Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I just thought this primer would be in order considering the climate of the media and people talk out of their asses.
The Truth:

Liberalism-a traditional theory with many facets which is based on inherent individual liberties and the idea that every person has the potential for good

Capitalism-a liberal economic theory of private ownership and competition among firms for market share.

Socialism-a political theory in which a government controls the means of production and the economy is planned. Thought to address the inadequacies of capitalism

Socialized-Controlled by the government, typically for the sake of efficiency

Social Democracy-A political and economic system that combines the freedom and opportunity of capitalism with the safety and benefits of socialism with strong government programs and true market competition among firms who are subject to trust busting should they grow too big to fail.

Fascism-A political system that espouses the dominance of the state in a one party system. Espouses a "third way" economic system similar to social democracy but in actuality, government functions with the collusion of big business and is sometimes even subverted by business interests. corporatism is a form of fascism.

Communism-A political and economic system in which one party represents the people and controls the means of production with individualism and freedom sacrificed for the good of all in a planned economy.



According to American perception-

Liberalism-someting whiney and gay.

Socialism-the same thing as fascism. Evil, poor, grimey and scummy. benefits the lazy over hard working people. Taxes are bad.

Fascism- a word thrown around by the left. The same thing as communism. Although actually, it's not so bad...

Communism-anything russian, jewish, or foreign. Learning about american history, how the government works, the labor movement, individual liberty, and equal rights and opportunity is all communist. Pure evil.

Capitalism-the one true religion above all. Should be unregulated. Works best when huge businesses collude and form virtual monopolies and buy influence and own everything. Capitalism was ordained by god and jesus so the less money you have, the more their laws apply to you since every dollar you have is both a voice in government and another free ticket into heaven. So remember, the more money you have, the more you can get away with cheating, stealing, killing, and whoring while telling other people not to cheat, steal, kill, and whore because morality and responsibility are only for the poor. This is what the founding fathers intended after they civilized the indians, gave africans a better life, and magically made all americans better, smarter, stronger, and more entitled than everyone else. Only white, straight, christian males born in the united states are true americans.



see the difference?

The Truth

Conservatism: a political theory promoting gradual social change with a focus on limiting the role of government in more traditional spheres of power, ie the household, family, community or individual. Often some focus on traditional values, though the definition of "traditional" and how far these were promoted or enforced in society varies wildly.

in America

Conservatism - Jesus is President. Corporations are Jesus. ipso facto... EDIT: Also, all liberals are queer, gays worship satan, and people who don't want to bomb significantly technologically inferior nations into the ground are traitors, specifically agents working for said nation, weakening the resolve of the nation to fight said nation. EDIT 2: also, guns = erection.

(I really should have put more thought into this...)

Sweet, another generalization thread.

If I could, I'd like to add that the 2.1 million people in North Carolina that voted for Obama were also pig-humping, incestual rednecks. Same goes for the half a million in Mississippi. Since we're generalizing here, it's not fair to leave anyone out.

Originally posted by botankus
Sweet, another generalization thread.

If I could, I'd like to add that the 2.1 million people in North Carolina that voted for Obama were also pig-humping, incestual rednecks. Same goes for the half a million in Mississippi. Since we're generalizing here, it's not fair to leave anyone out.

He's being general at the national level. Generalities at the state level would be specifying.

OK, but Jello's use of "American" should be replaced by "Traditional American Conservative" to make sense. And even so, what's the point of this thread? Did he see a FOX news report that pissed him off or something?

American liberals are conservatives in most other countries of the world. Regardless if he is being a little overgeneral, he has a point. The perception of political ideologies in America is hugely slanted, and largely for reasons he said. Remember in 2004 where John Kerry had to assure people he wasn't a liberal?

Originally posted by botankus
OK, but Jello's use of "American" should be replaced by "Traditional American Conservative" to make sense. And even so, what's the point of this thread? Did he see a FOX news report that pissed him off or something?

Well he considers the Scandanavian system ideal so NPR probably strikes him as too conservative.

However he does have a point, even if he did choose an incredibly biased way to demonstrate it. Popular political discourse hardly ever matches up with what the words really mean.

If you listen to people who support strong govt/military we're always on the brink of anarchy and chaos.
If you listen to Ron Paul we're always on the brink of a totalitarian state (and if you listen to his supporters we're already in one).
If you listen to conservatives, liberals are communists (even though there's a whole communist party).
If you listen to liberals, conservatives are Nazis (even though the Nazi's have their own party).
If you listened to Nazis the way to go was facism but their party was the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Lenin was all about the communist collectivism but he also wanted a group of people who were better than everyone else.

What I'm saying is talking about politics is impossible until everyone establishes what the words they're using are supposed to mean. It's like the Family Guy joke that goes "he's angry because I accidentally hit his dog, and by dog I mean son, and by hit I mean ran over, and by accidentally I mean repeatedly".

Originally posted by inimalist
American liberals are conservatives in most other countries of the world. Regardless if he is being a little overgeneral, he has a point. The perception of political ideologies in America is hugely slanted, and largely for reasons he said. Remember in 2004 where John Kerry had to assure people he wasn't a liberal?

I recall reading something where the differences between Republican and Democrat came up.

- They're at opposite ends of the spectrum.
- Which is funny because they're both centrist.
- I assume you mean "far right".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's like the Family Guy joke that goes "he's angry because I accidentally hit his dog, and by dog I mean son, and by hit I mean ran over, and by accidentally I mean repeatedly".

Thats a Simpsons joke

"in the season 4 episode "Marge in Chains" he described the following as his "problem" with Judge Snyder: 'Well he's had it in for me ever since I kinda ran over his dog... Well, replace the word "kinda" with "repeatedly" and the word "dog" with "son,""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Hutz

http://www.wtso.net/movie/176-The_Simpsons_421_Marge_in_Chains.html

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I recall reading something where the differences between Republican and Democrat came up.

- They're at opposite ends of the spectrum.
- Which is funny because they're both centrist.

There are differences, but it is like, do you like Coke, or Coke Zero. Certainly the far right is well represented in American politics, and the Democrats don't really have that wing to their party, but in general, they are both right wing parties by the standards of any nation not America.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
- I assume you mean "far right".

where do I mean far right?

Originally posted by inimalist
There are differences, but it is like, do you like Coke, or Coke Zero. Certainly the far right is well represented in American politics, and the Democrats don't really have that wing to their party, but in general, they are both right wing parties by the standards of any nation not America.

I realize that. Of course "right wing" is strikes me as another over generalization. There must be dozens of axis (axes? axises?) on which to judge political parties.

Originally posted by inimalist
where do I mean far right?

This was on a different site.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I realize that. Of course "right wing" is strikes me as another over generalization. There must be dozens of axis (axes? axises?) on which to judge political parties.

absolutely.

There is a really interesting phenomenon, however.

Classical political theory holds that, as Aristotle said, man is a political animal. Basically, that people know what is good for them and that they will have a coherent set of political beliefs about the world, and that this will include the expert and the layman.

However, research has shown 2 things. The first is that political laymen have essentially no coherent idea about their political beliefs, and can be swayed to support essentially any policy by rewording questions or asking them things in ways congruent to their personal biases. Jumping to other studies, it is therefore likely that these people vote based on personal preference of the individual (not the ideas), the symbolic value of the party (party of god ) or just some form of tradition.

The other finding is with regard to people with strong and nuanced political ideology. One would think, as you said, that people that are knowledgeable about politics would be less likely to see a "left v right" political spectrum, simply because it is more complex than that and no one person can be described as such. While researches did point out that a minority of the politically informed do fall into such a category (libertarians were given as an example in the paper, but really, social-capitalists and lots of other ideologies dont fall onto the left/right spectrum), however, to the majority, issues are black or white. Because of certain schema forming properties of the brain, and the basic political environment of America, the more you know about politics, the more likely you are to see the political world as a left/right game, and the more likely you are to interpret issues from that stance.

EDIT: not that this is America specific, just that, iirc, thats is where all of the research was done. There is little reason to expect it would be different elsewhere, as the left/right distinction is pretty much ubiquitous in western political discourse.

Wait for it...

My perceptions:

Originally posted by Darth Jello
According to American perception-

Liberalism-someting whiney and gay.


Liberalism - Something America needs more of. America also needs more understanding of it.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Socialism-the same thing as fascism. Evil, poor, grimey and scummy. benefits the lazy over hard working people. Taxes are bad.

Socialism - Alone, it is a failure of a system. I don't like socialism.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Fascism- a word thrown around by the left. The same thing as communism. Although actually, it's not so bad...

Fascism - I really see nothing good about this. I have searched and studied this political philosophy in the past and I stil cannot see how this method is any good, on the whole. It's like the worst form of government.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Communism-anything russian, jewish, or foreign. Learning about american history, how the government works, the labor movement, individual liberty, and equal rights and opportunity is all communist. Pure evil.


Pure communism is the perfect government. Nothing is better.

Any other form is unfavorable.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Capitalism-the one true religion above all. Should be unregulated. Works best when huge businesses collude and form virtual monopolies and buy influence and own everything. Capitalism was ordained by god and jesus so the less money you have, the more their laws apply to you since every dollar you have is both a voice in government and another free ticket into heaven. So remember, the more money you have, the more you can get away with cheating, stealing, killing, and whoring while telling other people not to cheat, steal, kill, and whore because morality and responsibility are only for the poor. This is what the founding fathers intended after they civilized the indians, gave africans a better life, and magically made all americans better, smarter, stronger, and more entitled than everyone else. Only white, straight, christian males born in the united states are true americans.

Pure capitalism results in a form cooperate fascism, imo. I could be out of line with that, but that's what I believe.

Pure capitalism fails. As with pure communism, humans are much to stupid and selfish for something like that to work.




My idea: A capitalist, socialist, libertarian society. Where government has controls and regulations on industry, with many cooperate socialist programs (such as privatized Social Security), with coperations beholden to certain dictates from the state. This all with an eye tracked on individual liberties and less government interference into individual's lives.

I'm all for pools of money, as long as one can choose where to pool that money and for what reason.

Not forced pooling of money required.

Truth: Taxes are a way to insure the government has enough money to provide you with necessary services.

American Perspective: Taxes are the thing that is going to bankrupt you regardless of your financial status if they're raised by even a tenth of a percent.

http://conservative-thinker.com/images/Spectrum-Circle.jpg

That's the best I found on the net.

Where do you think USA is on this, and where do you think it was with Bush as president?
And which one of these is the best, you think and why?

I don't quite get that one. At all.

The US has generally been in the Conservatism section. Under Bush it certianly didn't become more Moderate and it definately didn't become more Libertarian. If anything it moved slightly towards Totalitarianism but on that map that would have made it Anarchist.

As for the best, Liberal Libertarianism. Something like a proactive watchdog state, pretty much what Dadudemon described. There isn't a specific word for it but Libertarianism happens to be the closest, even though I consider Libertarianism to be a terrible idea.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
http://conservative-thinker.com/images/Spectrum-Circle.jpg

That's the best I found on the net.

I like it, everything else is one big daisy chain of mutual masturbation, and the anarchists are surrounded by these idiots.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Where do you think USA is on this, and where do you think it was with Bush as president?

In all honesty, I don't think it works really well. There are lots of options, but they don't mix well. For instance, I would say America is normally a corporate run conservative state, but with GW I believe it became highly Theocratic, and there really aren't any connections between the two.

I've seen economic liberty by social liberty compasses, but those are basically propaganda tools for Libertarian websites

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
And which one of these is the best, you think and why?

anarchy

though lets not get into that again

honestly, no ism is going to be encompassing or adaptive enough to effectively deal with any situation. Pragmatism is what is most important, and a commitment to evidence and research rather than party lines and political ideology.

I think socialism is the based based on the proven results of European socialism (and Scandinavia in particular) to have higher standards of living than the US approach.

But almost zero social mobility. To most Americans socialism would be like a lobotomy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But almost zero social mobility. To most Americans socialism would be like a lobotomy.
You can live pleasantly on the top or bottom of the scale so I don't see why you'd care about social mobility.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think socialism is the based based on the proven results of European socialism (and Scandinavia in particular) to have higher standards of living than the US approach.

Don't mistake my response as antagonistic.


1. That's not just socialism that they are "practicing".

2. Higher standards of living are not a DMOQ of the wealth of a nation. Rather, it is an indirect measure of market availability.

3. You're probably looking for Gross Domestic Product, purchasing power, or measure of happiness. Yes, they do happiness studies each year. I think the Dutch are the happiest or the second most happy, and it is more cultural than monetary. Go figure. Money doesn't make most people happy.

I'm not using standard of living as a measure of a country's wealth, i'm using it as a goal in and of itself. I don't care about the relative wealth of countries, if a country isn't using it's wealth to improve the lives of it's people then that money isn't doing anything worthwhile. The money in Sweden goes into providing a vast number of highly useful services.

I see your point about the happiness studies but again i'm not trying to put forth the wealth of countries as a virtue... if the wealth of a country isn't going directly into the standard of living then the money doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion. The US has a huge GDP but instead of providing services it goes into the hands of private owners.

actually, those countries are social democracies, not socialist. They still have private property, market economies, private business, even private health insurance (which hardly anyone buys).

Whatever. The point is that the system is better. Regardless of names it is the best system.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm not using standard of living as a measure of a country's wealth, i'm using it as a goal in and of itself. I don't care about the relative wealth of countries, if a country isn't using it's wealth to improve the lives of it's people then that money isn't doing anything worthwhile. The money in Sweden goes into providing a vast number of highly useful services.


Still, Standard of Living is not a measure of success, rather, it is a measure of availability of goods, capital, and services. (The lower the availability of those items, the higher the standard of living is going to be. There are many other factors, as well. So it is really not even in the ballpark of being useful in assessing how "good" a nation is at managing themselves. In fact, it could indicate the opposite.)

Originally posted by King Kandy
I see your point about the happiness studies but again i'm not trying to put forth the wealth of countries as a virtue... if the wealth of a country isn't going directly into the standard of living then the money doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion. The US has a huge GDP but instead of providing services it goes into the hands of private owners.

I agree somewhat.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Whatever. The point is that the system is better. Regardless of names it is the best system.

I would agree the the Swedes have probably are doing best all around than all other industrialized countries when it comes to government...but they are not the best in most categories, imo.

They are up there in every single category, but not the best, which earns them the best all around government, imo.


However, they can still use loads of improvement.

what about suicide rates in Scandinavia?

Originally posted by inimalist
what about suicide rates in Scandinavia?
The cold's bumming them out.

Even social democracy is not perfect, but the U.S. could use some social-democrat concept to improve their government.

nice thread. even people in america who consider themselves ENLIGHTENED fall prey to many of the cultural indoctrination. there is also a great trend to call things conspiracies, which the wrest of the world more or less consider part of valid discourse.

i suppose america is a predominantly stupid country with large pockects of smart people, but little jusification for the stupidity, being part of the first world n all.

liberal socialism ftw

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nice thread. even people in america who consider themselves ENLIGHTENED fall prey to many of the cultural indoctrination. there is also a great trend to call things conspiracies, which the wrest of the world more or less consider part of valid discourse.

i suppose america is a predominantly stupid country with large pockects of smart people, but little jusification for the stupidity, being part of the first world n all.

America is a zeroth world nation, one step better than the first world.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
America is a zeroth world nation, one step better than the first world.


This sounds sarcastic.


But...if you're serious. Explain this. What constitutes this measurement?

Originally posted by dadudemon
This sounds sarcastic.


Suuure it does.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But...if you're serious. Explain this. What constitutes this measurement?

Nothing. However, the US spent quite a while as the world's only superpower it was essentially in a class all its own.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
America is a zeroth world nation, one step better than the first world.

is that why it doesnt have free healthcare or some of the least vacation/sick time from jobs? or is the reason its SHINGING record on minority rights and personal liberty?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
is that why it doesnt have free healthcare or some of the least vacation/sick time from jobs? or is the reason its SHINGING record on minority rights and personal liberty?

Surely New England (in which I include the state of New York) folks don't have the same perceptions as South or Southwest people.

Originally posted by FE Expert
Surely New England (in which I include the state of New York) folks don't have the same perceptions as South or Southwest people.
It differs but what do you mean southwest? California? Because that state probably has one of the most varied political spectrums in the country.

interesting observation:

Accross Earth humans believe An entity which we'll call "The Maker" is the maker of man and the architect of teh known universe.

Earthmen believe in Fascism.

I'm pretty sure that's not how fascism works.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm pretty sure that's not how fascism works.

Good Fascism anyway. sans violence


Think good thoughts.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It differs but what do you mean southwest? California? Because that state probably has one of the most varied political spectrums in the country.

You'd get a good cross-section of political views of the U.S. from California, that much I'll give. I know that New England folks are different from Southern people.

Southwest? I mean Arizona and New Mexico along with southern Nevada.

Of course there's regional differences... I think it was clear this is directed at "perceptions" caused by fox-style conservative rhetoric.

Originally posted by FE Expert
You'd get a good cross-section of political views of the U.S. from California, that much I'll give. I know that New England folks are different from Southern people.

Southwest? I mean Arizona and New Mexico along with southern Nevada.

lol, so basically, to you, red state = dumbasses?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, so basically, to you, red state = dumbasses?

Sounds more like "not same as blue state", which would be true.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sounds more like "not same as blue state", which would be true.

i refuse to interpret reasonable conclusions from his words

Originally posted by King Kandy
Of course there's regional differences... I think it was clear this is directed at "perceptions" caused by fox-style conservative rhetoric.

At least, I'm spared from anything of the sort where I live, or otherwise not have it as intensely as Fox News does.

For the record, is CNN any less right-leaning than Fox News?

Originally posted by FE Expert
At least, I'm spared from anything of the sort where I live, or otherwise not have it as intensely as Fox News does.

For the record, is CNN any less right-leaning than Fox News?

Yes, but that doesn't make them less biased.

What US media could be less biased than Fox and CNN? CBS? PBS? C-SPAN?

At least, CBC (and its French counterpart, Radio-Canada), CPAC and TVA are nowhere near as biased as these two stations. TQS may be somewhat closer (and right-leaning by Quebecer standards, which could be New England-like if not more leftist) to a CNN-level of bias.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, but that doesn't make them less biased.

Less biased and less entertaining.

a saltshaker to shake at the vid-screen is mandatory when you tune in to faux news

Originally posted by FE Expert
What US media could be less biased than Fox and CNN? CBS? PBS? C-SPAN?

At least, CBC (and its French counterpart, Radio-Canada), CPAC and TVA are nowhere near as biased as these two stations. TQS may be somewhat closer (and right-leaning by Quebecer standards, which could be New England-like if not more leftist) to a CNN-level of bias.

C-SPAN, but they don't report the news they just show it in the blandest way possible.

It's pretty much impossible to objectively decide who's biased on issues where reasonable people can disagree. Not to mention that a lot of things that seem like bias can come from internal politics.

Originally posted by FE Expert
At least, I'm spared from anything of the sort where I live, or otherwise not have it as intensely as Fox News does.

For the record, is CNN any less right-leaning than Fox News?
CNN is awful but Fox News is on a level that doesn't even qualify for news... they fired every single non-conservative journalist working there (Except colmes to prove they were "balanced" but now he's been phased out as well) and do nothing but air shows with hyper-conservative pundits. They barely report any political news they just have their pundits disseminate it for them.

My perceptions of the current U.S. slate:

Republicans: Center-right/far-right (with the most conservative among them being close to extreme-right if not extremists outright)

Democrats: Centrist/center-right (really depend which one you pick; if you're lucky to fall on the most liberal of them, even center-left)

OK, you may disagree, but the only real RINOs in the Senate are the Republicans from Maine. Olympia Snow and Susan Collins are true centrists to me. I mean, Maine is bordered by center-left-dominated provinces; Quebec to the northwest, New Brunswick to the northeast, Nova Scotia as the southeastern sea border.

Oh absolutely. I don't think the US is necessarily more conservative though. I think the real liberals have been whipped into submission by the fox team's tactics of making people think liberals aren't true americans, and that's why they aren't uniting.

You really think Canadian media have a less important role to play in engineering the Canadian population's thought modes than American media does for the US?

I never said anything of the sort. I don't know anything about Canadian media with which to make such an assumption. I do know that they don't have the same conservative hangups the US does so obviously something's different.

I think Fox News and the Republican Party and it's corporate overlords are testing the waters to see how quickly they can get america to accept fascism

Because there clearly wasn't a better time in the last 100 years for doing that.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I think Fox News and the Republican Party and it's corporate overlords are testing the waters to see how quickly they can get america to accept fascism
I disagree. They're doing fine as long as they can keep getting their pay checks. It's fulfilling in and of itself.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because there clearly wasn't a better time in the last 100 years for doing that.

Well Coughlin, the Rush Limbaugh of the 20's and 30's was chased off the air for supporting Hitler and the Holocaust and the Business Plot was foiled by a whistle blower, but yeah, corporatism hasn't been this strong in the US since before the first red scare.