One overriding thing I have noticed on these boards, which as a British person I find surprising, is a fear many Americans have of the political left.
"Liberal" is used as an insult, which is strange as it's so completely empty of meaning when used in that context… It's a political standpoint. What is so scary or terrible about left wing politics? Is it an automatic road to communism? What are you implying?
"You Liberal!" Ooh, you really got me there
Seriously, I don't get it.

quote:

So yes, everyone is entitled to their own views no matter how stupid they may be as long as I don't have to put up with the consequences.

Too bad the world doesn't work how you want, huh speed? I guess you'll have to deal with people believing things you don't like.

quote:

I think people can feel how ever about politics. Are they voting for you?!?!?! I did not think so, they know what they want you know what you want no need to change them or you because of a political view!

Democracy means that if the majority is stupid you have to live with the consequences of their stupidity. I don't like having a dumb fuck as president because the majority of the population is stupid. So yes, everyone is entitled to their own views no matter how stupid they may be as long as I don't have to put up with the consequences.

I think people can feel how ever about politics. Are they voting for you?!?!?! I did not think so, they know what they want you know what you want no need to change them or you because of a political view!

quote:

or like clpo and I out of the left-right shit storm completely

That too.
I believe the most profitable political alignement is non-alignement, but I've been indoctrinated by my parents and can't help taking standarized stances on some issues. Comes to show how much education conditions one's actions.
Sorry for going off topic.

quote:

The population shifted to the left.

or like clpo and I out of the left-right shit storm completely

quote:

Funny how the boards seemed so anti-liberal four years ago. Now you're hard-pressed to find any right-wing member at all other than random newbies.

Four years ago september the 11th was still fresh in everyone's mind, the Iraq invasion had just started, and all the bush administration's lies and foul play hadn't been uncovered yet.
When all the shit hit the fan with the insurgence, Libby-Plame case, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo humanitarian reports, Katrina, etc... The population shifted to the left. Only a tiny shift in reality, but in a polarized politcal system like that of the US it was and still is very noticeable.

Funny how the boards seemed so anti-liberal four years ago. Now you're hard-pressed to find any right-wing member at all other than random newbies.

Also, I concur with amp: libertarianism isn't socialism. Libertarianism is an ideology concerned more with rights, while socialism is more about economics. You can be libertarian and capitalist, or you can be libertarian and communist (somehow), or anything of the sort.

The left slings sh*t at the right, and the right slings sh*t at the left. That's just the way it goes.

As far as communism and extreme socialism goes, yes it could work. Neither capitalism or socialism would ever work alone, however. It just so happens however, that free enterprise is better suited to trade.

quote:

Libertarian/

is no where close to any form of socialism or liberalism and should not be included in your examples

I think that people always tend to take the worst example of socialism and use it against them. It's the same as you say that all liberals are imperialist and slave owners. Stalinism has noting to do with socialism, Libertarian/democratic socialist where against Stalin as much as they where against Hitler. In fact I believe socialism can work when the means of production are neither in hands of the state, nor in hands of the private. The means of production should be in hand of workers who work in the factory. And where trading agreements are democratically made by syndicates.

"This is true. Stalin killed more people than Hitler did (although to my knowledge- which is limited- he didn't have as cold-blooded and organised a system as the "death camps" of the Nazis), he was a ruthless dictator, cold-hearted and sadistic."

He did have concentration camps, they were called the Gulags (from the Russian Главное Управление Лагерей, "Glavnoye Upravleniye Lagerey", "The Chief Directorate of Collective Labor Camps"*). Stalin sent people to isolated, barren areas of the USSR and had them work to death. He also gave them almost no medical care, clothing or food so if overwork didn't kill them, disease and malnutrition would.

"The only reason he doesn't get as much bad press as Hitler is because he fought on the side of the west (our side) in WW2."

The biggest reason in my opinion he doesn't get as much bad press because there are still a lot of Marxist-Leninist revisionists who deny, lie or completely downplay all the horrible things Stalin and his successors did.

"There's no point in arguing over 'who was worse, Stalin or Hitler?' because they were both dispicable. Hitler is just more well-known."

You kind of have a point there.

* Taken from Wikipedia.com

quote:

---

Hitler and Stalin were both horrible anti-Semitic mass murdering dictators responsible for the start of WWII. If Stalin killed more than four times the amount that Hitler did, and was responsible for killing Jews (as Hitler was), Polish (as Hitler was), Ukrainians, dissident Georgians (his own people!), Gypsies (as Hitler was) then why can’t I say he was as bad if not worse in some ways as Hitler?

---

This is true. Stalin killed more people than Hitler did (although to my knowledge- which is limited- he didn't have as cold-blooded and organised a system as the "death camps" of the Nazis), he was a ruthless dictator, cold-hearted and sadistic. The only reason he doesn't get as much bad press as Hitler is because he fought on the side of the west (our side) in WW2. There's no point in arguing over "who was worse, Stalin or Hitler?" because they were both dispicable. Hitler is just more well-known.

-Pen

I didn't say capitalism was perfect. Look at the corporations running the political process and the politicians.

Look at the companies shooting these "free trade" deals through. That, to me, is the sickest thing, receiving subsidies while eliminating competition and therefore jacking everyone ELSE's prices up.

But my moral right to keep my paycheck, to exchange a tool of currency in exchange for a good or service, did not contribute to the forced labor camps, troops in the streets killing people, or the drug cartels (aka CIA).

...

INKY: What about how Stalin signed the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact in the 1930s (basically creating an unofficial Nazi Germany-USSR alliance) and invaded Poland alongside Hitler? I think that pretty much shows that Stalinism and Nazism were both responsible for the start of WWII.

"You know, JusticeConservatism, someday it would be good for you to figure out who actually kill millions of people around the world..."

Do capitalists kill millions worldwide? Of course they do, just look at all the sweatshops, military coups (ex: Pinochet) and destruction of countries that it’s caused. But Totalitarian Communism (Oxymoron!) or Left-wing Terrorism killed even more in many areas in the past century. And don’t assume that I don’t know all the dirty behind the scenes assassinations, uprising and dictatorships that capitalist countries like the USA have engaged in over the years either.

"Columbia? The rebel groups may have some left-wing or 'communist' sympathies, but you can't really play politics in an absolute bloody mess propelled by weapons pumped in by the United States..."

You have a point. The Exploitive corporations, drug laws in the USA, and Cartels have all had a part to play in the massacres over there. Also, your statement that the USA keeps the conflict going solely because it deals out weapons is completely distorting the reality of the conflict. Poor working conditions, a huge drug market, corruption and radicals on all sides of the political system keep the conflict going there. The USA to its credit for the most part has just tried to stabilize things there and get the cartels out of business, although like in most Latin American countries the US has also engaged in behind the scenes deals and covert missions.

"And your other cases? Left-wing extremists? What? Who?"

Try most of Eastern Europe (ex: Lithuania), Central America (ex: the Nicaraguan Sandinista-Contra mess), Latin America (ex: FARC) and Africa (ex: Mugabe). But those sorts of conditions wouldn't exist if the west didn't routinely abuse and exploit those regions over the years.

Stalin killed 50 million people. Hitler killed 35 million (the 6m is only the # of Jews; his killings were much grander considering all his other victims). That's not 4 times as much, but yes, Stalin is as bad as Hitler.

Communism is only automatically associated with liberalism in the redneck south, So joey, shut the hell up. Further, CPUSA is not a socialist organization. Leninism is far too authoritarian to qualify as true socialism. Arguably so is Marxism. Stupid "dictatorship of the proletariat" idea. My brother considers himself red but he's really just a capitalist pawn because of that doctrine. Spending all his money on worthless **** so he can be a prole and part of the idealized working class.

Oh yeah, view #1000! go me!

You know, JusticeConservatism, someday it would be good for you to figure out who actually kill millions of people around the world...
Columbia? The rebel groups may have some left-wing or "communist" sympathies, but you can't really play politics in an absolute bloody mess propelled by weapons pumped in by the United States...

And your other cases? Left-wing extremists? What? Who?

quote:

---

Hitler and Stalin were both horrible anti-Semitic mass murdering dictators responsible for the start of WWII.

---

I agree with your argument- the two can definitely be compared, and there have been several books written making that point (Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, haven't read but the title says it all). However I don't think Stalin started WW2, or can you back up that argument?

As regards the pro-communist argument, I agree that the communist ideal has never been in existence, it's too radical to work in practice. I think that's been tested enough times to be a proven point.

The way I see it, people like to be able to rise above others, so universal equality would always have to be enforced. This means the people lose freedom because once things start being enforced there's always going to be some things enforced that are unfair, too rigid etc. The people doing the enforcing would have power. This power would mean they rise above others, the rules would change in their favour, and you end up with tyrrany. The central ideal is lost.

Which is why radical communism (as oppose to having some left wing policies) has never truly succeeded, and is unlikely to ever succeed at working in the way it is supposed to.

Inky

quote:

---

liberal to England is completely opposite of liberal in the U.S.!

---

I might believe you if it wasn't that other American people on these boards seem to give liberal the same definition I do, and it is only you who uses it as another term for communist…

Maybe it's you who's got your wires crossed? Not that I'm saying you're the only one.

Inky