The End of Lukashenko is near. - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15104138
Political Interest wrote:The liberalism you have in the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries is for now a watered down version. You still have your national traditions and cultural conservatism to provide some balance.

I live in the West and do not have such luxuries. In fact liberalism is reaching such extremes that I fear for the future. That is why I am interested in different ideologies.

Or perhaps it is not so much a question of ideology as much as it is national history and cultural traditions that we have in the West.

In any case I do not want Russia as an enemy. It is simply a dead end.


How is it related to Belarus though. The current shtick of Lukashenko that the opposition is sponsored by Poland and Russia to overthrow him. :lol: Also Putin is pissed at Lukashenko.
#15104144
JohnRawls wrote:How is it related to Belarus though.


Because Lukashenko is not liberal.

JohnRawls wrote:The current shtick of Lukashenko that the opposition is sponsored by Poland and Russia to overthrow him. :lol: Also Putin is pissed at Lukashenko.


Is Putin annoyed because Lukashenko has made overtures to the US in the last few years?
#15104149
Political Interest wrote:Because Lukashenko is not liberal.



Is Putin annoyed because Lukashenko has made overtures to the US in the last few years?


Regarding war between EU and Russia:
I don't see how Lukashenko being liberal or illiberal has anything to do with a war being waged between Russia and Lukashenko :?:

Putin:
No, he is just pissed about Lukashenko not fullfilling his promises although Putin sponsored him for a long time now. Basically Russia has given Lukashenko 2nd and 3rd chances and Lukashenko sent them for a ride, took the money and didn't do much. I guess Putin position is that if Belarus doesn't want to integrate then they will not recieve money as they used to.
#15104159
JohnRawls wrote:Liberalism changed over time. Ideologies are not static. America has been liberal for god knows how long now but they also had slavery and other horrible institutions or traditions can exist within liberalism and did exist. But same thing can be said for any ideology.


My point was, when regarding Liberalism, is that it gets worse as it mutates over time, until the primary thing it seems to ''liberate'' anyone from is their sanity, losing all constraints of common sense, biology, culture, tradition, and morality. Give it time, and the best thing it seems to be most useful for is eventually ending the nations most afflicted with it.
#15104224
JohnRawls wrote:Liberalism changed over time. Ideologies are not static. America has been liberal for god knows how long now but they also had slavery and other horrible institutions or traditions can exist within liberalism and did exist. But same thing can be said for any ideology.


While this is true, there were always certain constants to liberalism, such as free political competition, free speech/press and an adherence to economic freedom.

annatar1914 wrote:My point was, when regarding Liberalism, is that it gets worse as it mutates over time, until the primary thing it seems to ''liberate'' anyone from is their sanity, losing all constraints of common sense, biology, culture, tradition, and morality. Give it time, and the best thing it seems to be most useful for is eventually ending the nations most afflicted with it.


I'm sure that's what catholic conservatives said 200 years ago as well, you people never change.

P.S. Needless to say how Americans use the term "liberal" nowadays is completely meaningless and irrelevant to me.
#15104246
annatar1914 wrote:My point was, when regarding Liberalism, is that it gets worse as it mutates over time, until the primary thing it seems to ''liberate'' anyone from is their sanity, losing all constraints of common sense, biology, culture, tradition, and morality. Give it time, and the best thing it seems to be most useful for is eventually ending the nations most afflicted with it.


Your using American definition of liberalism. That is just wrong. Most of the things that you are complaining about are related to left leaning or hard left policies nowadays who HATE liberalism. You bunching left ideas and liberalism together is just insane.
#15104582
@Rugoz



I'm sure that's what catholic conservatives said 200 years ago as well, you people never change.


''you people''? I'm not Catholic, and that sounds like a personal attack instead of a rebuttal of the solid facts on Swiss history I reminded us of, so...

P.S. Needless to say how Americans use the term "liberal" nowadays is completely meaningless and irrelevant to me.


That's why you argued about it last several posts? :roll:
#15104583
JohnRawls wrote:Your using American definition of liberalism. That is just wrong. Most of the things that you are complaining about are related to left leaning or hard left policies nowadays who HATE liberalism. You bunching left ideas and liberalism together is just insane.


:roll:

I'm not an ''American Conservative'' in any case so that critique does not apply. I am rightfully speaking about Western Liberalism in general, whereas Leftism has a solid basis in Socialism which hasn't changed much and upon which it stands or falls as an Ideology.
#15104758
Igor Antunov wrote:No Lukashenko means Belarus is annexed back into Russia overnight. Meh, sounds good.


Quite. The two scenarios are at worst equal.

Russia has practically abolished capital punishment, which can be seen as a plus.
#15104795
annatar1914 wrote:''you people''? I'm not Catholic, and that sounds like a personal attack instead of a rebuttal of the solid facts on Swiss history I reminded us of, so...


Why should I rebut a fact :eh:

If you want to argue that Switzerland wasn't liberal because of the lack of women's suffrage you're free to do that of course, but that is a rather peculiar position to take. Gender equality is only one aspect of liberalism after all.

annatar1914 wrote:That's why you argued about it last several posts? :roll:


No I did not. Americans use the term liberal interchangeably with left-wing. I think we can all agree that is rather silly.
#15105096
Why should I rebut a fact :eh:


You've been doing a rather Quixotic job of it so far. Don't confuse my positions on something you're imagining from your experience or reading from Roman Catholics.

If you want to argue that Switzerland wasn't liberal because of the lack of women's suffrage you're free to do that of course, but that is a rather peculiar position to take. Gender equality is only one aspect of liberalism after all.


:lol:

It's a huge aspect of Liberalism; ''gender equality''.



No I did not. Americans use the term liberal interchangeably with left-wing. I think we can all agree that is rather silly.


Considering that the real Left is almost non-existent now, I think it's safe to say that ''liberal'' and ''left'' are now pretty much synonymous these days, as much as I might not like that fact. Indeed, when one comes to that realization, one has to draw some perhaps painful conclusions about the world at large to begin with.

Which is why Lukashenko is perhaps basically alright, for Belarus at least.
#15105115
annatar1914 wrote:It's a huge aspect of Liberalism; ''gender equality''.


It certainly wasn't in the 18/19th century when liberalism came into being. Your perspective on liberalism is utterly ahistorical.

annatar1914 wrote:Considering that the real Left is almost non-existent now, I think it's safe to say that ''liberal'' and ''left'' are now pretty much synonymous these days, as much as I might not like that fact. Indeed, when one comes to that realization, one has to draw some perhaps painful conclusions about the world at large to begin with.

Which is why Lukashenko is perhaps basically alright, for Belarus at least.


In general the political left is economically illiberal while the right is socially illiberal. By historical standards the entire political spectrum in Western democracies can be considered liberal today, but certainly not only the left. In Europe, where the term is used properly, liberal parties are usually centrist.
#15105117
It certainly wasn't in the 18/19th century when liberalism came into being. Your perspective on liberalism is utterly ahistorical.


You might want to read this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette

Getting women the right to vote was along the same historical time frame for early Liberals as getting rid of slavery via Abolitionism, and there was overlapping membership in both sub-movements.


In general the political left is economically illiberal while the right is socially illiberal.


Which would make me entirely ''illiberal'', and puts the definition of ''Right'' and ''Left'' as most commentators put it pretty nonsensical.

I accept rather the American Libertarian cartography of the political spectrum as flowing along ''Statist'' to ''Libertarian'' and Anarchist, albeit that I do not accept their ideology in general.


By historical standards the entire political spectrum in Western democracies can be considered liberal today, but certainly not only the left. In Europe, where the term is used properly, liberal parties are usually centrist.


I'll just say that I see almost the entire modern political spectrum as Liberal, with even the extremists of the ''Right'' and ''Left'' being basically Jacobins at heart.

Just about the only openly politically active illiberals in Western societies today would be the Islamic organizations, as far as I can tell.

Long, but a very good read. The Unraveling of Am[…]

We live in an era of fake news. My facts are you[…]

Blast in Beirut, Lebanon

Yeah, it was always going to be fake. But it was q[…]

@Crantag , Did you see my reply? If yes, then I[…]