Education

HUNGHUGE11X7 · 04-19-2012

I am rather tired of people, both on here and in the media, hurling around terms they don't have the first clue of what they actually mean.

These definitions did not come from FAUX news so the veracity contained in them need not be brought into question.

*COMMUNISM*

A system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

This is dream of the modern GOP/Republican party

*SOCIALISM*

an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels

This is the dream of the LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE Party

*MARXISM*

The economic and political theory and practice originated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that holds that actions and human institutions are economically determined, that the class struggle is the basic agency of historical change, and that capitalism will ultimately be superseded by communism

*FASCISM*

Any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
An ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian.

This is what we lived through with the Theocratic reign of the Administration of BUSH & Co.

Now that we are better Educated, I hope those who had the audacity to call myself or my kind Communists ... Fascists.... Marxists .... Blah blah blah, will realize they are NOT talking about US but about theirself.

Only someone as completely ignorant as Herr Hannity would even lump the term Socialist and Marxist together when describing someone!
Now maybe others will not follow in his stupid arrogance .............
But I will not hold my breath either

Gnothi Seauton
HH

Jason · 04-20-2012

I don't think most who live in America realise how similar the policies of Democrats and Republicans seem to the outside world. Both are right of centre, liberal, democratic parties. Neither can be described as Marxist, communist, socialist or fascist.

Contrast the UK. We certainly do have a right of centre party (Conservative) - but this one party spans a spectrum from Republican to somewhere left of Democrat. We have a Lib Dem party that is centre left. We have a Labour party that was twenty years ago a hardline Socialist party including a militant tendency that advocated revolution - and is now a more moderate Euro-Socialist party. We do have a number of left-green political groups (all small) which are socialist or communist - they have 2MPs, quite a lot of councillors, and the Labour candidate for Mayor of London comes from this group. We also have a party which has renounced but not yet apologised for its support of terrorist murder (Sinn Fein), as well as some nationalistic groups - DUP, UUP, UKIP. And yes we do have a fascist party, the BNP.

ColonialBoy · 04-20-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason

I don't think most who live in America realise how similar the policies of Democrats and Republicans seem to the outside world.

I don't think most who live in America realise that the US is an agrarian socialist economy with obscene payments to farmers.

Or its recent fascist tendencies, with the state buying over a trillion dollars of private assets after the 2008 financial collapse.

And Jsaon I am sure the UK knows what Marxism is since Karl Marx spent a considerable amount of time living & writing there.

dandelion · 04-20-2012

I would disagree that 20 years ago labour was a hard line socialist party. It simply wasnt, though the conservatives liked to portray it as one. It was formed to politically represent trades unions and to implement their policies, but that was 100 years ago. In 1997 the newly elected labour government might have looked socialist from the US but from here it was another party of big business. The two main parties were falling over each other to say they would do exactly the same things if in power. The left saying it would be nice to the rich, the right saying they would be nice to the poor. The conservatives lost that election because of their accumulated string of incompetent and self serving years in government. It was considered amazing that Major had managed to keep them in power so long.

From my perspective, the conservatives this time round seem to be catching up very fast on making themselves unelectable, much more than the now sometimes derided Blair managed.

So to address the topic of the thread, 'Labour' no longer means the party of organised labour. I dont know exactly what 'conservative' is supposed to stand for. Perhaps, 'conserve' the status quo, ie the rich running the country and retaining their wealth. The party does seem to still adhere to this aim.

theaussieone · 04-21-2012

"liberal/progressive party", what party would that be, it certainly isnt the democrats, who are centre right. the republicans are flirting with fascism and evangelical madness.

but both a centre right parties, liberals are by definition centralist. this does not include neoliberals like clinton, jfk etc who on many cases are to the right of their predecessors on many issues. clinton was on the right of george bush snr on israel, jfk was to the right of nixon on cuba. they just use 'classic liberla' rhetoric, but their policies are right wing.

now comes obama who has handed big pharma/insurance more clients via state sanctions, has introduced a 'jobs' bill which crushes unions and creates no middle class well paying jobs, he isnt like george bush and just kidnaps and interrogates suspects, he just full on has them killed no questions asked.

tamati · 04-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by theaussieone

"liberal/progressive party", what party would that be, it certainly isnt the democrats, who are centre right. the republicans are flirting with fascism and evangelical madness.

but both a centre right parties, liberals are by definition centralist. this does not include neoliberals like clinton, jfk etc who on many cases are to the right of their predecessors on many issues. clinton was on the right of george bush snr on israel, jfk was to the right of nixon on cuba. they just use 'classic liberla' rhetoric, but their policies are right wing.

now comes obama who has handed big pharma/insurance more clients via state sanctions, has introduced a 'jobs' bill which crushes unions and creates no middle class well paying jobs, he isnt like george bush and just kidnaps and interrogates suspects, he just full on has them killed no questions asked.

unfortunatly our other choice's were/ are so much worse.
We never get to vote FOR a candidate, we instead get to vote for the lessor of two evils.

redneckgymrat · 04-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by theaussieone

"liberal/progressive party", what party would that be,

This is interesting! The fact that you're in Australia, and thus an outsider with regards to US politics, makes your analysis quite fascinating.

A unique (and much clearer than we tend to get locally) analysis, indeed. Thank you.

gymfresh · 04-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by theaussieone

"liberal/progressive party", what party would that be, it certainly isnt the democrats, who are centre right. the republicans are flirting with fascism and evangelical madness.

There's a lot of fear in the US at the moment (fomented by both parties, but one much more than the other). This tends to bring out extremism.

Quote:

neoliberals like clinton, jfk etc who on many cases are to the right of their predecessors on many issues. clinton was on the right of george bush snr on israel, jfk was to the right of nixon on cuba.

Um, Dwight Eisenhower preceded JFK. He was the president when I was born. Richard Nixon was 2 presidents after Kennedy.

Education

I am rather tired of people, both on here and in the media, hurling around terms they don't have the first clue of what they actually mean. These definitions did not come from FAUX news