Hypothetical

[Publius]

Alright, let's say I'm the proponent of a pie-in-sky theoritical, utopian, political ideology, anarcho-capitalism for arguments sake.

Let's say that my pet ideology is attempted in say, 10 states over the course of a few dozen years.

Let's say that every time, a few heady intellectuals, with everyone's best interest in mind, lead vanguard revolutions and overthrow the 'socialist hellhole' governments and promptly abolish the state, and lead us into anarcho-capitalism.

Let's say that every time this happens, things go miserably wrong. Corporations take slaves, companies start wars with each other, theft murder and rape are rampant, war lards roam the land and these countries are the scenes of mass killings and political assassinations, towards anyone 'not revolutionary enough'.

Let's say that we try this is around 10 states, getting the same result every time. The same totalitarian hellholes, the same mass killings, the same tyranny.

Let's skip forward to today.

Here I am on my revolutionaryright.com forums, quoting Rothbard and Friedman, touting the superiourity of the anarcho-capitalist ideology.

Let's say that every time someone brings up the fact that every time this state was attempted it ended in mass murder and warfare I say that those weren't 'true anarcho-capitalist' states because fundamental property rights weren't insured, natural rights weren't established, individual power was limited by coercion and the corporations acted like governments.

Let's say that every time these failures are brought up, I say, "NO YOU IDIOT, LOOK RIGHT HERE IN PAGE 37 OF 'ETHICS OF LIBERTY' BY ROTHBARD IT SAYS THAT IN AN ANARCHO-CAPITALIST STATE, PEOPLE'S RIGHTS WILL BE INSURED. THESE STATES DIDN'T DO THAT! ANARCHO-CAPITALISM IS PERFECT!".

Wouldn't that make me an intellecutally dishonest McFuck? Wouldn't that be a good indication that anarcho-capitalism truly is flawed, and not that it just wasn't implemented correctly? That perhaps it can't be implemented correctly?

If we switched places, and I was the apologist, would you think that my denials of anarcho-capitalism's failures would hold any water?

Why then, should we listen to you?

[slim]

Capitalism provides hypothetical slavery.

The left abolishes it.

[Publius]

Correct, the left abolishes hypothetical slavery and replaces it with actual slavery.

A very astute observation for a pinko.

[slim]

It depends if its authoritarian or liberatarian. Im liberatarian so as far as im concerned it abolishes it. People under capitalism have no real choice in life. The choices people make are illusions or petty, quite sad really.

[Publius]

What?

'People' under capitalism make all the choices because, by definition, people are the only ones able TO make choices.

[codyvo]

Honestly, I think you have somewhat of a point, some people won't let communism take any of the blame for what has happened, but the situation is much more complex than to be put into a hypothetical question like yours. You say that after all those revolutions, you are on revolutionaryright forums, but that situation is not applicable, our revolutions are yet to happen, and so you would be in a position to change things, you would be on the winning side, we have our backs up against the wall, we are few in numbers and not growing rapidly, we only try to deny the relations of those atrocities and communism in the past. You would be denying something that is an ongoing problem, something you could change, we would be denying things we can't change, and because we've seen these atrocities we can change our platform and leave those atrocities behind, in which case they truly weren't part of communism as it is now.

[Publius]

Perhaps.

But why didn't Pol Pot or Mao learn from Lenin and Stalin?

Why did they all fail?

Just bad luck? They just happend to get around 10 of the worst people the last century had produced?

[slim]

Capitalism had their fair share of bad leaders.

Hitler, Bush Jr. , Mussolini and *shudder* Donald Trump.

[codyvo]

The right has produced some quite distateful figures also, Hitler, Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, LBJ, Nixon, Mussolini, Truman, and many many others, and yes I did compare them to Hitler, I don't think their is anything wrong with doing so, but yes I do know he was worse than all of them.

The reason they didn't learn is because communism, as compared to systems of hierarchy is relatively new, and I don't believe anyone yet has been able to use the communist system tto its full potential and it could be another 100 years until someone does.

[Publius]

The right has produced some quite distateful figures also, Hitler, Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, LBJ, Nixon, Mussolini, Truman, and many many others, and yes I did compare them to Hitler, I don't think their is anything wrong with doing so, but yes I do know he was worse than all of them.

The reason they didn't learn is because communism, as compared to systems of hierarchy is relatively new, and I don't believe anyone yet has been able to use the communist system tto its full potential and it could be another 100 years until someone does.

Hitler? Not a capitalist. He was a fascist.

Reagan? How was he distasteful?

Thatcher? ???

Bush? Get off it. He's bad but he's not that bad.

LBJ? You're correct with this one, the lying, stealing, bastard.

Nixon? Eh.

Mussolini? Fascist.

Truman? What?

[codyvo]

I said the right, not just capitalist,

Hitler- wost person EVER

Reagan-250 of his appointed officials were sent to jail, and he basically obliterated Nicaragua and a few other countries

Thatcher- MEGA *****

Bush- No I will not get over the fact that he lies, steals elections and doesn't give a shit about anyone except for him his buddies and the oil companies

LBJ-Only killed a couple million Vietnamese

Nixon- LIAR. killed some of those vietnames also

Mussolini- a close second to Hitler, the founding father of fascism

Truman- Nuked Japan... TWICE!

[Professor Moneybags]

Here we go again with the "Bush is Hitler" spiel.

[Professor Moneybags]

Hitler- wost person EVER

Why ? Because he violated property rights and initiated force ? Or because he violated property rights and initiated force for the "wrong reason" ?


Thatcher- MEGA *****

Mega disposer of socialist hedgemony. Pity she replaced it with a hedgemonic system of her own.


Bush- No I will not get over the fact that he lies, steals elections and doesn't give a shit about anyone except for him his buddies and the oil companies

He didn't steal the election.


LBJ-Only killed a couple million Vietnamese

LBJ : *Yawn* I'm bored. Let's kill a couple of million Vietnamese.


Truman- Nuked Japan... TWICE!

Truman : *Yawn* I'm bored. I know, let's nuke Japan for a laugh. No, in fact, let's do it twice.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 04:30 PM






Hitler- wost person EVER

Pol Pot? Uncle Joe?


Reagan-250 of his appointed officials were sent to jail, and he basically obliterated Nicaragua and a few other countries

No friend, the communists obliterated Nicaragua. Are you defending the Sandinistas?



Thatcher- MEGA *****

That qualifies her?


Bush- No I will not get over the fact that he lies, steals elections and doesn't give a shit about anyone except for him his buddies and the oil companies

Yawn.



LBJ-Only killed a couple million Vietnamese

I agreed with you on LBJ. He actually did steal elections by the way.



Nixon- LIAR. killed some of those vietnames also

Like they weren't even a little deserving?



Mussolini- a close second to Hitler, the founding father of fascism

Shows what you know about fascism.



Truman- Nuked Japan... TWICE!

So Japan kills millions of people, and you ignore Tojo's crimes, but Truman kills a few hundred thousand and you complain?

Some humanitarian you are.

[Publius]

Professor: Do you think my hypothetical is at all accurate of what goes on here?

How do you think our wet friends would react to our 'anarcho-capitalist' theories, in this hypothetical situation?

[NovelGentry]

All you're doing is repeating your misunderstanding of what communism is in a different form. Anarcho-capitalism may uphold nations, thus it is fine for it to fail or work within a nation. If it respects class antagonisms it does so only between the old ruling class and whatever the new class is. You cannot drive a class based, non-nationalistic theory into nations and then talk about it's failures in those nations.

If you meant to say socialism, then yes, I agree, it failed in the USSR, it failed in Cuba, it failed in China, etc..etc. When we look at why it failed, our understanding of those reasons predates their failures. This is something which, for me anyway, has given Marxism even more validity.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 04:07 PM
Perhaps.

But why didn't Pol Pot or Mao learn from Lenin and Stalin?

Why did they all fail?

Just bad luck? They just happend to get around 10 of the worst people the last century had produced?
Mao was not in it for the people or ideology, he was in it for power. He had help and ties from the 20's that helped him along with a willingness to poison torture kill and steal. As well as private plans towrds world domination.

Pol Pot, well to be honest I think he was about as sane as Vlad the Impaler.

In those cases would say the man was mad not the ideology. However I do see a far point.

Although board oppinion differs, I personally do not believe in repeating histories mistakes, I do not believe in violent revolutions, purges, or even killing you guys if this was achieved. Not everyone wants to waste time re-educating people in forced labour camps, or elliminating human free will. To be honest I wouldn't kill as part of some faction. Hell the capitalist may be a family member or possibly a friend.

What I do thnk is a good idea is coming up with a better way of implementing the a new system. Elections failed in general so far, the way most people get given their based educations will ensure this for the forseeable future. Have I got the answer? No. Has anyone here? No. If we did we would be living in a different world.

What I DO believe in however is making the changes and re-adressing balances where possible now. Acting to make th differences that we can and showing something other than blind support or indifference for the world as it stands. My idea of revolution isn't what I'm guessing yours is. The majority of people here do as you say, distance themselves from these past failings. But hell, I can think of places where "democracy" hasn't/isn't doing what the label suggests, should we give up on that?

The point, I will say again, is fair. However that is part of the reason I think for restrictions. The rest of the board is for talking about the things I said above, discussing new and better ways of doing things, and talking about what we actually are doing. It would be an annoyance having some one constantly in your ear saying "your going to fail...it'll never work..." it just doesn't help. I am not suggesting that you are complaining about this, but I thought it relevant in explaining why, at least in some cases people snap and flame you guys instead of debate.

[Publius]

But don't these failures lead you to think SOMETHING is wrong here?

Isn't it extraordinarily bad luck that this always seems to happen?

Perhaps Marxism is just impossible?

[Publius]

Mao was not in it for the people or ideology, he was in it for power. He had help and ties from the 20's that helped him along with a willingness to poison torture kill and steal. As well as private plans towrds world domination.

Pol Pot, well to be honest I think he was about as sane as Vlad the Impaler.

In those cases would say the man was mad not the ideology. However I do see a far point.

Although board oppinion differs, I personally do not believe in repeating histories mistakes, I do not believe in violent revolutions, purges, or even killing you guys if this was achieved. Not everyone wants to waste time re-educating people in forced labour camps, or elliminating human free will. To be honest I wouldn't kill as part of some faction. Hell the capitalist may be a family member or possibly a friend.

What I do thnk is a good idea is coming up with a better way of implementing the a new system. Elections failed in general so far, the way most people get given their based educations will ensure this for the forseeable future. Have I got the answer? No. Has anyone here? No. If we did we would be living in a different world.

What I DO believe in however is making the changes and re-adressing balances where possible now. Acting to make th differences that we can and showing something other than blind support or indifference for the world as it stands. My idea of revolution isn't what I'm guessing yours is. The majority of people here do as you say, distance themselves from these past failings. But hell, I can think of places where "democracy" hasn't/isn't doing what the label suggests, should we give up on that?

The point, I will say again, is fair. However that is part of the reason I think for restrictions. The rest of the board is for talking about the things I said above, discussing new and better ways of doing things, and talking about what we actually are doing. It would be an annoyance having some one constantly in your ear saying "your going to fail...it'll never work..." it just doesn't help. I am not suggesting that you are complaining about this, but I thought it relevant in explaining why, at least in some cases people snap and flame you guys instead of debate.

I don't think you guys are accomplishing as much as you seem to think you are...

[T_SP]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 31 2005, 06:53 PM

Hitler- wost person EVER

Why ? Because he violated property rights and initiated force ? Or because he violated property rights and initiated force for the "wrong reason" ?


Thatcher- MEGA *****

Mega disposer of socialist hedgemony. Pity she replaced it with a hedgemonic system of her own.


Bush- No I will not get over the fact that he lies, steals elections and doesn't give a shit about anyone except for him his buddies and the oil companies

He didn't steal the election.


LBJ-Only killed a couple million Vietnamese

LBJ : *Yawn* I'm bored. Let's kill a couple of million Vietnamese.


Truman- Nuked Japan... TWICE!

Truman : *Yawn* I'm bored. I know, let's nuke Japan for a laugh. No, in fact, let's do it twice.
You are a jerk! Your argument is flaky and un-inspired! Why don't you go play beat the servant with your dumb headed cappie mates!

[NovelGentry]

But don't these failures lead you to think SOMETHING is wrong here?

Isn't it extraordinarily bad luck that this always seems to happen?

Perhaps Marxism is just impossible?

Again, only expressing your lack of knowledge. Marxism is not something you attempt... thus it is not possible or impossible for humans to achieve. Marxism is something of a way of thinking, and means by which to understand history, past, present, and quite possibly our future (although this is extremely debatable).

What Marxism attempts to lay down is not how the world should work, but how the world does work.

Marxism refutes things like "luck" for material reality, saying that if socialism has failed, there is a material basis and reasoning as to why it has failed. Indeed people can attempt to make/build/construct socialism, but it is not by peoples whim alone that it is possible, at least not if you believe Marx to be right.

I don't need the failures to lead me to think something is wrong. Something was wrong, and I would have known something was wrong if I had lived there, in those times, amongst those people, but known and understood Marx as I do now. That is to say, I would have decided, before they even started, that their attempt was incapable and bound for failure.

Something was wrong... and if the Maoists succeed in Nepal -- something will be wrong there too.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 06:05 PM


Mao was not in it for the people or ideology, he was in it for power. He had help and ties from the 20's that helped him along with a willingness to poison torture kill and steal. As well as private plans towrds world domination.

Pol Pot, well to be honest I think he was about as sane as Vlad the Impaler.

In those cases would say the man was mad not the ideology. However I do see a far point.

Although board oppinion differs, I personally do not believe in repeating histories mistakes, I do not believe in violent revolutions, purges, or even killing you guys if this was achieved. Not everyone wants to waste time re-educating people in forced labour camps, or elliminating human free will. To be honest I wouldn't kill as part of some faction. Hell the capitalist may be a family member or possibly a friend.

What I do thnk is a good idea is coming up with a better way of implementing the a new system. Elections failed in general so far, the way most people get given their based educations will ensure this for the forseeable future. Have I got the answer? No. Has anyone here? No. If we did we would be living in a different world.

What I DO believe in however is making the changes and re-adressing balances where possible now. Acting to make th differences that we can and showing something other than blind support or indifference for the world as it stands. My idea of revolution isn't what I'm guessing yours is. The majority of people here do as you say, distance themselves from these past failings. But hell, I can think of places where "democracy" hasn't/isn't doing what the label suggests, should we give up on that?

The point, I will say again, is fair. However that is part of the reason I think for restrictions. The rest of the board is for talking about the things I said above, discussing new and better ways of doing things, and talking about what we actually are doing. It would be an annoyance having some one constantly in your ear saying "your going to fail...it'll never work..." it just doesn't help. I am not suggesting that you are complaining about this, but I thought it relevant in explaining why, at least in some cases people snap and flame you guys instead of debate.

I don't think you guys are accomplishing as much as you seem to think you are...
Who said it was alot? The fact that there is desire for change, and people in opposition means that there is a chance. You asked if perhaps the doctrine was wrong...perhaps t is a bit that is als up for discussion. But things are achieved, I know that I have made impacts where I live taht have been warmly recieved and would be willing to discuss them in a more appropriate thread sometime.

[Ele'ill]

Who said it was alot? The fact that there is desire for change, and people in opposition means that there is a chance. You asked if perhaps the doctrine was wrong...perhaps t is a bit that is als up for discussion. But things are achieved, I know that I have made impacts where I live taht have been warmly recieved and would be willing to discuss them in a more appropriate thread sometime.


N30 Seattle gave me a warm fuzzy feeling for about nine seconds. Since then not a whole lot has happend. Nothing has been done to harrass the flow of corruption that is talked about so much on this board and generally the methods suggested are ludicrous.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 09:47 PM

Who said it was alot? The fact that there is desire for change, and people in opposition means that there is a chance. You asked if perhaps the doctrine was wrong...perhaps t is a bit that is als up for discussion. But things are achieved, I know that I have made impacts where I live taht have been warmly recieved and would be willing to discuss them in a more appropriate thread sometime.


N30 Seattle gave me a warm fuzzy feeling for about nine seconds. Since then not a whole lot has happend. Nothing has been done to harrass the flow of corruption that is talked about so much on this board and generally the methods suggested are ludicrous.
I suppose the anti-war protests showed willing, and, if not misplaced, still good intentions, just because not everyone has realised whats up doesn't mean they don't realise that SOMETHING is.

Like I said that is something for another thread.

[slim]

Back on the other page a few quotes were made.

Someone questioned Hitlers evil as the worst ever compared to Pol Pot. The answer is simply, Hitler killed more people through his own intentions.

Another point was that he questioned why Thatcher was a *****. She basically wiped out political opposition of the masses, protests were met with batons.

A personal reason is her views of the action in Northern Ireland. She was one cold hearted *****. She was good for the right wing capitalists but when it came to the people she did shit all.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 10:46 AM
Back on the other page a few quotes were made.

Someone questioned Hitlers evil as the worst ever compared to Pol Pot. The answer is simply, Hitler killed more people through his own intentions.

Another point was that he questioned why Thatcher was a *****. She basically wiped out political opposition of the masses, protests were met with batons.

A personal reason is her views of the action in Northern Ireland. She was one cold hearted *****. She was good for the right wing capitalists but when it came to the people she did shit all.
As much as I dislike the old milk snatcher, she still shouldn't be placed with the likes of who she has been. She had her beliefs and values which she sought to uphold. She had to proove she could be as hard as a guy, and still go home and cook tea. I find it easer thinking of a powerful wman who had very misplaced deas. I suppose really though she knew exactly where she was placing them.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 06:07 PM
You are a jerk! Your argument is flaky and un-inspired! Why don't you go play beat the servant with your dumb headed cappie mates!
What a deep-thinking intellectual person you are. :lol:

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 06:00 PM
Professor: Do you think my hypothetical is at all accurate of what goes on here?

It's pretty accurate, but then I've already demonstrated the pure hypocracy in numerous "protest warriors deserve to get beaten up"-themed topics.

[Professor Moneybags]

Someone questioned Hitlers evil as the worst ever compared to Pol Pot. The answer is simply, Hitler killed more people through his own intentions.

So Hitler would have been okay to kill people providing had didn't meant it ?


Another point was that he questioned why Thatcher was a *****. She basically wiped out political opposition of the masses, protests were met with batons.

A lenient punishment, considering the mess the "political opposition" left the country in. Thatcher won by a landslide in '79, so the opposition obviously didn't represent the "masses".


A personal reason is her views of the action in Northern Ireland. She was one cold hearted *****. She was good for the right wing capitalists but when it came to the people she did shit all.

You probably weren't even born when she came to power.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 11:26 AM
As much as I dislike the old milk snatcher, she still shouldn't be placed with the likes of who she has been.
Thatcher didn't snatch milk any more than someone who walks past a charity box "snatches" charity.

[Andy Bowden]

According to the Child Poverty Action Group, the levels of poverty in Britain grew from 5 million in '79 to 15 million in '97.
I would also like to remind people that Thatcher never won a landslide victory in Scotland, Labour always had a majority in Scotland but we were denied our own Parliament and political representation by the Tory govt.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 1 2005, 01:59 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 1 2005, 01:59 PM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 11:26 AM
As much as I dislike the old milk snatcher, she still shouldn't be placed with the likes of who she has been.
Thatcher didn't snatch milk any more than someone who walks past a charity box "snatches" charity. [/b]
I believe when you are in a position of power you have slghtly more responsibility than someone who chooses not to support a particular charity. It was only a small, of what I am sure she would have several steps taht she took. What else was on the hitlist? Schools, benifits (including areas damaged by right wing economics i.e. structural unemployment), hospitals, libraries?

[slim]

Strange how the crown gave her the Order of the Garter.

[OleMarxco]

Conspiracy theories, it is, eh? Not 'strange', but 'unconvienient'. Not 'the crown', but 'the queen'. Not 'gave', but 'got liberated of', not 'her' but 'it', and not 'The Order of the Garter' but 'The Order of the Gartner', more like! :D

[slim]

lol, i like your analogy.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 1 2005, 02:08 PM
According to the Child Poverty Action Group, the levels of poverty in Britain grew from 5 million in '79 to 15 million in '97.
I'll bet these statistics did not come with an objective definition of "poverty".

[Professor Moneybags]

I believe when you are in a position of power you have slghtly more responsibility than someone who chooses not to support a particular charity. It was only a small, of what I am sure she would have several steps taht she took. What else was on the hitlist? Schools, benifits (including areas damaged by right wing economics i.e. structural unemployment), hospitals, libraries?

You seem to be stuck in this welfare statist "Government = Santa Claus" paradigm.
The government can only give what it has the money to pay for, and most of the money it has can only come from taxes forcibly extracted (i.e. stolen) from taxpayers. The government wants to make economic decisions for you and tells you what it thinks you should have. The government thinks it can spend your money more wisely than you can, which is so absurd it doesn't warrant any further comments.

The government that governs best, governs least.

[OleMarxco]

Well? You know, if they haven't, I'd'll be given' ye one, ye bickerin' cappie. It's when a major handful of the populace (let's say, 90%) have in percentage 99,99% less than a minor handful of the populace (let's say, 10%) - Then it can be considered a serious "poor-problem"...if not money-problem, atleast, by the burgeouise definition....Does that answer satisfy you, moneygrubber? http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/b/buggered.gif

[Professor Moneybags]

Why are you caring about minorities ? That is bourgeiose thinking; it's the majority (proletariat) that matters.

I guess you will have to be shot/re-educated after the revolution.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 10:07 AM
Perhaps.

But why didn't Pol Pot or Mao learn from Lenin and Stalin?
They did learn from Stalin. That was part of the problem.

They didn't "fail", at least Mao didn't. He set out to build a regime of apparatchik privilege, along the lines pioneered by Stalin, and he succeeded. As for Pol Pot, he pretty much succeeded in creating the kinda setup he wanted, until the Vietnamese overthrew him. I reckon that is a failure there.

So out of your 10 revolutions, 8 or so were led by parties already Stalinised.

Really, there are two examples of revolutions that started out with proletarian leadership and got corrupted. Russia and Grenada. There is one that's been going for 40 years and hasn't become Stalinised despite very adverse conditions. That's Cuba. Which is in many ways a pretty inspiring revolution for a lot of people in Latin America and elsewhere.

That doesn't indicate the bureaucratic corruption is inevitable. It does indicate that it's a real danger, especially in conditions of economic underdevelopment, an uneducated (often illiterate) population, and under siege by a mostly-capitalist world. So it's something that needs to be guarded against.

That isn't any kind of a suprise for anyone who knows Marxist theory and the history of revolutions. Everyone knew the material conditions of Russia weren't sufficient for socialism. Lenin and everyone predicted that if there weren't revolutions in other countries, esp more developed countries, there would be a counterrevolution in Russia.

And they were right. The counterrevolution took a particular form that wasn't predicted. Hey, history is complex.

It's not totally different from the counterrevolution after past (capitalist) revolutions, though. Stalin was to the Russian Revolution and Napoleon was to the French. And hey, the French revolution even ended with a Bourbon king back on the throne.

Perhaps some people then hoped republicanism was dying; the only people practicing it were those wacky Swiss, and some buncha hicks on the other side of the Atlantic. And hey, everybody can see it inevitably leads to a reign of bloody terror. And don't try to tell me that Napoleon didn't represent republican principles.

Those people were wrong: everything was not for the best under the best of all possible systems. They never managed to get back the land from the peasants and reverse the property transformations brought about from the French Revolution; and the days of feudalism and absolute monarchy were numbered.

Two steps forward, one step back...repeat as necessary. That's how history advances.

That's as true today as during the revolutions that cleared the way for capitalism.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:39 PM





I'm sorry for bumping this up. You guys have already probably moved on, but jesus fucking christ! I was just lurking around here, and I took the pains of registering just so that I could respond to this guy.

Yes, stop the dissent now!


If you were studying poli sci, you'd know that Hitler is always posed as the quintessential rightist dictator.

If you were attempting to portray anything other than a vague appeal to authority and actually look at his party platform and policies you would see he's anything but a rightist.

What was so right wing about him? His marriage of the state and economy? His abberative hatred for individual rights? His increase of state power? His redistribution of wealth? His disdain for the capitalist class?


Installing and continuously supporting brutal, genocide-friendly dictatorships for years isn't distateful to you?

Name them.



Wouldn't you think that someone who hates a Man of Steel so badly, should hate an Iron Lady just as much?

Privitization = good


So you probably don't think that Ashcroft working for Bush jr. is a problem either.

Of course I do. He was a borderline totalitarian.



Eh... Destabilizing a democracy, making its "economy scream," and installing a 17 year-long dictatorship that killedand tortured thousands-- eh?

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8242


Right-wing.

The cartelizitation, and subsequently government control, of industry is not right-wing.



Yes, "what?" That's the only word your posts should be limited to -- questions--because, evidently, you've no idea what the hell you're talking about.


Marshall Plan? Truman Doctrine?

You have nothing on the guy.