1933 redux

peterchen

I didn't read it as that either - and I think "useless" is to strong. Just "be careful with". History is a list of examples what can happen in certain situations, and analogies are their hash key, so to speak.

If you go to war, you will destroy a great country a stoned greek chick to the richest man of the world
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

KaRl

Not the Freedom.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Socialdemocrats (most common left wing parties in Europe) are right wing fascists in the eyes of old school Soviet communists Good luck to explain that to the ultras! ;)

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Didn't Hegel say there is no "lesson in History" (:~ ), that we were unable to learn from it?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Chris Losinger

peterchen wrote: and analogies are their hash key, so to speak. if the hash algorithm is any good, it will be impossible to deduce the input to the hash from its output. so... given an analogy, it should be impossible to determine the inputs that caused it! ooh. i love a good analogy! :) -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Jorgen Sigvardsson

They believe moderates are left wing scum. :) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

KaRl

They even believe democrats are left-oriented! :)

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Jorgen Sigvardsson

They probably believe that democracy is leftist. ;) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

KaRl

I voted a 5. Your message became red. Good Luck! :-D

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Jorgen Sigvardsson

:omg: I'm... a commie! Front Line Assembly once sung "I'd rather be a commie than a fascist". I couldn't agree more. :) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

Jorgen Sigvardsson

And if the hash algorithm is flawed, you can feasibly find two inputs producing the same hash. :) Maybe that's the root "problem" of your original analogy? -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

KaRl

IMHO, It's like having to choose between being quarterred or burning at stake :~

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Chris Losinger

:) yep -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Not really actually. Communism wasn't designed to break the people, fascism was. However, communism has never been implemented properly, nor will it ever. It's a utopia. -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

Stan Shannon

peterchen wrote: The concept of freedom as "no interference I don't like" is the very heart of a communist Kommune. Unless you go to the woods, someone, somehow, will always interfere with your life. And if it's not someone, it's something - may it be a hungry bear, or a hailstorm devasting your crops. But I do not cuncur with that definition of freedom, I'm not a libetarian. I fully believe that society has the right to interfer with how I conduct my life. That is, standards and rules of conduct are essential for a civil social order. However, in the context of American federalism, that civil order has tradtionally been understood to come from the bottom up, local government, etc, not from the top down, federal government. Freedom means the same thing as personal responsibility. To be free means to be willing to take personal responsibility for your own welfare to the greatest extent practically possible. Anyone who is not willing to take such resonsibility can never be free. This does not mean you are a law unto yourself, but it does mean that the degree to which government assumes those responsibilities should be kept to a strict, well defined, constitutioanlly protected, minimum. Such a definition of freedom is entirely dependent upon free market capitalism. Only in a free market do I have the power as an individual to avail myself of those resources I need to conduct my life in my own free way. I don't need the government prividing for me, I simply need the government to leave sufficient resources circulating freely in the economy so that I can take (and produce) as much as I am capable or willing to do. peterchen wrote: You can't put "all -isms except democratic capital-" into one pot. 1. This binary view is dangerous, for it creates an "us vs. them" scenario that is a building block of the most evil -isms. 2. neither a representative democracy, nor capitalism have outstanding features that justify this separation. 3. it is too simplistic to model the issues at hand (although I know a black/white world is easier to live in - and I'd prefer to live in one, too). I am feeling increasingly all the time that we are in an "us vs. them" scenario. Political systems by their very nature desire control. They are like living entities which survive by acquiring ever greater control over the masses. I beleive that the various political entities of this planet, including my own, feel increasingly threatened by the central prin

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

Oh please. X| Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

Generalisations like that are dangerous. There's a huge difference between fascism, socialism and the rest. Would you classify the UK as a fascist state because we have legislation in place to care for people who can't care for themselves? Or because we provide free healthcare to those who need it? Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

peterchen

I can go very well with your description of freedom*, but not up to the point making capitalism a requirement. I've seen people that, under "left wing fascism" have been more free than I will ever be under capitalism. Capitalism's emphasis on economy is economically successful, but other aspects of the human existance are neglected. us vs. them: I feel, similary, pushed into an us-vs-them-world. But that kept socialism working, providing an enemy is basic part of every manipulaiton - so I'm utterly suspicous of it. And I see an "us-vs-them" strongest with the people I clash most here on CP ;) You are right, every system of welfare will create more "needy" than necessary. But the ultimate of capitalism would be denying your mother a cup of water when she can't get up - we need to find a balance and have to accept the additional level of "need" we create. I guess your distrust is based on large origanizations providing a depersonalized welfare. (This is, I think, a much bigger problem in germany - the idea that the state alone is responsible for it stifles a lot of "private" initiative) The last point is an interesting thought experiment - if the US states were to become independent, and the federal part simply "federalectomied", what would happen to the US? My first reaction would be: their united power would "decay" quickly. But I also see another side. The US people I met feature (in general :rolleyes: ) an "being all-american" value and much less individualism than what is very common in Europe. I don't know much about the US federal structure, but AFAIK there are only very few exceptions where it actually matters in which state you open your business, and that it's right now impossible to save Texan jobs by putting a tax on Californian kilowatts. This is what IMO goves the US huge economic power as a whole (and I think many of the federal things you dislike is the price you pay for it).

*) I have to say: aspects of it get very close to the socialist discussion of "obligations arise from rights" and "Freiheit ist Einsicht in die Notwendigkeit" ("Freedom is understanding/insight in the indispensability/neccessities/requirements" is the best translation I can offer). I'm not saying it to tease you, but to show that maybe it's not always "us vs. them", but there are also shades of gray.

If you go to war, you will destroy a great country a stoned greek chick to the richest man of the world

Ed Gadziemski

Communism would be great if it weren't humans trying to implement it. Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

Doug Goulden

Chris Losinger wrote: the fact remains that the majority of the pro-war members of GWB's posse have never served a day in the army That I gotta take exception with..... Where do you get the impression that most people who consider themelves conservative have never served or avoided service? Chris Losinger wrote: Clinton's non-service when he dared use his commander-in-chief powers The problem most of us who served had with Clinton was his statement that he loathed the military. That and the fact that because of his election he was the Commander-in-Chief really sticks in the craw of anyone who did serve. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?