The ultra right nationalist

[nephropidaeorientalis]

It is interesting that there are still the ultra right and communists. In almost every country there is ultra right. United States, Israel, Europe, etc. The ultra right is as dangerous as the Muslim terrorists because they are radical. Two experiences that did not work: ultra right and communists.

[Endy0816]

Forced communism attempts really don't provide good examples(unsurprisingly). Most communities work out well enough though. Somewhat like a company you work in and are also a shareholder of. 

[Phi for All]

Nationalism attempts lately are more focused on profit than patriotism, imo. The ultra-right (or whatever extremism is handy) provide the chaos and distraction necessary to remove barriers to private enterprise. 

Also imo, condemning communism because you think it has to mean the state owns everything shows how effective ultra-right propaganda is. 

I also question whether the uber conservative label is being correctly applied. In the heavily right-leaning US, where the right wing controls the government, we're building private emergency health facilities left and right in the cities, which is the most expensive type of healthcare there is. We're letting bridges fail before we fix them, which means we spend many times more than if we'd just maintained our infrastructure. How is any of this conservative? I think some labels are being stolen to make certain actions seem justifiable. 

[Area54]

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Also imo, condemning communism because you think it has to mean the state owns everything shows how effective ultra-right propaganda is. 

Indeed. I'm not sure we have ever had a real communist government. Certainly the USSR, (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) never properly claimed to be communist, but merely one stage on the route to communism. It then got taken over by opportunistic sociopath dictators. Following its dissolution several of the Republics got taken over by opportunistic sociopath dictators. But that's irony for you.

And I think your reading of the new-right in the US is accurate - a bunch of opportunistic sociopathic would-be dictators.

[Phi for All]

When you have enough money for it, private ownership of everything, or 100% capitalism, makes the most sense. If you have enough money to live on a park in a museum with a swimming pool, taxes to fund those same things for the public seem pointless, especially if you think personal wealth is the only measure of a person. If you can afford the best doctors on retainer, why would you want to be taxed so others can have healthcare insurance? If you can build your own roads and airports, why do you need the public to help and share ownership?

Opting for more private ownership works best for those who are already own a lot privately. A heavier blend of socialism (public ownership) results in more options for the public. We have a big problem with the richest 1% stifling the other 99%, whether by intention or inadvertent practices, and one of the ways they do that is propaganda spinning socialist and communist solutions as unpatriotic, leftist, government interference that costs jobs and raises taxes. 

Nationalism is not a practical modern goal, imo, and in many cases is being used to create an atmosphere of tension, fear, and distrust using natural patriotic tendencies. Before we start allowing private groups to explore offworld, we need to be united as a planet, as a species. We can't afford to have humans we don't trust with full access to the resources available in space. Space exploration is guaranteed to be part of our future, and we absolutely can't afford to take our greed and pettiness into a galaxy with such abundance. 

[dimreepr]

George Orwell was a clever bugger, no extreme can be the answer, left or right; like with any complicated problem, the middle ground holds the key.  

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

George Orwell was a clever bugger, no extreme can be the answer, left or right; like with any complicated problem, the middle ground holds the key.  

Primary challenge with this approach as I see it is that the "middle ground" keeps shifting. It's being displaced as extremists congregate along one side of the political spectrum. If there are more right wing extremists, almost by definition the "middle ground" gets pulled and more strongly anchored rightward.

[dimreepr]

Just now, iNow said:

Primary challenge with this approach as I see it is that the "middle ground" keeps shifting. It's being displaced as extremists congregate along one side of the political spectrum. If there are more right wing extremists, almost by definition the "middle ground" gets pulled and more strongly anchored rightward.

Indeed, but the pendulum always swings, whilst the middle ground hardly moves. 

[Area54]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but the pendulum always swings, whilst the middle ground hardly moves. 

Are you sure about that? To take a single example, consider the middle ground towards homosexuality in the 1950s compared with today. Are you saying they are identical?

[dimreepr]

Nope, why would I, the pendulum always swings and so does the middle ground, so there is never identical, just an approximation of correct. 

[Area54]

You assert that the middle ground hardly moves. From this I deduce that you think there was very little difference between the middle ground view of homosexuality in the 1950's and today. That doesn't match my experience. In the 50s the middle ground was "I don't want to know about this distasteful practice"; today it is "Whatever. Who cares. It's not an issue." To me that is much more than a "middle ground [that] hardly moves".

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, Area54 said:

You assert that the middle ground hardly moves. From this I deduce that you think there was very little difference between the middle ground view of homosexuality in the 1950's and today. That doesn't match my experience. In the 50s the middle ground was "I don't want to know about this distasteful practice"; today it is "Whatever. Who cares. It's not an issue." To me that is much more than a "middle ground [that] hardly moves".

My reference was George Orwell's examination of both political extremes, neither of which work out well for society/people.

Your reference is more cultural than political (I do realise the two are intertwined), my point is when both sides of the political spectrum work together society/people tend to benefit.

As iNow points out the middle ground is skewed by the more dominant wing but as long as both sides are working together the middle doesn't move that much, the problems arise when only one side is completely dominant.

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

as long as both sides are working together the middle doesn't move that much, the problems arise when only one side is completely dominant.

Indeed, though the latter scenario is clearly the reality in place today.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Indeed, though the latter scenario is clearly the reality in place today.

The fear/poverty driven pendulum swings wildly, with little thought (unfortunately). 

[MigL]

Read a quote ( attributed to someone's professor ) which summed up the basic differences between Capitalism and Communism...

"With Capitalism, what we've got is this unending exploitation of man by man. But with Communism, this lamentable state of affairs ends up being turned the other way around."

 

[Ten oz]

On 8/31/2017 at 10:19 AM, iNow said:

Indeed, though the latter scenario is clearly the reality in place today.

I honestly don't believe this is the result of voter sentiment. Republicans have made it known out in the open it is in their favor to supress voting inareas with large minority populations and used 2010 to draw favorable districts. Additionally the overall popular vote was only won in 2 of the 5yrs listed. In 2016 it is suspected that not only did Republicans actively supress voter turnout in the minority populations of swing states but investigations are ongoing into whether or not assistance from Russian intelligence was accepted. The political movements we are seeing today are arguably not grass roots movements driven by voter sentiment. Rather the are assualts on democracy driven by propoganda and gerrymandering.

[iNow]

I tend to agree. Even in areas where Dems win superior numbers of votes, they're still managing to lose seats. 

[EdEarl]

Oligarchs seem unable to help themselves. The make things worse and worse for people until there is a revolt, e.g., the French Revolution. Police getting weapons of war is a bad sign.

[nec209]

I'm sorry what are you saying  there is movement to white supremacy in the US?

That white supremacy and Nazi is on the upswing in the US?

 

 

[iNow]

It's hard to say, but it would appear so, yes. At the very least, it's no longer relegated to the shadows; no longer a shameful and hidden underbelly of society; no longer shunned by those holding highest office. 

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, nec209 said:

I'm sorry what are you saying  there is movement to white supremacy in the US?

That white supremacy and Nazi is on the upswing in the US?

 

 

Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Sebastian Gorka are white supremacist (Gorka is a Nazi). Have known and for the most part out in the open white supremacist as policy advisors to the President in the White House is stunning. So much so most people blow it off as not true because it confounds our general apathetic view towards government and race relations to think it is even possible for open and out white supremacist to be in the White House and the president pay such little political price for it.There is definately a movement or upwing in these groups obtaining power. PolitiFact looked into it:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/15/are-there-white-nationalists-white-house/

 

 

[Area54]

Despite feminism, despite civil rights, despite a black President, the United States of America has been a white patriachal society since its inception. Now, as generations have grown up with lip service being paid to equality, believing it to be real, demand it be so; as the demographics of the country swing away from a WASP majority, those in control perceive the threat to their power base. A cornered wolverine is at its most dangerous and fights back.

(Spoiler Alert: fear does not lead to effective strategic decision making.)

[Ten oz]

For the last couple decades here in the U.S. Republicans and Conservatives broadly have refuted with great offense the suggestion that they placated and or supported Political ends favorable to bigots. It is now laid bare and plain to see. What do the honest non-bigots amongst them do now? In my opinion it is a test of all their characters. Are tax cuts so important that they'll stand shoulder to shoulder with Nazis at the ballot box? At this point support for GOP candidates/Politicians empowers hate groups whether by accident or intentionally. 

[rangerx]

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Are tax cuts so important that they'll stand shoulder to shoulder with Nazis at the ballot box?

No less calling for, colluding with then denying Russian interference in the electoral process.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, rangerx said:

No less calling for, colluding with then denying Russian interference in the electoral process.

No doubt!

 

I understand here in the U.S. there are people who consider themselves conservative and support Republicans out of fiscal, military, perceived constitutional, and etc policy positions but things have gotten to a point where none of that is current a viable excuse for supporting what is going on. It really doesn't matter one darn bit how great a parent is 99% of the time if they molest their child 1% of the time. Come on already!!!