IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Hitler belongs to political Left
I've always thought so.

But now someone actually supplies a heap of evidence more articulately than I ever could.

[link|http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/|http://constitutiona...m/hitler-leftist/]

------

179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]

New Stalin always supported the political right
the both met at the bottom
where the benefit of the states resources were for the select few, self selected of course,
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Interesting, but doesn't really hold up
The Nazi party never followed from their party platform. It was drafted just to garner public support among the disenchanted lower and middle class that the party needed to win elections. Except for a few symbolic moves it was chucked as soon as they secured power.

Jay
New No left party ever did
From Lenin to Chavez. (With possible exception of Scandinavia parties) The more to the left, the less likely to keep promises after getting the power.

------

179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]

New They are politicians
They are politicians, so they are mostly liars. But there is a general pattern to what they actually do that indicates if they are really leftist or not.

And if you look at what the Nazi actually did in Germany in terms of enforced conservative German culture, celebration of military and such then it all looks pretty right wing.

Chavez, I would agree is heading towards a left wing authoritarian government. If he has the sense to step down before too long he might save his reputation, but we shall see.

Russia is more complex, as it was left leaning and still evolving until Stalin took power. Under Stalin it flipped to being a hard right wing dictatorship, and after his death was a right leaning oligarchy until the collapse of communist Russia.

Jay
New Stalin ad right-winger?
OK, discussion over.

Right Wing = "anyone I don't like".

------

179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]

New The only major difference between Stalin and the other
fascists running amok at the time was who owned the businesses that the state was working for; in Germany it was wealthy industrialist types, while in Stalinist Russia it was the top-rung apparatchiks. Other than that, not much difference, AFAICT.
New Funny, the article I linked makes the same point

------

179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]

New See, that's what makes the right/left difference
If Hitler and Mussonlini had run around and nationalised all those German heavy industry firms, then yeah, they'd've been leftie.

The real point imho is that basing one's political system on strictly economic principles is a fool's errand, and a dangerous one. Despite all of Lenin's and Stalin's fulminations, they were just as capitalist as Krupp and Dornier. The only difference was in the nominal ownership of the capital. In both cases capital formation was accomplished on the backs of slave labour. Both sides of the European mid-20th century coin differed only in how they justified the use of that slave labour to aid the capital formation they needed to build the war machine they wanted.

One of the reasons that the Anglo tradition has been as durable as it has been is because they didn't have a revolution; instead, it's a many centuries working out of power arrangements, with an explicit understanding that some people have more power than others, and will need to be restrained. The mechanism they came up with for that was Law, starting with Magna Carta.

Instead of trying to dream up a perfect market system (ie- either unrestrained capitalism or government by the proletariat) and then shoehorning a political system to fit this idealized market scheme, it was a practical working out with an emphasis on keeping arrangements that made things better. In short, a long term application of the scientific method where you try something to see if it works well, and if it does you keep doing it and if it doesn't you don't.

Personally, as soon as I hear someone say government should be run like a business, they've pretty much lost my vote, because government and business are very different institutions. Oligopoly or monopoly lead toward rent-gathering tendencies and a complete halting of innovation in the market place, but government is all about taking rent (taxes) and using it to do stuff. Some things are not profitable, but are good; for example, basic infrastructure. Things like highways, railways, sewage and water systems, electrical grids, etc, are very hard to make profitable. This is why the grid in the Northeastern US was allowed to degrade as badly as it did when it caused the blackout; since there was no profit to be made in maintaining it, the companies that owned it didn't. So, power generation = profitable, and is suitable for profit making entities, as say are cars, or gasoline. However, telecom grids, power grids, and highways are not, and are better done by having a non-profit entity take care of them.

This usually means government, even if in some cases the government in question is a board of people from a community charged with taking care of that and given the power to collect rents to pay for it, like the Public Utilities Commission here in my hometown. It's a non-profit wholly owned by the city, and the commissioners on the board are elected positions. They don't do the generating; they buy it from profit making entities elsewhere. They just maintain the infrastructure, and are allowed to collect enough money from the rate-payers to build and maintain it.

It has worked very well here for over a century. They are quite capable of going out and finding the best deal they can get on natural gas or electricity, buying in bulk to get volume discounts, and then passing those savings on to the consumers in the community. If someone is being bad in how they run the commission or by taking advantage of it, they end up losing their job when the next election comes around; this is something that has happened in my lifetime, and man was it ever fun to watch;)

But, the real point is that the PUC is a government institution, not a private one. Hence, they are not required to make a profit, but only to make sure that they keep the infrastructure they are responsible for in the city in decent shape.

Anyway, it's late, and I'm rambling. To get back to the original point, neither of those totalitarian systems really say too much about the relative merits of the right or the left ways of organising society and/or market behaviour; instead, they say a great deal about predicating one's politics on economics and an unchecked and unrestrained accumulation of power... just as unrestrained markets concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, unrestrained state apparatus concentrate power in the same way... and these lead to bad results.

Ideologically, the current administration is a lot closer to the approach taken by the fascists, as they are working with the large business entities in their country instead of taking them over. However, they are the same as both the fascists and the communists in that they are attempting to accumulate as much power as they can get away with in a small number of hands. I detect a fairly strong totalitarian streak in these guys, seeing their need and desire to bypass the Law when it doesn't suit them (Law being the restraint on power), as well as the need to gather and know as much as they can so as to be able to both manipulate and dominate the governed, using both the official state machinery as well as unofficial persuasive powers gathered about them by the very concentrated patterns of ownership of mass media and their close ties to the government. The Rovian project of a permanent Republican majority is essentially a totalitarian project, and such things are to be avoided at all costs if a people are to remain free.

There, my $0.02. Cheers!
New Re: Stalin ad right-winger?
I suspect we are running into a difference in definition here.

To me, a lone dictatorship is a right wing political structure. A left wing tyranny would be something like the French Revolution, where a pure majority rules system is combined with a willingness to override yesterdays vote and to vote somebody to an execution.

Jay
New Not sure I agree on that one either
Chavez definitely runs on a left/liberal platform and there are many who call him a dictator.

I'm not sure dictator == Right Wing. Nor does it == Left Wing.
New you need to re-read your history
the sans coulottes were never a pure majority.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New I thought the left wing defined
by vilification of private property, egalitarianism, collectivism (how it coexists with cult of personality, I don't know but id does), worship of State.

The places where extreme left wing (Marxist) people take power start out very much like your idea of "left", and end up with a dictatorship.

------

179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]

New I know...just look at those Democrats

4. Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of German blood, whatever be their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.

5. Non-citizens may live in Germany only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens

[...]

8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 August 1914 shall be required to leave the Reich forthwith.


You know, I think was just a few weeks ago, BP was talking about how Democrats were so against these illegal immigrants and their sanctuary cities.

(Geeze, can't you guys get your act together....are Democrats for or against illegal aliens?)
New sad thing at the am school bus stop
new neighbor has a little girl, takes the bus with my daghter. She makes the little boys who are hispanic wait for the girls to get on first saying "they belong to this country, you dont, they get on first" Every one of those kids, regardless of parents status were born here, same as her.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New I was?
I believe there may have been some sarcasm in that post.

I don't like sanctuary policies and believe them to be pushed by liberal orgs.

Have 3 dead college kids up north at the hands of an illegal. I'm not getting any fonder of those policies, I can tell you.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Got some straw on the cheap?

------

179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]

New Straw for straw
we'll break the camel's back.

The Nazi's party line on immigration and citizenship doesn't match with either the supposed Democratic line or even the offical Democratic line. (Insert Leftist for Democratic if you wish)

It does appear to match the Neo-Con line.

New I think the definition of "American"
is basically "someone who is in country legally" (forgetting the fine details such as voting for a second). What do you think?

------

179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]

New An "American" is someone living in this hemisphere
after all, a Brazilian is an American, seeing as they live in South America.

A citizen of the United States of America is rather more specific.

Part of the problem I see with political discourse in North America is the concentration on persons, with not enough talk about citizenship. See, persons have rights, citizens have responsibilities. This works really well for large corporations, as they are persons in the law, and gets people talking about their rights instead of their responsibilities. OTOH, if the discourse is concentrated on citizenship, then the corporations don't really have much to say since they aren't and cannot be citizens.

Now, if I hop across the border to visit Watertown, New York, I'm in the country legally. Does that make me an "American"? It sure doesn't make me a citizen of the US. It also doesn't make me part of the culture that surrounds citizenship in the US.

We gotta spend more time talking about citizenship in our political discourse, because the corporations can't enter that conversation, which means that it's a conversation that happens among human beings, not institutions... after all, the government of Canada is a duly incorporated entity, not a citizen.
New Define "legally"
Were the Puritans here "legally"? According to whom? What about the Spaniards in Florida? The State of Texas? The Kingdom of Hawaii?

is basically "someone who is in country legally"

H1B's are Americans? (I don't agree with that statement)

None of this matters, btw. As I pointed out, there are those who blame Liberals/Democrats for ignoring American immigration laws (regardless of whether or not they are), Your allegation was that Democrats WERE for strict immigration laws.
New we should change the discourse from illegal workers
to illegal employers, without the latter folks who arnt entitled to work here, wouldnt be here. Shut down the employers and these folks would go elsewhere.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New And you, obviously to the lunatic fringe of right-wing kooks
New Thanks for reminding me.
Hitler was a Hater, Beauchamp is a Callous:

[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/20070910.html|http://www.angelfire...owe/20070910.html]


...part of my ongoing project to reverse engineer the Leftist mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------
4 out of 5 Iraqis choose democracy!
If you don't like my posts, don't click on them.
Never mind the AP. Here's the real Iraq reporting: [link|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/]
"The period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resort, decide the contest." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
     Hitler belongs to political Left - (Arkadiy) - (23)
         Stalin always supported the political right - (boxley)
         Interesting, but doesn't really hold up - (JayMehaffey) - (10)
             No left party ever did - (Arkadiy) - (9)
                 They are politicians - (JayMehaffey) - (8)
                     Stalin ad right-winger? - (Arkadiy) - (7)
                         The only major difference between Stalin and the other - (jake123) - (2)
                             Funny, the article I linked makes the same point -NT - (Arkadiy) - (1)
                                 See, that's what makes the right/left difference - (jake123)
                         Re: Stalin ad right-winger? - (JayMehaffey) - (3)
                             Not sure I agree on that one either - (Simon_Jester)
                             you need to re-read your history - (boxley)
                             I thought the left wing defined - (Arkadiy)
         I know...just look at those Democrats - (Simon_Jester) - (8)
             sad thing at the am school bus stop - (boxley)
             I was? - (bepatient)
             Got some straw on the cheap? -NT - (Arkadiy) - (5)
                 Straw for straw - (Simon_Jester) - (4)
                     I think the definition of "American" - (Arkadiy) - (3)
                         An "American" is someone living in this hemisphere - (jake123)
                         Define "legally" - (Simon_Jester)
                         we should change the discourse from illegal workers - (boxley)
         And you, obviously to the lunatic fringe of right-wing kooks -NT - (CRConrad)
         Thanks for reminding me. - (marlowe)

One shall be the number of Mojo Jojos in the world, and the number of Mojo Jojos in the world shall be one. Two Mojo Jojos is too many, and three is right out!
76 ms