posted on June 17, 2001 02:54:37 PM new
Bookmark this one because we pass out a lot of labels, not just on ourselves, but on others here in the RT and this may come in handy down the road.
WHERE DO YOU FIT IN?
---------------------------
con·ser·va·tive (ken-sûr¹ve-tîv) adjective 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit. 3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate. 4. a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.
noun 1. One favoring traditional views and values.
2. A supporter of political conservatism.
==============================
lib·er·al (lîb¹er-el, lîb¹rel) adjective 1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
2. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor. 3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
noun 1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
========================================
lib·er·tine (lîb¹er-tên´) noun 1. One who acts without moral restraint; a dissolute person.
2. One who defies established religious precepts; a freethinker.
mod·er·ate (mòd¹er-ît) adjective 1. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: a moderate price. 2. Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate: a moderate climate. 3. Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.
noun
One who holds or champions moderate views or opinions, especially in politics or religion.
verb 1. To lessen the violence, severity, or extremeness of.
2. To preside over: She was chosen to moderate the convention.
verb, intransitive 1. To become less violent, severe, or extreme; abate.
===================================
WHAT KIND OF THE ABOVE ARE YOU?
----------------------------------
pro·gres·sive (pre-grès¹îv) adjective 1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
noun 1. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
2. Progressive. A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
===========================
cen·trism, cen·trist (sèn¹trîz´em) noun
The political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of right and left by taking a moderate position.
===========================
re·gres·sive (rî-grès¹îv) adjective 1. Tending to return or revert.
2. Characterized by regression or a tendency to regress.
3. Decreasing proportionately as the amount taxed increases. a regressive tax.
==================================
EXTREMISTS
--------------------------
Conservative Extreme fascism (fàsh¹îz´em), philosophy of government that glorifies the nation-state at the expense of the individual. Major concepts of fascism include opposition to democratic and socialist movements; racist ideologies, such as ANTI-SEMITISM; aggressive military policy; and belief in an authoritarian leader who embodies the ideals of the nation. Fascism generally gains support by promising social justice to discontented elements of the working and middle classes, and social order to powerful financial interests. While retaining class divisions and usually protecting capitalist and landowning interests, the fascist state exercises control at all levels of individual and economic activity, employing special police forces to instill fear.
Liberal Extreme socialism (so¹she-lîz´em), general term for the political and economic theory that advocates collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. It arose in the late 18th and early 19th cent. as a reaction to the hardships caused by CAPITALISM and the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Usually called democratic socialist parties, they have favored a variable economic mix of capitalism and state control. In the THIRD WORLD, socialist programs have stressed land reform and centralized economic planning, often through a one-party state, but since the 1980s there has been a movement toward reduced state control of the economy.
===================================
LUNATIC FRINGE
----------------------------
capitalism (kàp¹î-tl-îz´em), economic system characterized by private ownership of property and of the means of production. Generally the capitalist, or private enterprise, system embodies the concepts of individual initiative, competition, SUPPLY AND DEMAND, and the profit motive. Capitalism and SOCIALISM are the two major economic systems in the world. By the early 20th cent. capitalism had created vast credit, manufacturing, and distributing institutions, and the social and economic effects of the system had largely transformed world culture. However, it was also held responsible for various abuses, notably the exploitation of labor.
communism (kòm¹ye-nîz´em), a system of social organization in which property, particularly real property and the means of production, is held in common. With an uppercase C, the term refers to the movement that has sought to overthrow CAPITALISM through revolution. Forms of communism existed among various tribes of Native Americans, and it was espoused by early Christian sects. During the Middle Ages the MANORIAL SYSTEM provided communal use of the village commons and cultivation of certain fields, rights the peasants fought to retain in England (14th cent.) and Germany (16th cent.). By the early 19th cent. the rise of capitalism, reinforced by the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, had created a new industrial class living and working under appalling conditions.
the·oc·ra·cy (thê-òk¹re-sê) noun 1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed: theocracy, divine government, divine dispensation, God's law, Kingdom of God, God's ways, God's dealings, providence, special providence, deus ex machina
posted on June 17, 2001 03:49:28 PM new
Borillar, I'm not sure how relevant dictionary definitions are when discussing political labels.
Further, the definitions are peculiar to any given country. What is a conservative in the US is only partially related to what's a conservative in Canada or the UK.
"conservative", in modern American lingo, might encompass everyone from a hard core libertarian to a would be theocrat, people who share but a single belief: they ain't liberals.
"liberal" in modern American lingo, is pretty close to what is known as a socialist in many parts of the world. Your dictionary definition is simply not applicable in this context.
posted on June 17, 2001 05:08:28 PM new
I'm probably a Libertine in Iran and Afganistan; a Conservative in the Netherlands; a Moderate in America. So, you rwe correct that we can't pick out a world-wide definition on political labels. As there has been no world-wide effort to seek a conferance on an International Treaty specifing how, when, and how-to define political labels so that it fits exactly everyone on the entire planet, I guess we'll simply have to assume that here in the RT we are talking about Americans and American politics. Wouldn't that be understandable?
"liberal" in modern American lingo, is pretty close to what is known as a socialist in many parts of the world. Your dictionary definition is simply not applicable in this context."
Why not have some Liberals on here post whether they think that the dictionary definition is more correct or the conservative's view of what it means to liberal is correct? Would that work for you?
posted on June 17, 2001 06:44:23 PM new
I don't really have any problem with allowing people to define their own "title".
To liberal in a moment, but it might be worth clarifying, in America a "socialist" is far enough to the left that in some parts of Europe they would qualify as a "Communist". Thus, liberals often disclaim "socialist".
I'm sure that most liberals would claim the positive attributes from the dictionary definition (and most conservatives would reject the dictionary description). The problem with the dictionary definition is that it doesn't include the defining concept: the force of government is an appropriate solution to most problems. I'm not trying to put words in any liberal's mouth, but I've never met a self described liberal who didn't believe that government power was basically for the betterment of society.
posted on June 17, 2001 08:18:41 PM new" I've never met a self described liberal who didn't believe that government power was basically for the betterment of society."
Tell me what you believe government power is supposed to be used for if it is not for the benefit of the people who make up the nation?
posted on June 17, 2001 11:56:33 PM new
A theocrat would say that government power should be used to effect the will of God.
A hard core libertarian would say that government power is to be used to protect the citizenry from foreign attack, and from crime, and precious little else.
Some one slice of conservatives believe that the power of government should be used to promote and protect the cause of US businesses in the world, and to protect such businesses from foreign competition.
There are plenty of people, perhaps a majority, who when facing a social problem, believe that government action is ALWAYS likely to be counter productive.
posted on June 18, 2001 12:23:06 AM new
Tell me what you believe government power is supposed to be used for if it is not for the benefit of the people who make up the nation?
posted on June 18, 2001 08:11:51 AM newTell me what you believe government power is supposed to be used for if it is not for the benefit of the people who make up the nation?
Borillar, we have our own opinions. My point was not that liberals are wrong, but rather that the dictionary definition leaves out THE crucial factor when considering the term in tehe context of contemporary American politics.
posted on June 18, 2001 10:56:31 AM new
figmente, in most parts of the world "socialist" does not carry the extremist connotation which it does in American lingo. It is not ugly.
posted on June 18, 2001 12:11:20 PM new
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
While it is true that socialism is a major force in western Europe and a lot of other parts of the world, it is generally well to the left of US liberal traditions.
posted on June 18, 2001 12:15:46 PM new" ... the dictionary definition leaves out THE crucial factor ..."
"The liberal seeks to better society through the use of government power."
You're opening up a rather large subject here. I would have said that it was both the Socialist and the Fascist that believe in using the force of governement to further their agendas. The Socialist seeks social justice by creating laws that attempt to enforce behaviour modification. This has worked very well in many example; such as, the Civil Rights bill that punished murders who could never be convicted for their crimes in their home towns, simply because the murder was racially motivated. Human rights tend to enforced, rather than ignored going this route.
On the other hand, the Fascist seeks to use the force of government to remove the individual's autonomy and create social change through tactics of suppression and fear. This tactic has worked amazingly well throughout known history, creating an 'elite" class who own and control everything and the rest of Humankind is not regarded much more than slaves by the elites. Human rights tend to get trampled going this route.
Then there are other political groups that believe in what I refer to as The Amish Approach To Politics. Just as the Amish reject everything modern, so do these folks believe that the best answer is to turn the clock back to where the Federal government would be reduced back to its origional size and functions as outlined by the US Constitution. This fundamentally flawed thinking does not take into account that nuclear missles take less than 30 minutes to go half-way around the globe and vaporize a large city.
We'd all like governement at every level to get out of our hair, but the reality is that governement is here to stay and it is our task to see that it does not overstep its boundries on Privacy issues.
And there you have American poltics.
Now, what were you saying about Liberals and Conservatives?
posted on June 18, 2001 03:02:31 PM newWhile it is true that socialism is a major force in western Europe and a lot of other parts of the world, it is generally well to the left of US liberal traditions.
Figmente, I don't believe you've analyzed western European political lingo correctly.
The "socialists" of western Europe have views very closely aligned with American liberals. Few of them seek to eliminate private property, for example.
That's the whole point: dictionary definitions are incorrect when discussing the various political contexts.
posted on June 18, 2001 03:22:17 PM new"Do you think that Capitalism should be up there as a political label?"
NearTheSea, it is relevant because modern political thought makes it so. In times past, the use of government was to control the masses in order to keep all of the resources of the country in the hands of a few. However, during the Renaissance, political thought changed to the modern concept that governments exist for the benefit of all of those governed, not just a few. Economics is so closely tied to politics that there is often nothing to distinguish the two.
For instance, one thing that is the responsibility of a modern government is to see to the reallocation of resources, both natural and manmade. Our country has many fine natural resources and they are needed to make everyone's live both livable and hopefully, better. These natural resources need to be extracted, processed and distributed among the masses. That being the goal, how does it get accomplished?
This is where the various political philosophies come into play. How does one go about extraction of natural resources? Do you use the interest of individual good, like Greed, for instance? Alternatively, do you appeal to what is supposedly Humankind's Higher Nature and do it for the good of everybody? Certainly, greed is more successful, simply because it addresses everyone's baser nature of selfishness; while doing it for the good of everybody is less successful because it requires a more nobler aspect than you can expect everyone to have. You can define these two systems as Capitalism - self-interest; and Socialism - group-interest.
posted on June 18, 2001 03:25:27 PM newOn the other hand, the Fascist seeks to use the force of government to remove the individual's autonomy and create social change through tactics of suppression and fear.
Half true.
Fascism was a response to early 20th century Communism. Like Communism, Fascism was sold to a willing populace. While the Fascists lost a war, and thus lost control of their name, it's more informative to contemplate Fascism in its popular forms than in its forms of disgrace.
Essential Fascism had little to do with a belligerant foreign policy, anti-Semitism or racism. It had a lot more to do with state control of the economy and population, with direct participation of corporations. A cleaned up, weakened version of Fascism existed in Taiwan and South Korea for decades after WWII. Pat Buchannan is perhaps the American closest to being an advocate of "modern fascism". That is to say, the essential features of Fascism do in fact appear in contemporary mainstream political discussions.
Fascism shared with Socialism the belief that the state could and should optimise production schedules and reduce economic friction. Exactly like Socialism, Fascism exhibits a fundamental distrust of the free market or free choices by ordinary citizens.
posted on June 18, 2001 06:09:02 PM new"... it's more informative to contemplate Fascism in its popular forms than in its forms of disgrace."
The same could easily be said of Communism -- just look at China. As well, Karl Marx wrote of idealistic Communism, whereas Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro have interpreted that theory among others. Yet, you never hear of the benefits of Communism, you only hear of "Failed Communism". I wonder why that is?
I agree that Fascism in its idealistic sense does not advocate malignant behavior on the part of its practitioners. However, just how is one to enact "state control of the economy and population, with direct participation of corporations" without the loss of personal autonomy; such personal autonomy is hardly given up willingly, except through organized religions? As a political method, do you accede political expediency by the use of "tactics of suppression and fear"? Especially when we enjoy a constitution that precludes such behavior? However will you get the general population to go along with it?
My point is that while ideals are great to have to point us in the proper direction, one should not, and I think can not discount the reality of applied political systems, successful or failed when defining a dictionary definition.
posted on June 18, 2001 11:29:07 PM new
"Yet, you never hear of the benefits of Communism, you only hear of "Failed Communism". I wonder why that is?"-borillar
posted on June 19, 2001 08:07:05 AM new
Not really Borillar. Capitalism does play into politics, then on the other hand it doesn't have to.
There can be many a sucessful person capitalizing on a product or idea, and still pay their dues and taxes to the gov't.
Meaning it doesn't have to be for the good of all peoples, and doesn't have to have the definition of greed.
If a person works hard, receives a good education, worked hard at that, why can he not make money and live very comfortably, without being made to feel guilty because he is a capitalist.
There are many a Democrat Capitalist, and of course GOP Capitalists, as well as third party Capitalist. (if you don't think there are third party capitalist, look at Ross Perot.)
One can have lots of money by means of capitalism, and still his politics can be totally one way or another, ie; liberal, conservative etc.
Oh and the Amish, I think they are great people. They also have a lot of money too.
posted on June 19, 2001 09:01:48 AM new
No one should confuse examining a political system with advocating the system in general or even in part.
And indeed, the failures of Fascism and Communism as practiced are part of the examination. However, if our knowledge of Fascism and Communism stops with "failed", we will remain ignorant indeed.
I'm particularly displeased with dictionary definitions of Fascism which suggest that the Nazi German implementation, in all detail, was basically what Fascism is.
We meet the essence of Fascism when we contemplate production controls being placed on private enterprise, which are inevitably coupled with government enforced protection of those controlled industries, and government protected profits. It's interesting to contemplate that kind of control without all the horrible baggage of Nazi Germany, which of course does not necessarily follow from the alliance between government and industry.
Some currently propose a purely fascist solution to the energy "problem": private companies produce the amount of power which the government selects, and sell it at the price that the government selects. The government in turn makes it difficult for new producers to arrive (unless they're necessary). Compare to the socialist solution, which would simply nationalize energy production, and set prices at some level which covers all costs.
posted on June 19, 2001 12:43:24 PM new"Meaning it doesn't have to be for the good of all peoples, and doesn't have to have the definition of greed."
I agree that it doesn't have to have the definition of greed -- I gave that out just as a For Instance. Certainly there are other personal motives, some of which may be of the highest order. Capitalism is motivated by personal self-interest, however nobly you may want to shade it.
NearTheSea, if you re-read how I have the thread's definitions, you will see that a person can be a combination of labels to more accurately describe their position. For instance, I am a Moderate. I am actually a Progressive Moderate, meaning that I am a bit left of center. Are you a Capitalistic Fascist? See how that works?
"Meaning it doesn't have to be for the good of all peoples … "
What doesn't have to? Can you please explain this non sequitur?
posted on June 19, 2001 12:58:35 PM new
Roofguy, most people would be amazed if they only realized how similar the systems of Socialism and Fascism really are; even in historical implementation of those systems (was Joseph Stalin's "Purges" any less an atrocity than Hitler's Final Solution?) Both seek Social Justice through the force of government. I think what really defines the differences between the two systems is in what hands do the resources of a country end up in. Socialism espouses an equitable distribution of the resources into the hands of the populace through the labor of the masses. This system reduces individualism, but does allow even the least to have something to gain by it. Fascism, in this sense, has its roots in Feudalism, wherein very few owned all the land, controlled every resource. This equates to nothing less than enslaving the masses for the benefit of overlords; such overlords-in-waiting aplenty these days it seems.
posted on June 19, 2001 03:40:36 PM newI think what really defines the differences between the two systems is in what hands do the resources of a country end up in.
I think we'll agree, Borillar. In both systems, they end up in the hands of a government protected upper class, an aristocracy which cannot be entered by "regular" people no matter how hard they might work.
It doesn't seem particularly important if that upper class is 100% party members, or 50-50 party members and business executives.
posted on June 19, 2001 05:58:43 PM new
Well then there would have to be a defintion of 'the good of the people'.
One can for example, work hard, and be a freelancer whatever, and make loads of money in this U.S. society, right? So that wouldn't necessarily be for 'the good of the people', but then it wouldn't be greedy either? Or doesn't have to be
Or even some super Powersellers on ebay, if there are any of that high level that makes $25,000 or more per month.
Someone that starts a company, and it grows, and he treats his employees well, then that would be 'for the good of the people'?
I guess I need a better 'for the good of the people' definition.
posted on June 20, 2001 07:52:04 AM new
"...was Joseph Stalin's "Purges" any less an atrocity than Hitler's Final Solution?"-borillar
Worse. Stalin killed MANY more people than Hitler. But then again, who cares they were mainly Russians. Can't get the sympathy of the media with Russians.
posted on June 20, 2001 10:06:22 AM new"I guess I need a better 'for the good of the people' definition."
Let's try this:
Who Are "The People"?
The people are each and every person residing in the United States of America.
What Is "Good" For The People?
An equal opportunity to live and to reproduce; the means thereby; resources allocated in an equitable fashion to every individual; equal access to things that make up for the Quality of Life; not hoarding the above for a Few and denying it for everyone else.
