Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are 100% wrong. The left is about creating a 2 tier society - the governing and the governed, the latter having some possible sub-groups distinguished by race or ethnicity. There are no "far right" dictatorships, simply because the farther you go "right", the more like libertarians you get, and the idea of a libertarian dictator is an oxymoron.
The left is obsessed with race, ethnicity, and "class" - and enforcing the stereotypes.
There is no communist society that set out to create 2 classes of people, whether in reality or in theory. It always ends up that way, but the object of communism is egalitarianism, which always gets perverted by human imperfections.
Also, you are totally wrong with "the farther you go right, the more libertarian you get." Modern American libertarianism doesn't fall on a normal left-right spectrum. The left-right concept is really a circle, the further left or right you go, you end up in the same place: statism. It's more like a circle.
Totalitarianism can exist in either flavor, it's just about the mechanism used to achieve and retain it. It's naive to think that right wing politics cannot lead to dictatorships, and that only left wing politics can.
Most European royal families were right wing dictatorships, when you consider how they operated, and they were class based societies.
Exactly. They are all big government statists, but there are clean distinctions between left and right wing dictatorships. I despise totalitarianism in all forms, but I'd rather live in Spain during Franco, than Russia during Stalin. But that's just me.
So why do libertarians/conservatives rally behind is ideals when they're first to call anybody a socialist if they dear bring up any liberal idea?
Gee- I don't know. Maybe it's the same reason some folks use 6 exclamation points when one would do?
Orwell was scared of big government, period. He saw it coming from both political sides at the same time.
And he was correct, at least in part. Perpetual war has never stopped so far, and still seems to be as useful a political device as ever. Whoever Big Brother was, and whichever philosophy he followed, would be proud if he actually existed and was still living.
Exactly. They are all big government statists, but there are clean distinctions between left and right wing dictatorships. I despise totalitarianism in all forms, but I'd rather live in Spain during Franco, than Russia during Stalin. But that's just me.
I don't think you would have liked Franco. He was more paranoid than Stalin, who was massively paranoid, and both were very quick to execute their true believers as the first to die.
Franco actually preferred the garrote to the bullet, an particularly cruel and particularly Spanish means of execution that the rest of Europe had abandoned centuries earlier. That's the reason most Nationalists saved their last bullet for themselves.
Hitler admired the garrote. He used it on the Generals who tried to pull the coup. He learned a thing or two from Franco, including filming the executions of his underlings for private pleasure later on.
Totalitarianism can exist in either flavor, it's just about the mechanism used to achieve and retain it. It's naive to think that right wing politics cannot lead to dictatorships, and that only left wing politics can.
Most European royal families were right wing dictatorships, when you consider how they operated, and they were class based societies.
I agree. Fascism is not restricted to a single ideology. Both left-wing and right-wing ideologues can be fascist. Augusto Pinochet was indeed a right-wing fascist. As was Francisco Franco of Spain. While Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler are examples of left-wing fascists.
So why do libertarians/conservatives rally behind is ideals when they're first to call anybody a socialist if they dear bring up any liberal idea?
Because he was anti-communist. They rally behind his ideas about totalitarian left wing states. Just because he was naive about economics doesn't mean he didn't have good things to say about any areas of statistism.
I think you didn't study the book enough if you think 1984 is representative of a far left society. There are purposely 2+ classes of people in that novella from the outset of the book which is totally indicative of nearly every far-right dictator ship.
In animal farm, classes occur "accidentally" the same way it happens in communism. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." That is totally a far left premise.
In 1984, it is blatantly obvious from the beginning of the book that the societal structure is purposely multiple classes of people with different rights and treatments by the governing body.
How are multiple classes of people, different rights and special treatment by government not ear markers of a Communist society?
Far-right and far-left are essentially the same thing. It's basically a circle that wraps back around, once you go too far one way, you wind up reaching the other side.
1984 is BOTH far-right and far-left; It's far-right in the endless war/pro-military aspect and far-left in the spying/control of information aspect.
Same with Animal Farm - it starts out going far-left with communism and then eventually reaches far-right with segregation based on race/class/etc.
Arguing which was "better" - Franco or Stalin? lol, they were both equally awful because they both went too far in their ideological directions that they ended up in the exact same place: the land in between far-left and far-right which takes the worst of both and the best of neither. I'd call this "totalitarianism".
I would argue that libertarianism is the opposite of that - it sits in the middle of right/left (on the exact other side of the circle), taking the best and rejecting the worst of both.
Totalitarianism is the "in between" far-right and far-left. Libertarianism is the "in between" centrist-left and centrist-right.
It looks like this:
< Totalitarianism - Left - Libertarianism - Right - Totalitarianism >
How are multiple classes of people, different rights and special treatment by government not ear markers of a Communist society?
Because it's not intentional. The whole point of insulting communism is to watch how everyone starts equal, but unintentionally, human imperfection drives communism to a class society with a rich and poor class.
In right-wing dictatorships, from the outset, there are different classes of people and the ruling body has no problem admitting it because it isn't a requirement for a right wing dictatorship to function (theoretically). Communism, however, is supposed to be based on equality but you see with "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others," it almost automatically fails from the beginning
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
