Log in

View Full Version : Political "Wings" in America


Alexander Hamilton
17th November 2006, 17:27
The Far Right Wing:
This places one on the scale of extreemly limited government. Defend the nation, keep the mail moving, and record births and deaths. Have a court system. The less the legislature meets, the better. No social programs. People deal with each other as individuals. (There is no logical reason why this should include being racist or sexist. To some people it means this.) No foreign wars of any kind, unless the soil of the U.S. were threatened. No adventurism. No laws against any kind of sexual conduct, though a recognition of some age of consent. No regulation, excpet for safety (such as all cars will drive on the right side of the road.) No public support of any religion. Balance the budget. No laws against abortion; not the government's business. Enjoy all sorts of distractions and fun, believe most should not be outlawed and that it's not the government's business, however they generally do not share discussion of it because it's nobody's fucking business. Males who succeed use their power to get to bed with women.

The Far Left Wing and Revolutionary Left Wing:
Defines merely everything on an econmic basis and believes in state control of nearly all industry. Does not allow private economic action that is contra to the plans of the state. The Revolutionary version of this believes in overthrowing the government to achieve this, and that representitive democracy is a sham. Many who are into theory believe in the abolition of private property to accomplish equality of all people. Enjoy all sorts of distractions and fun, and include, believe in sharing it with everyone, and that the government should not stop them from this kind of conduct. Male leaders use their political views to get to bed with women.

Moderates:
Non-class consious in their daily conduct. Too busy trying to make relationships work, raising kids, paying bills to have time to care about right or left wing politics. Many of their enjoyments, they publicly condem and criminalize. Support reasonably responsible people in power, with capitalism that is reasonably controlled. Thinks the extreems are off their nut. send them more porn and more vodka.


Generally, Europeans are all messed up about this, and think we are "too right wing", simply because our moderates don't think of themselves as a social class. Communists spend MOST of their time trying to convince people like me that I'm exploited. They have a point. I am. It's just that most of the time, I would rather have me exploited lifestyle than equality under Marxism. Communists can't for the life of them figure all of this out.

I hope this benefits large numbers of non-Americans.


A. Hamilton
JazzRemington
17th November 2006, 19:11
Defines merely everything on an econmic basis and believes in state control of nearly all industry. Does not allow private economic action that is contra to the plans of the state. The Revolutionary version of this believes in overthrowing the government to achieve this, and that representitive democracy is a sham. Many who are into theory believe in the abolition of private property to accomplish equality of all people. Enjoy all sorts of distractions and fun, and include, believe in sharing it with everyone, and that the government should not stop them from this kind of conduct. Male leaders use their political views to get to bed with women.

So, the leftwing believes that all industry should be under control of the State and the revolutionary leftwing believe in overthrowing the government to achieve state control? So in other words, they want to destroy the State to put things under State control? If the left wants things under State control, then how do you explain anarchists?
Alexander Hamilton
17th November 2006, 19:21
I do not discuss anarchists, as their's is the absence of all authority. As that is impossible in the realm of social science (an authority will ALWAYS fill an area of people) they are removed from Left v. Right, and are neither.

I do not recognize, and neither does history or common sense, the notion the state, under Marxism, will eventually vanish. Total horseshit.


A. Hamilton
MolotovLuv
17th November 2006, 19:23
"Generally, Europeans are all messed up about this, and think we are "too right wing", simply because our moderates don't think of themselves as a social class. Communists spend MOST of their time trying to convince people like me that I'm exploited. They have a point. I am. It's just that most of the time, I would rather have me exploited lifestyle than equality under Marxism. Communists can't for the life of them figure all of this out."


Well that&#39;s a nice selfish attitude you&#39;ve got there&#33; Tell us what&#39;s so fun about being exploited and why does equality seem like such a horrible idea to you? I am "left wing" and very anti-state and most right wingers most certainly don&#39;t want a small limited government so you obviously have no idea what your talking about. <_<
colonelguppy
17th November 2006, 19:27
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 02:11 pm

Defines merely everything on an econmic basis and believes in state control of nearly all industry. Does not allow private economic action that is contra to the plans of the state. The Revolutionary version of this believes in overthrowing the government to achieve this, and that representitive democracy is a sham. Many who are into theory believe in the abolition of private property to accomplish equality of all people. Enjoy all sorts of distractions and fun, and include, believe in sharing it with everyone, and that the government should not stop them from this kind of conduct. Male leaders use their political views to get to bed with women.

So, the leftwing believes that all industry should be under control of the State and the revolutionary leftwing believe in overthrowing the government to achieve state control? So in other words, they want to destroy the State to put things under State control? If the left wants things under State control, then how do you explain anarchists?
easy, anarchist don&#39;t realize that what they want is a different form of a state.
JazzRemington
17th November 2006, 19:35
Originally posted by Alexander Hamilton+--> (Alexander Hamilton)I do not discuss anarchists, as their&#39;s is the absence of all authority. As that is impossible in the realm of social science (an authority will ALWAYS fill an area of people) they are removed from Left v. Right, and are neither.[/b]

Then perhaps you should have mentioned this in your wonderfully informative article because Anarchists have been historically considered left-wing due to their wanting socialism. And if one such as you is so educated in the social sciences, perhaps you can fill us in what is authority and why there will always be this authority, according to the definition provided to us.


I do not recognize, and neither does history or common sense, the notion the state, under Marxism, will eventually vanish. Total horseshit.

What does this have to do with my statement? All I said was that your article maintains that the left wants to destroy the State in order to put things under State control. If something is destroyed, how can it control anything?


colonelguppy
easy, anarchist don&#39;t realize that what they want is a different form of a state.

First, I would like to know what school you went to because I would like to be taught how to know what other people want. Second, all this depends on how one defines a State.
Zero
17th November 2006, 19:37
Wow. Just wow.

There are so many different strains of Conservative thought that you lump together that are radically contradictory. You don&#39;t even mention Unilateralism.

There is no possible way to lump together the bureaucratic "left" and the radical left like you just did. Not only is there complete contradictory views on economic systems, state actions, privacy, civil libertarian vs civil nationalist... And what the fuck is the remark about getting in bed with a woman because of politics?

To take a leaf out of Jazz&#39;s book, this list is an utter pile of horse shit, and so are you.

EDIT: Thats Jazzratt. Not JazzRemington.
colonelguppy
17th November 2006, 19:50
First, I would like to know what school you went to because I would like to be taught how to know what other people want.

its pretty easy after perusing these forums for a few months to know what alot of peoples idealogies are


Second, all this depends on how one defines a State.

generally an area with set boundaries of political influence. has a government and whatever is being governed (the people, the land etc..)
JazzRemington
17th November 2006, 20:03
Originally posted by colonelguppy
generally an area with set boundaries of political influence. has a government and whatever is being governed (the people, the land etc..)

So, basically a State is territory that has a government and people being governed. Is it that the territory is the State or the government is the State? Would I also be correct in believing that a State and a government are two different things?

Also, you can only govern living things. Land and other inanimate things can&#39;t really be governed because you can&#39;t give orders and expect these things to do them in their own power.

But if we limit to definition of a state to a territory that has a decision making system and people generally follow the decisions reached and ignore who is making the decisions and how they are enforced, then yes. Anarchists apparently want a different State.
colonelguppy
17th November 2006, 20:28
the territory + the government is the state. the difference between state and government is minimal, a government cannot exist without something to govern.
Alexander Hamilton
17th November 2006, 20:37
MolotovLuv:

Two points-

1. what I wrote was a stylish way of saying that accoring to marxist theory, as a writer of curriculum in St. Louis and working for a large publishing company, I am exploited. And those currently living under marxist socialism are "liberated". Well, I&#39;ve been to a couple of places that, if not Marxist, per se, were more "liberated" than me, such as the People&#39;s Republic of China, and the Russian SSR. I will take my "exploitation" over their "liberation" any day of the week. While I know niether of these places were not truely socialist, they were closer to Marxism than the good old U.S. of America

2. Traditional Right Wing political thought in America is for limited government. Pres. Bush (current) is an aberation of this, and unusual at that. Most are Barry Goldwater types, and want government out of a lot of things, and do not want an expanded central government. I&#39;m sorry you didn&#39;t know this, and that this confuses you into believing I don&#39;t know what I&#39;m talking about.


Jazz Remington:

One of the problems with being a Revolutionary Leftist is the notion that only you can define things, based on your narrow view of things. Marxists believe that "elected socialism" is not socialism, even though the rest of the world allows for the concept to explain, let&#39;s say, Sweden. It is the same with anarchy.

Anarchy is the absence of government. Period. The fact that socialists believe that the final stage (if you will) of socialism is the absence of government, and the withering away of the state, does not change the common definition of socialism. I&#39;m happy for you that the left wing has "grabbed" anarchy as one of its main concepts. Those of us using a dictionary, however, note that anarchy is the absence of government and law.

This "traditional alignment" theory of yours isn&#39;t worth much. If the government of Mexico was "destroyed" tomorrow, there is no logical reason why a more socialist authority would take its place. It could just as well become feudalistic in some areas, socialist in others.


Zero:

I can&#39;t help that I&#39;m able to simplify it all for you. I have always been a genius. Thank you for your noticing. One appreciates the recognition. As far as the getting to bed with women thing, EVERY so called leader of an underground political movement, left and right, played up their persona to be mysterious and bed women. In the 1970&#39;s, the LAPD had an intelligence division which infiltrated left wing organizations and felt it necessary to sleep with the female members. Amazingly, the female officers never felt the need to do the same with the male members. Go figure. Again, I&#39;m glad you&#39;re in "Wow" of me. I am too.
Zero
17th November 2006, 20:49
There is a difference between simplification, and throwing random shit together. Half of your right-wing definitions don&#39;t apply to a large portion of Conservatives, and your "left" wing definitions don&#39;t apply to anything fitting the "left" in American politics.

If people in left wing, and right wing politics decided that they would use sex as a tool to bed women, what the fuck would that have to do with policy, ideology, or anything relating to the real world?

I am not "in WOW" with you. I&#39;m laughing at you.
JazzRemington
17th November 2006, 21:16
Originally posted by alexander hamilton
One of the problems with being a Revolutionary Leftist is the notion that only you can define things, based on your narrow view of things. Marxists believe that "elected socialism" is not socialism, even though the rest of the world allows for the concept to explain, let&#39;s say, Sweden. It is the same with anarchy.

There&#39;s a difference between what a technical definition and how things are defined in their every day usage. The public has many different definitions of capitalism, but there is really only one technical definition. Unless you count such things as monopolistic capitalism, free competition capitalism, etc. But even then, my statement still stands in that there is a difference between a technical definition and the way a public might define things.

You are also confusing the notions of socialism. There are different types of socialism. The Marxist definition is the hypothetical society that is to exist before Communism but after Capitalism. Other types of socialism include such diverse things as a stateless market-based society. Sweden, by the wya, is not socialism. It may contain some socialistic characteristics but it is largely a capitalist economic system.

But your statement about how Marxists believe that elected socialism is not socialism is partially true. Revolutionary Marxists do not believe that socialism cannot be brought about by elections.


Anarchy is the absence of government. Period. The fact that socialists believe that the final stage (if you will) of socialism is the absence of government, and the withering away of the state, does not change the common definition of socialism. I&#39;m happy for you that the left wing has "grabbed" anarchy as one of its main concepts. Those of us using a dictionary, however, note that anarchy is the absence of government and law.

Again, you are confusing the different types of socialism. You are claiming that all socialists hope that the State will wither away when not all socialists even want the State to whither away. Hell, there are even socialists who do not believe in communism.

But I like people who think they know everything about a theory from a dictionary definition. It seems you can learn everything about anarchist-communism, anarcha-feminism, mutualism, individualist-anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-primitivism, and green anarchism all from a single, one line dictionary statement. That sure would have saved me a lot of time&#33;


This "traditional alignment" theory of yours isn&#39;t worth much. If the government of Mexico was "destroyed" tomorrow, there is no logical reason why a more socialist authority would take its place. It could just as well become feudalistic in some areas, socialist in others.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.
Alexander Hamilton
17th November 2006, 21:33
Zero:

You obviously did not read my post. I wrote "Far Left Wing" and "Revolutionary Left Wing".

Despite your being in "Wow" of me, I have to admit I cannot reciprocate. (Look it up.)

WE HAVE A VERY SMALL FAR LEFT WING, PROBABLY IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS. WE HAVE AN EVEN SMALLER NUMBER OF REVOLUTIONARY LEFT WINGERS, IN THE TENS OF THOUSANDS.

The first group would be a kin to World Can&#39;t Wait. They are closet socialists, who would admit to being socialists if you pressed them, as they believe most problems in the world today can be solved by a more "socialist" world, achieved through democracy. We DO have in the U.S., successful socialist poiticians, in city counsels and the like. They are few, and we have damn few socialists. What WE call American socialists are those who believe in democracy with a very large social "net". I realize that doesn&#39;t jive with many people&#39;s view here, but too bad. To us, you can ELECT a socialist society. Deal with it.

The second group hand out HERE. They are the fifty thousand or so who WOULD join an attempt to overthrow the United States in favor of socialism, and are theorists enough to agree with the general board&#39;s view (here) is "correct", and that socialism can ONLY be achieved through violent overthrow of America.

I&#39;m here to help.


A. Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton
17th November 2006, 21:50
But I like people who think they know everything about a theory from a dictionary definition. It seems you can learn everything about anarchist-communism, anarcha-feminism, mutualism, individualist-anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-primitivism, and green anarchism all from a single, one line dictionary statement. That sure would have saved me a lot of time&#33;


Slice it or dice it anyway you want, but there aint no such thing as anarchy, because as soon as any authority collapses, another takes its place.

And I love that list of yours. As if, after a country falls, people are gonna sit down and say to each other. "Hey, let&#39;s be an ararcho-syndicalism-feminist-green socialism." You&#39;re right&#33; I didn&#39;t list them because they&#39;re like Santa Clause. Someone has been arguing about them at the leftist book stores, and people have been in their echo chambers for so long, they now believe this list is real&#33;&#33;&#33; Reminds me of a religion.

One of the more amusing things at the forum here is how God and any "afterlife" is argued by that after 6,000 years of religion (to quote someone here), God has not been proven, so that&#39;s that. Well, since the Nile River Valley and Fertile Cresent have been occupied and organized, NO ANARCHY HAS EVER OCCURRED THERE. You&#39;d think if it were possible it would have happened AT LEAST ONCE&#33;


Traditional alignment is what YOU were getting at, not me. It&#39;s your idea that anarchy is traditionally aligned with socialism. HA&#33; That&#39;s a good one. You&#39;re arguing about how correct you are about two concepts that have to this point never occurred. And you have a whole theory about it, and call my point of view, "wrong". TOO FUNNY&#33;


A. Hamilton
JazzRemington
17th November 2006, 22:08
Slice it or dice it anyway you want, but there aint no such thing as anarchy, because as soon as any authority collapses, another takes its place.

If it were unconsciouslessly, yes. But I doubt that if people consciously do away with authority, they would just sit back adn let another waltz in and take over. This argument is kind of like the idea that the only legitimate form of authority was monarchy and that any attempt at creating any other system that was non-monarchical would fail.


And I love that list of yours. As if, after a country falls, people are gonna sit down and say to each other. "Hey, let&#39;s be an ararcho-syndicalism-feminist-green socialism." You&#39;re right&#33; I didn&#39;t list them because they&#39;re like Santa Clause. Someone has been arguing about them at the leftist book stores, and people have been in their echo chambers for so long, they now believe this list is real&#33;&#33;&#33; Reminds me of a religion.

So, you&#39;re saying that the Americans decided they wanted a democracy after the American revolution? If you read a dictionary statement about anarchism and claim to know everything about it from said statement, you would know what you just said is ignorant. Such a statement from a well learned individual.


One of the more amusing things at the forum here is how God and any "afterlife" is argued by that after 6,000 years of religion (to quote someone here), God has not been proven, so that&#39;s that. Well, since the Nile River Valley and Fertile Cresent have been occupied and organized, NO ANARCHY HAS EVER OCCURRED THERE. You&#39;d think if it were possible it would have happened AT LEAST ONCE&#33;

I don&#39;t understand what you&#39;re getting at. You start ranting about how God as not been proven (which we aren&#39;t even arguing about) and the jump into how the Nile River valley and Fertile Cresent were occupied and organized. Wtf are you talking about?


Traditional alignment is what YOU were getting at, not me. It&#39;s your idea that anarchy is traditionally aligned with socialism. HA&#33; That&#39;s a good one. You&#39;re arguing about how correct you are about two concepts that have to this point never occurred. And you have a whole theory about it, and call my point of view, "wrong". TOO FUNNY&#33;

The first eprson who called himself an anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in the mid 1800s. The system he wrote about and promoted was a self-described socialist one. Even people who were violently free-market such as Benjamin Tucker still considered themselves anarchists and socialists. It&#39;s not MY idea that anarchism and socialism are linked, it&#39;s a historical fact. Have you even read anything written by an anarchist on anarchism?

But let&#39;s talk about theories and being proven wrong. If the people in general define capitalism specifically as "an political system that allows for large and unrestricted corporations, large subsidies to said corporations and a medium-level of government regulations," does that mean that is what capitalism is? Would I be able to read books on capitalism written by supporters of capitalism and see this definition?
Zero
18th November 2006, 05:57
Originally posted by "Hamilton"+--> ("Hamilton")You obviously did not read my post. I wrote "Far Left Wing" and "Revolutionary Left Wing".[/b]
When you talk about political wings, I figured you were going to talk about wings as a plural. The radical left is not a political wing, the radical left is a strain of political thought emanating from concepts of group over individual, majority over minority, and the good of all over the good of a few.

Therefore you describing the "radical" right, and then the real radical left as political &#39;wings&#39; makes no sense at all. You made this topic (apparently) to appease to (what you thought) was the low knowledge of non-North American English speakers, apparently you need a bit of teaching yourself.


Originally posted by "Hamilton"+--> ("Hamilton")The first group would be a kin to World Can&#39;t Wait. They are closet socialists,[/b]
The WCW is a non-sectarian organization. It was founded by members of the RCP (Revolutionary Communist Party, Maoist) as an impeachment campaign (as well as to some members a revolutionary vanguard recruitment drive) to "drive out the Bush regime." Because someone wants Bush out doesn&#39;t make them a Socialist. Actually since he has an approval rating of about 40% in his own party I&#39;d say its perfectly rational to think there are moderate Republicans in there as well.

("Hamilton")as they believe most problems in the world today can be solved by a more "socialist" world, achieved through democracy.[/b][/quote] The WCW is an openly revolutionary (or at least offering it at the table) organization, how about you read their FAQ (http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2160&Itemid=2) before commenting about them.

("Hamilton")We DO have in the U.S., successful socialist poiticians, in city counsels and the like.[/b][/quote]Like the U.S. House member Bernard Sanders from Vermont. Though there is another distinction, Democratic Socialists =/= Revolutionary Socialists, yet in your post you decide to squish them together.


"Hamilton"@
They are few, and we have damn few socialists. What WE call American socialists are those who believe in democracy with a very large social "net". I realize that doesn&#39;t jive with many people&#39;s view here, but too bad. To us, you can ELECT a socialist society. Deal with it.
...
What we have in America are Democratic Socialists, the DSAUSA (http://www.dsausa.org/) being the largest group. Most real Socialist movements have been just that; movements. Not something you &#39;vote in&#39;. During the Vietnam war we didn&#39;t &#39;Vote in&#39; La&#96;Fonda, we didn&#39;t &#39;Vote in&#39; the BPP, we didn&#39;t &#39;Vote in&#39; the Catholic Workers Movement, we didn&#39;t &#39;Vote in&#39; womans emancipation.

There is no such thing as an "American Socialist" Ideologies don&#39;t have boundaries.


"Hamilton"
I&#39;m here to be helped.
The Sloth
18th November 2006, 06:28
Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 17, 2006 08:37 pm
what I wrote was a stylish way of saying [ed. - condense]

accoring [sic]

me [sic]

the People&#39;s Republic of China [ed. - watch the parallelism]

niether [sic]

truely [sic]

aberation [sic]

, [sic]

If the government of Mexico was "destroyed"... [ed. - ouch, speaking of &#39;alignment,&#39; how about &#39;aligning&#39; your shit to the tenets of grammatical conditionals?]
sure you work for a publishing company?
Jazzratt
20th November 2006, 22:21
What the fuck is this shite?

Your entire list rests on this odd assumption that "left wing" and "right wing" have fluid meanings which change depending on geogrphy, which is blatantly stupid.


Generally, Europeans are all messed up about this, and think we are "too right wing", simply because our moderates don&#39;t think of themselves as a social class. Most european moderates don&#39;t follow class analysis either you arse candle.
Communists spend MOST of their time trying to convince people like me that I&#39;m exploited. They have a point. I am. It&#39;s just that most of the time, I would rather have me exploited lifestyle than equality under Marxism. Communists can&#39;t for the life of them figure all of this out. What you personally want doesn&#39;t fucking come into it, it&#39;s the ultimate selfishness and treason to your species to condemn the majority to exploitation simply because you have a weird rockon for it.


I hope this benefits large numbers of non-Americans. Not as much as your suicide would.
Ol' Dirty
25th November 2006, 00:54
The Far Right Wing:

Fascists, Klansmen, Nazi&#39;s.


This places one on the scale of extreemly limited government.

:mellow:

The CIA. The FBI. The HSA.


No social programs.
Hey buddy, guess what: there&#39;s this little thing called the "No Child Left Behind Act" which, quite ironicly, has failed, and leaves every child behind. Yay beuracracy&#33; :rolleyes:


No foreign wars of any kind, unless the soil of the U.S. were threatened.

Spanish-American War. Korean War. Vietnam War. 1st Iraq War. Afghanistan. 2nd Iraq War.


No adventurism.

:lol:

http://www.yuksel.org/e/guest/interventions.htm

Read a little bit. It&#39;ll learn ya&#39;.


No laws against any kind of sexual conduct, though a recognition of some age of consent.

The illegalization of gay marriage in numerous states.


No public support of any religion.

Read some Bushisms.


Balance the budget.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


No laws against abortion; not the government&#39;s business.

You musn&#39;t be from America.