Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

are you a Trotskyist?

Trotskyists argue that the Stalinist USSR was not socialist, but a bureaucratized degenerated workers state that is, a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class."

http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html

JSTOR: Was Marx Wrong? A Criticism of Marxism vs. Socialism
Was Marx Wrong? A Criticism of Marxism vs. Socialism, by Valdimir G. Simkhovitch. By I. M. Rubinow. Issued by the Members of the Marx Institute of America. ...
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282(191503)5%3A1%3C141%3AWMWACO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A -

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

Modern Liberalism, Authoritarianism?

Very provoking.

You suggest that the ultimate development of left-wing policies is authoritarian communism?

The question is, where do we find a "fair" middle ground? Forced inequality and discrimination=fascism? Forced equality= communism?

modern conservatism = gop policies = the march of freedom = forced democracy = iraq idiocies

 

[palerider]

Modern Liberalism, Authoritarianism?

Very provoking.

You suggest that the ultimate development of left-wing policies is authoritarian communism? Where inequality is supposed to be inexistent, and anyone who has any conflicting ideas risks being shot by the thought police? Every equality but equality of ideas. Not a very nice place.
Both the USSR and Nazi Germany had radical socialist economic policies and command economies, true.
Nazism believed in racial superiority and Eugenics, persecuting "inferiors" and "undesirables", and anyone who disagreed or didn't discriminate risked being shot.
In both economies, it is also true that the economy was controlled and welfare was provided, but for different goals. The Nazi German economy was strictly controlled by the state, in a form of state capitalism, to prepare for war, to reach the election pledge of increased employment, and also to keep the populace under strict control. The USSR had a command economy to achieve the goal of "equality", and by its nature, the state had absolute control over the economy.
So, you have a point there. Forcing complete social equality also hands massive power to the state, and does not equal "liberty". Ironic.
Nazism forced the opposite, of course. In that sense, both ends of the scale are authoritarian and oppressive, and control every aspect of life, including the economy. And, you will find that both ends of the scale have the same ends. The US is nowhere near economic authoritarianism, but you could see it going that way if you went further to the economic right.

The question is, where do we find a "fair" middle ground? Forced inequality and discrimination=fascism? Forced equality= communism?

The problem with your line of thinking is that you assume further to the right (conservativism) equals more government intereference when by definition, further towards conservativism equals less government interference. Any sort of authoritarinism requires ever larger and more involved government and conservativism, by definition doesn't favor larger government. Any political movenment that requires more government, and more involvement in people's lives by government, is by definition some form of socialism and therefore not conservative in nature.

 

[palerider]

JSTOR: Was Marx Wrong? A Criticism of Marxism vs. Socialism

Of course marx was wrong. He completely failed to take human nature into account when he visualized his "utopia". When he imagined "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. " he assumed that those who had abilities would see things his way and willingly give up the fruit of their labor to those who couldn't provide for themselves. Further, he failed to see that his vision of utopia was doomed to fail because there will always be those who would rather recieve, than work for it themselves which is what we see happening here. As soon as it became possible for those without to vote for those who would take from those who have and give it to them, the foundation for the eventuall collapse of our economic system was laid.

 

[Gipper]

You would think that everyone wants to be free. You would think no one wants to be ruled by tyrants of any kind. Yet many people in the so-called free world (liberals mostly) are not only selling themselves out, they are selling out the rest of us, and our descendants. And so many of them don’t even know they’re doing it (useful idiots as Lenin so aptly referred to them). They’ve been lied to. Tricked, fooled, played. And the agents of statism intend to keep it that way.

http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/index.htm

 

[Gipper]

Why are liberals so intolerant of Christians? Why do liberals hate so much? Why to liberals want to impose their views on everyone? Why do liberals want to silence all who oppose them?

Because they are CRAZY!!!

And this from the soooo tolerant left...

Iowa Town Renames Good Friday to 'Spring Holiday'Citing the Separation of Church and State, Davenport Nixes Holy Day

One week before the most solemn day in the Christian year, the city of Davenport, Iowa removed Good Friday from its municipal calendar, setting off a storm of complaints from Christians and union members whose contracts give them that day off.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/iowa-town-renames-good-friday/story?id=10233061

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Why are liberals so intolerant of Christians? Why do liberals hate so much? Why to liberals want to impose their views on everyone? Why do liberals want to silence all who oppose them?

Because they are CRAZY!!!

And this from the soooo tolerant left...

I don't know about libs in general, but for myself I don't hate Christians just their hypocrisy (love the sinner, hate the sin). As far as I know the Christians have not been silenced in their centuries long pogrom against gay and trans people, we are still persecuted by the force of law passed by the "love others as yourself" Christians.

Christians are prosecuting a war in the Middle East in direct contravention to the teachings of their holy man, Jesus.

Has anyone here tried to silence you? How? I haven't noticed that you are any more silent than before, are you? Why I haven't even made a blanket statement about the mental health of cons, like you did about libs. Which one of us is shrill now?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You would think that everyone wants to be free. You would think no one wants to be ruled by tyrants of any kind. Yet many people in the so-called free world (liberals mostly) are not only selling themselves out, they are selling out the rest of us, and our descendants. And so many of them don’t even know they’re doing it (useful idiots as Lenin so aptly referred to them). They’ve been lied to. Tricked, fooled, played. And the agents of statism intend to keep it that way.

Yes, gay people want to be free of the bonds imposed by the Christian majority, transpeople and gay people want to have equality with our Christians brothers and sisters. Why sell out your American heritage by enshrining discrimination in US Law?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Of course marx was wrong. He completely failed to take human nature into account when he visualized his "utopia". When he imagined "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. " he assumed that those who had abilities would see things his way and willingly give up the fruit of their labor to those who couldn't provide for themselves. Further, he failed to see that his vision of utopia was doomed to fail because there will always be those who would rather recieve, than work for it themselves which is what we see happening here. As soon as it became possible for those without to vote for those who would take from those who have and give it to them, the foundation for the eventuall collapse of our economic system was laid.

Your comments about Marx work just as well for Jesus.

 

[palerider]

Your comments about Marx work just as well for Jesus.

No, because Jesus asked for those who "had" to be cheerful givers but made no recomendations that those who haven't recieve their share of the goods of those who "had" at the point of a spear via government demand.

Marx, on the other hand was all about forced government redistribution of goods.

When one individual helps another, both get something out of the transaction, such is not the case when government is the armed middle man.

 

[Gipper]

No, because Jesus asked for those who "had" to be cheerful givers but made no recomendations that those who haven't recieve their share of the goods of those who "had" at the point of a spear via government demand.

Marx, on the other hand was all about forced government redistribution of goods.

When one individual helps another, both get something out of the transaction, such is not the case when government is the armed middle man.

Well said and those are words liberals will never understand or they want to impose their will on others.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No, because Jesus asked for those who "had" to be cheerful givers but made no recomendations that those who haven't recieve their share of the goods of those who "had" at the point of a spear via government demand.

Marx, on the other hand was all about forced government redistribution of goods.

When one individual helps another, both get something out of the transaction, such is not the case when government is the armed middle man.

Bull fecal matter. If one didn't do what Jesus said then they would go to Hell. If that isn't a threat, then the Pope isn't a Catholic. Hell is much better than a spear point as far as threats go.

Jesus was a liberal in the extreme and advocated giving all you had to the poor and following Him in poverty while laying up riches in Heaven. Why would God go through all the trouble of having nearly 2000 admonitions about caring for the poor and unfortunate in the Bible if He was only kidding?

The people who are trying to make Jesus' teachings about getting physical wealth are deliberately misconstruing His words for their own personal benefit.

 

[palerider]

Bull fecal matter. If one didn't do what Jesus said then they would go to Hell. If that isn't a threat, then the Pope isn't a Catholic. Hell is much better than a spear point as far as threats go.

Does the term free will mean anything to you? By the way, I don't recall Jesus ever saying that if you didn't do what he said, it was off to hell with you. If I remembember correctly, the only requsite to getting into heaven was to believe in him. Feel free to show me the passage where he made such a threat if you think I am in error.

Jesus was a liberal in the extreme and advocated giving all you had to the poor and following Him in poverty while laying up riches in Heaven. Why would God go through all the trouble of having nearly 2000 admonitions about caring for the poor and unfortunate in the Bible if He was only kidding?

Wouldn't that make the poor rich and doom them to perdition?

By the way, do a bit of research. Conservatives give far more of their personal wealth, and time to the needy while liberals as a group depend on government to do it for them.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

http://ww.uniontrib.com/uniontrib/20080327/news_lz1e27will.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

One other thing, Jesus was a strong advocate of personal responsibility. Hardly a modern liberal trait.

 

[Gipper]

Bull fecal matter. If one didn't do what Jesus said then they would go to Hell. If that isn't a threat, then the Pope isn't a Catholic. Hell is much better than a spear point as far as threats go.

Jesus was a liberal in the extreme and advocated giving all you had to the poor and following Him in poverty while laying up riches in Heaven. Why would God go through all the trouble of having nearly 2000 admonitions about caring for the poor and unfortunate in the Bible if He was only kidding?

The people who are trying to make Jesus' teachings about getting physical wealth are deliberately misconstruing His words for their own personal benefit.

This proves I know how libs think. I am so good.

It is amusing when libs talk about Jesus. First they know nothing about Him or Christianity. Second, they do not believe in Him and many hate Him. And lastly, please continue your unGodly ways.

"If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.... If they persecuted Me they will persecute you... for they do not know the One who sent Me." John 15:19-21

"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:10

Lord,
by shedding his blood for us,
your Son, Jesus Christ,
established the paschal mystery.
In your goodness, make us holy
and watch over us always.
We ask this through Christ, our Lord. Amen

May Jesus bless you and keep you on this most wonderful day.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Does the term free will mean anything to you? By the way, I don't recall Jesus ever saying that if you didn't do what he said, it was off to hell with you. If I remembember correctly, the only requsite to getting into heaven was to believe in him. Feel free to show me the passage where he made such a threat if you think I am in error.

Of course you are in error. Over and over again the Bible-beaters says that you can't take ONE thing from the Bible, that you have to take things in context of the whole Bible. According to the whole Bible context free will is meaningless because if you don't do what god supposedly WANTS you to do, then you go to eternal torment. Bear in mind that Jesus never said a word about gay people and yet gays are persecuted endlessly and condemned by Christians.

Wouldn't that make the poor rich and doom them to perdition?

No, of course not. If the poor were doing as Jesus said then they would also be giving away the money and in the end everyone would have enough and the concepts of rich and poor would be meaningless. I don't recall that there was a dollar amount put on the entrance fee to perdition, do you?

By the way, do a bit of research. Conservatives give far more of their personal wealth, and time to the needy while liberals as a group depend on government to do it for them.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

http://ww.uniontrib.com/uniontrib/20080327/news_lz1e27will.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

One other thing, Jesus was a strong advocate of personal responsibility. Hardly a modern liberal trait.

Two points: one, the rich people SHOULD give more because they have the money. And two, it's only YOUR definition of personal responsibility that says libs aren't. I'm accused of being a lib, but I have a strong sense of personal responsibility. So much for your sweeping generalizations.

Personal responsibility extends to caring for those less fortunate according to the Bible--nearly 2000 admonitions to do so. Obviously God can see the difference between being poor or unfortunate and lacking in personal responsibility.

Nice to discuss with you when there is less animosity on both sides, Pale.