I’m amazed. I thought maybe I was too obtuse the first time around, so I tried spelling it out. One more go.
I wasn’t talking about the arsing revolutionary war you twat.
Try again.
I guess I should go ahead and say that I’m an ex-pat (American) living in Sweden, and this is what I see from my horizon:
In Sweden the current government is comprised of a coalition of four “right-wing” parties: Moderates, Folkpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Christian Democrats. They are quite far to the right by traditional Swedish standards, and adamantly deny they have anything to do with Marixism. In fact, they regularly denounce Marxism, communism, and so on, and would be insulted if you were to refer to them as Marxist, leftist, communist, etc.
The opposition consists of the Social Democrats, the Greens, and the “Left Party.” (Seriously, the “Left Party” was the old Communist Party, but changed their name in the late 80s/early 90s because of the negative connotations associated with the name “Communist.”) Anyway, the Social Democrats aren’t Marxist: they are to the right of Marxism. The Greens are all over the map ideologically, imo. Finally you’ve got the Left Party, which was the old Communist Party, but I suspect they would also deny that they are strictly Marxist, even if they make use of some of his ideas.
To find a party that’s truly Marxist, you have to go all the way down to a splinter-group like KPML®, a local party here in Gothenburg that is tiny. KPMLR = Communist Party Marxist-Leninist (Revolutionary).
Now, if we were to map American political parties onto the Swedish political chart, where would they fall? Well, the most far left Democrats would probably land somewhere in the rightward flank of the Moderate Party, which, as I noted above, is Sweden’s most prominent right-wing party. From there the Democratic Party tacks rightward, and Obama would undoubtedly land rather far to the right of Sweden’s current Prime Minister, Fredrick Reinfeldt. In fact, I kinda suspect Obama would be to the right of the entire Moderate Party. Despite the fact that it would be utterly ludicrous to accuse the Moderates of being Marxist, they are left of the US Democratic Party.
There are no parties in Sweden, at least none that I know of, which correspond to the middle of the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is simply off the map in Swedish politics… By European standards, your position would be reactionary right-wing extremism, bordering on fascism.
That’s why I find it utterly astounding to hear the right in the US accuse Obama of being a Marxist. I see you’ve replied to my previous post now, and I’ll return to your response in a second. But I just want to quickly make the point that judging by what you’ve written thus far, you have a no real grasp whatsoever of what Marxism really is, on the ground, in practice, as a day to day matter. You’re merely spouting truisms.
Just because you lived in Iraq, doesn’t mean that Stan doesn’t know more about it than you. He reads NewsMax, you know.
Svin, I like you a lot, but I’m really having trouble buying into this one.
Anyone familiar at all with the right in the US would most definitely NOT be astounded that they would do such a thing. Angered, maybe. Confused, maybe. But astounded? Nah. It’s par for the course.
How about, “I’m astounded by the shear stupidity of the accusation”? No?
“I’m astounded that the right could be so craven”? No, actually, I don’t even buy that one.
The thing is, no matter how stupid they act, they can always find a way to be even more stupid, and I find that astounding.
Would you buy that?
Wow. This is so full of ignorance. :rolleyes:
- The colonies were British.
- What technological developments are you talking about?
- King George was an idiot.
Here’s a history lesson for you:
The conflict between Britain and her American colonists was triggered by the financial costs of the Anglo-French wars of the previous thirty years
…
At the heart of the division between the colonists and Britain was a fundamentally different concept of the purpose of the colonies. To the British, their American lands were there largely to provide raw materials to Britain and be consumers of British manufactured goods. This feeling expressed itself in an increasing control and restriction of American trade and industry that helped to build up resentment, especially in New England, where manufacturing goods for export to the southern colonies was already an important part of the local economy. In contrast, many of the colonists saw themselves as carving a new society from the wilderness, unrestricted by decisions made 3,000 miles away across the Atlantic.
…
The next government attempt to raise money was the Revenue Act of 1767. Put forward by Charles Townshend, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, this was a scheme based on indirect taxes on trade, organised across all of the colonies by a board of commissioners. Townshend suggested that the proceeds could fund both the armed forces needed on the borders, and a civil list that could free royal governors from any need to rely on colonial assemblies for funding. The government had reasonable grounds to expect that this new approach would be acceptable - during the controversy over the Stamp Acts the colonists had accepted the validity of indirect taxation - but instead it was to face protest on both sides of the Atlantic.
Seems to me that Obama spends a lot of time in church for someone devoted to the implacable atheism of classical Marxist theory.
Stan:
A couple, yes.
Your version of Marxism is kinda like the Underpants Gnomes’ version of the dictatorship of the proletariat:
-
Massive government spending
-
?
-
Totalitarian Communist State!
Returning to reality, most, if not all, newly-conceived Marxist regimes begin by putting into place a massive nationalization program. Industries are nationalized, or (following the South American model) land is confiscated and redistributed (so-called “agrarian reform”).
So I’m having trouble making the connection between Obama’s “massive spending programs” and the claim you make that this will necessarily entail the confiscation of private assets. Hell, even in the middle of the worst financial crisis of the last 80 years, Obama balks at nationalizing a single bank – despite the fact that prominent Republicans (Lindsey Graham of SC, for example) have suggested such a course might be necessary.
Do you consider Lindsey Graham to be a Marxist? His program of nationalizing banks is closer to Marxism than Obama’s own plan.
Anyway, please show me any evidence that Obama ran on a platform endorsing the massive nationalization of industries, and/or the seizure and redistribution of private land; or direct me to any policies or programs under the current administration that call for such nationalization/redistribution.
I do. I was there. Dude.
“Community organizer” is code for “community organizer”. It doesn’t need to be more radical than that, the idea of the economically disadvantaged organizing to apply what little political power they have is one hundred percent democratic. “To petition for a redress of grievances” is the precise wording.
You know, we’ve been talking a lot lately about needing a sane conservative voice here on the Boards, wondering how to get one, all we seem to get is loons from Central Casting who want to apply for the position of Conservative Gadfly Who Challenges the Hypocrisies of the SDMB Lefties. Its like American Idol for Rightards.
Maybe there just aren’t any, anymore? Used to be. Maybe the political shift in America has exceeded our ability to keep up with it, they are extinct, all that remain are dickosauruses with notochords for brains.
I dunno. But, damn, this latest crop is totally lame.
It doesn’t make any difference how they refer to themselves; if they are organizing a community of people with related interests for the purpose of increasing political power to effect change, then they are a community activist (or organizer, same thing). If you have a different definition, then perhaps you should share it here. It appears that asshatism is a major part of your definition, which makes yours rather arbitrary.
As a member of the “words have meaning” crowd, I’d like to point out that Iran has not been a stone-aged culture for quite some time. Iran had been a center of culture, religion, trade and learning for more than a thousand years. So it was feudal, maybe. But certainly not stone-age.
luci:
*
Hehehe…
I have actually, after much searching, found an intelligent right-wing blog. I don’t read it too often, because it’s a bit too much “inside baseball” for my taste – i.e., Larison directs much of his attention to other right-wing thinkers – but anyway, for what its worth, try this one:
-
Don’t be silly - Americans have always been Americans. That’s like saying that Jesus was Jewish.
-
You know - American inventions like the steam engine and the spinning mule. If the Crown hadn’t stifled innovation in Britain, the Industrial Revolution might have started there instead of in America.
-
Nonsense! He was an evil mastermind who wanted to crush the colonists under his effete perfumed heel. I’ve seen the Schoolhouse Rock cartoon about it.
On an entirely serious note I once spent an afternoon in the British Library reading Parliamentary records about the war. It was hugely laughable how clueless the MPs were about the motivations of the colonists. IIRC it was 1778 before someone suggested that maybe, you know, if Britain lowered some of the taxes on the US colonies they might stop all that nonsense.
Barbara Tuchman, justly famed for The Guns of August, briefly explored the British side of the Revolutionary War in her book The March of Folly. Though brief, she makes an excellent case that had the British side shown any reasonable concessions to the Colonists, the war would never have happened. Excellent reading, as are most of her works, if not all. Joe Bob 'luc says: Check it out!
Actually ir took the US much of the 19th century to catch up to Britain industrially (still a remarkable achievement). And the Crown didn’t seem to stifle the inventiveness and industry of the British, who led the world until eventually overtaken at the end of the 19th century. (And I think you’ll find it was Germany that initially overtook them. The US took the lead a little later.)
In short, buddy, you are displaying your ignorance of history, and I speak as someone whose politics are to the Right. With friends like you we really don’t need enemies.
We’ve got a whole cast of William Hung’s - they provide a certain level of amusement, but not for the reason you tuned in in the first place.
I used to say that we need sane conservative voices. Mostly I’ve stopped saying that, because it seems like wishing for unicorns or fairies.
Musket fu, bayonet fu; one horse ride, with crash-and-burn.
Is “community activist” a code word for communist? I do not remember the 60s very well.
But no breasts.