.
Buh-bye.
“They weren’t traditionalists then, Dave, but they founded new traditions, the traditions this country was founded on. As you said: individualism, limited government, and capitalism. Those are the traditions this country was founded on, that is why we call folks in this country, today, right now, who believe in these traditions conservative.”
Yes. Conservatives worship dead liberals.
Yes. Conservatives worship dead liberals.
Classical Liberals. Quite a different animal than the thieves who use the term today. I blame Rush Limbaugh.
If fascism is exclusively right, and the right are defined as monarchists, is it your theory then that all fascists are monarchists?
Fascists and monarchists are united in placing top priority on the greater glory and power of the nation-state. Remember in France Louis was essentially equated with the French nation. He is supposedly quoted as saying “I am France”. The classical Right emphasizes unifying “In-group” traditions, and the grater power of the “In-group” relative to others in the world, in this case their nation-state relative to others.
He is supposedly quoted as saying “I am Franceâ€Â.
Hmmmm… the cult of personality as exclusively rightist?
Has someone told Obama?
I’ll bet Dave is really good at coloring inside the lines of his history books, what do you think?
“I am France”
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for”
I’d argue these are very different, almost opposite expressions. One nearly says “I am God (or at least God’s rep on earth)”. The other says “We are all God” (or at least the means by which God works). This is really just standard liberal-Christian stuff. I hear Jewel’s “Sprit” album – “We are God’s hands” or “We all will be Christed when we hear ourselves say, ‘We are that to which we pray'”.
But,no, the cult of personality can be both Left, and Right.
But,no, the cult of personality can be both Left, and Right.
Whichever is most convenient at the time, it would seem.
I have to admit it is sometimes interesting to watch both sides of one of these conversations, but I think this one has reached the point where it’ll be more interesting as a one-sided conversation.