| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The left to right spectrum is probably Communism, Socialism, Liberal Capitalism, Conservative Capitalism, Monopoly Capitalism. |
You left off the Fascists over there on the right end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But to call an elected president who holds his office constitutionally a dictator, well that's preposterous.
|
During the Roman Republic, Fabius Maximus and Julius Caesar (and others) were elected dictator. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 Location: Uranus
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An update...
There was a forum at SNU yesterday about this matter and both sides were present.
The liberals attacked, punched, kicked and choked the conservatives and threw furniture at the conservatives as well. They also threw objects around the room.
Joong Ang Daily Dec 1 , 2006. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
For critical thinking I might lay out the events (without these dumb revisions/pro-park takes), good, bad, or neutral, and then have questions like:
1. Are Park's repressive actions and martial law justified? Do the ends justify the means?
2. Do you think the same developments could have come about through other means? What other ways might economic development and security have been attained.
3. What if Park had NOT taken these actions? What would Korea be like today? Better? Worse? Explain your answer.
|
I can't help but see your approach as a pre-set value-laden agenda, designed to produce a specific outcome.
In my opinion, Korea's future would be better served by gathering representative documents, newspaper articles, films, diaries etc. , present them to the students and lead them through a systematic study.
Ask questions like:
a) What attitudes is this person expressing? Do you think his/her age and social status affected their beliefs?
b) In Document 19, the writer says Park's government was repressive. Do you agree? Why or why not? Document 20 says Kim Il-Sung was a dictator. Do you agree? Why or why not?
c) Document 27 was written by a small businessman in Daegu. Document 28 was written by a small businessman in Pyongyang. Compare their attitudes. What happened to these people later?
Final Test Question: You are a third-year high school student in 1965. Do you support President Park or the Democracy Movement? Defend your position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
But to call an elected president who holds his office constitutionally a dictator, well that's preposterous.
|
During the Roman Republic, Fabius Maximus and Julius Caesar (and others) were elected dictator. |
Wouldn't it be fairer to also point out that "dictator" meant something QUITE different in those days then it does now? According to my understanding it simply meant "ruler for life".(the orginal Latin "one who dictacts [orders]
Whereas now it is applied to brutal rulers who oppress their subjects in non-democractic states and has wide pejorative meaning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Wouldn't it be fairer to also point out that "dictator" meant something QUITE different in those days then it does now? According to my understanding it simply meant "ruler for life".(the orginal Latin "one who dictacts [orders]
Whereas now it is applied to brutal rulers who oppress their subjects in non-democractic states and has wide pejorative meaning.
|
I think it's a lot more complicated than that. Fabius was elected dictator for a specific period of time, not for life. The Roman version, as I understand it, was an emergency measure taken only at dangerous moments when the Senate was suspended and all power for defence of the state was in the hands of the dictator. 'Tyrant' seems to be the word the ancients used to mean what we usually mean by 'dictator'.
Certainly in most English-speaking countries 'dictator' has taken on a negative meaning, but I don't think it is universal at all. After all, there was until recently quite a bit of support for the dictatorship of the proletariat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That is why many commentators put Stalin, Mao and others (Bush?) up there as conservatives. They do not believe in the SANITY , oh sorry, SANCTITY of human life. |
Seems there is some confusion over what I meant in the above statement.
I think many people are confusing the ongoing defining of small c conservatism with the political notion of big C Conservatism.
Just as the notion of liberalism has slowly eroded from its intended meaning of less govt and more individual rights and freedoms -- conservatism is continually also being improperly defined.
conservatism is not a political category and you'll find conservatives on all sides of the fences. It also cuts across ideology. Wish I could find the recent article in the NY review of books about this very subject and how America has become all conservative, despite the notion that there are liberals about....
So what do I exactly mean by conservatism. And why did I lump Bush in with those infamous types? While, conservatism is a value which opts for status quo, protecting the NOW. It is cautious and feeds on the notion of public morality and righteousness....It believes in the ruling class and the purity and priviledge of those who have power. It believes that the best for society is to have these people steering the ship. conservatism is very set against immigration, other cultures, intermingling and generally is very defensive with large military expenditure. conservatives as I mentioned, don't mind breaking a lot of "underling" eggs, to maintain the privledge of themselves and the homogenity of their ideals. They focus less on individual rights and mostly on collective rights, falling on the side of whatever notion of "purity" and "righteousness" they espouse. Family values, morality, patriotism, community are keywords. conservatives don't want change and they love the notion of a "bogeyman" -- fear. It is the means they have of keeping things as they are. They are ravenously anti-intellectual (for intellectuals truly hunger for change, the better, constant promotion of what can be done....) and conservatives believe always in some god ordained notion of their being "in the right". They are culturally biased and this is reflected in their own defensiveness regarding their culture and faith....
I could go on.......Bush as with Stalin and Mao are conservatives. I don't equate them on any other scale, just to be clear.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Holy shit. I agree with dd.
Conservative is more a description of a disposition. It isn't an adequate way to explain a world view. Rightist is better.
This, below, is a far better way at explaining the spectrum.
Take the quiz!
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
happeningthang

Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
An update...
There was a forum at SNU yesterday about this matter and both sides were present.
The liberals attacked, punched, kicked and choked the conservatives and threw furniture at the conservatives as well. They also threw objects around the room.
Joong Ang Daily Dec 1 , 2006. |
Awesome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Location: Masan
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The left to right spectrum is probably Communism, Socialism, Liberal Capitalism, Conservative Capitalism, Monopoly Capitalism. |
You left off the Fascists over there on the right end. |
No I don't think so. Fascist or National Socialist were a breed that believed in state control of industry, so basically tendig toward the Monopoly Capitalist model. England was inthe same Economic Model with her Empire at that time also tending toward the Monopoly Capitalism without the state control more or less allowing for the Monolopies to dictate policy.
Fascism or National Socialism relied upon oppressive social tactics to enforce the regime of the Economic policy and so you will see both economies shared the same model with differing level of social controls.
Other fascist model would be Peron's Argentina, Mussolini's Italy, Spain's Franco. Fascism is not necessarily an economic model. It is however near the pinnacle of oppression (Feudalism, Surfism and Slave State are the ultimate pinnacle, Ancient Egypt, modern Pol Pot).
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Location: Masan
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
But to call an elected president who holds his office constitutionally a dictator, well that's preposterous.
|
During the Roman Republic, Fabius Maximus and Julius Caesar (and others) were elected dictator. |
You may want to research that a bit. If by elected you mean appointed by the senate that is correct. Then you need to ask who appointed the Senators.
Its like saying Park was elected.
One could also say Hitler was Elected dictator if you use that definition of elected. Though elected he seized absolute power.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Location: Masan
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
I think many people are confusing the ongoing defining of small c conservatism with the political notion of big C Conservatism.
Just as the notion of liberalism has slowly eroded from its intended meaning of less govt and more individual rights and freedoms -- conservatism is continually also being improperly defined.
DD |
our friend ytb posted this gem linked below, it may help you to try the survey and see where you fall on the compass. Also may help me understand where we are disagreeing if at all.
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=72350
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll check it out. But I disagree with the whole pidgeon holing aspect of things like this. (so does that make me Liberatarian??? , I don't think so).
I do also disagree with you thought that fascism was an economic movement / expression (or maybe you aren't saying that but it came through in your reply).
Fascism in my mind and many others, was a system of governemt based on the notion of "fatherland" . It was purely ideological and found its strength through the belief that the whole nation was sacred and pure. All was done for the nation's sake and its figurehead was the "father figure" who embodded all that was good and purile in the nation. It was a personality cult where all individual presence was secondary to the will of the nation and leader.
That economically the state assumed control of most everything, was a secondary and proximate characteristic of the higher all embracing ideology of the state.
That's my own version.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Location: Masan
|
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry if my post was confusing. Fascism was strictly economics.
It had an economic Philosphy of Monopoly Capitalism with a Nationalist bent (industrial control). The Oppression and racist policies were social aspect of Fascism not economic.
At the same in Britain the Empirical policies where similar Monopoly Capitalism, the social policies or oppresion was different, it was offshore in far away places, it was not categorized as Fascism but Imperialism or Colonialism, there were no death camps.
Monopoly Capitalism died at the end of WWII.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Location: Masan
|
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
The concept of "fatherland" or "motherland" or even "homeland" are nationalist concepts nothing to do with left, right, liberal, or conservative.
Nationlism or National Pride or Patriotism or Sovreignty are recognitions of geopolitical regions from which one hails. Too the extreme these concepts can embody a sort of supremacy or racism. To the lesser extent merely a sense of identity.
Internationalism or Globalism is another concept, ideologically the identity with the world, being a citizen of the world, it can also be conceptualized as world domination by a political or corporate or industial or commercial or religious entity.
Individualism frees us from tying into these precepts too seriously.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|