On May 08 2012 11:41 ulan-bat wrote: I may not be up to par on economics and stuff, but I don't see France "dying" as some have claimed here. Be it because of Hollande/left wing policies or anything else. You'd have to define what a country dying is for starters. But anyway, whatever the policy, people won't just forget all their knowledge, infrastructures won't just collaspe, etc. A country's lifetime isn't a bee's one. Sarkozy didn't quite get it. A country, especially one with socialist roots and a people involved in politics, is a big-ass machinery that should be driven with long-term vision. Sarkozy said France got through the crisis thanks to his courage ("bravery" as Geiko said), when it's only because of its social model, the very model the right is trying to pick appart.
On the same topic, people shocked by pictures with foreign flags and non-white guys should blame Hollande. HE made those people appear out of his hat, gave them french nationality the next second and built crappy neighbourhood the same night. You have the right to view this state of affairs as a danger or a problem for France, but even then you'll have to remember who ruled the country since 1995.
I totally agree with you. I also agree with Biff The Understudy(also nice Deleuze's quote btw).
To all the people that misunderstood what I said in my post about the war, I was talking about Nationalism, which isn't really a current affiliated with right or left wing, but more of an ideology which put the nation (viewed as an unity) above everything else.
As for the people who seem to think that Hollande will somehow ruin the country by adopting a more leftist approach, I would just like to point out that "ruining the country" all depends on what goal you seek. If it it increasing the total wealth of a country, well maybe USA-type policies are better (even though I highly doubt it), but if it is increasing the welfare of a maximum of citizen, I think USA has got quite a few lessons to learn given the ridiculous amount of people living below the poverty line as well as the outrageaously unbalanced wealth distribution.
France for a long time took pride in a "simple life" model; we wanted stable income for everyone, free time to enjoy, and some peace and rest after retirement. It seems that today the greed has won over, and people want to be wealthier than their neighbour to buy useless fancy stuff, and in turn don't care for that simple life anymore. I just don't agree with that vision, I think you can find happiness with a modest income and some free time. :-)
Oh gawd , now people are actually claiming Stalin of all people was right wing Leader of the communist bloc = right winger.Gotcha. It's like people on the left have selective amnesia where they can't see how damaging their ideology has been in the past.If you want total government tyranny over the people hand your weapons in now y'all.Worked for Stalin.
On May 08 2012 23:24 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Oh gawd , now people are actually claiming Stalin of all people was right wing Leader of the communist bloc = right winger.Gotcha. It's like people on the left have selective amnesia where they can't see how damaging their ideology has been in the past.If you want total government tyranny over the people hand your weapons in now y'all.Worked for Stalin.
Someone here doesn't know how to read very well.
Sorry to demolish all your misconceptions, but Stalin was not "far left". Bolshevik were considered as solid right wingers amongst communists. Noam Chomsky called Leninism a right wing deviation of Marxism and Lenin himself wrote "Leftist Communism: an infantile disorder". Left wingers were actually the first targets of the bolsheviks after the white Russians just after the Revolution.
Sorry to demolish all your misconceptions, but Stalin was not "far left". Bolshevik were considered as solid right wingers amongst communists.
I'm always ready to help a brother out.
Failing to see the point here , someone seen as a right winger by commies is still in the scheme of things a far left winger.Check out the description of bolshevism in wikipedia for more information.
The Bolsheviks believed in organising a party in a centralised and disciplined fashion that sought to overthrow the Tsar through a mass workers' revolution. They believed and succeeded in creating a vanguard party, a mass revolutionary party composed of what they called "the most militant and class-conscious" workers capable of leading the masses of Russian workers.
Where is the right wing part coming in , fill me in here.Relative to other communists? meaningless.....
If there is a left and a right, and people on the left consider someone who they are usually associated with members of the right-wing, and if the far-right and the far-left actually share some common values and ideas... then it must mean the earth isn't flat.
On May 08 2012 23:24 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Oh gawd , now people are actually claiming Stalin of all people was right wing Leader of the communist bloc = right winger.Gotcha. It's like people on the left have selective amnesia where they can't see how damaging their ideology has been in the past.If you want total government tyranny over the people hand your weapons in now y'all.Worked for Stalin.
Sorry to demolish all your misconceptions, but Stalin was not "far left". Bolshevik were considered as solid right wingers amongst communists. Noam Chomsky called Leninism a right wing deviation of Marxism and Lenin himself wrote "Leftist Communism: an infantile disorder". Left wingers were actually the first targets of the bolsheviks after the white Russians just after the Revolution.
I'm always ready to help a brother out.
My point is really that far left should really be reserved for people who really follow left wing principles. They are quite simple: workers emancipation and ownership of the means of production. In that regards the only real far leftist would be the anarcho syndicalists.
Totalitarian statism has nothing to do with the left. No left theorician before Lenin ad ever imagined that the State should owe everything. Marx knew so much that the State doesn't represent the people or workers that his definition of communism implies the disappearance of the State. You see how much of a good Marx reader Stalin was.
Stalin is not right or left. He is a totalitarian dictator. Saying Stalin is the far left is just as stupid as saying that Louis the XIV was far left, because he considered himself as the State an owed basically the whole France.
Btw, I agree with you. Just to be precise though, the disappearance of the state was only the final stage of communism. Marx knew that this final stage couldn't be implemented without any transitional period.
But I think we can agree that what Stalin did was in no way trying to create the utopia of Marx. He was just another tyrant in of 20th century. And as I said before, far-left and far right becomes kind of the same once you significantly move away from the republican and democratic standards (guy below me said it nicely).
edit: I really don't know what Stalin and Hitler have to do with this discussion though. Neither Hollande nor Sarkozy are anywhere near the level of one of those. Le Pen might, but even if she were, it wouldn't matter right now. I attribute her political success more to people's frustration with corruption and the lack of real reforms than her political views on immigration etc.
It is good to think of the political spectrum as more of a circle, round the back where it meets up is where you find the tyrants and dictators. It is not overly productive to argue over which extreme produced the worse atrocities, better to realise that the extremes are best avoided.
On May 09 2012 03:22 Miyoshino wrote: Totalitarism and cult of personality dictators aren't left wing. Authority is right wing though.
The most left wiing you can get is when there is no government. No power structures.
See this is what I mean. Left-Right are meaningless nebulous terms because everyone has their own definition of what they mean. As a radical liberal I've been called Far-right by communists and Far-left by fascists, and hell, those include the folks in these threads. Some people say liberalism/libertarianism is far-right, some say it isn't left or right, some like you say it's far-left.
I wonder when people will realize these terms only serve to obfuscate and stereotype anothers opinions and point of view and contribute nothing to understanding the discussion at hand. Moreover, it only serves further to divide people and create conflict.
The fact is the only two choices is Liberty or Tyranny. Free will or Slavery. Voluntary or Coercive. Live and let live or Jackboot thuggery. Commerce or Thievery.
On May 09 2012 03:22 Miyoshino wrote: Totalitarism and cult of personality dictators aren't left wing. Authority is right wing though.
The most left wiing you can get is when there is no government. No power structures.
See this is what I mean. Left-Right are meaningless nebulous terms because everyone has their own definition of what they mean. As a radical liberal I've been called Far-right by communists and Far-left by fascists, and hell, those include the folks in these threads. Some people say liberalism/libertarianism is far-right, some say it isn't left or right, some like you say it's far-left.
I wonder when people will realize these terms only serve to obfuscate and stereotype anothers opinions and point of view and contribute nothing to understanding the discussion at hand. Moreover, it only serves further to divide people and create conflict.
The fact is the only two choices is Liberty or Tyranny. Free will or Slavery. Voluntary or Coercive. Live and let live or Jackboot thuggery. Commerce or Thievery.
Beautiful post, I couldn't have write better. Binary thinking (left/right) doesn't cope with reality.
On May 09 2012 03:39 Diks wrote: Beautiful post, I couldn't have write better. Binary thinking (left/right) doesn't cope with reality.
On May 09 2012 03:31 Wegandi wrote: The fact is the only two choices is Liberty or Tyranny. Free will or Slavery. Voluntary or Coercive. Live and let live or Jackboot thuggery. Commerce or Thievery.
On May 09 2012 03:22 Miyoshino wrote: Totalitarism and cult of personality dictators aren't left wing. Authority is right wing though.
The most left wiing you can get is when there is no government. No power structures.
See this is what I mean. Left-Right are meaningless nebulous terms because everyone has their own definition of what they mean. As a radical liberal I've been called Far-right by communists and Far-left by fascists, and hell, those include the folks in these threads. Some people say liberalism/libertarianism is far-right, some say it isn't left or right, some like you say it's far-left.
I wonder when people will realize these terms only serve to obfuscate and stereotype anothers opinions and point of view and contribute nothing to understanding the discussion at hand. Moreover, it only serves further to divide people and create conflict.
The fact is the only two choices is Liberty or Tyranny. Free will or Slavery. Voluntary or Coercive. Live and let live or Jackboot thuggery. Commerce or Thievery.
Beautiful post, I couldn't have write better. Binary thinking (left/right) doesn't cope with reality.
Yet for Staline and Lenine it's true. I'm no pro, but basically there was the menchevik (who were the centrist communist), the anarchist (don't remember their true name) were the lefties communist more or less and the bolchevik where the righties. There are plenty of degrees between tyranny and liberty (democracy is one I should say), free will or slavery (like work), voluntary or coercie (the social order, doxa), etc.
On May 09 2012 03:22 Miyoshino wrote: Totalitarism and cult of personality dictators aren't left wing. Authority is right wing though.
The most left wiing you can get is when there is no government. No power structures.
See this is what I mean. Left-Right are meaningless nebulous terms because everyone has their own definition of what they mean. As a radical liberal I've been called Far-right by communists and Far-left by fascists, and hell, those include the folks in these threads. Some people say liberalism/libertarianism is far-right, some say it isn't left or right, some like you say it's far-left.
I wonder when people will realize these terms only serve to obfuscate and stereotype anothers opinions and point of view and contribute nothing to understanding the discussion at hand. Moreover, it only serves further to divide people and create conflict.
The fact is the only two choices is Liberty or Tyranny. Free will or Slavery. Voluntary or Coercive. Live and let live or Jackboot thuggery. Commerce or Thievery.
Beautiful post, I couldn't have write better. Binary thinking (left/right) doesn't cope with reality.
Yet for Staline and Lenine it's true. I'm no pro, but basically there was the menchevik (who were the centrist communist), the anarchist (don't remember their true name) were the lefties communist more or less and the bolchevik where the righties. There are plenty of degrees between tyranny and liberty (democracy is one I should say), free will or slavery (like work), voluntary or coercie (the social order, doxa), etc.
if i remember correctly the lefties were called socialist-revolutionnist and it was mostly peasents (who had everything to win :p)
The idea is that if rich are getting much richer, they create employement and everybody benefits a bit. So if inequalities are growing to epic proportions it doesn't matter so much because everybody is winning.
Of course it doesn't work that way, and it is liberal's life long hypocritical justification to richs getting richer... and poors poorer. Since Smith, we have invented the concept of wealth redistribution, but some people still haven't understood the idea. It will come eventually.
EPT
