Question for the left and right:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Conservative and liberal are both RELATIVE words;
i.e., thay have meaning only insofar as thay relate to something else,
for instance, a rule, or a body of rules; perhaps some agreement.

You are thinking of process conservatives and liberals rather than ideological conservatives/liberals. Process is determined by your willingness to accept change and the direction you want the change to be in. In America someone who wants to change from capitalism to communism would be a liberal since capitalism is what we now have. But in Russia someone who opposed the change from communism (actually socialism) to capitalism would have been a conservative. But anyone in Russia that wants to return to communism now that capitalism has been the norm for almost 2 decades would properly be called a reactionary.

Quote:

Conservative means conserving, keeping; not varying from.
As in keeping your word.
Conservative means ORTHODOX or rigidly unvarying, unbending, not bending the rules
( whatever those rules may be; i.e., the subject matter of the conservation ).

In the tradition of Burke conservatives are willing to accept change when change is necessary for the sake of promoting justice and liberty. Conservatism isn't just about left and right, but also right and wrong.

Quote:

It makes sense to me to have a scale within which personal freedom and individualism are on one side and authoritarianism and collectivism are on the opposite side.

Thus my scale that has libertarianism on the far right and socialism on the far left. The further left you go the more the government mandates collectivism. The further right you go the less collectivization you are legally obligated to observe and the less collectivism you feel morally obligated to observe. I utterly reject the individualism of libertarians. Human society is based on cooperation- building irrigation canals along the Euphrates was never a one man job. Necessity dictates that neighbors help with each other's canals.

As a conservative I am in favor of a large amount of voluntary collectivism because it benefits society thereby helping to promote societal cohesion and stability- which discourages the need for change and as a conservative I abhor change. I am a big believer in the idea of noblise oblige(sp?). People who have the resources to help others and thereby improve society have a moral obligation to do so, but society has little right to take help by force.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Hmm, seems to be not so common, David, at least not among historians and in political sciences.

But on the other hand: I don't know what is taught at US-universities.

I only took one political science course in college and none of my history courses were really geared towards politics. But in a high school (Gymnasium auf Deutsch) history course I was taught:

Right to left is up down:

Reactionary, i.e., Fascist
Conservative
Centrist
Liberal
Socialist
Communist

But then I was also taught that European liberalism is American conservatism and historically speaking a reactionary wanted to go back to the time when the crown had absolute power because of divine right of kings- something that was never popular in Britain or the U.S. so it doesn't really exist on the American political spectrum.

0 Replies

While the Russians (aka, Soviet Union) had its history of anti-Semitic pogroms under the Czar, and Jews were considered a nationality, rather than Russians, doesn't anyone see the racial obsession of the Nazis as a feature of their entire political paradigm?

Also, the desire of the Nazis to expand their territory by military conquest. The use of the conquered nations' citizens as slave labor. This doesn't get included in a political paradigm?

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

But then I was also taught that European liberalism is American conservatism and historically speaking a reactionary wanted to go back to the time when the crown had absolute power because of divine right of kings- something that was never popular in Britain or the U.S. so it doesn't really exist on the American political spectrum.

That certainly is a .... well, narrow view.

At least it doesn't look at the history of European liberalism, and how it developped after WWII.

And as for the present time - only one of the Austrian liberal parties is considered to be far right, and may be the one or other elsehwere, too.

[Politival sciences was was my second subject besides law when studying history; and was a subject when studying social work as well.]

0 Replies

That's right, when you may not want to address a thought, ignore it:

Reiterated from my posting above:

While the Russians (aka, Soviet Union) had its history of anti-Semitic pogroms under the Czar, and Jews were considered a nationality, rather than Russians, doesn't anyone see the racial obsession of the Nazis as a feature of their entire political paradigm?

Also, the desire of the Nazis to expand their territory by military conquest. The use of the conquered nations' citizens as slave labor. This doesn't get included in a political paradigm?

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

You are thinking of process conservatives and liberals rather than ideological conservatives/liberals. Process is determined by your willingness to accept change and the direction you want the change to be in. In America someone who wants to change from capitalism to communism would be a liberal since capitalism is what we now have. But in Russia someone who opposed the change from communism (actually socialism) to capitalism would have been a conservative.

Thats true. One of the funny/interesting/odd things about Russian politics in the times of turmoil during Gorbachev's last years was that it was the hardline communists who were dubbed "the right", and the democratic/Western-oriented reformers who were dubbed "the left".

That's long been turned around again - by 2000 it was the party of pro-market, pro-Western liberals that called itself the "Rightists". But the use of the "conservative" label for the statist, nostalgic communist types and the "liberal" label for the pro-Western reformers has persisted longer.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Pertinent indeed!

If you are to suggest that the US should not have become involved in Iraq because Saddam did not represent a material threat to American citizens, then it follows that that Americans (of any stripe) should not have given a fig about the bogey-men of The Left like Saqmoza and Pinochet.

You can't have it both ways.

False equivalence.

To say that America shouldnt have started a war against Iraq because it did not pose a threat to the US is not the same as saying that it "shouldnt have given a fig" about anything Saddam did.

There's a lot of political as well as strategical options between "not giving a fig" and "starting a bloody war and invading the country".

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Pertinent indeed!

If you are to suggest that the US should not have become involved in Iraq because Saddam did not represent a material threat to American citizens, then it follows that that Americans (of any stripe) should not have given a fig about the bogey-men of The Left like Saqmoza and Pinochet.

You can't have it both ways.

False equivalence.

To say that America shouldnt have started a war against Iraq because it did not pose a threat to the US is not the same as saying that it "shouldnt have given a fig" about anything Saddam did.

There's a lot of political as well as strategical options between "not giving a fig" and "starting a bloody war and invading the country".

And how did the Magyars wind up with Hungary?

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

And how did the Magyars wind up with Hungary?

Not sure what your point is?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foofie wrote:
And how did the Magyars wind up with Hungary?

Not sure what your point is?

My point is humans have been occupying land that was occupied by prior occupants, thoughout recorded history, and likely before.

So, since everyone just about belongs to a group of "occupiers," I don't know how anyone can criticize current actions of the U.S. being somewhere they supposedly shouldn't be.

And, those historical occupations where likely not done peacefully, I'd guess. State-of-the-art bows, arrows, spears, swords, etc. were likely used. Peace on Earth is just a slogan for Christmas.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

So, since everyone just about belongs to a group of "occupiers," I don't know how anyone can criticize current actions of the U.S. being somewhere they supposedly shouldn't be.

Ah, so it was a "you did it too" kind of argument.

Well, aside from that being a children's playground argument, it's nothing more than a dodge - nothing more than an excuse to brush aside any criticism one is receiving. It would the work the same way the other way round: you can think of anything whatsoever you think Europeans are wrong about, and I would be able to find some example in recent or distant history that would allow me to say, "but you did it too!" But that wouldn't clarify anything, it wouldn't defend anything, it's just a dodge.

It's also a rather morally bankrupt kind of argument isnt it? I mean, especially if you go as far as including anything any of our ancestors did back to - when was it that the Magyars came to Hungary, a millennium ago? If you go back a thousand years, and then hold any of us accountable for anything any of those ancestors did, then yes, there is surely not a crime or misdemeanour of any size or brutality that any of us haven't done "ourselves" as well - so according to that logic, none of us has the right to criticize anyone else for anything whatsoever.

According to that logic, you wouldnt have been in any place to criticize Saddam for all his torture and brutality, or for trying to commit genocide on the Kurds, or for invading and occupying Kuwait -- after all, havent Americans done the same kind of thing hundreds of years ago themselves?

Nonsense, all, of course. When rulers of countries do things that are wrong, dangerous or downright inhuman, we are perfectly right to criticize them, we should criticize them, and debate on the best way to act against them. If we'd let past guilts prevent us from ever even criticizing warmongerers or dictators now, there would be no end to the amount of brutality.

0 Replies

Actually, the Magyars first appeared in the area of eastern Europe which would be known as Hungary as allies of the Roman Empire, when they fought the Bulgars along with the "Romans" of the Byzantine Empire in the late 9th century. (One need only read up on the Bulgaro-Byzantine War of the late 9th century--but the Bulgars fought the "Romans" almost constantly over centuries, as the "Kings" of the Bulgars sought to dominate the Empire, so when looking for "Bulgaro-Byzantine War," it's important to look at the dates--roughly 894-6.)

To that extent, the Magyars could be said to have been allies of Christianity and civilization. Then, early in the 10th century, the Magyars defeated first a Bavarian army near Pressburg (modern Bratislava), and a few years later, almost destroyed the army of Louis the Child at Augsburg in 910--he was the last Carolingian ruler of "East Francia," roughly Germany, which became the core of the soon to be proclaimed Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Given the behavior and "barbarian" origin of the Bavarians, the Franks, the Avars, the Bohemians, the Lombards, and all of the other mostly Germanic "nations" which suffered from the Magyar raids into what are now Germany, France and Italy, it's a toss-up who was the vicious barbarian and who was the defender of civilization.

Which, of course, is exactly the point Habibi is making--you can't tell the players without a score card, and every sonofabitch of 'em is on steroids.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foofie wrote:
So, since everyone just about belongs to a group of "occupiers," I don't know how anyone can criticize current actions of the U.S. being somewhere they supposedly shouldn't be.

Ah, so it was a "you did it too" kind of argument.

Well, aside from that being a children's playground argument, it's nothing more than a dodge - nothing more than an excuse to brush aside any criticism one is receiving. It would the work the same way the other way round: you can think of anything whatsoever you think Europeans are wrong about, and I would be able to find some example in recent or distant history that would allow me to say, "but you did it too!" But that wouldn't clarify anything, it wouldn't defend anything, it's just a dodge.

It's also a rather morally bankrupt kind of argument isnt it? I mean, especially if you go as far as including anything any of our ancestors did back to - when was it that the Magyars came to Hungary, a millennium ago? If you go back a thousand years, and then hold any of us accountable for anything any of those ancestors did, then yes, there is surely not a crime or misdemeanour of any size or brutality that any of us haven't done "ourselves" as well - so according to that logic, none of us has the right to criticize anyone else for anything whatsoever.

According to that logic, you wouldnt have been in any place to criticize Saddam for all his torture and brutality, or for trying to commit genocide on the Kurds, or for invading and occupying Kuwait -- after all, havent Americans done the same kind of thing hundreds of years ago themselves?

Nonsense, all, of course. When rulers of countries do things that are wrong, dangerous or downright inhuman, we are perfectly right to criticize them, we should criticize them, and debate on the best way to act against them. If we'd let past guilts prevent us from ever even criticizing warmongerers or dictators now, there would be no end to the amount of brutality.

I didn't explain my logic well.

Since most countries have some less than "noble" history, then it's not that no one can be criticized. Everyone CAN be criticized; however, don't expect someone to criticize his/her own country, since everyone on the timeline of history has dirty linen to ignore, so to speak.

My point was that if you believe that a millenium allows descendants of the Magyars to not criticize their own history (a millenium ago), don't expect an American to criticize his/her own "history in the making," just because he/she doesn't have the benefit/advantage of a millenium of history between that "current" history and today.

And, if you do feel the need to criticize America's "history in the making," don't be surprised if some people aren't inclined to listen, since I personally, will only take "constructive criticism" from someone who has "walked the walk, so they can talk the talk." I assume you have not lived in the U.S. as an American, in a heterogeneous society, that had a Vietnam, a civil rights movement, and other events over the past fifty years or so, quite different than the experience of someone living in Eastern Europe.

I wouldn't expect you to give a hoot about my opinion relative to the Hungarian Revolution against the Soviets. I didn't live it. It would be presumtuous of me to think I am as knowledgeable on that subject as someone who lived it.

0 Replies

I don't think nimh ever claimed to be knowledgable about the Hungarian revolution because he lived there - though the three or four (?) years he's in Hungary certainly might be an advantage.

This taking "constructive criticism" from someone who has "walked the walk, so they can talk the talk" must have brought you in a very uncommunitative situation - no presidental debates e.g. besides with those three former and the actual president, no discussions about historical facts from the past, foreign countries and parts of USA you haven't been to ...

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I don't think nimh ever claimed to be knowledgable about the Hungarian revolution because he lived there - though the three or four (?) years he's in Hungary certainly might be an advantage.

This taking "constructive criticism" from someone who has "walked the walk, so they can talk the talk" must have brought you in a very uncommunitative situation - no presidental debates e.g. besides with those three former and the actual president, no discussions about historical facts from the past, foreign countries and parts of USA you haven't been to ...

I was making only an analogy about the Hungarian Revolution.

But, yes, I wouldn't discuss politics with many people because they have a mindset very reflective of their own set of experiences and how well their biological computer (aka, brain) was programmed since infancy.

And, I tend not to get along with Europeans, as you probably already discerned.

0 Replies

foofie wrote :

Quote:

Everyone CAN be criticized; however, don't expect someone to criticize his/her own country, since everyone on the timeline of history has dirty linen to ignore, so to speak.

that's news to me . i see NO reason why i should not criticize my country and its government for any past or current misdeeds .
i'd go as far as saying : IT'S A CITIZEN'S DUTY TO CRITICIZE MISDEEDS OF IT'S OWN COUNTRY AND ITS GOVERMENT - particularly in a free and democratic country !
(or do we want to be like citizens of nazi-germany , the soviet-union or some other non-democratic countries ?)
hbg

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

But, yes, I wouldn't discuss politics with many people because they have a mindset very reflective of their own set of experiences and how well their biological computer (aka, brain) was programmed since infancy.

And, I tend not to get along with Europeans, as you probably already discerned.

So your comment that "I personally, will only take "constructive criticism" from someone who has "walked the walk, so they can talk the talk" is only valid for Europeans.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

foofie wrote :

Quote:
Everyone CAN be criticized; however, don't expect someone to criticize his/her own country, since everyone on the timeline of history has dirty linen to ignore, so to speak.

that's news to me . i see NO reason why i should not criticize my country and its government for any past or current misdeeds .
i'd go as far as saying : IT'S A CITIZEN'S DUTY TO CRITICIZE MISDEEDS OF IT'S OWN COUNTRY AND ITS GOVERMENT - particularly in a free and democratic country !
(or do we want to be like citizens of nazi-germany , the soviet-union or some other non-democratic countries ?)
hbg

I said, "don't expect someone to criticize his/her own country." "Don't expect" doesn't meant they shouldn't; it just means don't be surprised if everyone chooses not to criticize his/her own country.

Don't tell me "it's a citizen's duty to criticize misdeeds," since our only duty is to pay taxes and be law abiding. If one chooses to live a simple existence involved in simple things (e.g., coloring a coloring book), that is his/her right. Don't pontificate to be about being a U.S. citizen.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
But, yes, I wouldn't discuss politics with many people because they have a mindset very reflective of their own set of experiences and how well their biological computer (aka, brain) was programmed since infancy.

And, I tend not to get along with Europeans, as you probably already discerned.

So your comment that "I personally, will only take "constructive criticism" from someone who has "walked the walk, so they can talk the talk" is only valid for Europeans.

You left out much of the rest of the world that I don't care to listen to constructive criticism from, regarding the U.S. But, as long as you ask, Germany can be #1.

0 Replies

foofie wrote :

Quote:

Don't tell me "it's a citizen's duty to criticize misdeeds," since our only duty is to pay taxes and be law abiding.

there are LAWS enacted by government , but there are other laws , such as MORAL LAWS and the LAW OF COMMON DECENCY .
of course , no one disobeying MORAL LAWS or THE LAW OF COMMON DECENCY will ever be accused of a crime in a criminal court .
hbg

Quote:

Is it unpatriotic to criticize the behavior of one's own country? It depends on the meaning of patriotism. Socrates angered people by challenging them in public and exposing their ignorance. But he felt he was acting as a patriot by encouraging thoughtfulness over blind acceptance and celebration of government policies. In words attributed to him, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Like Socrates, Henry David Thoreau believed that citizens should tolerate nothing less from their government than the highest standards of behavior. He said, "Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform." Martin Luther King talked about moving "beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience."

THOREAU

0 Replies

Question for the left and right:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know