It's certainly important if you believe in being factual.Anyhow, it's apparently very important to many here to get history's various villains firmly on the Other Guy's Team, so I'll let you get back to it, Zander.
And everyone knows that ol' Joe the right-winger was, deep down in his black heart, a die-hard conservative.The Soviet Union was a repressive, brutal dictatorship, run by and for a small elite oligharchy. -- ML
It's certainly important if you believe in being factual.
The issue of your post was to define the mission of all us right-wingers...we can't rest until all the truly evil characters of world history are buried on the other side of the political fence from us.And that has "doodly-squat" (I believe the term was) to do with the issue of my post.
Which is it? Do I follow your earlier suggestion..."(You may want to abandon, for the sake of this discussion, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" and go back to "left" and "right". )"...or this one? Before this post, I've used the word 'conservative' exactly twice in this discussion; in quotes, in response to someone's labelling of feudal Japanese warlords. I reckon that'd get us out of the late 20th Century without much problem.Care to expound on how, exactly, "right wing" and "left wing" interact with "liberal" and "conservative" outside of late 20th Century America?
In my "universe"? LOL!Lemme guess: In your universe Hitler and Stalin were "Liberals", right?
Why debate on your terms alone? I may as well concede that anything you say is automatically correct. My arguement does include history. Feudal Japan was merely a convenient example because it is sufficiently far removed from European influences to throw historical influences in.So Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro were/are "conservatives"? Let's add Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Waters, Conyers, Jackson, Jackson-Lee and other "conservatives" to make it more current, 'kay? Continue to ignore history...it's so much more convenient for your argument.
Yup, which is why I said left and right are meaningless. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are all at the extreme totalitarian end of my anarchy-totalitarianism spectrum.As far as the politics of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, when complete control is the goal, the usual political terms lack meaning.
Do you mean in theory or do you have examples? If roughly 5% of a society was allowed arms and the remaining 95% of the society was barred the ownership, carrying and usage of arms under penalty of summary execution, in what sense is the ruling class "conservative"?I don't say that Hitler et. al. were conservatives, I just state that in the long run conservatives will disarm the population also.
Clearly, in all three of those instances, individuals were forced to serve the state. In two of your three examples, the regimes continued on after the death of their initiators. In fact, their ideology was exported in the most brutal fashion. That's the nature of totalitarianism...and totalitarianism is overwhelming associated with leftists.As far as the politics of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, when complete control is the goal, the usual political terms lack meaning. The state serves an individual, and the individual will do what it takes to stay in power.
But are they useful in the context of the discussion? Of course they are. Should we not use them because some find them inconvenient? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand why this seems to be such a point of contention.As Tamara pointed our right and left (and liberal and conservative) are situational labels, not absolutes.
Perhaps Tamara will tell us...it was, after all, her charge that "some of us" view it as our main mission in this discussion.Why does it really matter if "all the truly evil characters of world history are buried on the other side of the political fence from us."?
Right wing and left wing are artifacts of the French Revolution. The National Assembly was a bunch of crazies, but Robspiere and his crowd were, I believe, sat in the left wing of the assembly hall, and the anti crowd sat on the right.
Good shot, Tamara. That is the main point of most arguments over nomenclature.Anyhow, it's apparently very important to many here to get history's various villains firmly on the Other Guy's Team, ...
The issue of your post was to define the mission of all us right-wingers...
You asked me to limit the time period of my references, not expand my point.and asking for expansion of your point is not forcing you to debate on "my" terms alone.
Conservative hardly means serving in the interests of the citizenry, or looking out for their rights. Slave owing societies, even the "democracies" have roughly that ratio of armed to unarmed.If roughly 5% of a society was allowed arms and the remaining 95% of the society was barred the ownership, carrying and usage of arms under penalty of summary execution, in what sense is the ruling class "conservative"?
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -- Adolf Hitler, May 1st, 1927
That's the way Peter Jennings explains it.As for "right-wingers" who are also history's villains, I think it is safe to say that much of the chaos in the Islamic world is "liberals" (left) vs "conservatives" (right) -- and that the guys on the right are the dangerous ones. -- pax
Not necessary...I understood your thinly-veiled insult the first time.I ain't talkin' just to hear my head roar: Go back and read it again.
That's simply inaccurate. In fact, I haven't even used the 'L' word. Remember this question? ...You have thus far (in this thread) used the terms "liberal" and "left", "right" and "conservative" pretty interchangeably.
Then you question a figment of your imagination.I questioned that.
Beyond the explanation that you insist on making incorrect observations? 'Scuse me, I'm going to concentrate on the folks who want a real discussion.Elucidate, please.
I suppose that depends on which definition of 'conservative' you used in your initial remarks. Since this was a discussion about political labels, I concluded that your reference was political in nature. Was it? If you meant that the feudal lords were simply interested in maintaining the status quo, that casts a whole new light on it.Conservative hardly means serving in the interests of the citizenry, or looking out for their rights. -- Croyance
Because it was politically expedient. Just as it's politically expedient to suggest [ref: Ashcroft's recent remarks] that the administration's support for renewal of the ban isn't firm anymore.Why volunteer to sign any renewal assault weapon ban before the bill is even presented?
Doesn't that apply to what Hitler said also? His words were a politically expedient way to get the support of the German people.Because it was politically expedient.
My reply was a statement of fact, not of support.Zander, your reply about Bush was...
Ergo?Doesn't that apply to what Hitler said also? His words were a politically expedient way to get the support of the German people.
Do you have a specific example, please?...how about every dictator that the United States supported in its war against communism?
Didn't want an armed population or didn't want communist insurgents armed? We really do need a specific example here.They didn't want an armed population.
Then Hitler, Stalin and Mao really were conservatives?In that sense all power groups are conservative.
There is much more to this, but I suspect I should wait for the flames....