Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

hardright · Nov 19, 2003, 01:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (indierockboy,)

i don't think i follow. what do you attribute to the left?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The Marxists wanted a revolution. The neo-cons want a democratic revolution. The Marxists fought against fascism. The neo-cons fight against Islamo-fascism. The Marxists wanted a Soviet hegemony. The neo-cons want what Bill Kristol calls benevolent American hegemony. Clearly these are not rightwing ideas. Simple. :)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy23.html

Section 8 · Nov 19, 2003, 02:01 pm

The problem is how the war was carried out. This is an imperialistic war, not a marxist ideal. Also, another country destroyed the regime, not the own people.

hardright · Nov 19, 2003, 02:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,)

BTW, I don't consider you a right-winger.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Just to clarify, I mean old school (paleo-conservative) in the Old Right tradition of Jay Nock, Mencken, Chodorov, Taft, Weaver, Santayana, etc.

hardright · Nov 19, 2003, 02:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,)
The problem is how the war was carried out. This is an imperialistic war, not a marxist ideal. Also, another country destroyed the regime, not the own people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

True. Obviously the paralel is not perfect. But can you see how an ex-Marxist like Irving Kristol or James Burnham brought their old ideas over to the neo-conservative movement they helped make?

G. Adams · Nov 19, 2003, 02:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fugitivepoet,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (indierockboy,)

i don't think i follow. what do you attribute to the left?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The Marxists wanted a revolution. The neo-cons want a democratic revolution. The Marxists fought against fascism. The neo-cons fight against Islamo-fascism. The Marxists wanted a Soviet hegemony. The neo-cons want what Bill Kristol calls benevolent American hegemony. Clearly these are not rightwing ideas. Simple. :)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy23.html<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If you are going to simplify that much you can lump anything into the same camp. Red is a colour, yellow is a colour, therefore they are the same....

Marxists want a worldwide revolution of the proletariat. Neo-cons do not want a revolution, they wanted to topple the regime themselves in order to establish their own government in Iraq, a revolution would have been uncontrollable for them.

Marxists do fight against fascism, neo-cons have supported, even crated, fascists or quasi fascist regimes, such as Franco, Salazar, Pinochet etc

Its not Islamo-fascism by the way, theocracy perhaps, but not fascism. Fascism is a totalitarian system, whereas these theocracies settle for authoritarianism.

Some Marxists supported soviet hegemony, many didn't, and very very few now would support that. The reason most were and are against Soviet hegemony is because marxists are anti imperialists, empires are incompatible with communism, the contradictions there would pull down any empire.

You don't seem to understand what it is to be conservative, or even further right. Let me enlighten you further..

The Right Wing gives primacy to the state. Power is vested in a protected minority.

The Centre gives primacy to the individual. Power is vested in an open minority (by this I mean the minority in power can change)

The Left gives primacy to the community. Power is vested in the majority.

The actions of Stalin tended to be of the right, such as the expansion of the USSR and the last bits of power in the Soviets being taken and given to the Party (a protected minority).

The neo-cons give primacy to the state (curtailing rights for security), and are interested in keeping power among themselves (look at the cabinet, packed with PNAC people, Bohemia Clubbers and Bonesmen)

That you compare the USSR to the Bush admin demonstrates that the USSR was right wing, rather than the bush govt. being left wing.

Impenitent · Nov 19, 2003, 03:10 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,)
The problem is how the war was carried out. This is an imperialistic war, not a marxist ideal. Also, another country destroyed the regime, not the own people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

imperialistic war? we will not establish our government there, they will establish their own government... iraq will not be an american colony...

Impenitent · Nov 19, 2003, 03:18 pm

G

"You don't seem to understand what it is to be conservative, or even further right. Let me enlighten you further..

The Right Wing gives primacy to the state. Power is vested in a protected minority.

The Centre gives primacy to the individual. Power is vested in an open minority (by this I mean the minority in power can change)

The Left gives primacy to the community. Power is vested in the majority.

The actions of Stalin tended to be of the right, such as the expansion of the USSR and the last bits of power in the Soviets being taken and given to the Party (a protected minority). "

you are simply incorrect about your categorizations

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalc...tremeright.html

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalc...ompass/faq.html

G. Adams · Nov 19, 2003, 03:52 pm

No, my categorisations are based upon the traditional left right catogeries, the links you provide are based upon the Eysenck model which is up/down, left/right. My groupings are incompatible with that model.

Impenitent · Nov 19, 2003, 03:57 pm

yes, your categorizations are flat and inaccurate... there is far more to political perspective than the simple 2 dimentional picture... and stalin was as far left and authoritarian as they come... the left is statist not communal

G. Adams · Nov 19, 2003, 04:00 pm

Again you are telling us what we are. Fine, I am not of the left, I am not even on current charts, I am not statist, I am communal, I am anti-totalitarian, I am in support of equality and justice. From my rants, rather than what you believe would happen as a result of putting into place my beliefs, where would you place me?

G. Adams · Nov 19, 2003, 04:02 pm

And i was using the older model, which is flat and doesn't take into account as much information as the eysenk model, because it was being claimed that the neo-cons were on the left. Whether we use the old model or the new model, the neo-cons are not of the left.

Impenitent · Nov 19, 2003, 04:07 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Again you are telling us what we are. Fine, I am not of the left, I am not even on current charts, I am not statist, I am communal, I am anti-totalitarian, I am in support of equality and justice. From my rants, rather than what you believe would happen as a result of putting into place my beliefs, where would you place me?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

take the test and you tell me...

(I scored 3.12,-0.72)

Section 8 · Nov 19, 2003, 04:11 pm

Here's my results if you really must know:

Left/Right -7.40
Authoritarian/Libertarian -9.75

G. Adams · Nov 19, 2003, 04:25 pm

well its got a little less extreme since last time, now its

Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.10

OMG! whats this, a leftist against government, which would mean he isn't statist. doh, there goes your theory.

Impenitent · Nov 19, 2003, 04:37 pm

not at all...

"The Left gives primacy to the community. Power is vested in the majority.

The actions of Stalin tended to be of the right, such as the expansion of the USSR and the last bits of power in the Soviets being taken and given to the Party (a protected minority). "

did you read the classifications after the test? stalin was about -7,7
extreme left and very statist

G. Adams · Nov 19, 2003, 05:01 pm

Yes, and as I said, I was using the traditional model, not the model you are using. On the old model Stalin cannot be placed on the left because he did not put property into public hands, he put it into party hands, and neither was power given to the people, it was given to the party. Except for the means of joining, Stalins party is hardly different from 18th century aristocries, who were the founders of Conservatism to preserve their own power, which is exactley what Stalin and his party were doing.

Scribbler1 · Nov 20, 2003, 01:15 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fugitivepoet,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,)

BTW, I don't consider you a right-winger.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Just to clarify, I mean old school (paleo-conservative) in the Old Right tradition of Jay Nock, Mencken, Chodorov, Taft, Weaver, Santayana, etc.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

OK, gotcha. I wanted to say that because what passes for right-wing these days seems to be (the famous ones, at least) people like Limbaugh, Gallagher, Coulter, Pat Robertson, etc. Geez, I wouldn't lump ANYONE on this forum with that bunch!

I think I'll refer to that sort as FAR right-wingers from now on. Whaddya think?

indierockboy · Nov 20, 2003, 03:11 am

aren't we just arguing semantics now, with disregard to the original topic?

Nov 19, 2003, 01:42 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
hardright Sedimentary Rock Posts: 6	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (indierockboy,) i don't think i follow. what do you attribute to the left?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The Marxists wanted a revolution. The neo-cons want a democratic revolution. The Marxists fought against fascism. The neo-cons fight against Islamo-fascism. The Marxists wanted a Soviet hegemony. The neo-cons want what Bill Kristol calls benevolent American hegemony. Clearly these are not rightwing ideas. Simple. :) http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy23.html

Nov 19, 2003, 02:18 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
hardright Sedimentary Rock Posts: 6	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,) BTW, I don't consider you a right-winger.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Just to clarify, I mean old school (paleo-conservative) in the Old Right tradition of Jay Nock, Mencken, Chodorov, Taft, Weaver, Santayana, etc.

Nov 19, 2003, 02:22 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
hardright Sedimentary Rock Posts: 6	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,) The problem is how the war was carried out. This is an imperialistic war, not a marxist ideal. Also, another country destroyed the regime, not the own people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> True. Obviously the paralel is not perfect. But can you see how an ex-Marxist like Irving Kristol or James Burnham brought their old ideas over to the neo-conservative movement they helped make?

Nov 19, 2003, 02:34 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,153	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fugitivepoet,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (indierockboy,) i don't think i follow. what do you attribute to the left?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The Marxists wanted a revolution. The neo-cons want a democratic revolution. The Marxists fought against fascism. The neo-cons fight against Islamo-fascism. The Marxists wanted a Soviet hegemony. The neo-cons want what Bill Kristol calls benevolent American hegemony. Clearly these are not rightwing ideas. Simple. :) http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy23.html<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If you are going to simplify that much you can lump anything into the same camp. Red is a colour, yellow is a colour, therefore they are the same.... Marxists want a worldwide revolution of the proletariat. Neo-cons do not want a revolution, they wanted to topple the regime themselves in order to establish their own government in Iraq, a revolution would have been uncontrollable for them. Marxists do fight against fascism, neo-cons have supported, even crated, fascists or quasi fascist regimes, such as Franco, Salazar, Pinochet etc Its not Islamo-fascism by the way, theocracy perhaps, but not fascism. Fascism is a totalitarian system, whereas these theocracies settle for authoritarianism. Some Marxists supported soviet hegemony, many didn't, and very very few now would support that. The reason most were and are against Soviet hegemony is because marxists are anti imperialists, empires are incompatible with communism, the contradictions there would pull down any empire. You don't seem to understand what it is to be conservative, or even further right. Let me enlighten you further.. The Right Wing gives primacy to the state. Power is vested in a protected minority. The Centre gives primacy to the individual. Power is vested in an open minority (by this I mean the minority in power can change) The Left gives primacy to the community. Power is vested in the majority. The actions of Stalin tended to be of the right, such as the expansion of the USSR and the last bits of power in the Soviets being taken and given to the Party (a protected minority). The neo-cons give primacy to the state (curtailing rights for security), and are interested in keeping power among themselves (look at the cabinet, packed with PNAC people, Bohemia Clubbers and Bonesmen) That you compare the USSR to the Bush admin demonstrates that the USSR was right wing, rather than the bush govt. being left wing. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 19, 2003, 03:10 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,) The problem is how the war was carried out. This is an imperialistic war, not a marxist ideal. Also, another country destroyed the regime, not the own people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> imperialistic war? we will not establish our government there, they will establish their own government... iraq will not be an american colony... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 19, 2003, 02:01 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	The problem is how the war was carried out. This is an imperialistic war, not a marxist ideal. Also, another country destroyed the regime, not the own people.

Nov 19, 2003, 03:18 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	G "You don't seem to understand what it is to be conservative, or even further right. Let me enlighten you further.. The Right Wing gives primacy to the state. Power is vested in a protected minority. The Centre gives primacy to the individual. Power is vested in an open minority (by this I mean the minority in power can change) The Left gives primacy to the community. Power is vested in the majority. The actions of Stalin tended to be of the right, such as the expansion of the USSR and the last bits of power in the Soviets being taken and given to the Party (a protected minority). " you are simply incorrect about your categorizations http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalc...tremeright.html http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalc...ompass/faq.html "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 19, 2003, 03:52 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,153	No, my categorisations are based upon the traditional left right catogeries, the links you provide are based upon the Eysenck model which is up/down, left/right. My groupings are incompatible with that model. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 19, 2003, 03:57 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	yes, your categorizations are flat and inaccurate... there is far more to political perspective than the simple 2 dimentional picture... and stalin was as far left and authoritarian as they come... the left is statist not communal "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 19, 2003, 04:00 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,153	Again you are telling us what we are. Fine, I am not of the left, I am not even on current charts, I am not statist, I am communal, I am anti-totalitarian, I am in support of equality and justice. From my rants, rather than what you believe would happen as a result of putting into place my beliefs, where would you place me? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 19, 2003, 04:02 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,153	And i was using the older model, which is flat and doesn't take into account as much information as the eysenk model, because it was being claimed that the neo-cons were on the left. Whether we use the old model or the new model, the neo-cons are not of the left. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 19, 2003, 04:07 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) Again you are telling us what we are. Fine, I am not of the left, I am not even on current charts, I am not statist, I am communal, I am anti-totalitarian, I am in support of equality and justice. From my rants, rather than what you believe would happen as a result of putting into place my beliefs, where would you place me?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> take the test and you tell me... (I scored 3.12,-0.72) "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 19, 2003, 04:11 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Here's my results if you really must know: Left/Right -7.40 Authoritarian/Libertarian -9.75

Nov 19, 2003, 04:25 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,153	well its got a little less extreme since last time, now its Economic Left/Right: -8.88 Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.10 OMG! whats this, a leftist against government, which would mean he isn't statist. doh, there goes your theory. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 19, 2003, 04:37 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	not at all... "The Left gives primacy to the community. Power is vested in the majority. The actions of Stalin tended to be of the right, such as the expansion of the USSR and the last bits of power in the Soviets being taken and given to the Party (a protected minority). " did you read the classifications after the test? stalin was about -7,7 extreme left and very statist "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 19, 2003, 05:01 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,153	Yes, and as I said, I was using the traditional model, not the model you are using. On the old model Stalin cannot be placed on the left because he did not put property into public hands, he put it into party hands, and neither was power given to the people, it was given to the party. Except for the means of joining, Stalins party is hardly different from 18th century aristocries, who were the founders of Conservatism to preserve their own power, which is exactley what Stalin and his party were doing. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 20, 2003, 01:15 am	#37 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fugitivepoet,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,) BTW, I don't consider you a right-winger.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Just to clarify, I mean old school (paleo-conservative) in the Old Right tradition of Jay Nock, Mencken, Chodorov, Taft, Weaver, Santayana, etc.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> OK, gotcha. I wanted to say that because what passes for right-wing these days seems to be (the famous ones, at least) people like Limbaugh, Gallagher, Coulter, Pat Robertson, etc. Geez, I wouldn't lump ANYONE on this forum with that bunch! I think I'll refer to that sort as FAR right-wingers from now on. Whaddya think? Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Nov 20, 2003, 03:11 am	#38 (permalink) (top)
indierockboy Molten Ash Location: ontario canada Posts: 104	aren't we just arguing semantics now, with disregard to the original topic? http://www.autophobic.net/tmesis/sig.gif