Punch on: Open thread 02/10/09

Eric says:

06:16am | 02/10/09

Ah, the wonders of revolutionary socialist government!

eddie says:

07:30am | 02/10/09

@ eric. I think that the mexican govt at the time could be more aqccurately described as a totalitarian regime, certainly not, by that stage, exhibiting any evidence of socialist ideals.
I suppose that in your view no right wing government has ever slaughtered its own people?
I often read your comments Eric and am reminded of a line in an old song-
“hey old man how can you stand to think that way?”

Eric says:

09:54am | 02/10/09

Eddie, unlike you, I actually think instead of making assumptions.

For example, you assume incorrectly that in my view “no right wing government has ever slaughtered its own people”.

That’s what you get for making assumptions, instead of thinking.

Big Daz says:

10:08am | 02/10/09

@ Eric - The mexican government of the day was certainly far from Socialist - a totalitarian dictatorship is more accurate.  Perhaps you need to learn a simple rule - just because a group labels themselves as something doesn’t make it so.  For instance the ‘Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea’ is neither democratic nor a ‘peoples republic’  it is a dictatorship formed on a lie about what socialism is.

Al says:

10:10am | 02/10/09

@eddie - the only right wing government I can think of that “slaughteres its own people” was that of Pinochet.

On the other hand the left has

- Hitler (National Socialism)
- Stalin (Communism)
- Mao (Marxism)
- Pol Pot (Marxism)
- Castro (Socialism)

The list goes on and on and on.

How can you ignore the history of murder associated with the ‘caring left’.

I am reminded of a slogan:

“Socialism: Only 200 Million Dead - let’s give it another chance.

Alec S says:

10:17am | 02/10/09

Eddie and Big Daz..you were saying ?

Big Daz says:

10:33am | 02/10/09

@ Al oh please tell me that you are joking !  National Socialism is a RIGHT wing ideology!  My goodness has education become so bad in this country that people are this ignorant?! I will point out again that just because a group labels themselves as something doesn’t make it so! Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro all lead totalitarian dictatorships - none of them actually implemented a true socialist government!!

Oh and lets not foget Musolini, Suharto, Ngo Dinh Diem, Botha, Noriega.. should I continue?  There have been attrocities committed for centuries by both sides of the political divide, your little list - even excluding your stuff up with the Nazis demonstrates nothing but your ignorance.

pc says:

11:02am | 02/10/09

How uncurious to find Al and Eric on the same strand, saying the same things again.

“Anyone who thinks that the communist regimes of central Europe are exclusively the work of criminals are overlooking a basic truth: the criminal regimes were not made by criminals but by enthusiasts convinced they had discovered the only road to paradise. They defended that road so valiantly that they were forced to execute many people. Later it became clear that there was no paradise, that the enthusiasts were therefore murderers…” Milan Kundera. The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

Anyone, and there are many, who think the invasion of Iraq was exclusively the work of criminals are overlooking a basic truth: the invasion was not made by criminals but by neo cons convinced they had discovered the only road to peace. They paved that road so valiantly they were forced to execute many people. Later it became clear there was no peace, the neo cons were therefore murderers…

In the last fifty years the national security state of the U.S has murdered in the name of peace/freedom/capitalism (apart from its own citizens). The fire bombings of Tokyo, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Bolivia, Nicuargua, Somalia…..... (and it isnt over yet)

RT says:

11:11am | 02/10/09

Earlier this week on this part of The Punch, contributors were complaining about comments made by Magda Szubanski that appeared to incite violent road rage against cyclists. I see this report where Magda completely retreats from the comments and apologises, after much criticism including from some of Australia’s best known cyclists:
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,26154018-10229,00.html

Al says:

11:37am | 02/10/09

@Big Daz - If you actually took the time to understand Nazi theology you would understand that it was broadly based on socialism. This included the socialisation of industry (never a right wing policy) and concepts such as the fatherland and obligations to the state - right wing it was not. It is you who has been improperly educated.  Mussolini is the same.

Suharto was anti-communist in that communism threatened his power base but that does not make him right wing. Diem was fascistic- as explained not a right wing ideology.

I always find the point abiut ‘true socialism’ amusing. There is no way to introduce socialism without coercion - socialists must sieze capital and force people to hand the profits of their labour to the state. This is a precondition of their system which breeds failure by punishing initative which causes revolt amongst those with talent - inevitably leading to violent supression.

Big Daz says:

12:12pm | 02/10/09

@ Al ‘If you actually took the time to understand Nazi theology ...’  ROFL.  So Nazism teaches a belief in a supreme being?  If I study the the development of doctrines and dogma surrounding this being I’ll understand better will I?  That you don’t even know what theology is says a lot about your answer.

The Nazi’s did not socialise industry - it was never put into public ownership, it was taken over by a dictatorship.  Since when does the right wing not espouse loyalty and obligation to the state?  I would think there are a lot of republicans in the US and Liberals in Australia that would vehemently oppose your argument.  Nationalism is used just as much by the right as it is by the left - arguably moreso.

alto says:

12:37pm | 02/10/09

Al and Big Daz - you’re both talking about ‘left’ and ‘right’ as though the terms are relevant to modern understanding of politics. They’re not. They gained popularity as a broad description of opposing political systems at the height of the cold war, more than half a century ago. With the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and the diffusion of political ideologies, the terms are useless except for facile debating on blogs. However, Al, it’s laughable to suggest that the Nazis were left wing. You seem to be trying to redefine an outdated term, and failing.

pc says:

01:29pm | 02/10/09

Big Daz and RT,

Hi guys or should I say tavarich. Eric and Al’s (complete absence of an argument) make as much sense as Islamophobes burning buddhists. (No doubt they wouldnt miss the opportunity to warms their hands by such a fire.)

Eric and Al - Nazis
Eric and Al - Communists
Eric and Al - Capitalists
Eric and Al - Socialists
Eric and Al - Homophobes
Eric and Al - Homosexuals
Eric and Al - arguments
Eric and Al - ad hominem bullshi%^

I should thank Eric and Al for giving me the opportunity to show off and make them look stupid - again.

Al says:

01:51pm | 02/10/09

@Daz - You have beclowned yourself again - Nazism was a theology in the sense that it elevated nature and naturalism as divinity and the Aryan Race as an embodiment of that divinity. The ideology that flowed from this is part of the theology in the same way the economic policy implicit in Catholic instructions to help the poor is part of Catholic theology.

Your argument that industry wasn’t socialised but taken over by a dictatorship is spurious, you are playing semantics. You can’t argue that it was not taken over by government just like private property in every other communist/socialist nation.

@alto - right and left have their basis in an economic continum and that is how I am using them - the right has free markets the left has controlled markets. On theis definition fascism is clearly left because the markets (and therefore the people) are under state control.

Big Daz says:

02:17pm | 02/10/09

@ AL - No my friend you have yet again demonstrated that you have no clue what you are talking about.  What you have described could be best describd as pantheism - the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God, which is understood as an abstract principle representing natural law, existence, and the Universe rather than as an anthropomorphic entity.  It is not a theistic view of deity and thus cannot be described in theological terms. 

In regard to your whine about industry - it’s not semantics, it’s fact.  Nazi Germany was a dictatorship in which the people had no say. The Government was powerless to act without the direct say so of the fuhrer.  That is not socialism - just as the dictatorships run by Stalin and Mao were not socialism.

Now onto your comment regarding right and left - there are two ways to define right and left.  On a purely economic basis as you are attempting to, or on the more commonly accepted politcal basis which takes into account not only economics but authoritarianism/libertarianism, social progressiveness/conservatism.  It is on this basis that the debate between right and left has been argued in political circles for decades and it is on this basis that I put my argument.

iansand says:

02:46pm | 02/10/09

Storm by 20.  let’s get this bit of froth and nonsense onto an important topic.

Al says:

02:49pm | 02/10/09

@Daz - If I conceed some “terminological inexactitude” can we get to the issue?

Socialism cannot work (except in voluntary communes) without the state actively involving curtailing freedom. This is true for a two reasons, namely:

- those who do not want to take part in the system must be compelled tof
- since pure democracy is unachievable someone will have to make the decisions and inevitably others will disagree with those decisions, so they must be compelled to follow them,

Therefore a socialist nation must be authoritarian, be it “progressive” or “conservative”. My argument is simply that socialism cannot be instituted without state coercion.

The alternative is the free market, which requires a number of freedoms to be in place to function.

At the core of Communism and Fascism is a system which, by necessity takes away individual rights through exactly the same mechanism for the good of society.

On the other hand liberlaism (in the classical sense) gives individual rights for the good of society. All the rest flows from this base.

Progressiveness/conservatism are largely meaningless political labels.

Authoritarianism/Libertarianism are more important, and while there are those who claim to be “socially liberal socialists” - it will never work in practice for the reasons outlined above.

Thus fascism is a left wing ideology for the same reason that communism is.

RT says:

03:06pm | 02/10/09

Al: most of Europe, and until recently, the US and Australian were governed by what some still think of as ‘right-wing’ parties? Do any of those countries have markets that operate free of any government regulation? Isn’t it true that there are no ‘free markets’ anywhere, just greater or lesser market regulation by government, usually in response to prevailing economic conditions or events? Similarly, talking about ‘socialism’ ignores the fact that the government sector is a large part of any country’s economy, and there are few where there is no private sector, so again it is a question of degree of government involvement in the economy, not presence or absence. In other words, defining politics in such simplistic terms is next to meaningless, and ignores the whole spectrum of non-economic political positions.

Al says:

03:42pm | 02/10/09

@RT: There are a few free markets left in places like Luxomberg, Monte Carlo etc.

Most of Europe is governed by what would more correctly be described as welfare stateists - i.e. tax and spend to redistribute wealth. Australia has also largely fallen into this trap - including under the previous government.

Under the current economic order the governments of most Western nations play a large role in their economies, but few forcefully socalise/take control of industry (except in the form of bailouts).

I would describe most of these governments as centrist, they are only left or right relative to their opposition. For example Sarkozy would be comfortable in the ALP as would Trunbull in the Democrats.

Isn’t it the case however that those nations whose people have the freer markets also tend towards giving their people the most freedom social freedoms?

Isn’t it also the case that every country which has attempted to introduce some form of socialism has really introduced nothing but suffering?

I agree that left and right is simplistic in a theoretical sense and much prefer the political compass, however when it comes to reality history tells us that economics to a large extent dictates individual freedoms.

RT says:

04:22pm | 02/10/09

Al:
‘Most of Europe is governed by what would more correctly be described as welfare stateists - i.e. tax and spend to redistribute wealth.’ = hmm - add to that all of North America, Australia, and parts of Asia - doesn’t leave much that could be described as ‘free market’, does it?
‘Isn’t it the case however that those nations whose people have the freer markets also tend towards giving their people the most freedom social freedoms?’ - That’s not obvious to me
Isn’t it also the case that every country which has attempted to introduce some form of socialism has really introduced nothing but suffering?’ - not really - I’d say China and Vietnam, having weathered some very harsh periods, have come through with a reasonably successful quasi-socialist centrist economy. Not that I’m an advocate for that.
‘history tells us that economics to a large extent dictates individual freedoms’. I can’t think of much evidence for this claim. It’s the reverse: democratic systems with freedoms together with checks and balances on the private sector generally foster economic prosperity.

Al says:

05:16pm | 02/10/09

RT - I agree that most of the world’s governments are to greater or lesser extent’s welfare states and there are few free markets so I don’t get your first point.

The nations with the least personal freedom in the world have the most restrictive markets e.g. North Korea, China, Cuba, Burma etc.

This goes for modern history as well e.g. Soviet Union, Nazi Germany etc.

Conversly USA,  Britian, France, Norway - nations with relatively greater social freedom than the communist nations have greater economic freedom.

I notice you refer to checks and balances on the private sector as guaranteeing rights. This is an interesting theory, however I think you will find that oppression is largely the sin of governments (legitimate or otherwise) not the private sector.

It is the states that massacre dissidents not the private sector - can you point to a company that has killed as many people as any of the “great” tyrants?

stephen says:

12:02am | 03/10/09

I ain’t a friggin’ money man, but even I can spot a dog ; Capitalism works best when all parties partake. The varieties of geographies and histories plus cultures means everybody has a chance to benefit. Capitalism IS the new culture.

RT says:

01:11pm | 03/10/09

Al, if you’re still there:

My first point in my last email was that your earlier comments about Europe apply to almost all developed economies, showing that there is no point talking about ‘free markets’ except in the theoretical sense .

Your second point - depends on what you mean by ‘freer markets’. I contend that most Scandanavian countries, for example, have more highly regulated markets than most developed economies and a large public sector, but also more freedoms than anywhere else.

I didn’t claim that checks and balances on the private sector guarantees rights. My point was that such regulation is essential for economic prosperity. Investors need a system that will protect their funds from unscrupulous or incompetent company directors etc and consumers also need regulatory protection. Regulation of the private sector a demonstrably necessary step for the creation of a sound and successful economy. That idea is better understood now than ever before and so the whole ‘neo-con’, free market, low regulation thing is pretty much lacking in support anywhere.