Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Venezuela is a combination of socialism, democracy, totalitarianism and some small capitalism.
Far too complex to be slotted into the socialist pigeonhole.
Tut
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Venezuela is a combination of socialism, democracy, totalitarianism and some small capitalism.
Far too complex to be slotted into the socialist pigeonhole.
Tut
None of the above are mutually exclusive. They don't understand socialism over there, they think it is communism. It is unfortunate that socialism can lead to totalitarianism but it can also lead in another directionQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
The only thing democratic about the Chavez reign was the one vote one time aspect. But add the rest of the recipe socialism, totalitarianism and some state controlled capitalism and mix them all together and what you got is left wing State socialism... aks fascism .
So many "scary" labels in one post - I think you've outdone yourself this time! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well there you go one minute he is communist, the next he is fascist, there is a difference you know, by the way Fascism is right wing, what they have in common is they are both authoritarian.
This may help your sort it out
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgu...9QEwAw&dur=303
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, please give up this over simplistic linear explanation for politics. We've already been through all of that in a different post.
Tut
No I don't think I will .Y'all don't like that I challenge what has become accepted assumptions,but I can't help it that you ignore modern liberalism's fascist roots .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No, because liberalism had it roots in the 18th century. Not the 20th.
Tut
Tom you just don't get it, anything other than laisez faire capitalism is anathema to you and yet such a system cannot exist, surely the last few years have taught you something
Ithought the Swedish modelwas familiar
Sweden's Model Approach to Financial Disaster - TIME
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_modelQuote:
"The Swedish success depended on four factors," he explains. Stockholm acted quickly, in open acknowledgement of the problems, and under a broad political agreement across the party spectrum. "Running parallel with these three factors," he says, "a new economic policy — new goals for inflation and the budget — was developed after the crisis."
Read more: Sweden's Model Approach to Financial Disaster - TIME
No "my way or the highway" mentality over there. It work because they work together and share the labor and the fruits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I didn't actually read you post carefully. You actually said, "modern liberalism's fascist roots". My original reply is not valid, so I'll address what you actually said.
Tom, this is even worse.
If you want to talk about the roots of modern liberalism we would be talking about the late 19th century. We mentioned it earlier or in a different post. You know- private property, rule of law, human rights, separation of the powers etc. All of this had its beginning with people such as Locke.
Fascism rejects all of these liberal ideas. Fascism is anti-individual. Are you trying to tell us that people such as Locke were really harbouring the beginnings of fascism?
Tut
No ;you trace it back to Locke whereas I trace it's real roots back to the late 19th century,early
20th century . The modern liberal (as opposed to the classic liberal ) aka progressives do not believe in property rights.. they are big on positive rights paid for by someone else. The modern liberal doesn't necessarily want a state take over of the economy... they want government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector. It's not the fault of their policy... oh no... it's the greedy private industry that screwed the pooch. It gives themselves credit when things go good ;and an instant scapegoat when they don't .
Modern liberals in the 1920s loved Mussolini and to a lesser extent Hitler.As an example ,such esteemed libs as W.E.B. Du Bois,considered Hitler as a man of the left. Du Bois had studied in Berlin from 1892 to 1894;and was a Germanophile.He travelled there again in 1936 ,the year of the Berlin Olympics ,and praised the Nazi leadership of the nation.He wrote that the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois said “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
This was a famous black progressive intellectual,and the founder of the civil rights movement ,and was a NAACP co-founder, who didn't even find anything wrong with the Nazi attitude toward black atheletes. But he was an equal opportunity progressive modern liberal. Pre-war he praised the central control of the Hitler regime... post war he praised Stalin's version of central control.
Influential modern liberal ,humorist and political commentator Will Rogers ;after visiting Italy said of the fascist dictator: I'm pretty high on that bird.” He wrote that "Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,”.....“that is, if you have the right dictator.”
H. G. Wells is considered one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century. He said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists”....“enlightened Nazis.” He wrote of a “'Phoenix Rebirth' of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” He said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
And it began in this country even before the 1920s . Woodrow Wilson ,long considered one of the US most progressive Presidents was a devoted disciple of Georg Hegel .Wilson ,like Obama, attacked the Constitution in his writings as an academic before he became president.(there is no academic writing by Obama on record ;but he is on record in interviews ).
Even before that ,many of the American progressive movement around the end of the 19th century were being taught in liberal institutions like Harvard ;the 'positives ' of eugenics . Roosevelt and his contemporaries were big on "Aryan Superiority".Roosevelt actually ran against Wilson in 1914 because in his view Wilson was not progressive enough(he also rejected the views of conservative William Howard Taft ,his party's nominee) .
There are many other examples I could source ;but you get my point. By the end of WWII the left had shed it's overt support because as HG Wells pointed out ,it had become a symbol of everything undesirable . So they quickly did some revisionism and pegged it to the right and taught the next generation that in the classroom without accurately bringing up their early embrace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Lets clarify the first point... No, I don't trace it back to Locke- most scholars trace the roots of modern liberalism back to people such as Locke.
Tom, you need to get out of Goldberg and read more widely. Most of the above is an American perspective on liberalism. There are actually other academic sources from other countries that present a different understanding. The American understanding of liberalism is not necessarily the world's understanding of liberalism. If ,as you say, you can cite many other sources then how about some scholarly articles from other countries.
Lastly: Goldberg's interpretation of H.G. Wells is not the reason why liberalism/socialism split from fascism. It was because fascism was anti-individualism. The are incompatible in a number of important areas.
Tut
Let's face it he wouldn't know liberalism if it came up and bit him on the bum
Goldberg is just one of the more contemporaries who have made the comparison. Of course my perspective is of the US progressive left. These are the ones who are making 'change we can believe in" or other lefty catch phrases like the President's current slogan 'Forward'. It is a fundamental reorganization of US society from the individual to the collective reinforced by strong positive rights paid for by someone else.
Yes. All Tom has giver us so far is an American commentary on liberalism. In other words, the idea that liberalism can be judged as a reflection; or in light of American political institutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Tut
P.S. Don't worry about what I just said. Tom confirmed it in the above post. I missed his response.
Since the thread concerns American politics I would think the reference to US progressives would be a given.
Tom just linked liberalism to racism, as I said Tom you don't have any idea, it is the liberals of your country who have headed the anti-racism thrust of recent times, without them blacks would still be travelling in the back of the bus. What is wrong with your country isn't liberalism, it is the money grubbing conservatives who want it all, elitists who think the country belongs to them
Well no I didn't... but the fact is that the Dem libs are late comers to civil rights... and they get it wrong.. They think having the minorities permanent wards of the state is a good idea. Conservatives don't . We think that is slavery by other means. .
SLAVERY BY ANY OTHER MEANS, Tom you make me laugh, what is your capitalist system but slavery by any other means. Minimum wages, control of both the means and place of production
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:58 AM. |