peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
It may not be, you are right, but the dead are still dead. They may have preferred being killed by a socialist than a fascist, but somehow I'm not too sure.......
Current Affairs The Far Right
- Thread starter Groucho
- Start date
- Status
It may not be, you are right, but the dead are still dead. They may have preferred being killed by a socialist than a fascist, but somehow I'm not too sure.......
TheFinnFan
Finners
Fixed it for you
Actually, I think a circle is too simplistic (though, obviously better than a line). There are a number of vars here:
1) Economic Theory
works with the line
2) Social Theory
still good with a line
3) Stability
now we get complicated
Because I argue the far left is completely different from the far right, but also incredibly unstable. So we have at least two axes: the classic line, but also a line of social order and stability.
Communism in a 'pure' form is incredibly unstable and likely to fall over to strong man politics. This is also true on the far right. The ethos are still completely opposed, but the instability often leads to the same path - autocracy. And in autocracy, political view is totally irrelevant - the individual, which is far more complex than a single ethos, is the entire graph.
But even then, they're not completely opposed at the far extremes, are they? Nationalism leads to suppression of speech. But so does anti-hate speech (for entirely different reasons, and ones I prefer personally, but bear with me - I'm doing thought exercises here).
So in the end it all ends up as a multi-dimensional cube. But the trick is to move gradually and ensure stability with movements. Wild swings in either direction contribute to the native instability of the part of the curve you're on - like jumping to the very edge of a disk spinning on an axes...near the axis is stable, the further away the more likelihood for falling off.
So expect a paint drawing of spaghetti with Hitler, Churchill, Stalin and FDR mixed in.
1) Economic Theory
works with the line
2) Social Theory
still good with a line
3) Stability
now we get complicated
Because I argue the far left is completely different from the far right, but also incredibly unstable. So we have at least two axes: the classic line, but also a line of social order and stability.
Communism in a 'pure' form is incredibly unstable and likely to fall over to strong man politics. This is also true on the far right. The ethos are still completely opposed, but the instability often leads to the same path - autocracy. And in autocracy, political view is totally irrelevant - the individual, which is far more complex than a single ethos, is the entire graph.
But even then, they're not completely opposed at the far extremes, are they? Nationalism leads to suppression of speech. But so does anti-hate speech (for entirely different reasons, and ones I prefer personally, but bear with me - I'm doing thought exercises here).
So in the end it all ends up as a multi-dimensional cube. But the trick is to move gradually and ensure stability with movements. Wild swings in either direction contribute to the native instability of the part of the curve you're on - like jumping to the very edge of a disk spinning on an axes...near the axis is stable, the further away the more likelihood for falling off.
So expect a paint drawing of spaghetti with Hitler, Churchill, Stalin and FDR mixed in.
bring the ghost on
Player Valuation: £35m
I don't disagree with you at all, murderous dictators are abhorrent regardless of political ideology.
Sure, that's a way to look at it.
But give too much power to the state and it's not law and order, it's autocratic oppression. Which...isn't that counter to the whole self-reliance and freedom rah rah ethos?
And I'm not sure how socialism (a belief in a strong centralized govt regulating the economy) equates with anarchy (no rules whatsoever).
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
TheFinnFan
Finners
Whos saying anyone wants to give too much power to the state. We are living in free countries here. We were talking about extreme examples.
bring the ghost on
Player Valuation: £35m
Great point.
The Far Right wants to consolidate national authoritarian power. They want extreme law and order.
The whole point is that the more power an individual has, the more unstable a society is (although, on the flip side, the more people with power the more difficult it is to accomplish anything at all). So when consolidating power for safety, or for any number of other things (values? religion?), you run the risk of destabilizing your 'freedom' because you've placed too much power in the hands of one man. And one man with loads of power is very rarely a good thing.
You cannot assume that what is always will be. We are free countries because the people have, through collective efforts (always progressive efforts, btw) pulled the power out of the hands of the elites. The elites did not give that power up willingly. All you have to do is look at strike-breaking, firehoses on protesters, etc. But without them, we'd still be under various monarchies.
The left has problems of stability past a certain tipping point as well, which I've accepted. However, this all started with the point that the Far Right's ideology is inherently racist and xenophobic (True, nationalism is a tenant of the Far Right).
I'm not sure how you can back people that are consolidating power under a single office while saying you don't want to give too much power to the state.
Elong
The fire rises
Shut up Finn
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
China is a far more racist country than the USA, so how does that stack up then.....
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Leave Finn alone, we'll have no bullying in here........
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
It's a new thing....
Elong
The fire rises
At least you construct a point mate. He's a loony.
- Status