|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:11 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Not really. I think many people out there equate big gov't with left-wing and small gov't with right-wing. Joe is pretty normal. Not for this board or in academics perhaps, but compared to your average person, he fits right in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think many people out there equate big gov't with left-wing and small gov't with right-wing. |
Earlier I mentioned a disadvantage of the traditional political spectrum--that the two extremes act much alike because they are totalitarians.
Possibly the greatest advantage of the old system is that liberals shade into socialists who shade into communists as you move left. It was quite clear to everyone just what was meant by the term leftist. Go far enough and you have a totalitarian. The same is true on the right end. Pro-business shades into fascism if you go far enough.
In my opinion, one of the great disadvantages of the system joe uses is that it removes the fascists from his neighborhood. His political friends can drift into fascist ideology as traditionally defined and pretend they aren't doing it.
A few weeks ago igotthisguitar posted a decent definition of fascism. Here is his list:
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
by Dr. Lawrence Britt
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
***
It's a pretty traditional description. You will also understand why people have commonly said the US could never go communist but could easily go fascist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One more point, joe: about being misunderstood. It works both ways in that you misunderstand what people mean.
For example, you say something and someone responds, "You right-wing maniac!"
You probably think that sounds like they are saying, "Joe, you are an extreme individualist." And to you, that's a good thing.
What they meant was, "Joe, you are a crypto-fascist pig and should be the first one in the gas chambers you want to build to kill all your enemies."
They are quite different things, as you can see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think many people out there equate big gov't with left-wing and small gov't with right-wing. |
Possibly the greatest advantage of the old system is that liberals shade into socialists who shade into communists as you move left. It was quite clear to everyone just what was meant by the term leftist. Go far enough and you have a totalitarian. The same is true on the right end. |
Huh? You think it's an advantage that your system is so ambiguous and both ends are the same?
Come on, admit it, you are the pot calling the kettle black, trying to insist that everybody uses your interpretation and nobody uses any other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| For example, you say something and someone responds, "You right-wing maniac!" |
I don't know what's your nationality, but in the US there are really two scales, the big government - small government scale, which I think is a common political differentiator all over the world, and the two "bundles" of social opinions promoted by democrats and republicans.
Because democrats support abortion rights, labor unions, and foreign policy X, these are called "left wing" and because republicans oppose abortion, support a strong military, and support foreign policy Y, those are called "right wing". It's confusing because those bundles have little to do with big government / small government, and because a person can agree with each party on different things. Also because the parties change... before the 1960s, the "religious right" were Democrats. I think this is the left-right scale that Ya-Ta boy is using. But don't assume that it makes sense to everybody. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Come on, admit it, you are the pot calling the kettle black, trying to insist that everybody uses your interpretation and nobody uses any other. |
Ummmm...It is not MY interpretation. I merely gave you the one that has been used for the last 200 years. (You should have learned it in high school. If you didn't, call up your history teacher and complain because you got short-changed in your education.)
I have no stake in which system you use. I just wanted to point out that there are consequences if you use the far less well-known one. It's up to you.
No need to take my word for it. A few minutes with any commonly known encyclopedia will clear things up.
This reminds me of a famous quip by Dorothy Parker.
Helen Hays once said, "Dorothy, use the word 'horticulture' in a sentence".
Dorothy immediately responded, "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think I am starting to understand the problem a bit better.
Most of the people on this board are not from the U.S. Most of the world may see things a bit different than they do in the U.S. Most countries have a more nuanced and sophisticated array of political beliefs and ideologies than the U.S.
And many in the world do not give a crap about how the U.S. defines things.
Any discussion requires a common language with agreement on terms. This generally comes from consensus. If you want to discuss politics with people outside the U.S., you may want to understand how they see and define things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Come on, admit it, you are the pot calling the kettle black, trying to insist that everybody uses your interpretation and nobody uses any other. |
Ummmm...It is not MY interpretation. I merely gave you the one that has been used for the last 200 years. (You should have learned it in high school. If you didn't, call up your history teacher and complain because you got short-changed in your education.) |
Whatever man, that's a lame way to back yourself up. "But EVERYBODY agrees with me, NOBODY agrees with you, therefore I'm right." Let's see some proof. Or at the very least, let's hear you describe your "spectrum" in a way that makes logical sense... not a spectrum where both ends are the same, the middle is ambiguous, and only the "1/4" and "3/4" sectors have any meaning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Whatever man, that's a lame way to back yourself up. "But EVERYBODY agrees with me, NOBODY agrees with you, therefore I'm right." Let's see some proof. Or at the very least, let's hear you describe your "spectrum" in a way that makes logical sense... not a spectrum where both ends are the same, the middle is ambiguous, and only the "1/4" and "3/4" sectors have any meaning. |
I have no clue what you are talking about with 1/4 and 3/4.
You are over-reacting. I didn't say 'EVERYBODY agrees with you,NOBODY...' I said this system arose in a specific historical time and place and has been in common use for about 2 centuries. The system you use is a new version, with a different premise. It is commonly used only among a smaller group, and in only one country as far as I know.
There is no need to be emotional about this issue. As I mentioned a couple of times, you would be well-served to google up an article from an encyclopedia or other common source to get a full, academic explanation from someone you can trust and respect. I'm not insisting you take my word for this stuff.
I have some free time and I enjoy this kind of challenge, so I will try to give you as clear an explanation as I can of the traditional political spectrum.
A long time ago, in a country far far away...France to be exact...
In 1789 the French government was an absolute divine-right monarchy that had lost a series of wars, mainly with England, and had lost its empire in the Americas and India. Big debt. It had a mercantilist economy that handed out monopolies like they were candy, to the detriment of sound economic development. Then they backed the American Revolution at a rate they couldn't afford. On top of all that, the weather was bad so crops failed. In short, France was in a severe economic crisis.
Louis XVI was forced to call the Estates-General, the French legislative assembly, that had not met in over 150 years--because the absolute divine-right king could rule without them.
The room where the Estates-General met was a long narrow room with bleachers on one side, kind of like a gymnasium.
Those representatives who really hated the idea of any reform or change (conservatives) happened to sit on the right side of the bleachers. This is the origin of the association of 'right' and 'conservatism'--skeptical about change.
Another group of representatives were also loyal to the king, but they wanted reforms similar to what the English had--a constitutional monarchy. They sat to the left of the most conservative group, toward the middle of the bleachers.
Still another group, inspired by the ideas of the Englighenment and the American Revolution, were republicans. This was considered radical in those days. Governments without kings was a big change. In the very beginning they sat up at the top of the bleachers and were called the Mountain, but that term faded out pretty quickly.
The terminology has been established. The Right was identified with conservatism, so any opposition was thought of as 'Left'.
A little time goes by, the constitutional monarchist group gains power. Foreign armies invade. Louis tries to escape to Belgium which wasn't Belgium yet, gets captured. Yikes! He has betrayed the revolution and is seen as a traitor to the Revolution. The Republicans gain power and guillotine him and later Marie Antoinette.
In the Republican group are some real radicals. France is being invaded on all fronts; the survival of the nation and the Revolution are at risk. The radicals declare the Republic of Virtue. A tiny committee rules by Reign of Terror. Any criticism of the Revolution or of the government is viewed as treason. The streets of Paris run with blood.
The most extreme opponants of the divine right absolute monarchy have imposed a dictatorship, just like the divine right absolute monarchy...but they are not monarchists. They are 'leftists'. Out of fear of returning to the past, they have re-imposed the practices of the past but at an even more extreme level. Ironic.
So at this point, we have Asolute Monarchists on the extreme right, followed by Constitutional Monarchists toward the middle, then the Moderate Republicans also in the middle but further to the left, and on the left end we have the extreme Republican Dictators (their real name at the time was Committee of Public Safety).
To this we can add the really radical groups. Jacque Roux the Red Priest argued for a socialist revolution. Early in the Revolution he sided with the republicans, but as time went by he felt they weren't going far enough. In the end, the Republican dictators had him executed. So on the far left you have the Socialists who are a kind of republican (no king) but who want an economic revolution to go along with the political revolution.
About 50 years or so after the Revolution Marx began publishing his works. As you know, communism is one form of socialism. His ideas placed the communists in the Red Priest's position--on the far left. His Dictatorship of the Proletariate fits nicely with the Reign of Terror/Committee of Public Safety group of 'leftists'.
Just after World War I, the Fascists took power in Italy. Where do they fit on the spectrum. Well, Mussolini had no problem with keeping the king. He didn't talk about confiscating private property. He did talk about government cooperating with the industrialists in increasing the power of the nation. The logical place for Fascists is on the Right. The Far Right, just where the Divine Right Absolute Monarchists were.
The whole system is quite logical.
I think you can see that size of government was not the organizing principle of this system. This system is concerned with WHO will hold power in the state. Will it be one person or many people? The people on the far left introduce a second issue: who will own property? Will property be held individually or communally? Even so, the system is still logical because to have a social/economic revolution and take away private property is a huge change from the traditional status quo of private ownership.
The history of the 20th Century can be viewed as challenges from the Right and the Left on the moderates. First the very conservative monarchies of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey against the moderate British, French and Americans (constitutional monarchy and republics). Then the challenge from the Fascist Germans, Italians and Japanese. Then the challenge from the Far Left--the Cold War. By the end of the century the two extremes had been defeated.
Now your theory.
The US was severely challenged by the Great Depression followed by the Second World War then the Cold War. In dealing with those crises the government grew and grew and grew. This was a big break with the past, when the federal government was quite small. Very small. People, mainly Republicans, who objected to policies put forward to deal with the various issues of economic collapse and foreign threat often based at least part of their opposition on the concept that large government is a threat to individual liberty.
The first time I heard your political spectrum theory was around 1980. It always came from kids who were from John Birch Society families. This group was convinced there were communists under every bed, that putting floride in drinking water was a communist conspiracy to attack the virility of American men, that Chief Justice Earl Warren was a communist.
Anyway, as American Conservatism has grown stronger, especially since the end of the Cold War, your political spectrum has gained popularity. But it is a newer system. It is based on a quite different organizing principle than the older system. It ignores the quite different political and economic philosophies of Socialists and Fascists. Those are not interchangeable terms.
While small government may be your ideal, it is not the policy of any government in the world. None of them. Even the recent the presidents from the conservative party in the US don't practice it when in power, even though they campaign on that platform. Nixon, Reagan, and the two Bushes have expanded the size of the government.
So it doesn't make very much sense to me to throw out a labeling system that educated people have used for two centuries in favor of a new system that is used by only a relatively small group and even their party doesn't really practice. It just causes confusion. But that is just my opinion.
Anyway, that is not the issue here.
The key thing to remember in understanding the traditional left/right spectrum is this: How much change from the status quo in 1789 France is being proposed?
If you don�t want to read anything from political science, why not ask a variety of posters from different countries how they define right and left in political terms.
Whew! My fingers are tired. I feel like I've just been time warped back to the mid-term in Poli Sci 101. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
