Freedom is not safe

And fascist liars who don't give a shit about democracy. They preach to the lowest common denominator of citizens. That dead motherfucker Rush Limbaugh set a great example for all the Fox and other right wing liars to come. They are still here--and they are still lying.

 

Rush Limbaugh dropped out of that premiere educational institution, South Eastern Missouri State after two semesters cuz he flunked everything. But in the perverse alternate reality of the right, that's probably good credentials cuz those college professors are a bunch of commie libruls, what do they know? Thomas di Lorenzo not only graduated from college but is a professor of economics with a Ph.D. at Loyola University where he preaches the fringe Austrian economics so loved by Libertarians. His pet historical ideas are "the myth of Lincoln" ( Lincoln, he says, was a no gooder) and defense of the Confederacy and its secession (It wasn't about slavery at all). As conservative editor of National Review, Rich Lowry, put it:"His scholarship, such as it is, consists of rummaging through the record for anything he can find to damn Lincoln, stripping it of any nuance or context, and piling on pejorative adjectives." Libertarian Richard Gable called DiLorenzo's book on Lincoln a "travesty of historical method and documentation.... plagued by a "labyrinth of errors", which "earned the ... ridicule of his critics." Book Review | The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo Then there is the aptly named Tom Sowell, the African-American libertarian economist/ideologue and Trump supporter who makes a career out of attacking affirmative action, of which he is a notable beneficiary, and arguing that the socioeconomic disadvantages of blacks in the U.S. are largely their own fault. With sources like these, no wonder your understanding of reality is so messed up.

 

Lincoln detested slavery , but had to play the politicians game that necessitated his seeming acceptance of such until he was elected. Read Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

 

It's actually why my "understanding of reality" as you put it is much more balanced and informed than that of yours and others who haven't read those. But good digging and good following through on my prediction of discrediting them because they challenge your worldview. You could read them and broaden your worldview and you don't have to tell your friends.

It feels like you're coming across as an "education snob". I understand. But let's not forget, social sciences and liberal arts aren't nearly as critical as hard science and engineering. Plus, what did Einstein do? Elon Musk? Schooling has its place but obviously not in everything.

 

Anyone with and open mind and not an empty head can tell that they're all unbalanced fanatical ideologues. Hard sciences and engineering, which I take it were your fields, have nothing to say about political and social issues. The fact that you'd even bring them up in this context shows ignorance. No one could accuse you as coming across as an educated anything, but there is a strong air of snob about you--the phenomnenon called the Duning-Kruger effect, typical of people of limited knowledge who overestimate their knowledge or intelligence. Did you get as far as Rush in college? No point in arguing further with a hardcore Retrumplican troll.

 

These terms originated in the politics of eighteenth century monarchical pre-revolutionary France, specifically relating to the seating arrangements in the National Assembly. Parties favoring the Establishment--monarchy, clergy, aristocracy--tended to cluster on the Right. Parties favoring the challengers to these privileged classes tended to cluster on the Left. In U.s. politics, these concepts had no counterpart, since there was no monarchy nor a hereditary aristocracy, and the clergy were not overtly represented in government. Instead, the terms were loosely used to refer to the parties favoring the interests of the Establishment, which tended to be big business, bankers, creditors, the landed gentry, and conservatives--the Right--and parties favoring labor, debtors, small farmers, and social liberals--the Left. As the political discourse came to center on the proper role of government, the labels were often associated with positions on this issue: conservatives opposing government intervention in the economy and socioeconomic inequalities, but favoring government regulation or morals; with liberals vice versa. This left two remaining possibilities: libertarians opposing government action in both the economy and morals; and collectivists (socialists?) favoring government activism in both areas. All nice and neat, but theoretical. In practice, the elites who controlled the libertarian party were mainly concerned with deregulating the economy--not so much with deregulating morality (Ron Paul opposes abortion). And the socialists, populists, etc., weren't much concerned with moral issues.

 

What Libertarians get wrong is they see only government action as the only or principal menace to freedom. In reality, our freedoms are also threatened by large private organizations, particularly large business and industrial corporations. Left unregulated, these corporations have dictated the hours and working conditions of their employees, discriminated against women and minorities in hiring and other personnel practices, and used public lands and waterways as their sewers. Any ideology that refuses to recognize that freedom can be threatened by private as well as government interests is seriously defective.

 

Cello

Sorry but the first thing I take from this is that you don’t read the post in the forum I mean if you did you wouldn’t need to ask the question as so many of the post involve setting out people’s views on the subject.

The second thing I take from it is that you have very little knowledge of history or political thought, that does not come as such a surprise since you seem to think fascism is somehow left wing, but it does make me fear that you have little to no interest in actually learning about history or political thought.

And lastly I asked you first – you claimed you views were neither of the right nor left and I asked you to tell us which of your views were in any why left wing’

As I keep repeating it would be a lot easier and far more honest to actually answer questions and address criticism, but you do not seem willing to do that – why?

 

Cello

To put it simply (and I know you really like simple) right wing political thought and policies normally favour the interests of wealth while left wing political thought and policies normally favour the majority.

Much of right-wing ideas are based on free market economic ideas and Social Darwinist ideology in the social areas. Left wingers favour more distributive economic models (socialism, Keynesianism) and social policies aimed at helping people to live healthy, prosperous lives where the greatest number of people have the greatest potential to be happy.

Your form of right wing libertarianism is clearly on the right of politics because it is not about making life better for the majority but serving the interests of the more wealthy and powerful in society.

 

Trud

I read reviews as quality control, I mean would you buy a car or computer if virtually all the reviews make it clear it is a piece of crap?

And think about it you want me to read some books from which you have leaned your views but you are consistently are unable to adequately explain or defend your views.

You are the biggest advert AGAINST reading these books

Virtually every left winger on this forum is able to explain their views and defend them from criticism, they show knowledge about such things as political thought and history.

That is lacking in the majority of right wingers.

I’m happy to look at alternative viewpoints but only if they make sense and seem thought through but time after time many right wingers here can’t even answer simple questions about their views let alone actually defend them from criticism.

There is an old computer programming saying – garbage in, garbage out - the idea that incorrect or poor-quality input will produce faulty output.

Maybe you should stop reading crap that you can’t defend from criticism and find ideas that you can.

 

You "forget what it was called and all he covered but it certainly had some irrefutable points?!!! One might think they'd have made some impression. In one eye, out the other, eh., which is what I'd expect. Let me tell you why I wouldn't bother wasting my time with Rush's book. He's been a star of talk radio and TV for as long as I can remember, spewing his ignorant, demagogic propaganda for all to hear. I've listened as long as I can keep from heaving. He's never said anything halfway intelligent. He flunked out of college early on to take up a profitable career preaching hate and lies. Pretty much why I wouldn't read a book by Pat Robertson, whose fans tell me he's got the Truth and it will save my soul. I've seen and heard enough of him on the 700 club to know a Pharisaical snake oil salesman when I see one, and know he has nothing to offer me in a book he probably didn't write. Sewell likewise has been around for quite some time, expounding his views in a nationally syndicated column I used to read . No big mystery there. He's made a career telling the Man what he wants to hear. Now DiLorenzo's book I did read, for a book discussion club I belong to. The critics were right! He's a Johnny Reb revisionist fellow traveller with the League of the South, neo-Confederate diehards who have never forgiven the Yankees for taking their slaves away. We haven't asked you if you have read these books. Your remark about forgetting Limbaugh's "irrefutable points" suggests to me that reading doesn't come easily to you.

Okay, Mr. 'Fair and Balanced", how many books by progressive, liberal, or Democrat authors have you read lately? Can you remember any of the main points, "irrefutable" or otherwise?

 

This page and the previous page should be required reading!!

 

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". (Alexander Pope) You might read a bit more. Your casual equation of Nazis with socialism in general is seriously flawed, intellectually shabby and a cheap shot. You zero in on the word "socialist" and overlook the "national" part, which was the part that was particularly important to the Nazis. Nazism, above all, was an ethno-nationalist movement, of a virulent nativist, racist kind, reflecting pent up grievances over losing World War I and blaming "the other" for their ills. Its populism gave it a moderately collectivist flavor, but throughout the Nazi reign in Germany, industry remained largely in private hands and the Nazis even privatize some government operated services. After they came to power, they supported and were supported by, big business. The left wing of the party, led by Otto Strasser, was socialist, but broke away in 1930. The Nazi Left was largely annihilated in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, when Hitler made his decisive shift to the right. They procedded to murder members of the Socialist and Communist Parties. Socialism for Hitler was never more than an empty slogan from a political demagogue who didn't give a rats ass about it beyond attracting more supporters. " If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism", Hitler said. Henry A. Turner (1985). German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler. Socialism has many meanings, but to confuse Hitler's use of the term (marshaling national resources for German expansion) with say Marx's view, or even Bernie Sanders is laughable.

You say "socialism kills", but so does capitalism.
If Communism Killed Millions, How Many Did Capitalism Kill?
Socialism vs capitalism death toll
Capitalism Is Killing Us
Death by capitalism
American Capitalism is Causing Deaths of Despair | McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society

Of course, a lot depends on how we count the bodies, and what we're calling "capitalism" and "socialism". Most of the body count from socialism comes from the particular form we call "communism" or "scientific" socialism associated with the ideology of Marxism-Leninism--which is some 20 milliion corpses for the Soviets and 40 million for the Chicoms. Even there, it gets tricky. Is "Communist" China really Communist? Sounds like a stupid question. It was under Mao. China is content to let Jack Ma, a card carrying commie, enjoy his billions as former CEO of Alibaba, so long as he gives his comrade party comisars a piece of the action. His recent removal as CEO and noticeable absence from public appearances may be due to some ill-advised remarks about China's banks and regulators, or maybe he just got tired, who knows? It is certainly arguable that China is a model of state capitalism. I'll stop here and let your digest this while I walk my dogs. I'll be Baaack!

 

Back to socialism. I think we should distinguish three forms: scientific socialism (i.e., the Marxist-Leninist kind), Third World socialism; and democratic socialism. Despite the efforts of right-wing propagandists to persuade us that socialism leads inevitably to communist dictatorships, the evidence on this is non-existent. There are literally a handfull of examples of the former--Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, and China. All ascribe to, and have always ascribed to, the notion that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is necessary to eradicate the last vestiges of capitalism, although the proletariat consists mainly of the "toiling intelligentsia", aka the party apparachiki. This was not the case in non-communist third world socialism , although those countries tended to be under single-party control. Many of these, in Africa, lacked and indigenous entrepreneurial class, and socialism meant drawing upon traditions of communal cooperation to mobilize and share resources, as an alternative to neocolonial corporate control. Socialism in India advanced the interest of farmers and laborers against the zamindars, princes and landed gentry. Venezuela, put forward by critics as the horrible example of where Socialism would take us, shows the pitfalls encountered by an extractive economy whose fortunes are tied to a single export commodity, oil. This brings us to western Europe, the part of the world most relevant to the U.S.

 

By U.S, standards, the industrial countries of Europe seem socialist as hell. Of course,Americans tend to use the term "socialist" as a synonym for big government or the welfare state. The dictionary definition of "socialism" is : "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Powered by Oxford Dictionaries Britain dabbled with government ownership of the means of production in the 1940s, France in the 1980s. It was something of a flop, and the people who voted it in, voted it out. That's "democratic socialism" for you! If the voters don't like it, they can vote it out!

What about Scandanavia? Bernie is always pushing them as shining examples of democratic socialism. But some bigtime fans of capitalism are saying they're not socialist at all.
Bernie Sanders Dreams Of ‘Scandinavian Socialism.’ The Only Problem? It Has Long Since Failed
Scandinavian 'Socialism': The Truth of the Nordic Model - Life in Norway.
Are Scandinavian Countries Socialist? - Competitive Enterprise Institute
Fact Check: Are The Scandinavian Countries Socialist? | RightWing
The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism | Corey Iacono
Scandinavia is Not Socialist, It Just Soaks the Taxpayer | Mitchell Nemeth
Don’t call Scandinavian countries ‘socialist’
Are Denmark, Norway, and Sweden ‘Socialist’ Nations? NOPE. Here’s the Proof
So with all these pro-capitalist sites in consensus, we must conclude Norway, Sweden and Denmark aren't socialist, even though the corporate and personal tax rates are sky high, government regulation of the economy is extensive and they provide "cradle to grave' welfare benefits, including free college tuition, "socialized" medicine, and old age assistance. The correct lablel is "Social Democracy". And they seem to be prosperous. So what are we waiting for? Catch is, if we tried it here, all those sources I cited would be screaming: "SOCIALISM!"

 

This brings me to the finale and my gripe about using National Socialism as prototypical of socialism.

As explained earlier, socialism was a minor part of what Nazism was above, which put much more stress on the National--ethno-national nativism. Which happens to be making quite a comeback in the world and in the U.S.A. My problem with thinking of Nazism as a left-wing movement out to spread socialism is that it diverts attention from the real problem: authentic Nazism as an ethno-nationalist/nativist movement out to destroy our democracy and install an authoritarian fascist dictator named Donald J.Trump as our Führer. No, he isn't a socialist, but he's a fascist through and through, and so are his followers, who are armed and dangerous.
Lawrence O’Donnell Likens Trump Voters to Nazis: ‘Trump Did a Lot of Good Things’
Opinion: Trump and Greene invite a horrific history to repeat itself - CNN
This Donald Trump Rally Looks Like A Scene From Nazi Germany | HuffPost
Donald J. Trump is a Huge Fan of Nazi Madman Adolph Hitler | Wall Street Rebel
The Ominous Similarities Between Trump and Hitler — Trump’s Reichstag Fire and Nero Decree
Warning signs: is Donald Trump a Nazi?
Donald Trump is a Nazi sympathizer
How Trump Brought Nazis Into Republican Politics
John Kelly reportedly 'shocked' after Trump refused to stop praising Nazi leader Adolf Hitler
Opinion: The similarities are too obvious: Donald Trump thinks like a Nazi

 

Tishomingo

Some great posts

The thing is that it doesn’t even have to be things written by progressives, liberals, or Democrats – it just has to be objective or state the facts in an open and honest way.

Read about the realities of the US slavery system or the British involvement in India and any rational person would be appalled, heed the warnings and be against such things and in much the same way an honest history of capitalism would make any rational person think that any capitalist system needed to be regulated to work in the interests of the majority of people and society at large or have counterbalancing institutions and structures in place.

That is why so often the champions of free market capitalism and its Social Darwinist underpinnings have to be so disingenuous or actually lie to build a defence – the naked truth would far too often work against them.

 

Here is what I wrote back in 2005

Why do the national libertarians keep reminding me of the Nazis?

In the early part of the 20th century socialist ideas were popular in Europe amongst those who were disillusioned with the mainstream political parties and even the system of governments of the time, which they saw as corrupt and upholding the power of vested interests. But while there were many legitimate socialist organisations there were others who were just using the guise of socialism to attract the disaffected for their own purposes.

National Socialists may have used some of the words and ideas of regular socialism but to me Hitler’s goals had more to do with seizing power than socialist reform.

**

In the US of the 21st century libertarianism seems to me to be attractive to many Americans who are disillusioned with the mainstream political parties and even the system of government, which they see as corrupt and upholding the power of vested interests.

So while there may be legitimate libertarians I feel that there are those that might just be using the guise of libertarianism to attract the disaffected for their own purposes.

Now this is just an impression, an opinion or a theory, and I’m not accusing all libertarians (although it is a philosophy I personally dislike) of only faking their beliefs, most are genuine (if misguided in my view). But sometimes talking to others I get the impression that just like many of the Nazis they are less interested in genuine political thought and debate and more interested in trying to misdirect and scapegoating others. For example in blaming all problems on a shadowy conspiracy of Jewish bankers and claiming all political opponents even the whole system is corrupted or controlled by that conspiracy.

*

Back to 2021

Do you think Trump, his fellow travellers care about free market libertarianism? To me these people may use some of the words and ideas of regular free market ideology but to me their goals have more to do with seizing power.

And they do seem less interested in genuine political thought and debate and more interested in trying to misdirect and scapegoating others (look at the output of Fox News and other right wing media).

Take for example the Qanon and other right-wing conspiracies (pushed by people in power like Marjorie Greene) and of course the big lie (1) of the supposed ‘stolen election’ that right wingers are using to subvert democracy through voter rigging.

I think that if you had shown the German people in 1932 what their country would be like in 1944 they would rightly have been horrified.

Even those that had supported the Nazis would have been horrified

But people can’t see into the future you can only take note of warning signs – and many, many people back in pre-Nazis Germany gave warnings about what Hitler and the Nazis were like (for example look up Hans Litten)

As I’ve said I don’t think Trump is Hitler or the Republicans Nazis but the American people can’t look into the future they can only look at the warning signs that are all around.

As MeAgain said when Trump’s people were in power -Trump is trafficking in fear, hatred, intimidation, and violence – those are warning signs.

Do Trump and the Republicans seem more interested in having power than they do about upholding political norms – well clearly from Merrick Garland, to voter suppression to using the supposedly apolitical for political gain then the answer is yes – that is a warning sign

Using the officers of state to reward their friends and go after their enemies – a warning sign

Attacking the free media and calling them the enemies of the people and threatening them with consequences if they say things that are not liked by those in power – is a warning sign

I could go on but really that should be enough.

I hope that unlike the Germans back in the 1930’s the Americans in the coming years take heed of the warning signs and act accordingly

(1) The big lie (German: große Lüge) is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth, used especially as a propaganda technique. The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

 

Last night I heard Mark Levin on AM Radio and he told his Republican fans that Democrats just keep repeating the same lies in hope something will stick when it becomes the norm. I immediately knew that was the Republican strategy for the conditioning of their own followers into accepting anything Right Wing Radio says.

 

TYPO. Should have been "about" instead of "above".