If you’re like me (and if you are congratulations!) you probably have a hard time deciding if Leftists are dumb and/or crazy and/or evil. I’ve been conducting an informal poll of left-of-center folks since I was a teenager. I just ask questions and keep a running tab in my head on some of the more interesting answers.One of the questions I ask is, “When you achieve your goal of establishing a far left/socialist/communist government what will you do for a living?” I always get the exact same answer. Do they plan to work on a collective farm? Nah. Do they plan on working at the centralized napkin factory? Nah. How about working in the nationalized health care field? Double nah! They always answer the same way and without exception,”Oh, I would work for the government.” Most of them give you a look that says they can’t believe you even had to ask the question.
What’s my point? Simple, proponents of a big and intrusive government always picture themselves in a power wielding position, without fail. Never as the poor gullible sap who has to support the whole gargantuan bureaucracy on his back. So, as many right-wing radio talk show hosts say, it’s all about power, who has it and who doesn’t.
Right on! And don’t forget, that Conservative = Nationalist = Fascist.
The left wingers want to be supported by the right wingers.
Dan, buddy! We love you guys. Speaking of fascists, I’ve always found it strange that when liberals read the words “National Socialist Workers Party” they stop at the nationalist part and declare the Nazis hard core right-wingers. If they just read one more word they would get to socialist and see the Nazis for what they were, socialism come to its apotheosis.
Huh? Now you lost me. I said Fascism:
Where in there do you see the word “socialist” or “Nazi”?
It seems as though that definition of fascist fits you perfectly!
“When you achieve your goal of establishing a far left/socialist/communist government what will you do for a living?”
Oh. My. God.
That is a brilliant question. I’m beating my self up for not coming up with that question before. Congratulations.
Not surprised I lost you Dan. Explanation as follows: The English translation of the full name of the Nazi party is National Socialist Workers Party. Despite the fact that the Nazi party didn’t have the word fascist in its name like the Italian Fascist party, it is considered the quintessential fascist organization by most. As for my being a fascist, yawn, snore, you Lefties need to find a new insult, that one has lost it’s sting.
(a) how can fascist both be defined as “anti-communist” and “socialist” at the same time?!?!
and (b) Yes, I’m aware you’re very clearly not shy of being fascist.
A bit more about the comparison between fascism and communism. Both are totalitarian, that’s true. But they’re polar opposites by very definition.
Now, I’m a liberal, but I’m not a radical communist. I just happen to believe in Medicare and public schools, for example. You’re a conservative. That’s great. I hope you’re not really a radical fascist though.
Incidentally, have you ever read George Orwell’s book 1984?
Actually, Dan, they aren’t polar opposites. The two “fascist” parties, the Fascist of Italy, and the Nazis of Germany, both have their base in socialist parties and base much of their thinking and ideology on socialist thinkers. Yes, there are differences between communism and fascism. But mostly there are similarities.
Basically, Nazism is just socialism but with “the nation” instead of the “workers” and “the jews” instead of “the capitalists”. Fascisms relationship with socialism is slightly more complex.
So why are they then seen as opposites by so many? Well, because they both defined each other as the main enemy. And that’s probably because they understood each other all too well, and there was all to easy to recruit people between the groups.
And hence, Nazis *are* hard core right wingers. Because they are the sworn enemies of the left wingers. Which are communists. That’s the definition of right and left. Yes, I know, that makes no sense and puts conservatives together with nazis and islamist terrorists, and libertarians, and it puts classical liberals together with the left-liberals of the US and socialists and communists.
In conclusion, neither the concept of “left” or of “right” means anything in politics. But geez, if you say that. you are gonna make people confused.
Yep. You’ve lost me again, especially with the bit about Nazi’s being socialists in one paragraph, and hating communists in another. But you recognize that it makes no sense.
Just like what drew me to comment here in the first place – that while liberalism has some things in common with communism, they’re not the same thing. That made just as little sense.
The only thing that does make sense here to me, is that we’re all confused. We’re all just trying to do the best we can to make sense out of it, and failing miserably.
Just my humble opinion.
Dan, you remind me of that guy who was arrested for stealing a 1963 cherry red Corvette convertible; he admitted to the theft, but added that the Corvette was just asking for it. On the one hand, I applaud you for “wishing” for a more healthful society, but anyone who thinks that national medicine is the best way to achieve that is sadly misinformed — and is asking for it. All you need to do to assess how well national healthcare works is to observe Canada and the United Kingdom, where people are dying because the “government” decides whether to address their healthcare needs. In that other area you mentioned, public education, liberal progressive attitudes have completely destroyed American Education — to the extent that this country now hires college graduates from third-world cesspools rather than hire our own graduates, who are themselves unable to write a cogent paragraph. Your reference to Orwell’s 1984 is laughable, but only because that is EXACTLY where progressives/liberals/socialists/democrats want to take us.
I honestly think it is a good thing that our citizens have disparate political and social philosophies — and that we discuss and argue about domestic programs and foreign policy. On the other hand, neither side of that process should embrace foolishness. I am as opposed to the far right, as I am the far left. Where I find the greatest problem with the liberal mentality is the assumption that government is the solution to every single challenge we face, across the entire spectrum of American society. The government has no business involving itself in our families, religion, health, or education because no matter what the government does, it is patently inefficient and the results are always unsatisfactory. We are a nation founded on the idea of individualism, not the dole—and no, I will never admit that some corrupt politician in the nation’s capital knows what is best for me, or my family. Finally, in the words of the great liberal icon Hillary Rodham Clinton, “I have a million ideas; America cannot afford them all.”
Mustang,
That’s fine, if you really think that Medicare is not the way to go. My priority is not efficiency, nor economic, and I admit that. Instead, my priority is as you say, that we have a healthy society. That means health insurance companies that make decisions on the customer/patient’s best interest, and then tries to balance the bottom line. If you can find a better way to do both, then I’ll support politicians who support that new way of doing it, whether they’re conservative or liberal.
For education, I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it. Privatizing education just sounds like another way to place making a lousy buck more important that the teaching. But I will agree with you that a better way needs to be found to take care of that task too.
Privatization is a quick answer that doesn’t solve the problems, it just creates new problems. I agree with you that government involvement in families and religion is a no-no, but using the Invisible Hand to solve health and education won’t work. (look up Game Theory)
Also, if you think that Orwell’s totalitarian state is what progressives, liberals, socialists, or democrats want, then you really need to go back and either re-read Orwell or re-learn what your philosophical opponents are saying.
“Yep. You’ve lost me again, especially with the bit about Nazi’s being socialists in one paragraph, and hating communists in another.”
It’s a bit like if American Football would start hating Rugby. They are pretty much similar, and almost the same thing, but they are still not the same thing, just almost.
“Just like what drew me to comment here in the first place – that while liberalism has some things in common with communism”
Huh? Oh, right, you talk about liberalism in the american sense. What the rest of the world call “social democrats” or “labour” or something similar.
“The only thing that does make sense here to me, is that we’re all confused.”
I’m not.
“Privatizing education just sounds like another way to place making a lousy buck more important that the teaching.”
Privatizing the car industry just sounds like another way to place making a lousy buck more important than the transports.
Privatizing the food industry just sounds like another way to place making a lousy buck more important than the food.
Privatizing the music industry just sounds like another way to place making a lousy buck more important than the culture.
Privatizing the computer industry just sounds like another way to place making a lousy buck more important than the maths.
The thing is, private companies in competition is the best way to make sure that whatever is produced is the best quality. While state run monopolies is the best way to make sure that whatever is produced is bad quality and expensive.
I wrote a bit more about it here:
http://theopensociety.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/when-to-have-monopolies-and-when-not/
“But I will agree with you that a better way needs to be found to take care of that task too.”
Well, if we need a better way that public schools, then we need private schools. Quite easy, really. There isn’t much options.
“Privatization is a quick answer that doesn’t solve the problems, it just creates new problems.”
In schooling it certainly solves the problem. And it’s not quick either.
“I agree with you that government involvement in families and religion is a no-no, but using the Invisible Hand to solve health and education won’t work. (look up Game Theory)”
Better yet, look up reality, where the Invisible hand works swimmingly in both healthcare and education.
“Also, if you think that Orwell’s totalitarian state is what progressives, liberals, socialists, or democrats want, then you really need to go back and either re-read Orwell or re-learn what your philosophical opponents are saying.”
Of course they don’t. It’s what you end up with if you try socialism though. Or rather, 1984 is what you get if you try communism. Brave New World is socialism. What you *want* and what is the effect of what you do it usually two different things. Which is why a slowly grinding democracy is so important, so that politicians with no reality check can get voted out.
dorfl,
Interesting thoughts. On the privatization though, you’re not all wrong at all. In some ways, privatization would indeed improve the health and education. For the upper classes though. The middle and lower classes of society though, the “American dream” would be squashed. They would be struggling with an ill-equipped mind and body in a world that is already difficult.
I’m not saying do away with privatization, or capitalism. But capitalism works better with an economy based on an informed and healthy middle class.
“Better yet, look up reality, where the Invisible hand works swimmingly in both healthcare and education.”
Sure, in a feudal-like system, of the sort that lead to monopolies (as you seem to be vaguely familiar with), and converts us from democracy to oligarchy. I’m sorry, that’s just not a society in which I want to live.
Similarly, what we have in politics in America today is the privatization of politics. Politicians (of both parties) get voted in more on the coattails of special interests sponsors and corporate donors than on grassroots democracy.
You do realize that democracy is a socialist idea, in which all of society gets a say, right?
“The middle and lower classes of society though, the “American dream” would be squashed.”
So, you think that by giving the middle and lower class access to the school of their choice, they will be squashed? Can you explain how?
“I’m not saying do away with privatization, or capitalism. But capitalism works better with an economy based on an informed and healthy middle class.”
I would like to have arguments for why capitalism wouldn’t work without a healthy and informed middle class, because I’ve never heard that argument before. But in any case I think it’s quite fair to say that most of the western world has just that, so I kinda fail to see how the argument is relevant.
““Better yet, look up reality, where the Invisible hand works swimmingly in both healthcare and education.”
Sure, in a feudal-like system”
Oh, so the western world is a feudal-like system now. OK.
No, come on, honestly, lets get back to reality here.
“Similarly, what we have in politics in America today is the privatization of politics. Politicians (of both parties) get voted in more on the coattails of special interests sponsors and corporate donors than on grassroots democracy.”
Yeah, that may be a problem. Or it may not, I’m not sure.
“You do realize that democracy is a socialist idea, in which all of society gets a say, right?”
No, I do not realize that. In fact, I realize that democracy as an idea, even the modern concept of democracy, well pre-dates socialism as a concept…
Boy oh boy, you sure have a lot of incorrect presumptions… Are you sure you want them squashed publicly?
“So, you think that by giving the middle and lower class access to the school of their choice, they will be squashed? Can you explain how?”
Sorry? How many middle-, and especially lower-class, people do you know who can afford private schools? Hospital visits without Medicare? Hell, we already have Medicare, and half the country is uninsured and unable to afford preventative medicine.
“I would like to have arguments for why capitalism wouldn’t work without a healthy and informed middle class, because I’ve never heard that argument before.”
Who do you think would run our economy if our middle managers and skilled laborers were sick and incompetent?
“Oh, so the western world is a feudal-like system now. OK.
No, come on, honestly, lets get back to reality here.”
Right – sorry about that, I forgot we already had King George (Bush) with his abuse of executive privilege.
“No, I do not realize that. In fact, I realize that democracy as an idea, even the modern concept of democracy, well pre-dates socialism as a concept…”
Yet, as philosophical ideals, they’re both all about the people, above all else.
“Sorry? How many middle-, and especially lower-class, people do you know who can afford private schools?”
If they have vouchers: All of them.
See, that was your first incorrect assumption: That private schools and persona choice in school means you have to pay for it yourself. You don’t. Public schools are not free. They cost just as much money to run as private schools. They are just lower quality, because there is not competition. This is easily solved by privatizing all schools and paying for this by vouchers instead.
Voucher, you realize, is a liberal invention. Yes, really. Problem is that in the US the concept was first raised by republicans, and of course, all democrats decided that they should be against vouchers. That’s a stupid gut reaction of automatically hating everything that comes from the other camp.
Vouchers are a fantastic, liberal and liberating idea for fixing the school system. They have been implemented in some European countries with great success.
“Hospital visits without Medicare?”
I don’t know anybody who can afford hospitals without some sort of health insurance. Now, did I suggest that we outlaw health insurance, or scrap medicare? No, I didn’t. I’m for a universal health insurance. But you claimed profit making makes hospitals worse. They don’t.
“Who do you think would run our economy if our middle managers and skilled laborers were sick and incompetent?”
Why do you think capitalism requires middle managers, or for that matter “skilled labour”?
Capitalism is just private ownership + free markets.
Yes, modern *companies* (and society in general) work better with healthy people that are well educated (middle class or not). But that’s not “capitalism”, per se.
“Right – sorry about that, I forgot we already had King George (Bush) with his abuse of executive privilege.”
You are losing it.
“Yet, as philosophical ideals, they’re both all about the people, above all else.”
All political ideals are.
Oh no, not again. Sorry. Maybe I should rethink my effort to not talk politics under my real name.
“Sorry? How many middle-, and especially lower-class, people do you know who can afford private schools?”
If they have vouchers: All of them.
See, that was your first incorrect assumption: That private schools and persona choice in school means you have to pay for it yourself. You don’t. Public schools are not free. They cost just as much money to run as private schools. They are just lower quality, because there is not competition. This is easily solved by privatizing all schools and paying for this by vouchers instead.
Voucher, you realize, is a liberal invention. Yes, really. Problem is that in the US the concept was first raised by republicans, and of course, all democrats decided that they should be against vouchers. That’s a stupid gut reaction of automatically hating everything that comes from the other camp.
Vouchers are a fantastic, liberal and liberating idea for fixing the school system. They have been implemented in some European countries with great success.
“Hospital visits without Medicare?”
I don’t know anybody who can afford hospitals without some sort of health insurance. Now, did I suggest that we outlaw health insurance, or scrap medicare? No, I didn’t. I’m for a universal health insurance. But you claimed profit making makes hospitals worse. They don’t.
“Who do you think would run our economy if our middle managers and skilled laborers were sick and incompetent?”
Why do you think capitalism requires middle managers, or for that matter “skilled labour”?
Capitalism is just private ownership + free markets.
Yes, modern *companies* (and society in general) work better with healthy people that are well educated (middle class or not). But that’s not “capitalism”, per se.
“Right – sorry about that, I forgot we already had King George (Bush) with his abuse of executive privilege.”
You are losing it.
“Yet, as philosophical ideals, they’re both all about the people, above all else.”
All political ideals are.
“If they have vouchers: All of them.
See, that was your first incorrect assumption: That private schools and persona choice in school means you have to pay for it yourself.”
Ohhhh. Except that’s not privatizing – that subsidizing schools. Tax dollars – from the government, are still paying for it.
If you want me to not make false assumptions, you have to get your terminology correct.
“I don’t know anybody who can afford hospitals without some sort of health insurance. Now, did I suggest that we outlaw health insurance, or scrap medicare? No, I didn’t. I’m for a universal health insurance. But you claimed profit making makes hospitals worse. They don’t.”
True. But cutting the hospitals free from government support, and letting the invisible hand take over, would make them worse.
“Why do you think capitalism requires middle managers, or for that matter “skilled labour”?
Capitalism is just private ownership + free markets.
Yes, modern *companies* (and society in general) work better with healthy people that are well educated (middle class or not). But that’s not “capitalism”, per se.”
Yes, rephrase it however you like, but modern capitalism and society in general work better with healthy and educated people who are actually doing the hands-on work.
““Yet, as philosophical ideals, they’re both all about the people, above all else.” All political ideals are.”
No, not all. Go visit a dictatorship or monarchy.
“Ohhhh. Except that’s not privatizing – that subsidizing schools. Tax dollars – from the government, are still paying for it.”
So? The schools are still private. And if you take a public school and make it private, that’s privatizing. Or do you suggest another word for it?
“If you want me to not make false assumptions, you have to get your terminology correct.”
Well, that can be a bit hard if you have a secret “correct” terminology.
“True. But cutting the hospitals free from government support, and letting the invisible hand take over, would make them worse.”
More wrong assumptions: That goverment money is not “the invisible hand”. “The invisible hand” (I hate that wording) is what happens when people make individual choices on a free market. There is no requirement in this that the money has to come directly from your wallet. As long as you are allowed to choose the the money, the invisible hand is at play.
And we *want* the invisible hand to take over. Because the invisible hand is *us*. You and me. As opposed to when the state decides, which means that some official in a bureaucracy decides.
“Yes, rephrase it however you like, but modern capitalism and society in general work better with healthy and educated people who are actually doing the hands-on work.”
Well, sure. So, shouldn’t we make sure the health system and the education system are as good as possible and available to every one?
“““Yet, as philosophical ideals, they’re both all about the people, above all else.” All political ideals are.”
No, not all. Go visit a dictatorship or monarchy.”
I already have. I guess you don’t realize that few monarchies or dictatorships today are ruled by any sort of political ideal.
You said earlier:
That was in an attempt to argue for privatization of schools. Those examples aren’t subsidized. They have basic and luxury goods and services that they sell. If you don’t have the money for those goods and services, you don’t get them.
Schools and healthcare that are subsidized don’t fall into that category. People who otherwise can’t afford them will still get them. It’s not the Invisible Hand because government still steps in with a helping hand where it is needed.
These might be small differences to you, but they make an enormous difference to the people who couldn’t afford it without the government.
““The invisible hand” (I hate that wording) is what happens when people make individual choices on a free market. There is no requirement in this that the money has to come directly from your wallet.”
If you’d like, we could stop using the Invisible Hand metaphor. Sorry for using it. In any case:
“Well, sure. So, shouldn’t we make sure the health system and the education system are as good as possible and available to every one?”
Agreed.
I don’t know about you, but I’m having fun here. You’re clearly not the nutcase that I thought you were at first.
“That was in an attempt to argue for privatization of schools.”
No, it was a counter argument against your claim that schools should be public. In fact, it’s a “reductio ad absurdum”. Showing that your argument was absurd.
“People who otherwise can’t afford them will still get them. It’s not the Invisible Hand because government still steps in with a helping hand where it is needed.”
It’s still the invisible hand if people are allowed to choose on a free market. As mentioned, people choosing on a free marker *is* the invisible hand.
“These might be small differences to you, but they make an enormous difference to the people who couldn’t afford it without the government.”
No, they are not small differences to me. But you made a false assumption when you grouped them together with the issue of privatization. It’s a common false assumption, but it’s still false.
“If you’d like, we could stop using the Invisible Hand metaphor.”
It’s a deal!
“Well, sure. So, shouldn’t we make sure the health system and the education system are as good as possible and available to every one?”
Agreed.
Good. And how do we make sure they they are as good as possible? By having private companies competing on a free market. And how do we make sure they are available to everyone? By voucher systems and universal health insurance.
And this isn’t a weird pipe dream either. This has been tested, We know it works. I have seen it work.
“I don’t know about you, but I’m having fun here. You’re clearly not the nutcase that I thought you were at first.
”
Thanks, I guess.
I’ve got to tell you guy, I’m really amazed that you got so wound up.
You’re amazed? You put up a post full of all the thoughtless Right-wing talking points, and calling people like me (a liberal) communist, and you’re amazed that I got wound up? Yeah, I’ve been wound up and pissed off at the Right-wing bullshit machine for about 5-6 years now. Not that I liked politicians before that either, but it was never bad enough to get rip-roaring pissed off at before.
But, even though you started out with an insult to me and a mindless rant against liberalism, it turns out that when you explained your position a little bit more clearly, then I agreed with you. You were even persuasive.
So I guess my question is, why were you trying to insult instead of persuade from the beginning??
Here’s the thing, Dan. That comment about you guys getting so wound up was an attempt on my part to calm things down. It seems to have had the opposite effect on you.
I used to be just like you. There is an old saying, on my side of the political spectrum, a conservative is just a liberal who got mugged by reality. That’s pretty much what happened to me.
Incidentally, I really don’t consider myself a conservative. I only use that label because 99% of people in this country don’t know what classical liberalism is. I live by and for Age of Enlightenment thought and values.
I can’t speak for the others, but I’m not out to change your mind. Decades of arguing with modern liberals has shown me that this is an exercise in futility. I’m pushing 50 now, so I really don’t feel any obligation to waste my remaining time in a fruitless effort to save modern liberals from themselves.
My attitude on the whole thing can be summed up with a paraphrase of a famous Winston Churchill quote: If you’re not a liberal by the time your 15, then you have no heart; if you’re still a liberal at 30, then you have no brain.
Well, I don’t know about all of the permutations of modern liberalism, classical liberalism, etc. I generally take it as a matter of fact though that I’m left-leaning, hence I go with the term. More important though than the label, are the positions held by a person on important issues that their label conveys.
Anyway, it’s been fun.
If McCarty wasn’t already dead, I’d strangle him myself, for making the word “socialdemocrat” unusuable in the US. That’s what US “liberals” are. But making any political term starting with “social” equivalent to being a Sovjet spy meant that the socialdemocrats in US has to hijack the term “liberal”, although it has nothing to do with liberalism.
It’s so bloody annoying.
Can we invent a new word? Freedomism?
I see there is a major confusion between the “left” and the “right”. During the french revolution everyone who supported the monarchy was considered “right” while “left” was those who supported the revolution. Nazi, fascists, jihadists and conservatives are all considered “right” because like the french monarchy they believe in go back to earlier laws and having a strong government intent on preserving individual property. communists and anarchists are “left” because like the french revolutionaries, they believe in destroying old laws and the old government and divided property equally.
in my country a “republican” means someone against monarchy while a democrat is someone who is for democracy
“Nazi, fascists, jihadists and conservatives are all considered “right” because like the french monarchy they believe in go back to earlier laws and having a strong government intent on preserving individual property.”
Exactly. Exept, of course, that Nazis and fascists doens’t believe in going back to earlier laws and neither are they intent on preserving individual property.
Or, and of course, liberals were considered left far into the 20th century, and still are considered left in the US. Why? Because they opposed monarchy, and because they worked together with the socialists for democracy.
So, thanks for playing, but you are completely wrong. Sorry.
Nazis, fascists, conservatives and in Europe also liberals are seen as right, becuase socialism has put itself in the far left, and right is since long simply considered as the antithesis of socialism. The more socialists dislike you, the further right you are.
All this shows, of course, is how completely useless a concept that is based on where people sat in the french parliament 200 years ago is today.
Im trying really hard to figure out for the life of me why the world hasnt gone to a totally progressive liberal socialist model of government yet. Could it be that not everyone in the world is foolish and naive enough to believe this silly progressive liberal socialist crapola?
Yes the Natzi and Commie bastards have same goald at diametrically opposite corners…They are the same scumbag stentch…Than you for candore…Personally I will hold my nose and vote for McCaine… Long live Israel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know what, most right wingers are still scared of Soviet Russia. Particularly the fact that in 10 years it went from an agrarian society to one capable of developing nuclear weapons. Stalin was feared and respected, why they say when he entered a room, all rose in attention. Be very afraid, for people like me will make humanity go forward, whatever the cost, as did Iosif. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a million people, so that a BILLION can live to see tomorrow.
Please respond,
and know that people like me control this world, whatever the socio-economic system.
Dear Pimple-Faced White Teenaged Drop-Out Who Got His World-View from Network Television While Being Ignored by His Semi-retired Crack Whore Mother,
Oh, I’m sorry. Was that a bit too provocative? A little over the top? Quite a bit totally unnecessary?
Of course it was, though at least 50% of it is probably true. You can try to push my buttons all you want. I’m reasonably sure the intent of your post was to be outrageous and provoke a flailing angry response on my part. The only way you could have honestly meant any of what you said was if the only book you had ever read was a Soviet “history” book from the 1950s. If so, congratulations. Russian is a notoriously difficult language to master.
What I’m saying, in essence, is that no one is stupid enough to actually hold the views you profess. Not even you.
Stupid eh? I wonder why I have gotten very good grades so far. And I have just graduated from high school. my overall average was 80% (The average of 90s in the sciences and 70s in French language arts).
If you remember your biology classes, you’ll know that man traditionally lived in plains and jungles. He is still today, in fact, adapted for those conditions. In such an environment there was no need for rational thinking, intuition sufficed. However, mankind now lives in a very different environment. irrationalism is rampant; you can’t convince, much to Descartes misfortune, an individual through reason alone. He requires punishment, most unfortunately (and the fear of). In the words of Hank Hill : ” .. he had an anger problem…I have an idiot problem.”
Here are some modern works on the Soviet Union (Based upon the previously closed archives).
Andreev, EM, et al, Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. ISBN 5-02-013479-1 was published by the Russian Academy of Science and is available at the NY Public Library Slavic Studies division
Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071.
(P.S. Be respectful to Russians, the reason being Gazprom)
Just be clear, I’m no liberal.
This might help clear things up for everyone:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
dostrick, I’m simply amazed at people who take political party acronyms at face value. Especially when you purport to be condescending over it.
Ever heard of the DPRK? That would be the Democratic Republic of Korea. Guess which Korea it is? Don’t know? It’s North Korea. Yeah they’re Democratic alright, at least according to your line of thinking. Also, the “People’s Republic of China”, suggests that the people run that nation. Incorrect. Your theory is very poorly developed.
I must say I’m not at all surprised that a “conservative” would make the mistake of taking a political party at acronym face value rather than making critical observations of its ideals and its history. Conservatives tend to be closed minded and poorly educated, so I don’t hold it against you.
Also note that Hitler rose to power in part by calling his opponents “communists”, whether they were or not. And questioning their patriotism. As soon as he had enough people believing this, you were “with us or against us”, or you were dead. There’s a reason people refer to your line of thinking as trending toward “fascist.” It’s not because you killed millions of people in a death camp somewhere. It’s because you exhibit the same qualities that allowed someone like Hitler to rise to power in the first place.
It’s not hyperbole, it’s a measurable trait of attitudes that is worrisome to those that pay attention.
be makiread political parties literally. Especially when they suppose You note that NAZI says “socialist” in it, and by your very l\og
ic North Korea is guess what a democracy. Becaues they are
A small correction, I had omitted the word “People’s” from DPRK.