[Demosthenes]

This wouldn't be so dangerous a philosophy if you right wingers hadn't gotten so many of the poor and working-class to believe it for themselves.

Congratualtions on an effective organizing and propagandizing effort-- but our time will come.

Who exactly are you congratulating? And I love it when you lefties come in here denoucing rightist ideas as propaganda, yet feel free to spread your own... puh-lease...

Sounds like you're putting the blame in the wrong place. Maybe you should be paid more

No...sounds to me like he's practicing the politics of personal responsibility, something you are evidentally unfamilar with.

(don't you think your employer could afford it?).

How is that relevant in any way?

how about raising taxes on those who can afford to pay it?

You leftists...never cease to amaze me...Always worried about what's in everone else's pocket books but you're own. Puh-lease.

Whoa-- what a crazy idea. Crazy because the right wing has the working class in the ether and convinced that if the rich people have to pay people more or pay more in taxes that there will be no more jobs

No we are not convinced of any such thing. I think if you hide someone's pocketbook, and have to make a decesion on who pays what, it isn't fair to make one pay more than the other.

Bullshit corporate media propaganda and a very impressive organizing effort by the right wing over the last 30 years are responsible for this nonsense ideology amongst the working class.

As opposed to the bullshit ideology you're spouting..."Everyone will be ok if we just tax the shit out the rich; they stole, lied, and cheated to get rich anyway so why not rob them blind back!... *Of course when I get rich, this isn't fair anymore...but I won't talk about that.*" Flase assumptions and playing on people's paranoia isn't the answer. Self determination is.

Yeah, yeah-- I know I'm a lazy, smelly, pinko hippy and it goes against human nature and blah, blah, blah. Bottom line-- pay me what I'm worth,

Which is...what exactly? A million dollars? A hundred thousand? What is the proper wage for an outstanding working stiff like yourself? And what line of work are you in again?

give me freedom on the job

Freedom to do what? sounds like you need a healthy dose of "get a new job"

and stop letting the rich get away with murder.

The aristocrats ALWAYS get away with murder...(hmmm...literally) and they always will. Even in your socicalist dream world (God, didn't I just say this is that other worthless thread?) Which would merely replace private aristocrats with gubment counterparts...

Flat tax? Flat wrong

So don't vote for it...what a silly, silly thing to say. Flat wrong? Flat Head [/code]

[Nicky Scarfo]

Demosthenes:

Well, I will refrain from posting in this section because conservatives get my blood boiling to the point to where I lose any semblance of rational discourse and quickly resort to attacks and cheap shots (which I'm sure you've noticed). If you want to see me expound on my political and economic philosophy in a more reasoned manner, which is probably further outside the "leftist" box than you might expect, drop down to the Libertarian forum some time.

I will answer one of your questions before I go however:

Who exactly are you congratulating?

The right-wing in general. Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, Ralph Reed and their ilk in particular. I will give credit where credit is due. They have been in the trenches engaging in political and grass-roots organizing for nearly 30 years and they've done an excellent job. Their strategy was visionary and unyielding. They have done an excellent job at moving the Republican Party so far to the right they are nearly fascist, mobilizing the ignorant Christian fundamentalist hatemonger base, and they have battled so well in the popular culture and media (the man on your avatar is one of their success stories) that they have convinced the American working class to act against their own interests consistently.

Grover Norquist did well to emulate the ruthless organizing techniques of his political hero, Vladmir Lenin. He apparently also applied the lessons of another one of his pet leftist heroes, Antonio Gramsci very well. Funny how rightists from Italy's Fascists to the Nazi Party to the eminence grises of the Republican Party have been able to so easily adapt the organizational principles of the Bolshevik Party to serve their own agendas. I've got a lot of beefs with the Lenin and Bolsheviks too, but like I said before-- gotta give credit where credit's due.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

SUAUSA, the Republican Party has hardly moved to the far right. Rather, it has returned to its roots--the party of neo-mercantilism, empire, and pietist "order" (read: depriving citizens of liberty for "their own good"). Members of the Old Right, such as Albert Jay Nock, H.L. Mencken, and Robert Taft would've detested this, decrying the Republican agenda as toward omnipotent government and a depraved populace. Surviving members of the Old Right, such as Pat Buchanon, William S. Lind, Charley Reese (who has openly stated his intention to vote Kerry), Ron Paul and Russel Kirk, openly oppose George W. Bush and most of the Republican Party.

[Nicky Scarfo]

SUAUSA, the Republican Party has hardly moved to the far right. Rather, it has returned to its roots--the party of neo-mercantilism, empire, and pietist "order" (read: depriving citizens of liberty for "their own good"). Members of the Old Right, such as Albert Jay Nock, H.L. Mencken, and Robert Taft would've detested this, decrying the Republican agenda as toward omnipotent government and a depraved populace. Surviving members of the Old Right, such as Pat Buchanon, William S. Lind, Charley Reese (who has openly stated his intention to vote Kerry), Ron Paul and Russel Kirk, openly oppose George W. Bush and most of the Republican Party.

Um, I believe imperalism and statist tyranny is to the right (check out my posts in the libertarian forum-- seriously, please do before you respond, even though its quite a bit to read through, it will give you a good idea of my views on economics and politics). Also, in matters of economic policy-- well let's just say Richard Nixon (ditto for Buchanan) was practially a socialist compared to George W Bush. And the influence of the Christian fundamentalists (who's views I believe are outright fascist or worse) have certainly solidified the Party's right-wing social views. Like I said, check out my posts down in the libertarian forum before you respond.

[Demosthenes]

Well, I will refrain from posting in this section because conservatives get my blood boiling to the point to where I lose any semblance of rational discourse and quickly resort to attacks and cheap shots (which I'm sure you've noticed).

I did actually, which is why my replies were short, terse, and similar to your own.

If you want to see me expound on my political and economic philosophy in a more reasoned manner, which is probably further outside the "leftist" box than you might expect

I've been on this site for a year. You're an American. Now matter how "left" you think you are, I have seen leftier.

drop down to the Libertarian forum some time.

I have. The libs said what I would have said, or was unable to articulate already. As a rule they are stronger in economic matters than am I personally.

They have been in the trenches engaging in political and grass-roots organizing for nearly 30 years and they've done an excellent job. Their strategy was visionary and unyielding. They have done an excellent job at moving the Republican Party so far to the right they are nearly fascist

You had me thinking we we're going to go somewhere until you had to go throw this around...Bush = Hitler, Conservitism = Fascism.
Nice, real nice... How about, if we're going to play games we play this game: Kerry/Clinton = Stalin, Liberals = Communism...absurdity can play both ways.

I won't quote the rest of your post, but I want to point out an undeniable point that you seem to imply and that is that while the conservative "brain trust" has been hard at work educating the masses the way they see fit, the Liberals have done no such thing. This implication is clearly a lie.

The massive campaign the liberal braintrust has undertaken during this exact time includes convincing people that whacko environmentalism is the only environmentalism, that policies of appeasement work, despite European failures in that regard last century, that our own soldiers should be despised for providing us our Freedom, that massive taxation on EVERYONE, not just the rich, is not just desirable but necessary to alleviate all the imaginary ills this country faces, and of course that the Republicans don't believe the way they do because they have the same goal as the left and just believe in different methods, but because they want to starve the poor, put old folks on the street, and eat children.

So when we're talking about the realm of who has agendas and who doesn't be sure to include ALL that do, and not just the ones YOU don't favor.

but like I said before-- gotta give credit where credit's due.

A dubious claim, at best...

[Todd D.]

Also, in matters of economic policy-- well let's just say Richard Nixon (ditto for Buchanan) was practially a socialist compared to George W Bush.

George Bush has increased spending more in 4 years than Clinton did in 8, and that does not include the War in Iraq. He's increased the Federal Government's role in Education. He's increased spending on Medicare. He's increased the size of federal intelligence. I mean come on, you think that compared to Buchanan, THIS is free market? Please.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Imperialism is a doctrine independent of ideology per se, though it should be noted that the first explicitly anti-imperialist polity was Switzerland, which is generally interpreted by historians as being, insofar as it is possible to classify medieval politics, right-wing. Currently, imperialism is embraced by both elements of the far "right" (Bill Kristol's "national greatness") and the left (humanitarian missions).

Statolotry, on the other hand, has always been a doctrine of the left--it wasn't until the fascist states arose that the right could be considered to embrace statolotry, and most "real" right-wingers (such as myself) decry statolotry as evil. Those on the right find statolotry attractive are fascists and neoconservatives (who, as is well-known, are former Trotskyites and derive much of their philosophy from the notorious Leo Strauss).

In matters of economic policy, yes, Bush is to the right of Richard Nixon, but certainly not Pat Buchanan. While Buchanan is a firm protectionist (though he abandoned this for his 92 Presidential run on the advice of Murray Rothbard--later returning to it), he otherwise oppose interventionism. Bush, on the other hand, has dramatically increased spending, levied tariffs and NTBBs, increased corporate welfare, greatly increased farm subsidies, created several new economic regulatory agencies, and made no effort to stop the bureaucracies from creating tens of thousands of new regulations per year.

For the record, I didn't read your post in the libertarianism forum, though I will.

[Nicky Scarfo]

You had me thinking we we're going to go somewhere until you had to go throw this around...Bush = Hitler, Conservitism = Fascism.

For the record, I never compared Bush to Hitler or equated conservatism with fascism.

I stated that Norquist's organizing techniques were culled from Lenin, and that he was not the first right-winger to use Bolshevik organizing techniques as the Nazi Party and Fascist Party used them too.

I also do not regard conservatives as fascists per se, nor did I ever indicate that I did. However, I do believe the Republican Party has essentially become fascist in its ideology. I stand by that. The necons are running the Party in alliance with the Christian fundamentalists. The imperialism, ultranationalism, and authoritarian statism of the neocons combined with the religious bigotry of the Christian fundamentalists, I believe qualifies as (more or less) fascist ideology.

I know you will disagree with me on this, but please don't simplify my analysis into some lefty liberal claptrap about Bush being Hitler. Also, for the record, although I believe the Republican Party's ideology to be fascist, I do not think we are living under a fascist regime (not yet at least). We will see what happens if the permanent one-party state hegemony that Norquist, Rove and others have advocated becomes a reality. But that's a topic for another thread.

Just wanted to set the record straight on my views.

Oh and by the way, call Kerry and Clinton Stalinists all you want. I think they're cocksuckers anyways.

[Nicky Scarfo]

D--

Statolotry, on the other hand, has always been a doctrine of the left--it wasn't until the fascist states arose that the right could be considered to embrace statolotry, and most "real" right-wingers (such as myself) decry statolotry as evil. Those on the right find statolotry attractive are fascists and neoconservatives (who, as is well-known, are former Trotskyites and derive much of their philosophy from the notorious Leo Strauss).

Most likely true, but the neoconservatives (and Christian fascists) are the right-wingers in power now, so understandably my analysis of the right-wing will focus on them.

Also, I disagree that statolotry has always been a doctrine of the left. The various strains of traditional (read: left) anarchism and syndicalism are overtly and virulently anti-statist. As to the Commies--Marx and Lenin both agreed that the socialist state was merely a transitional stage, and that destruction of the state was the ultimate goal of Communism ("As long as the state exists there will be no freedom"-- Lenin).

Unfortunately, Lenin made a fatal error. The error was in structuring the new socialist state around an autocratic and extremely hierarchical and centralized system controlled by a minority vanguard party. Mussolini and Hitler emulated this organizational strategy and we all know the results.

Lenin dies. Enter Stalin, who masterfully exploits the autocratic structure created by Lenin and the Bolshevik Party to turn the USSR into his own personal dictatorship. Stalin develpoed the notion of "socialism in one country", and turned the focus from building worldwide socialism to patriotic duty to the nation-state. And all other Communist revolutions that followed more or less adopted these principles.

So you can say that Lenin laid the groundwork for Communist statolotry through the organizational structures he helped build, but that Stalin was the first Communist leader to elevate statist practices into ideology.

Now I think we should continue this discussion elsewhere as this is getting WAY OFF the flat tax topic. Besides, if a Maoist drops in and reads what I just wrote we'll be in for a world of shit.

[smashthestate]

Ideally, a society should not need taxes. Helping your fellow man, a sense of community, is all-important to maintaining a healthy society and community. However, these very important aspects of the human experience must be voluntarily carried out. It is not moral to force these kinds of ideas on people, no matter how noble they are.

I quote Michail Bakunin, whom many consider the founding father of left-anarchism or social anarchism:

"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it."
- Michail Bakunin

Now if there's one type of socialist that I respect, it's the type that recognize the importance of non-aggression within society, even to achieve good ends. I'm surprised that many of the state-socialists on this forum don't support fascism. The sort of fascism Jesse advocates, the end justifies the means, because the end is a more or less perfect society. Everyone is more or less equal as far as material possessions.

The point is that Bakunin, an extreme social anarchist, still was able to realize just how important it was to achieve these noble ends without the initiation of force. What really annoys me is that a lot of the socialists on this forum just have this addiction with authorizing the state to control the social behavior of an entire society. This sickens me, truly. It is not much better than full-on fascism, in my opinion. The basic premise is the same: utilizing the state's monopoly on force to achieve political and social ends.