It seems that most people here hold opinions that lie in the extremity of either liberalism or conservatism, but it appears that few share beliefs that intermingle between both spectrums. For example, I think the poll of TA's political beliefs placed most people as being left or right but there were few centrists. I would hate to label myself as being either liberal or conservative since I share the views of both camps depending upon the topic at hand. At any rate, I stumbled across the horseshoe of politial spectrum that depicted transitional Russia, and I more or less agree with its implications about the problems of embracing either side too dearly and how similar ultra liberalism or conservatism really are ... thoughts?

___________________
Retro ...

By sheer, freaky coincidence, I posted this on a different board about 24 hours ago:

quote:

The difference between a moderate capitalist system (with adequate welfare "nets" in place and so forth) and a socialist system merely boils down to the emphasis placed on the importance of the individual against the importance of the society in which that individual lives. Unadulterated capitalism preaches that the individual takes precedence over society, whereas socialism (as the name would suggest) takes the goals of "society" as being more important than the goals of the individuals within it. The reason I consider myself in the middle on this issue (capitalism moderated by pseudo-socialist policy) is because I believe both elements - the sovereignty of the individual and the simultaneous moral responsibility/duty he owes to his society - are of equal importance. A society that rejects the importance of autonomous individuality is one which restricts the freedom of its constituent members to "self-actualize" ("become" according to their own desires - the Schopenhauerian "will") whereas any society that rejects the necessity of "society" and the responsibility that entails is scarcely a society at all in which every constituent member suffers as a result. Capitalism preaches freedom without responsibility, socialism preaches responsibility without freedom - that's the fundamental difference in the two approaches. In my opinion - as a psuedo-Satrean - within both the individual and the society, freedom and responsibility ought to be entirely commensurable. That is why I accept the freedom of capitalism and the benefits it entails (efficiency etc.) and the responsibility of socialism and the benefits it entails (equality etc.) and think that the most preferable economic system is one which falls somewhere in the middle. Both systems are flawed, so why not attempt to take the most beneficial aspects of each and incorportate them into one system that supports both the individual and the society in which they live?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

occ: I agree, I also find that many are fiercely nationalistic..

___________________
Palm Trees > Pine Trees , Sand > Snow

In France, we have that :





Actually, this is the U.M.P. that govern the country. Before, it was the socialists with the communists and the ecologists.

Now, it's only the U.M.P. And we don't like the Front national.

___________________
Turn your radio up and put your hands together

Marco V - I feel you

I used to be more of a centrist, but as of late I don't think it's any surprise that I've leaned further to the Left. At first this was, admittedly, a reaction to the far-right government that's currently in control. I mean, think about it - they control, for the most part, all 3 branches. You could argue that the Judicial branch is not Conservative controlled, but there is a Conservative majority in the US Supreme Court, plus it seems that our Justice Dept. is seemingly sidestepping (or some might say steamrolling) over Judicial process in the lower courts, esp. with terrorist suspects and their respective attorneys.

But I feel that a balance in power and within the 3 branches is absolutely vital towards an effective government. With the majority of rule in the House, nearly every Democratic issue or Bill created either gets immediately defeated or becomes lost in Committees forever. Consequently, Conservative issues get readily passed, esp. the majority of those created from Bush Co., which essentially gets rubber-stamped down through Congress. There is a little more balance in the Senate (and seemingly a little less hostility), but most Conservative Bills get passed right through. Of course there are exceptions, but in general terms this is correct.

I believe that once there is a more balance in the 3 Branches I will return to my more centrist beliefs, because I think in principle they are the right beliefs. But talking in terms of principles is not reality, esp. with the amount of corruption and deception that is surfacing. Right now I am highly skeptical of any Conservative-backed plan, and until I see a more balance of power I will continue to be incredulous of the Neo-Cons who seemingly are pulling the strings right now.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

You are very lucky in United-States : You don't have any communists or socialists... In France they still persist.

___________________
Turn your radio up and put your hands together

Marco V - I feel you

quote:

Originally posted by festayre In France, we have that : Actually, this is the U.M.P. that govern the country. Before, it was the socialists with the communists and the ecologists. Now, it's only the U.M.P. And we don't like the Front national.

F.N=Le Pen right?

I think that a lot of the negative feelings towards anarchy, communism and socialism come out of ignorace and a misunderstanding of it. That for example chart is completelly 100% wrong and incorrect in how it has the word anarchy as an extreme on the capitalist side. Anarchy as a political principle is very very similar to socialism. It is based on the same fundamental principle of communism and socialism, being that a society can be created where there is no need for order because everyone works together. Anarchy is not based on a chaotic system where an every person for themselves idea is in place. This is a grave misconception. Socialism is in my opinion the best political system as its goal is to make everyone in society prosper. The basic problem with capitalist system is that some people do very well and some do not. there are clearly enough resources for everyone to have more then they need, as so it seems reasonable for everyone to share in that rather then for some to hoard huge amounts well most get little.

I would also like to point out that as practical examples people in places that have become socialist or communist have faired much better then people in capitalist countries. When looking at these examples it is very important to remember to judge them not against standards set by other countries but by where they started and where they ended up. It is also important to consider factors working against them, because in most cases there are many.

Nicaragua: After the Sandinistas took over in Nicaragua the literacy rate rose exponentially, land was redistributed so that it was more equal. The standard of living was overall increased a huge amount. All these things happened in only 5 years. The reason their government fell was because of a war being waged by right wing gorillas who were funded by the United States and more specifically the CIA. This is not a conspiracy theory but a well documented fact.

Cuba: Under Batista the average Cuban was in no way free, was not close to literate and faired very very badly overall. Since the revolution the standard of living has gone up a lot, as well as the literacy rate. Cuba can now boast having one of the best education systems in the world as well as one of the best health care systems. There are more Cuban doctors performing international aid then any other country in the world. Cuba achieved both these things despite a devastating trade embargo placed on it by the US.

Chile: When Salvador Allende took power in 1970 a lot of things changed in Chile. The almost non existent literacy rate went up to 92. Health care and education systems were made substantionelly better and the overall standard of living went up exponentially. Allende did all this in the three years he was in power. In 1973 a military coup organised and funded by the CIA (another well documented historical fact) killed allende and overthrew his regime. General Augusto Pinochet was put into power by the US. Over the 17 or so years he was in power he killed over three thousand civilians, making him one of the most brutal dictators in the history of the twentieth century.

These are just the three examples I thought off the top of my head, Im sure with some research I could find many more.

Last edited by dj adagnitio on Aug-08-2003 at 15:35

To each their own ... to me socialism and communism produce inefficient markets. Give me free markets with some limited government regulation any day.

___________________
Retro ...

But why is the market necessary? your viewing both those governments only from a market based perspective.

LEFT? right? SAME rope. Same strands, same shape and twist, just different hands.

___________________
Art is useless.