After years of struggling to find an American political party that I felt represented the best interests of the people and the country with regard to economic welfare and international relationships. . . I finally bit the bullet and submitted an application for membership to the Communist Party USA (dues will be payed upon my acceptance). And, dammit, for the first time in years I feel pretty good about being affiliated with a political party.
Somewhere out there John Morrow feels a disturbance in the force :D
Regards,
David R
My favorite political party would be one that served refreshments....and possibly had some dancing.
- Ed C.
Quote from: jdrakehAfter years of struggling to find an American political party that I felt represented the best interests of the people and the country with regard to economic welfare and international relationships. . . I finally bit the bullet and submitted an application for membership to the Communist Party USA (dues will be payed upon my acceptance). And, dammit, for the first time in years I feel pretty good about being affiliated with a political party.
So, do you still get a free subscription to People's Weekly World when you join?
Quote from: jdrakehAfter years of struggling to find an American political party that I felt represented the best interests of the people and the country with regard to economic welfare and international relationships. . . I finally bit the bullet and submitted an application for membership to the Communist Party USA (dues will be payed upon my acceptance). And, dammit, for the first time in years I feel pretty good about being affiliated with a political party.
(http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/comcomic.jpg)
Seriously, while I dont agree with your ideology. Its good you found a party that fits for you.
Quote from: Mr. ChristopherSo, do you still get a free subscription to People's Weekly World when you join?
I believe that you get a discount on physical subscriptions (they also have an e-zine).
Bizarre. Well, good luck, comrade.
(snark) While you're in the mood to join hopelessly outdated and failed ideological systems, why not also check out Zoroastrianism - I understand its doing a booming business in the religion arena. (/snark)
But if its what you feel, then best of luck to you.
edit: And since when do you need to fill out an application to be accepted into a political party? What, they're afraid of getting too big?
Quote from: WerekoalaWhile you're in the mood to join hopelessly outdated and failed ideological systems....
...such as liberalism....
Quote from: droog...such as liberalism....
True, but liberals have the advantage of being easy to swindle.
Quote from: KoltarMy favorite political party would be one that served refreshments....and possibly had some dancing.
- Ed C.
(http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/gallery/d/4901-2/Commies_.gif)
Add some Commie WOMEN to that and some dancing girls and you might have a spark of interest.
- Ed C.
Fuckin' commie mutant tratiors.
Quote from: jeff37923True, but liberals have the advantage of being easy to swindle.
I think droog meant "liberalism" in the 19th century economic liberalism sense, nowadays known as "neo-cons". Of course, they're easy to swindle, too. Greedy people always are, their greed overwhelms their common sense.
No, liberalism as a doctrine can be traced to Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Neo-liberalism is one contemporary manifestation stemming from the end of the long post-WWII boom.
Communist women:
(http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr61_files/rosa_luxembourg.jpg)
Rosa Luxembourg
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/AlexandraKollontai.jpg/250px-AlexandraKollontai.jpg)
Alexandra Kollontai
(http://humanflowerproject.com/images/uploads/clarazetkin.jpg)
Clara Zetkin
(http://www.leksikon.org/images/marx_jenny.jpg)
Jenny Marx
Not forgetting Octobriana
(http://www.bryan-talbot.com/Images/gallery14/octobriana.jpg)
Ahh... nothing like joining thoroughly discredited, intellectually dishonest and downright repulsive political movements... but hey, the good thing about living in a free world is your right to throw in your lot with a slimy band of fuckers, after all! :keke:
Quote from: MelanAhh... nothing like joining thoroughly discredited, intellectually dishonest and downright repulsive political movements... but hey, the good thing about living in a free world is your right to throw in your lot with a slimy band of fuckers, after all! :keke:
This reads like a recruitment poster for Republicans :haw:
Quote from: Werekoala(snark) While you're in the mood to join hopelessly outdated and failed ideological systems, why not also check out Zoroastrianism - I understand its doing a booming business in the religion arena. (/snark)
Hey, I've already tried Democracy. Why not branch out into other outdated and failed ideological systems, right? ;)
Quote from: Werekoala(snark) While you're in the mood to join hopelessly outdated and failed ideological systems, why not also check out Zoroastrianism - I understand its doing a booming business in the religion arena. (/snark)
But... fire is such a
good thing.
Well, 'democracy' isn't an ideology. It's a contested term referring to the way in which you organise your political system. Liberal democracy isn't the same thing as the original version, which is also different from the idea of democracy that informs a one-party state.
'Liberalism' is the underpinning ideology of the capitalist state, at least traditionally, though developments in the 20th century seem to indicate that the association is contingent.
Quote from: droogWell, 'democracy' isn't an ideology.
Classically, no. As represented by most US politicians, though, it's very much an ideology ;)
Well, yes, that's got some truth to it. Sartre might have called it 'bad faith', on the other hand.
Quote from: droogWell, yes, that's got some truth to it. Sartre might have called it 'bad faith', on the other hand.
Well, Sartre had a lot of funny ideas about life.
Quote from: jdrakehThis reads like a recruitment poster for Republicans :haw:
Well... yes. Yes it does! :keke:
James, do you mind if I ask what appealed to you in the CPUSA's program?
Quote from: MelanWell... yes. Yes it does! :keke:
And democrats...
Hey man, you want to let the government decide what's best? Go for it. And when you find out how that system fares, let me know, will you? Oh wait...we already know...nevermind ;)
I'm curious. After the communists win the politcal majority - will the rest of us still be allowed to choose a different political party? Or will we all just be communists as it's for our own good? :p
Seriously though..what was it that made you think "Yeah - this is the set of ideas I want to see implemented." And that's honestly asked regardless of the preceding kidding...
Quote from: droogJames, do you mind if I ask what appealed to you in the CPUSA's program?
Damn you droog..beat me to it.
I blame the morphine....
Quote from: Werekoala(snark) While you're in the mood to join hopelessly outdated and failed ideological systems, why not also check out Zoroastrianism - I understand its doing a booming business in the religion arena. (/snark)
The world's 200000 or so Parsees might disagree with you on that one...
RPGPundit
Quote from: droogJames, do you mind if I ask what appealed to you in the CPUSA's program?
Two things that the 'Big Two' political parties in America lack:
1. Solidarity. In-fighting amongst party members in the CPUSA seems to be nearly non-existent. In both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, elections and political platforms tend to be more about the pursuit of individual ideals and goals than the pursuit of party (or
public) goals and ideals. That seems to be defeating the idea of government by the people in the longterm and promoting self-serving greed in the moment.
2. A clear vision for the future. While I don't think the wholesale replacement of capitalism with socialism is realistic, the goals of the party are both clearly stated and being pursued by all within the party. I couldn't nail down a clear plan for the future within
any other American political party (and, believe me, I've tried to just that for years now). The fact that the CPUSA has clearly stated goals is singularly amazing to me.
Those are the main reasons. That said, I also believe that capitalism is a failed experiment in placing the welfare of the individual above the welfare of the whole, which is something that I do not agree with on general principle.
Basically, I think that it's time I tried something different and, for the two reasons outlined above, the CPUSA seemed like the best option. The fact that they have much the same views on capitalism that I do only sealed the deal.
Communists can be pretty prone to schisms. The CPUSA is Marxist-Leninist (in name) and M-L tends to be pretty fucking sectarian (the Mensheviks, frex). Solidarity is more of an ideal than a reality on the left.
Quote from: Kyle AaronI think droog meant "liberalism" in the 19th century economic liberalism sense, nowadays known as "neo-cons". Of course, they're easy to swindle, too. Greedy people always are, their greed overwhelms their common sense.
Did I mention that may current favorite British TV import is
Hu$tle?
Quote from: PseudoephedrineCommunists can be pretty prone to schisms. The CPUSA is Marxist-Leninist (in name) and M-L tends to be pretty fucking sectarian (the Mensheviks, frex). Solidarity is more of an ideal than a reality on the left.
That may be, though it seems to be an ideal more realized than any held by the reigning political parties in the US.
You want a party that argues amongst itself just by a natural extension of what it represents, try Libertarianism. Here's what it comes down to:
1. Leave me the fuck alone.
2. Grow the fuck up and start taking some responsibility.
Naturally, finding 2 Libertarians who agree about anything beyond that (perhaps because of that) is very, very difficult. :)
Quote from: RPGPunditThe world's 200000 or so Parsees might disagree with you
200,000 eh? They could get together with the Communists and have a pretty decent week-long summer concert somewhere.
Quote from: jdrakehTwo things that the 'Big Two' political parties in America lack:
1. Solidarity. In-fighting amongst party members in the CPUSA seems to be nearly non-existent. In both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, elections and political platforms tend to be more about the pursuit of individual ideals and goals than the pursuit of party (or public) goals and ideals. That seems to be defeating the idea of government by the people in the longterm and promoting self-serving greed in the moment.
2. A clear vision for the future. While I don't think the wholesale replacement of capitalism with socialism is realistic, the goals of the party are both clearly stated and being pursued by all within the party. I couldn't nail down a clear plan for the future within any other American political party (and, believe me, I've tried to just that for years now). The fact that the CPUSA has clearly stated goals is singularly amazing to me.
Soooo..... you want to join with a handful of single-minded fanatics trying to reach a goal that you, yourself, don't believe is achievable.
Again, have you tried religion? There are many good cults out there these days.
(I'm about 1/2 joking, of course, but I just cannot fathom anyone joining the Communist Party in this day and age. Its so... 1950s.)
I thought the Communist party were outlawed in the US?
Quote from: StumpydaveI thought the Communist party were outlawed in the US?
These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire...:p
On a serious note yes they were. But I think things in the laws that do so have been changed or lessened. If not just outright ignored now. Not to men tion just because it was outlawed doesnt mean they went away. They just went underground so to speak.
Heres some links on it.
Communist Control Act of 1954 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act)
McCarran Internal Security Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversive_Activities_Control_Act)
Quote from: jdrakehTwo things that the 'Big Two' political parties in America lack:
1. Solidarity. In-fighting amongst party members in the CPUSA seems to be nearly non-existent. In both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, elections and political platforms tend to be more about the pursuit of individual ideals and goals than the pursuit of party (or public) goals and ideals. That seems to be defeating the idea of government by the people in the longterm and promoting self-serving greed in the moment.
2. A clear vision for the future. While I don't think the wholesale replacement of capitalism with socialism is realistic, the goals of the party are both clearly stated and being pursued by all within the party. I couldn't nail down a clear plan for the future within any other American political party (and, believe me, I've tried to just that for years now). The fact that the CPUSA has clearly stated goals is singularly amazing to me.
Those are the main reasons. That said, I also believe that capitalism is a failed experiment in placing the welfare of the individual above the welfare of the whole, which is something that I do not agree with on general principle.
Basically, I think that it's time I tried something different and, for the two reasons outlined above, the CPUSA seemed like the best option. The fact that they have much the same views on capitalism that I do only sealed the deal.
with all due respect for you and your right to make the decision Mr. Hargrove:
I would submit that the above bolded part is the reason you joined the CPUSA. And quite frankly, it makes all the sense in the world if that's your perspective. The numbered items you called out seem to be more like rationalizations. What I mean is, if you found a party that had no infighting and a clear vision for the future, but was pro-capitalist, would you have joined that one?
Seems to me, and no offense intended, that you're looking at it backwards. The political party you want to join would be one that shares with you the political ideas most important to you. Then you narrow that down by the next things like party unity and clarity of message/vision. Putting unity and vision over actual ideas seems...somehow odd to me.
And this is why I say your choice makes all the sense in the world for you. It seems that your over-arching goal is to have a socialist state. That leaves you with very few true choices.
Which, of course, leads me to the question - who else would be on that list? I get the CPUSA, given your proclivities, but what other parties would een be considered?
jdrakeh, forget the Communist party, join up with the Socialists, they're more realistic. Not to mention being a Communistic in America probably means that your opinion will be held in the same standing as donkey poo.
Socialism (Democratic Socialism) is spreading worldwide, eventually America will fall to it's might. :rolleyes:
There's the Socialist Party USA, which claims descent from Eugene Debbs' Socialist Party (he's the guy that won a million votes for president while serving a prison term for protesting against the government during WWI). Anyway, SPUSA's platform is firmly anti-capitalist and anti-aggression, while maintaining an unwavering insistence upon grassroots participatory democracy and social justice. And it does so without the Marxist-Leninist dogma that I believe to be detrimental to the socialist movement in general (i.e. something rightly referred to as outmoded, and which therefore reflects badly on the rest of us).
Does anyone else know anything about SPUSA? I've been considering joining for some time now, but it looks like I might be the only person in my corner of the country. There seems to be a lot of overlap with the Green Party, but the Socialists are overtly and radically anti-capitalist, whereas the Greens are more moderate/reformist in that respect (although they are more numerous and get more votes). In any case, we need more viable parties opposing each other if we want to even approximate some form of democracy in this country.
Not much, but a few kids always show up with some of their literature every Saturday for the art show/open house they have Downtown in Heartside all the time. Last week they were anti Star Bucks or something.
The website if you don't have it is here (http://sp-usa.org/). I think that's the place.
Quote from: MelanAhh... nothing like joining thoroughly discredited, intellectually dishonest and downright repulsive political movements... but hey, the good thing about living in a free world is your right to throw in your lot with a slimy band of fuckers, after all! :keke:
Er, he didn't join the Republican or Democratic party or anything. Cut the man some slack.
Communist regimes managed to only kill approximately 100 million people during the 20th century.
So hey, I guess they deserve a second chance...
:insane:
Quote from: Werekoala... why not also check out Zoroastrianism ...
It's impossible to 'join' Zoroastrianism. You have to be born into it.
Quote from: AkrasiaIt's impossible to 'join' Zoroastrianism. You have to be born into it.
Sure, sure, that's what Jesus said about Christianity. :haw:
But there's a first time for everything.
I'd posit the problem with communist regimes is not the communism itslef, but rather the dictatorships communist revolutions inevitably turn into. Marxist communism's problem isn't that it proscribes a leader like Stalin, but rather that it imagines that once the state is removed the need for the state will die. This, of course, presupposes that the state is ever really removed in the first place.
Then again, I'm chairperson of the American Divine Right Party so what do I know?
There's also the Trotskyist Socialist Equality Party (SEP). They publish the World Socialist Website (http://www.wsws.org/). A former colleague of mine writes for them.
Quote from: AkrasiaIt's impossible to 'join' Zoroastrianism. You have to be born into it.
That's not true of all forms of Zoroastrianism. There have been a few converts to it over time.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Thanatos02Er, he didn't join the Republican or Democratic party or anything. Cut the man some slack.
Melan's Hungarian. They weren't well-served by Marxist-Leninism, to say the least. His annoyance is understandable.
And yeah, it is worth pointing out that there are plenty of alternatives on the left that don't make you join in solidarity with a bunch of mass murdering bastards. Maoism and Marxist-Leninism do though.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineMelan's Hungarian. They weren't well-served by Marxist-Leninism, to say the least. His annoyance is understandable.
I'd say it was the Russians they weren't well-served by.
Quote from: droogI'd say it was the Russians they weren't well-served by.
It's like blaming democracy for all the trouble caused by American mischief...I mean foreign policy.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: PseudoephedrineMelan's Hungarian. They weren't well-served by Marxist-Leninism, to say the least. His annoyance is understandable.
To tell the truth, I am more amused than annoyed. As long as it is harmless and
consensual, stupidity is funny. Moreover, as I wrote, being allowed to join a different party than an officially mandated one by virtue of democracy is seven kinds of ironic. Not as delightful as turning communist propaganda into an honest capitalist enterprise (http://www.szoborpark.hu/index.php?Lang=en), but close enough.
Quote from: droogI'd say it was the Russians they weren't well-served by.
The domestic Marxist-Leninists and Stalinists weren't much better. Both schools of thought had already become ideologies, and in doing so, shaped the Russian and Hungarian historical situation, the motivations of the individuals and masses involved, and the means by which they could interact with one another.
Quote from: David RIt's like blaming democracy for all the trouble caused by American mischief...I mean foreign policy.
Regards,
David R
Democracy isn't a system of thought like Marxist-Leninism is. However, America's "civil religion" is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion
http://web.archive.org/web/20050306124338/http://www.robertbellah.com/articles_5.htm
The American government has done many things based on its civil religion. The War of 1812 is one I'm particularly familiar with as a Canuck, but even into the modern day, the justifications provided for Iraq and Afghanistan come from it.
The trick is that your beliefs are part of your motivation to behave a certain way. Having Marxist-Leninist beliefs instead of American civil religion beliefs changes how one is motivated to act. In fact, that's one of the goals of Marxist thought - to provide people with a belief structure not beholden to bourgeois concerns so that they will act in a way that is not as awful as the bourgeois.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineDemocracy isn't a system of thought like Marxist-Leninism is. However, America's "civil religion" is.
Perhaps I should have said American style democracy... Democracy = America...is the perception out there (something the US cultivates or attempts to),even though nearly every democratic country in the world has their own particular brand. So when reality settles in after foreign policy has done it's work (in the service of democracy, or so we're told) there's a tendency to blame democracy (however one defines it) as a whole rather than the self interest of a particular nation.
Edit: I get the sinking feeling that we are talking past each other here Pseudoephedrine...I was commenting about the perceptions rather than the actual ideologies themselves.
Regards,
David R
I think the perceptions, if they aren't simply delusions and therefore of no real merit, must arise from the underlying structures of thought.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineI think the perceptions, if they aren't simply delusions and therefore of no real merit, must arise from the underlying structures of thought.
Whatever.... Is there a quote generator on the web that spits stuff out like that ??
Communism is BAD, Fascism is BAD as well
Quote from: KoltarWhatever.... Is there a quote generator on the web that spits stuff out like that ??
Communism is BAD, Fascism is BAD as well
QuoteKoltar wrote here:
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=121286#post121286
Capitalism is the natural friend of Freedom and democracy.
To restate: Fascism and communism ? They're both BAD.
GOOD = Hugs, making out and a good movie on a saturday night.
Underlying structures of thought or delusion :raise:
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David RUnderlying structures of thought or delusion?
Or possibly, ignorance. He is a product of the American school system, after all.
A nice guy, but not a
well-educated nice guy.
Actually, well educated.
- Ed C.
Most everyone thinks they're well-educated.
Then, Koltar, you're not expressing your education in your posts. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying absurd things about capitalism being the natural friend of freedom and democracy, or other absurd things about climate change, etc.
Did you read the link about the United Fruit Company? Of course not. Same as you didn't read the ones I've pointed you to on other topics. You've not shown an interest in public affairs, history or economics, Koltar, and if you've an education about them, have not shown it here.
I believe what people show, Koltar. You do not show a good general education any more than RPGPundit shows that he once used to write good essays using logical arguments backed by references.
Jesus, Kyle, you sure do know how to treat people.
For a guy who authored Cheetoism and pushes the idea that inter-personal issues are important around a game table, you are one holier-than-thou asshole.
What education have you shown - that you can read articles and call people names? United Fruit Company? Global Warming? And then you speak as if anything you've just said to assert that Koltar isn't a Deep, Important Thinker (tm) - like yourself - isn't shallow, politically correct, self-important pap.
Perhaps Koltar doesn't need to communicate it any deeper than he does. Perhaps it's his way of saying "Anything deeper is superfluous." The fact that you think it absurd to assert that Capitalism and Democracy are naturally related does not make it true - it makes it your opinion.
So please stop tossing around your opinions as if they were some self-evident Truth that everyone who is anyone just knows to be the case. Or is that just typically Australian?
Quote from: KoltarActually, well educated.
Yeah? Well then explain
why either communism or fascism are "BAD". You don't even have to do both, just one or the other. No more platitudes in hopes of seeming like a nice, reasonable sort of guy. If you're going to make cornfed assertions like you have been, at least have the nerve to back them up with a reason.
!i!
Quote from: James J SkachPerhaps Koltar doesn't need to communicate it any deeper than he does. Perhaps it's his way of saying "Anything deeper is superfluous." The fact that you think it absurd to assert that Capitalism and Democracy are naturally related does not make it true - it makes it your opinion.
James, Koltar didn't assert that Capitalism & Democracy are naturally related, what he said was:
QuoteCapitalism is the natural friend of Freedom and democracy
Furthermore he's always making snide remarks about the content/style of Pseudoephedrines posts. I may have been wrong to drag what he said on another thread here...but since he posted a comment here, I thought it appropriate. Koltar has a history of making statements which could be construed as ignorant .
Edit: Everybody is of course entitled to his/her opinion but some believe that everyone is entitled to his/her informed opinion. Perhaps Kyle belongs in the latter category.
Regards,
David R
Sorry - can't confirm or correct or deny . That forum does not have a usable search function. Plus, Tangemcy is not on 'this forum".
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarSorry - can't confirm or correct or deny . That forum does not have a usable search function. Plus, Tangemcy is not on 'this forum".
- Ed C.
Fair enough Koltar, I withdraw that comment.
Regards,
David R
G'ah!
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaG'ah!
!i!
Ian, if you'd like evidence that either communism or fascism is bad, then all you have to do is read a good history text. Or better yet, talk to some of the people who lived through being governed by a communist or fascist regime - I'd bet money that the individual citizens of the former USSR would have plenty of subjective and personal reasons to tell you why the communist system sucked to be under.
Hey, no shit. I have some Ukranian friends who are quite vocal on the issue, and a number of Chinese friends who are less vocal, but quite firm when discussing the issue. I don't need to be edumacated on the matter. What I want is to see Koltar pony up and support an opinion for once, instead of spouting "look what a nice guy I am" platitudes. "Communism is BAD because that's what I was always told growing up and I never really bothered to give it much more thought, now let's talk about something we can all agree on, like making out with cute girls" doesn't cut the mustard.
!i!
Quote from: David REverybody is of course entitled to his/her opinion but some believe that everyone is entitled to his/her informed opinion. Perhaps Kyle belongs in the latter category.
I'd say, rather, that everyone's entitled to their opinion, but if it's an uniformed opinion, they should not complain when informed people sort them out, and if they
claim it's an informed opinion, they ought to show it.
I don't know a damned thing about different models of cars. So if I express an opinion on this or that one being good or bad, I have got to expect that someone is going to sort me out on that. And if I say, "actually I'm well-educated about cars", then obviously people are going to expect me to show it. So if I say I'm well-educated about cars and then start talking about the Ford Civic and its V8 engine, then people will naturally start to have doubts about my claims of being well-educated about cars. And they will scorn and mock me, and rightly so.
Quote from: Kyle AaronOr possibly, ignorance. He is a product of the American school system, after all.
On this particular topic? The Australian school system is no better.
QuoteA nice guy, but not a well-educated nice guy.
Again, on this particular topic, education is irrelevant. Most schools don't provide a detailed coverage of comparitive socio-political systems. And it's not something you're likely to cover at University unless you take an Arts degree.
If you happen to have a superior knowledge on this topic than others, then it is because you have chosen to pursue it as a matter of personal interest. Calling someone poorly educated because they have not chosen to do the same is unfair.
Maybe we can't say he's poorly-educated about different social systems and histories, but we also can't say he's well-educated. And being well-educated was what he claimed.
As to the quality of Aussie schools, what can I say but you can't judge the whole country from Darwin :p
Quote from: Kyle AaronMaybe we can't say he's poorly-educated about different social systems and histories, but we also can't say he's well-educated. And being well-educated was what he claimed.
As to the quality of Aussie schools, what can I say but you can't judge the whole country from Darwin :p
C'mon Kyle - you're great and judging entire countries from small bits of knowledge about amll bits of the country!
He claimed to be well-educated. You may have inferred he meant in this subject - he might have implied it. I could also see him saying, in very few words, what T Funk is saying - well educated is not measured by detailed knowledge of of socio-economic systems.
Quote from: Tyberious FunkMost schools don't provide a detailed coverage of comparitive socio-political systems.
In America (or Middle-America, anyhow) most public schools
certainly don't. Growing up in Kansas, for instance, I can confirm that McCarthy's 1950s anti-communist propoganda forms the central pillar of that state's examination of socio-political systems in public education. And the Bible, of course, forms the central pillar of its physical 'science' programs (though that is a rant best reserved for another thread) :rolleyes:
Quote from: James J SkachC'mon Kyle - you're great and judging entire countries from small bits of knowledge about amll bits of the country!
He claimed to be well-educated. You may have inferred he meant in this subject - he might have implied it. I could also see him saying, in very few words, what T Funk is saying - well educated is not measured by detailed knowledge of of socio-economic systems.
Perhaps if the most one's knowledge can contribute to the conversation is alerting everyone that "Fascism is BAD (http://brantai.googlepages.com/4mbmqa9.gif)" after 5+ pages of discussion, one should expect to catch a little flak.
Quote from: BrantaiPerhaps if the most one's knowledge can contribute to the conversation is alerting everyone that "Fascism is BAD (http://brantai.googlepages.com/4mbmqa9.gif)" after 5+ pages of discussion, one should expect to catch a little flak.
"Fascism is BAD" is probably the only thing everyone agrees upon, though.
Are you sure? Or is it just "Swastikas and goose-stepping is bad"?
Like I said, there's a lot of it about.
Indeed. Our political processes are fascist insofar as they develop because of aesthetic considerations rather than political ones. And yet, everyone in America wants to vote for Obama, and Canadians idolise Pierre Trudeau, and of course, Che shirts are found in every protest.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrineeveryone in America wants to vote for Obama
Your generalization is so off base, its giving me a gigglefit. I think you haven't been seeing the forest for the trees on that one.
Any of the major candidates then. Every politician in America must run their campaign in such a way that it is aesthetically pleasing, even if that aesthetic concern overpowers the actual political concerns at stake.
...Well the ongoing joke on another forum would be that I want to vote for Condi Rice - just to see her on TV more often . But thats just a bit of fun.
Obama ? He's too young . Its early for him.
Not a communist and still decided who I'm going to vote for - Hell I have over a year to decide.
- Ed C.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineAny of the major candidates then. Every politician in America must run their campaign in such a way that it is aesthetically pleasing, even if that aesthetic concern overpowers the actual political concerns at stake.
For fuck's sake, in the last major election one of the candidates was basically ruined because the media didn't like a yell he made at a rally.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineAny of the major candidates then.
Every post that you make in this vein shoots a giant hole in any credibility you may trying to establish. I know a great many people who are not communists, simply realistic (and therefore disallusioned) Americans who don't want to vote for
any of the established candidates specifically because none of them have a clearly defined platform past "Beat the other party!" (which apparently doesn't seem like a goal worthy of support). Also, I'm not certain that Obama openly admitting to smoking crack is what most people would describe as "aesthetically pleasing" in terms of running an untarnished campaign.
I think the biggest problem here isn't whichever outmoded political idealogy people subscribe to but the fact that Koltar fancies Condoleeza Rice?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Condoleezza_Rice.jpg/200px-Condoleezza_Rice.jpg)
Ignoring her politics - she looks like the anorexic love child of Oprah and a crocodile. Seriously, anyone with that many teeth ain't human.
Quote from: Stumpydave(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Condoleezza_Rice.jpg/200px-Condoleezza_Rice.jpg)
Is it just me, or does her head look dispropotionate when compared to the rest of her body?
She's better-lookin' than Dubya.
But hey, he's a man, so his actual politics matter.
Ah, we've come so far... so many, many steps! Each one towards Xeno's Paradox.
Quote from: Tyberious Funk"Fascism is BAD" is probably the only thing everyone agrees upon, though.
I dunno, man -- I'm sure there are some people out there going, "no, no, no, you un-educated, simplistic moron: the *Germans* screwed up Fascism... the Italian *implementation* of Fascism was BAD... but the underlying ideology is wonderful."
It's the same thing they're saying about communism, right? Sure every actual communist state has been a totalitarian nightmare with millions killed and millions more enslaved--but why should anyone judge an ideology based on how it actually plays out?
Especially if there's no chance of that judgment making a real difference in American politics (it's not like the communist party is ready to stage a comeback or anything).
Truth be told, I've never been entirely happy with the electoral choices I've had -- but when I had my chance to protest, I'd like to think I at least made it count... so for anyone who's looking for an alternative, I'll give you my advice:
Perot in 2008!
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: jdrakehEvery post that you make in this vein shoots a giant hole in any credibility you may trying to establish. I know a great many people who are not communists, simply realistic (and therefore disallusioned) Americans who don't want to vote for any of the established candidates specifically because none of them have a clearly defined platform past "Beat the other party!" (which apparently doesn't seem like a goal worthy of support). Also, I'm not certain that Obama openly admitting to smoking crack is what most people would describe as "aesthetically pleasing" in terms of running an untarnished campaign.
You're looking only at a superficial level here. I'm talking about how no candidate could stand a chance of winning the presidential election without TV commercials, a relatively polished public presentation, a suitable narrative, engineered mass spectacles to drum up support, etc. It's theatre masquerading as politics. For example, whether Obama smoked crack or not is irrelevant to what he is going to do in office.
Edit: Here, for example, is a well-respected American political web magazine posting about a YouTube contest. It very clearly shows how aesthetic considerations triumph over politics:
http://www.slate.com/id/2171005
Quote from: jdrakehIs it just me, or does her head look dispropotionate when compared to the rest of her body?
I've had the (needs a word that is neither supportive nor dismissive) of meeting her. She's like, five feet tall. Most people that size look like their heads are too big.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou're looking only at a superficial level here. I'm talking about how no candidate could stand a chance of winning the presidential election without TV commercials, a relatively polished public presentation, a suitable narrative, engineered mass spectacles to drum up support, etc. It's theatre masquerading as politics. For example, whether Obama smoked crack or not is irrelevant to what he is going to do in office.
Good lord man, politics has been about popularity, perception, and strange bedfellows since Plato was a Greek. The only thing new is the technology and how it is applied.
Quote from: jeff37923Good lord man, politics has been about popularity, perception, and strange bedfellows since Plato was a Greek. The only thing new is the technology and how it is applied.
That's being ahistorical, at best.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat's being ahistorical, at best.
NO - he's being historically accurate.
Even the Romans whined about popularity contests and politics.
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarNO - he's being historically accurate.
Even the Romans whined about popularity contests and politics.
- Ed C.
The means, the situations, the concerns, and the discourses were very different, and can only be made to seem analogous or identical only by slapping vacuous labels or expressions like "they were concerned with popularity" that say nothing concrete about either us or them.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe means, the situations, the concerns, and the discourses were very different, and can only be made to seem analogous or identical only by slapping vacuous labels or expressions like "they were concerned with popularity" that say nothing concrete about either us or them.
Would you mind fully sharing the thought process that brought you to this conclusion?
It is the sheer mass of differences that does it. I'll list only a few:
1) American politicians do not raise and equip private armies, then engage in wars of conquest and bring the slaves home for sale as a way of boosting their popularity. Roman politicians did not make television commercials nor consult opinion polls.
2) Americans do not go to honour their patrons each morning, forming into a line where priority is established by reference to social class, with slaves and metics at the rear and plebs behind patricians. There are no slaves, metics, plebs and patricians, and the concerns of these groups do not match up with any modern groups. Frex, what is Barack Obama's opinion of how to improve grain imports through the Ostia?
3) How many American politicians need to fear angry mobs chasing them into the capitol or nearby church and then flinging roof tiles at them until they are stoned dead? How many American politicians need fear being torn to pieces by an angry mob? How many of them need to fear being assassinated by their fellow politicians (not just some lone nutter)? Conversely, how many Roman politicians had to worry about campaign financing laws, or selecting an effective campaign manager? How many Roman politicians had party discipline enforced on them?
There's more yet. It should be no surprise to us that two periods in time separated by almost two thousand years (my examples are almost all from the Republic, not the Empire, for the sake of fairness) should be completely different from one another. Once again, if we go beyond the most vacuous general statements and actually try to say something meaningful and concrete about the two situations, we find analogies much more difficult, and identity impossible to establish.
Edit: Another classic: How many American politicians have to shape their policies to account for the fact that the entire population will walk away if they don't get it right? The Romans did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessio
Ah, yes. The lone nutter. We never have political assassinations in this country. Just lone nutters.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine1) American politicians do not raise and equip private armies, then engage in wars of conquest and bring the slaves home for sale as a way of boosting their popularity. Roman politicians did not make television commercials nor consult opinion polls.
Although both American and Roman politicians hired people to promote themselves in the media of the day - poets and playwrites in Rome and Bloggers and Internet Sites in America.
Quote from: pseudoephedrine2) Americans do not go to honour their patrons each morning, forming into a line where priority is established by reference to social class, with slaves and metics at the rear and plebs behind patricians. There are no slaves, metics, plebs and patricians, and the concerns of these groups do not match up with any modern groups. Frex, what is Barack Obama's opinion of how to improve grain imports through the Ostia?
However, many democratic presidential hopefuls in the US are attending a convention sponsored by the Daily Kos which also funds and provides media support for the democratic party. I'm pretty sure that the attendees will be formed up based upon social class during the event because we wouldn't want The Common Man to be upstaging any of the potential candidates.
EDIT: Almost forgot, there was that little back-stabbing series of comments between Edwards and Clinton about getting rid of the "lesser candidates" in their own party a couple of weeks ago. Tell me that isn't a form of class warfare.
Quote from: pseudoephedrine3) How many American politicians need to fear angry mobs chasing them into the capitol or nearby church and then flinging roof tiles at them until they are stoned dead? How many American politicians need fear being torn to pieces by an angry mob? How many of them need to fear being assassinated by their fellow politicians (not just some lone nutter)? Conversely, how many Roman politicians had to worry about campaign financing laws, or selecting an effective campaign manager? How many Roman politicians had party discipline enforced on them?
Interestingly enough, many of the democratic party are afraid of the backlash that would entail from ignoring the wishes of the far-left democratic supporters like Move-On.org. Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have already run afoul of these past patrons.
Politicians have in the past and still do today worry about their popularity and public perception because in an elected democracy, that is what threatens their chances of re-election and thus their power. Issues such as defense, the economy, moral standards, and laws have always been argued over and always shall. Only the technology changes.
In all those examples, you're eliding everything concrete and determinate about them that can tell us anything interesting or useful or insightful, in order to utter vague abstractions that suppress the very things they claim to describe.
How is Virgil's Aenead like a Barack Obama commercial? What similarity in either content or form can you point to in order to establish an invariant statement like the ones you're trying to argue for?
Quote from: PseudoephedrineIn all those examples, you're eliding everything concrete and determinate about them that can tell us anything interesting or useful or insightful, in order to utter vague abstractions that suppress the very things they claim to describe.
That was probably the most verbose way I've ever read of someone putting their hands over their ears and going, "Lalalalalalalala!! I'm not hearing what you are saying!!" :raise:
That's not what I'm doing.
Once again, show me some sort of similarity or identity rather than just asserting that there is one and avoiding details about how. Here, I'll even make it easy for you:
Gaius Julius Caesar wrote the Gallic Wars about how he conducted his war in Gaul. Winston Churchill wrote "The Second World War" about how he conducted World War 2. What similarities are there between how the two men used the circulation of these texts to their advantage?
Saying "Hillary said Dennis Kucinich is distracting from the real candidates. That's similar to the Gracchi being assassinated," is just fucking nonsense. But that's what you just said (perhaps not knowingly) when you claimed that Clinton engaged in "class warfare" just like the Romans did.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat's not what I'm doing.
Sure it ain't.
Obviously when you start talking about specifics the situations are different because they happened at different times in different nations, but when you look at history you can find that there are a repetition of situations and general circumstances that become common to all civilizations because they are composed of human beings. You are insisting on picking out specific differences instead of seeing the commonalities which I am bringing up because it would cause you to admit that maybe the point I have been trying to make - that politics has always been about popularity, perception, and strange bedfellows - is actually valid.
Quote from: jeff37923Sure it ain't.
.......that politics has always been about popularity, perception, and strange bedfellows - is actually valid.
Yeah - you posted that thought about a page and half ago and Pseudophedrine ignored or didn't agree with you then too. Just it took Pseudo several overly-wordy paragraphs to say that.
Jeff , you're making more sense than PseudoP is.
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarJeff , you're making more sense than PseudoP is.
- Ed C.
Fuck.
Me making sense.
If that's not a sign of the Apocalypse, then I don't know what is.
:D :D :haw: :haw:
Quote from: jeff37923Obviously when you start talking about specifics the situations are different because they happened at different times in different nations, but when you look at history you can find that there are a repetition of situations and general circumstances that become common to all civilizations because they are composed of human beings.
Which kinda is an ad absurdum argument. If you just simplify enough, repetitions will abound.
Quote from: SosthenesWhich kinda is an ad absurdum argument. If you just simplify enough, repetitions will abound.
Exactly.
To be fair to jeff, the opposite is true. You can always find a difference if you want to by delving down into detail. It simply depends on at what level of granularity you agree to have the discussion.
Quote from: SosthenesWhich kinda is an ad absurdum argument. If you just simplify enough, repetitions will abound.
Yet it makes sense because the original statement, "that politics has always been about perception, popularity, and strange bedfellows" should indicate by context the level of granulaity to the reader. This is a statement on generalities, obviously. So, also obviously, it will break down when the granulaity of the discussion is high, even though the generality is still valid.
It's hard to get more general than with a statement like that. Using that as a rule, I could take the structure of a cannibalistic prehistoric tribe and apply it to UN politics. The analysis that I'd gain by such an argument is as minimal as the comparison is general, but I'm able to attach all kinds of laden associations to the subject at hand.
Quote from: jeff37923Yet it makes sense because the original statement, "that politics has always been about perception, popularity, and strange bedfellows" should indicate by context the level of granulaity to the reader. This is a statement on generalities, obviously. So, also obviously, it will break down when the granulaity of the discussion is high, even though the generality is still valid.
How is it sound? You haven't proven or demonstrated it, just asserted it. I'm not sure it's even capable of being proved.
Jeff is more right than Pseudo gives him credit for; however this just shows that modern politics, in particular American politics, are less evolved than might be supposed given a general back-slapping belief in progress. Theatre has always been a big factor in politics; the Augustan revolution did have overtones that are echoed in modern fascisms (such as a backwards-looking ideology designed to form & exploit a "national" consciousness in support of political power, concentration of state power--which means a prerequisite is that there be a state--in a single person who draws legitimacy in the name of "the people" rather than traditional kingship, use of the state military--a distinct institution from the citizenry per se--as final guarantor of the dictator's power).
And by the way, Churchill also wrote The River War, reporting first-hand on the anti-Mahdist expedition in the Sudan, highlighting a cavalry skirmish he got himself into during the Battle of Omdurman, and he thrust himself into the Boer War as a correspondent and officer; he launched his early political career off of these experiences and his accounts thereof.
If you want to talk about American politics being fascistic in the abstract, you also have to speak in terms of tendencies and degrees of similarity (and then you really have to define fascism carefully), because we aren't there yet, not by a long shot.
Quote from: David RSomewhere out there John Morrow feels a disturbance in the force :D
Maybe this explains why I wandered back here when I had some free time...
Congratulations James. A broader vista of discourse is the only hope for democracy. Communism espouses some very high and worthy goals, though I've always felt that the idealism behind it makes it an easy target for dictators.
But then I would argue that Fascism survived World War II and is the primary American social doctrine.
That way I can keep my starry eyed capitalist idealism.