Embarrassed Republicans Admit They've Been Thinking Of Eisenhower Whole Time
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:46:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Embarrassed Republicans Admit They've Been Thinking Of Eisenhower Whole Time
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Embarrassed Republicans Admit They've Been Thinking Of Eisenhower Whole Time  (Read 3227 times)
LBJ Revivalist
ModerateDemocrat1990
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 799


Political Matrix
E: -5.87, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2011, 08:18:14 AM »

And from the looks of this Ike liked FDR, at least enough to sit next to him on a plane.

Ike didn't just work for FDR, he was his homeboy.

In point of fact FDR was a fine conservative or 'liberal' in the accurate sense, and all the nincompoops who worship Ayn Rand and join Tea Parties should be worshiping him for saving their precious system of exploitation.

Everything he built is being destroyed.
WE'RE GOING BACK TO 1880!

From a Marxisant perspective, FDR can be condemned for one of two central reasons. Either he was a stooge for capitalists who tricked the workers into believing their interests can vie with those of elites who possess the means of production - thus mitigating the threat of workers realizing their plight and fighting for socialism - or he was genuinely leftist but naive to think he could defeat capitalist interests without fully destroying the system that empowers them. Those who advocate far right policies are a long-term threat to capitalism's survival whereas "third way," social liberal, and social democratic types are desirable because they can fool the proletariat into thinking capitalism is beneficial for workers. In this sense, ironically, FDR and DDE were better guardians of the system than Tea Partiers will ever be.

Or did I read into what Opebo was getting at in the wrong way?

Leftists are not Marxists. Do not attempt to use our ideology and it's achievements for your ends. Liberalism is perhaps midway path, between Socialism and Laissez-Faire Capitalism--But there is nothing inherently wrong with the Capitalist system, with the system of free enterprise--so long as there are regulations looking over it, a safety net for those who have need of it, and the government's hand in crucial areas like education and health. The kind of system advocated by TR, FDR, LBJ, etc, is a fine system which takes the best of both Capitalist and Socialist principles. I believe both pure Socialism and pure Laissez-Faire Capitalism are just as ugly and destructive, and are both extremist systems.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2011, 10:48:40 AM »
« Edited: February 24, 2011, 10:51:47 AM by Cathcon »

So Liberalism is now Centrism?

Way I though it was...

Economics
 
Anarchy             Conservatism                        Liberalism             Commies, etc.
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
   Right                                                                                                          Left 
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,403
Colombia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2011, 11:15:00 AM »

Economics
 
Anarchy             Conservatism                        Liberalism             Commies, etc.
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
   Right                                                                                                          Left 


Oh, Dear Lord, spare me.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2011, 11:16:07 AM »

Economics
 
Anarchy             Conservatism                        Liberalism             Commies, etc.
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
   Right                                                                                                          Left 


Oh, Dear Lord, spare me.

"Conservatism" Cheesy, lol
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 24, 2011, 11:19:20 AM »


Best to leave your pretentious quips at home, Franzl.  Some of us are trying to learn political science here.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2011, 11:40:33 AM »


Best to leave your pretentious quips at home, Franzl.  Some of us are trying to learn political science here.

Your highly qualified opinions would be welcome. Tongue
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2011, 12:45:45 PM »
« Edited: February 24, 2011, 12:54:17 PM by angus »


Best to leave your pretentious quips at home, Franzl.  Some of us are trying to learn political science here.

Your highly qualified opinions would be welcome. Tongue

It's a good point though.  Classic Liberalism is to the right of center.  And "conservatism" implies a value system, whereas you are looking only at economic ideology.  Some posters here use "statism" versus "individualism" as the goalposts.  I usually talk about "libertarians" and "socialists" as opposites.  There are many terms floating around out there.  


Yes, in many contexts putting "liberal" at the balance point is orthodox and legitimate.  Here's an example of a fairly academic set of labels by one analyst.  Note the use of "Liberal" at the center:

http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/politicalspectrum.shtml

Obviously the profusion of labels--and the fact that they are used differently in different contexts and by different writers--causes much confusion.  This is probably why the writers of the little tests like Political Compass and Political Matrix have given up on such terms, and gone strictly to numeric labels.  The tests have many weaknesses, but at least their identifying labels are clear.  I may not know what "conservatism" or "liberalism" means, but I do know where two numbers lie, relative to one another, on a number line.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 24, 2011, 03:47:54 PM »

In point of fact FDR was a fine conservative or 'liberal' in the accurate sense, and all the nincompoops who worship Ayn Rand and join Tea Parties should be worshiping him for saving their precious system of exploitation.

Everything he built is being destroyed.
WE'RE GOING BACK TO 1880!

From a Marxisant perspective, FDR can be condemned for one of two central reasons...

Or did I read into what Opebo was getting at in the wrong way?

No sir, Redalgo, you read me exactly correctly, and put my point better than I could have, diligent lad!
Logged
LBJ Revivalist
ModerateDemocrat1990
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 799


Political Matrix
E: -5.87, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 24, 2011, 05:47:01 PM »

In point of fact FDR was a fine conservative or 'liberal' in the accurate sense, and all the nincompoops who worship Ayn Rand and join Tea Parties should be worshiping him for saving their precious system of exploitation.

Everything he built is being destroyed.
WE'RE GOING BACK TO 1880!

From a Marxisant perspective, FDR can be condemned for one of two central reasons...

Or did I read into what Opebo was getting at in the wrong way?

No sir, Redalgo, you read me exactly correctly, and put my point better than I could have, diligent lad!

Why is Capitalism considered a bad thing?
I agree that having Capitalism be unfettered as in the Gilded Age can and would be incredibly destructive,  and IMO would also be a moral wrong. It creates a system of deep economic inequality, and opens the door to the abuse and misuse of middle and lower class people by the upper closes. But pure Socialism in other ways no matter--it's very concept that everyone should be rendered economically equal not simply in theory, but in practice, goes against our competitive nature, and while on paper it's a nice system, as we've seen in history, in practice it leads only to totalitarianism.
That's why I look at Liberalism--Liberalism meant here in the economic sense as in the policies of TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, etc--as a great midway between the two, the best of both systems and a system that has sustained us for over 100 years.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 25, 2011, 06:02:20 AM »
« Edited: February 25, 2011, 06:05:54 AM by Redalgo »

Leftists are not Marxists. Do not attempt to use our ideology and it's achievements for your ends. Liberalism is perhaps midway path, between Socialism and Laissez-Faire Capitalism--But there is nothing inherently wrong with the Capitalist system, with the system of free enterprise--so long as there are regulations looking over it, a safety net for those who have need of it, and the government's hand in crucial areas like education and health. The kind of system advocated by TR, FDR, LBJ, etc, is a fine system which takes the best of both Capitalist and Socialist principles. I believe both pure Socialism and pure Laissez-Faire Capitalism are just as ugly and destructive, and are both extremist systems.

It is why I began with the words, "From a Marxisant perspective," since I have shifted from the left to centre-left over the past few years. I consider social liberalism a centrist ideology in terms of economics and generally have a similar attitude, but also think a better balance is found in social democracy... though I am certainly still comparing options.



Best to leave your pretentious quips at home, Franzl.  Some of us are trying to learn political science here.

Your highly qualified opinions would be welcome. Tongue

Well, if you replaced anarchy with reactionism and communism with radicalism you would have a decent chart applicable to any culture for comparing political attitudes instead of economics.

If you want to make one for political-economy you'll have to come up with a different layout because anarchy can be communist, "conservatism" in the way you used it is actually a part of liberalism, and at the very least liberalism is separated from communism by social democracy and democratic socialism. Also, there is mercantilism to account for which is highly capitalist yet has a state that is eager to interfere with and even guide the economy. Yeah?


It's a good point though.  Classic Liberalism is to the right of center.  And "conservatism" implies a value system, whereas you are looking only at economic ideology.  Some posters here use "statism" versus "individualism" as the goalposts.  I usually talk about "libertarians" and "socialists" as opposites.  There are many terms floating around out there.

That would be problematic however, because libertarianism can be socialist.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2011, 08:42:47 AM »

So Liberalism is now Centrism?

Way I though it was...

Economics
 
Anarchy             Conservatism                        Liberalism             Commies, etc.
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
   Right                                                                                                          Left 


Oh God.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2011, 03:41:44 PM »
« Edited: February 25, 2011, 03:51:29 PM by Redalgo »


Well for starters, it has a tendency to redistribute wealth from workers to those who own the means of production. The fruits of labor are not all retained by the worker. A socialist will look at a handsomely paid employer and see someone who exploits those below him or her in the company. Such a person could be seen as a parasite gaming the system for personal gain in a way quite similar to how many on the right perceive welfare recipients. That isn't to say we should get equal pay for unequal work - merely that under capitalism people generally do not receive what they have truly earned for their labors. Capitalism is also an undemocratic way to run an economy, can leave externalities unaddressed, and entrenches strong incentives for people in business to shrug off the question, "Is this ethical?" Some but not all of these things are highly objectionable to me.

These factors don't make the system inherently bad, but can be reasons to consider it as such.


But pure Socialism in other ways no matter--it's very concept that everyone should be rendered economically equal not simply in theory, but in practice, goes against our competitive nature, and while on paper it's a nice system, as we've seen in history, in practice it leads only to totalitarianism.

The 20th century saw experiments of socialism, but many of these were perversions of what they were supposed to develop into. Totalitarianism and other non-democratic regimes have demonstrated their compatibility with capitalism and socialism alike. I think the problems are in the institutions, how the system is established, and whether a culture is compatible with the ideology being implemented in the first place.

It is difficult to find whether socialism can achieve better results than in the past because instead of trying out new ideas or adapting old ones that were once marginalized by both the right and far left, hundreds of millions of people have been rendered ignorant about and prejudiced against socialism. This has happened due in large part to the actions of certain factions that were, and oftentimes still are, unrepresentative of all who adhere to the broader ideology.

A double-standard is in place; people are willing to forgive atrocities in capitalist societies as being the result of bad policies under individual regimes but when atrocities occur in socialist societies it is often held up to be evidence that no form of socialism under any government could turn out to be commendable. That mentality is to be expected in a society where almost everyone is raised in an environment steeped with praise for liberalism and bias against most of its alternatives.

I am more of the inclination that economic engines of capitalism and socialism can both run satisfactorily well if they are wisely designed, fabricated, installed, operated, and maintained.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 11 queries.