• "America is no longer a functioning democracy" - Ex President Jimmy Carter
    130 replies, posted
I think it is important to outline that the politcal spectrum isn't just a line from left to right, get far enough on either end and you arrive at more-a-less the same point. [img]http://thoughtsaloud.com/images/political_circle_small.jpg[/img] It's more of a cartesian grid. [img]http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41537689]I think it is important to outline that the politcal spectrum isn't just a line from left to right, get far enough on either end and you arrive at more-a-less the same point.[/QUOTE] I prefer the Horseshoe theory: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Political_spectrum_horseshoe_model.svg/250px-Political_spectrum_horseshoe_model.svg.png[/img] The center represents the views of the majority of the population. Far right represents those traditionally on the right that resemble religious cults. Far left represents those traditionally on the left that resemble religious cults. Also top kek at that cartesian graph. Objectivists are fucking loonies.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41537765]I prefer the Horseshoe theory: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Political_spectrum_horseshoe_model.svg/250px-Political_spectrum_horseshoe_model.svg.png[/img] The center represents the views of the majority of the population. Far right represents those traditionally on the right that resemble religious cults. Far left represents those traditionally on the left that resemble religious cults. Also top kek at that cartesian graph. Objectivists are fucking loonies.[/QUOTE] I don't know, it seems to me that the more left or right you get the closer you get to some abstract entity dictating your life. The only difference is that one is 'The State' and the other is 'The Corporation'. Centrism to me is synonymous with little to no authoritative influence. Like this: [IMG]http://i43.tinypic.com/2z4n70k.jpg[/IMG]
internet politics are p. gay, I bet there's no new revolutions only because now everyone is on the internet posting about politics without taking part.
[QUOTE=pentium;41527437]I take carter's word because of his titanium balls. He's the only president to venture into the site of a nuclear accident.[/QUOTE] He's probably one of the most well educated presidents the US has seen, if not the most. The whole peanut farmer thing you've probably heard about was more of a publicity thing than anything. Carter was during his presidency one of the most knowledgeable people in the country when it came to nuclear technologies. I remember hearing that he helped give the commands as to how people should handle a disaster, in a situation where normally a consultation would be needed without question.
[quote]No, my point is that the site is so far to the left that it counts the Labour Party as right wing. Depending on where you put the center, somebody is going to look either right or left wing. [/quote] Dude, if you're talking about the UK Labour party, they [i]are[/i] right wing. Or at the very best, centrist, since new Labour took over.
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;41540189]Dude, if you're talking about the UK Labour party, they [i]are[/i] right wing. Or at the very best, centrist, since new Labour took over.[/QUOTE] Labour is center left. Center right is tory.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;41533868] What i was arguing before was that USA largely missed the enlightenment era.[/QUOTE] what on earth are you saying lol the USA was founded on the bookend of the enlightenment [QUOTE=Bomimo;41533868]In europe, that was the transition from kings ruling by divine right, to kings ruling because they were competent and finally to different incarnations of democracies.[/QUOTE] ??? [editline]21st July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperorconor;41534057] European democracies and parliaments are more built on the traditions of Medieval politics. [/QUOTE] this is the most ridiculous shit i ever [editline]21st July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;41537689]I think it is important to outline that the politcal spectrum isn't just a line from left to right, get far enough on either end and you arrive at more-a-less the same point. [img]http://thoughtsaloud.com/images/political_circle_small.jpg[/img] [/QUOTE] anything spectrum that places communism, socialism, and fascism in the same place is completely useless [editline]21st July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;41537930]I don't know, it seems to me that the more left or right you get the closer you get to some abstract entity dictating your life. The only difference is that one is 'The State' and the other is 'The Corporation'.[/QUOTE] that doesnt make any sense
[QUOTE=thisispain;41540344]this is the most ridiculous shit i ever[/QUOTE] The British Parliament? Icelandic Parliament? Swedish Parliament? Those all had roots back to the middle ages. Certainly a lot of countries remained autocratic well into the 20th century, but that doesn't discount the fact that a lot of these institutions first appeared in the middle ages. There's also the Polish-Lithuanian Sejm, the Reichstag, the Swiss cantons, some early Russian republics, Althings in the Scandinavian world. There's many examples. [quote]anything spectrum that places communism, socialism, and fascism in the same place is completely useless[/quote] Communism is practically the same as Fascism, you just need to change a few nouns. The level of indoctrination and fantasy in their ideal societies is about the same. (Socialism is not so exclusive and some subsets of it are actually decent).
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41540666]The British Parliament? Icelandic Parliament? Swedish Parliament? Those all had roots back to the middle ages. Certainly a lot of countries remained autocratic well into the 20th century, but that doesn't discount the fact that a lot of these institutions first appeared in the middle ages.[/QUOTE] when it comes to names and ceremonial functions sure but they operate on completely different principles today, youd hardly find clerical and noble-men in our house of commons today the reforms and ideals of the modern age have far fAR more impact on our modern political system than any medieval tradition or ceremonial function [QUOTE=Emperorconor;41540666]Communism is practically the same as Fascism[/QUOTE] a classless and stateless ideology is the same as an ideology thats built upon the concept of a strong forceful state based on "class cooperation"? im not quite sure i see what youre saying
[QUOTE=thisispain;41540738]when it comes to names and ceremonial functions sure but they operate on completely different principles today, youd hardly find clerical and noble-men in our house of commons today the reforms and ideals of the modern age have far fAR more impact on our modern political system than any medieval tradition or ceremonial function[/quote] True, but the original post was about the Romans and Greeks. The Medieval tradition is stronger than the Roman/Greek one, especially in Northern Europe if you want to look for the origins of parliaments and democracy. [quote]a classless and stateless ideology is the same as an ideology thats built upon the concept of a strong forceful state based on "class cooperation"? im not quite sure i see what youre saying[/QUOTE] Both do electorally badly, tend to demand a high degree of orthodoxy and often have ideological splits every tuesday, both see the existing system of capitalism and/or democracy as fundamentally broken and advocate the creation of their ideal society to replace it. Every attempt thus far results in a few genocides and the new polity eventually rotting from the inside out.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41540770]True, but the original post was about the Romans and Greeks. The Medieval tradition is stronger than the Roman/Greek one, especially in Northern Europe if you want to look for the origins of parliaments and democracy.[/QUOTE] yeah youre both nuts [QUOTE=Emperorconor;41540770]Both do electorally badly, tend to demand a high degree of orthodoxy and often have ideological splits every tuesday[/QUOTE] you can argue the same of democratic republics as well, if thats your rationale for calling communism and fascism the same then i think youre confusing "spectrum" with just your opinion on whats an effective system theres a difference, i think [QUOTE=Emperorconor;41540770]both see the existing system of capitalism and/or democracy as fundamentally broken and advocate the creation of their ideal society to replace it.[/QUOTE] that's utterly wrong when it comes to communism at least. marxism at heart finds capitalism not to be fundamentally broken but rather unsustainable and there is a big difference there. marx never advocated for the creation of an ideal society, he was incredibly critical of utopian socialists. unless youre using communism in the same way north korea is called a communist state, if so then dont mind me when i call the united states a fascist state.
im p sure north korea is democratic socialist republic for the ppl
iive always thought sweden and north korea were ideologically similiar [editline]21st July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=daschnek;41536804]Dude, are you a PoliSci major? If not, you really should be, you always tend to clear things up about these matters. Enlightening post, Seed Eater.[/QUOTE] he sounds like my political science teacher ive probably cheated off of him
[QUOTE=thisispain;41540816]yeah youre both nuts[/quote] Do explain. [quote]you can argue the same of democratic republics as well, if thats your rationale for calling communism and fascism the same then i think youre confusing "spectrum" with just your opinion on whats an effective system[/quote] Normally in democratic societies multiple opinions and parties exist. Fascist/Communist nations struggle to stay together, and often punish dissenting opinions. [quote]that's utterly wrong when it comes to communism at least. marxism at heart finds capitalism not to be fundamentally broken but rather unsustainable and there is a big difference there. marx never advocated for the creation of an ideal society, he was incredibly critical of utopian socialists.[/quote] True, but his methods of analysis was flawed. He took existing economic knowledge of the day and developed it to its logical conclusion. However, his successors have done little to fundamentally develop his works further. Marx didn't understand marginalism, spontaneous order, or any other concepts in economics that haven't been around for relatively very long. [quote]unless youre using communism in the same way north korea is called a communist state, if so then dont mind me when i call the united states a fascist state.[/QUOTE] I'm using it in the same way NK or the USSR were termed Communist. The USA is not very fascist compared to Hitlers Germany though.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41540944] Normally in democratic societies multiple opinions and parties exist. Fascist/Communist nations struggle to stay together, and often punish dissenting opinions.[/QUOTE] but the point is that state repression and class cooperation is markedly anti-communist. a command economy doesnt make for a communist state. [QUOTE=Emperorconor;41540944]True, but his methods of analysis was flawed. He took existing economic knowledge of the day and developed it to its logical conclusion. However, his successors have done little to fundamentally develop his works further. Marx didn't understand marginalism, spontaneous order, or any other concepts in economics that haven't been around for relatively very long. [/QUOTE] marx's inability to argue effectively against marginalism is largely what killed marxist economics quite quickly anyway. but luckily for me i find economics incredibly boring [QUOTE=Emperorconor;41540944]I'm using it in the same way NK or the USSR were termed Communist. The USA is not very fascist compared to Hitlers Germany though.[/QUOTE] thats exactly my point, such terms are not useful when discussing political thought. describing the NK and the USSR as communist would be disinformation.
[QUOTE=thisispain;41541010]but the point is that state repression and class cooperation is markedly anti-communist. a command economy doesnt make for a communist state.[/quote] However, no communist revolution has yet to emerge, so all self-proclaimed communist states are really just oxymorons. [quote]marx's inability to argue effectively against marginalism is largely what killed marxist economics quite quickly anyway. but luckily for me i find economics incredibly boring[/quote] I find it quite fascinating. It helps to shine a bright light to show how the world operates and manages to eviscerate practically every weirdos pet theory of humans as well. [quote]thats exactly my point, such terms are not useful when discussing political thought. describing the NK and the USSR as communist would be disinformation.[/QUOTE] I describe them both as autocratic anyways. What is termed "True communismâ„¢" has never been observed, and existing economic thought leads me to suspect that the preconditions will never arise. Existing communes meanwhile, always end up at an disadvantage in the long run because capitalism tends to quickly outpace them.
well anyone who proclaims that any nation would be heading towards socialism would be kidding themselves. with the death of the world labour movement theres no rational alternative to capitalism anymore
-snip- fukken router stop breaking down in the middle of debates
Jimmy Carter fucked everything up with all the houses for the poor business, but he hit the nail right on the head.
Everyone had these strange and somewhat batshit wrong charts posted before so I decided to be one of the cool kids and went ahead and made my own strange and somewhat batshit insane/wrong chart to determine whether or not I think you're a good person. [thumb]http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/9894/cxhj.png[/thumb]
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;41541350]Everyone had these strange and somewhat batshit wrong charts posted before so I decided to be one of the cool kids and went ahead and made my own strange and somewhat batshit insane/wrong chart to determine whether or not I think you're a good person. [thumb]http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/9894/cxhj.png[/thumb][/QUOTE] this is utterly unreadable, also isn't separating things into 'good/not good' kind of immature and not the way the world works?
[QUOTE=Generic Monk;41544053]this is utterly unreadable, also isn't separating things into 'good/not good' kind of immature and not the way the world works?[/QUOTE] Never said the chart wasn't batshit insane or wrong, I just did it out of boredom because everyone else was posting strange charts that muddled up the political/economic spectrum entirely. It's more so a list of the things I hate and the things I agree with. And I don't give a shit about moral relativity, if you are morally ambiguous or grey you might as well be black to me.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;41544186]Never said the chart wasn't batshit insane or wrong, I just did it out of boredom because everyone else was posting strange charts that muddled up the political/economic spectrum entirely. It's more so a list of the things I hate and the things I agree with. And I don't give a shit about moral relativity, if you are morally ambiguous or grey you might as well be black to me.[/QUOTE] If somebody supports some policies you support, but not all of them, does this make them bad?
I mean, I couldn't give two shits if separating things into black and white is immature. I can't stand anyone who is ambiguous, anyway, and I hate raunchy or ultra-extroverted people (part of practically every trait listed in the black zone), so it is easier to just throw them all in the same bin.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;41544241]I can't stand anyone who is ambiguous[/QUOTE] Maybe their minds haven't been made up? Maybe they support things for different reasons? Maybe they don't go to an extreme because they aren't bothered about politics?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41544303]Maybe their minds haven't been made up? Maybe they support things for different reasons? Maybe they don't go to an extreme because they aren't bothered about politics?[/QUOTE] Black, black, white (since they don't have any negative traits and don't have a good chance of gaining negative traits if they don't care about any of it). Which is pretty hypocritical of me since I was talking about oppressed groups sucking it up and working together regardless of their differences in the other thread, but then again, I can afford to be a counterintuitive dickhead since I'm not fighting against the patriarchy or transphobia.
Eisenhower warned about the Military-Industrial complex, no one listened. It won't surprise me if most people just say "meh" to what Carter is saying. The US is like a dinosaur slowly sinking into the tar pits.
[QUOTE=thisispain;41540816]yeah youre both nuts[/QUOTE] I'm also still waiting on the explanation as to why European parliaments and democratic traditions weren't Medieval in origin as opposed to Roman/Greek.
[QUOTE=sgman91;41527390]I really don't get what the big deal is about the Snowden leak. I always just assumed the government collected tons more data than we thought. Of course this might come from my inherent distrust in all government.[/QUOTE] There's a massive difference between assuming and knowing with proof.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.