Israel going to the Right?

[metis]

BTW, the term socialism was used in contrast with the liberal ideal of individualism. That was true right up until the time when LBJ soiled the label for ever after. Ain't that turnaround a kick in the head.

And how did LBJ supposedly do that?

 

[RocketJSquirell]

Jayhawker
I was just stating facts. You do not have to accept them. If you knew anything about Israeli politics or the actual positions of the people, you would know I am correct. If you knew anything, at all, about the Arab/Israeli conflict you would also know I am correct.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Sorry:

Fascism/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism [1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy during World War I, in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism. Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

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

Yes, usually placed on the far-right by the far-left, because Nazis an Fascists are so universally hated.

and...

National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnaːtsɪzᵊm/), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and Nazi state as well as other far-right groups. Usually characterized as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racismand anti-Semitism, Nazism developed out of the influences of Pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement, and the anti-communist Freikorpsparamilitary groups that emerged during the Weimar Republic after German defeat in World War I. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Yes, National Socialism. Rightly or wrongly, socialism always is government by any name that puts the value of the group/society over that of the individual. On such foundations have genocides and other tyrannies been built. That said even small government set up to protect individual rights is also, technically socialism. Anarchy is the absence of any government/socialism. We use the word socialism today to differentiate government emphasis on the group rights over individual rights. If that weren't the case, we could dispose of either the word 'socialism' or the word 'government'since they would mean the same thing.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

And how did LBJ supposedly do that?

If you know anything about LBJ, you know he makes Obama look like a saint. He quadroupled down on Roosevelt and Wilson's big government socialist programs with his 'Great Society' and 'War on Poverty'. In selling those two programs (along with the mostly righteous Civil Rights Act) to a couple of racist governors on Air Force One, he said, "I'll have those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years". Fifty years and counting. And all of that was conveniently enabled by his becoming President instead of being left off the '64 ticket and/or sent to prison for what was being found in Congressional investigations against him. His legacy is the moral/legal double standard for establishment figures inside the Beltway--especially the President.

This is all just a drop in the bucket. And before you say conspiracy theory, so was Watergate originally. Establishment Republicans hadn't sold out yet.

 

[metis]

Yes, National Socialism. Rightly or wrongly, socialism always is government by any name that puts the value of the group/society over that of the individual. On such foundations have genocides and other tyrannies been built. That said even small government set up to protect individual rights is also, technically socialism. Anarchy is the absence of any government/socialism. We use the word socialism today to differentiate government emphasis on the group rights over individual rights. If that weren't the case, we could dispose of either the word 'socialism' or the word 'government'since they would mean the same thing.

You cannot write your own dictionary or encyclopedia whereas you can use words in a way that is contrary to the language.

It's rather obvious that the NAZI's used the word "Socialist" in the title to attract followers and try and convince them that they had freedom, democracy, and the welfare of all as part of their agenda. The people found out painfully otherwise, and their fascist approach certainly was not based on where socialism was coming from.

 

[metis]

Yes, usually placed on the far-right by the far-left, because Nazis an Fascists are so universally hated.

Oh, so our dictionaries and encyclopedias are all written by the "far-left"? Good luck on selling that.

 

[metis]

If you know anything about LBJ, you know he makes Obama look like a saint. He quadroupled down on Roosevelt and Wilson's big government socialist programs with his 'Great Society' and 'War on Poverty'. In selling those two programs (along with the mostly righteous Civil Rights Act) to a couple of racist governors on Air Force One, he said, "I'll have those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years". Fifty years and counting. And all of that was conveniently enabled by his becoming President instead of being left off the '64 ticket and/or sent to prison for what was being found in Congressional investigations against him. His legacy is the moral/legal double standard for establishment figures inside the Beltway--especially the President.

This is all just a drop in the bucket. And before you say conspiracy theory, so was Watergate originally. Establishment Republicans hadn't sold out yet.

I lived through the LBJ time period and was watching politics almost as much then as now. Your position on LBJ is very slanted.

LBJ was warned that by passing the 1960's Civil rights Acts that this would drive most "Southern Democrats" into the Republican Party, which it did, and yet he took that action anyway. Yes, the Democrats would gain some black votes, but do you actually believe that he thought this would offset the large number of whites in the South going Republican?

After Kennedy's tragic death, most of the country and the Democrats in particular wanted to continue what he had started, and Kennedy, very reluctantly I might add, more in the direction of more rights for blacks. The reality of the situation is that equal rights for blacks, women, and eventually gays, became more of a push by the Democratic Party but was fought against by most leaders in the Republican Party.

So, since LBJ "soiled socialism" as you claim he did, then I'm so glad to have lived through and helped contribute to that "soiling".

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I lived through the LBJ time period and was watching politics almost as much then as now. Your position on LBJ is very slanted.

I lived through it too, and my opinion of him isn't derived from what we were told back then. I would have voted for him if the voting age had been 18 back then. I voted for McGovern for God's sake, and Jimmy Carter....twice. I was busy and sucked into the white guilt that had been overlaid on MLKs vision of a color blind society. That's one of the many things modern "liberals" tap dance around since he was assassinated--probably with LBJ behind it too, the Monday after he "decided" not to run for re-election.

LBJ was warned that by passing the 1960's Civil rights Acts that this would drive most "Southern Democrats" into the Republican Party, which it did, and yet he took that action anyway. Yes, the Democrats would gain some black votes, but do you actually believe that he thought this would offset the large number of whites in the South going Republican?

That's the whole point. He passed the Civil Rights Act, then got the War on Poverty and Great Society legislation passed which won over a consistent 90% black constituency for decades to come, along with all the guilty white vote--in which I must include myself until the 80s Why do you think he said he'd have them voting Democrat for 200 years? The KKK couldn't have done it better.

So, since LBJ "soiled socialism" as you claim he did, then I'm so glad to have lived through and helped contribute to that "soiling".

Where did "soiled socialism" come from. I never said that, in fact just the opposite. He 'soiled' liberalism and the individualism that once stood for, by morphing it into big government, anti-individualistic socialism.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Oh, so our dictionaries and encyclopedias are all written by the "far-left"? Good luck on selling that.

The war of words and ideas has always been fought over the dictionary. It's the first target of socialists and anarchists. You ignore the reasoning behind what I said and the pre-62 positions of the left and right. Before then, McCarthyism etc. was for inundating individual rights in the South, in entertainment and everywhere else they could get away with it. The evidence against LBJ is out there, but today's jackbooted media just screams conspiracy theory and everybody clams up.

 

[metis]

The war of words and ideas has always been fought over the dictionary. It's the first target of socialists and anarchists. You ignore the reasoning behind what I said and the pre-62 positions of the left and right. Before then, McCarthyism etc. was for inundating individual rights in the South, in entertainment and everywhere else they could get away with it. The evidence against LBJ is out there, but today's jackbooted media just screams conspiracy theory and everybody clams up.

Well, I find it pretty impossible to have a serious discussion when one invents their own "dictionary", invents their own "encyclopedia", and then gets heavy into historical revisionism. The main purpose of language is to communicate one to another, so there's a necessity of having generally agreed upon definitions. Political scientists have used the word "fascism" to refer to groups like the NAZI's, plus they agree that fascism is on the right side of the political spectrum, but apparently that just doesn't fit the paradigm that you have invented. Therefore...

Moving on...

 

[Sunstone]

Rightly or wrongly, socialism always is government by any name that puts the value of the group/society over that of the individual.

That strikes me as an especially fast and loose definition of socialism.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That strikes me as an especially fast and loose definition of socialism.

How is it wrong. Do you deny that technically all government is socialism. All I'm saying is that the definition was narrowed (by the forces that decided these things, not me) to what I laid out there to avoid it being a useless redundancy. Trying to say that Fascism and Nazism aren't socialism because they're dictatorships is just as bogus as saying communism isn't socialism because it's run by dictatorships or oligarchies.

I guess that begs the question that if a benevolent dictatorship possible. I'd have to say no. I s'pose it's possible for a dictator to have the best intentions, but then the dictator would still have control and that will always lead to problems even if the guy is a saint.

 

[metis]

Here's a link that's half-way decent on "socialism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Here's a very short segment:
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and social control of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

For Andrew Vincent, "The word ‘socialism’ finds its root in the Latin sociare, which means to combine or to share...The original socialists condemned liberal individualism as failing to address social concerns of poverty, social oppression, and gross inequality of wealth...

There's simply no room for "fascism" under the above.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Here's a link that's half-way decent on "socialism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Here's a very short segment:
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and social control of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

What constitutes ownership? If a king/dictator/oligarchy were to say, "This land is mine/ours, but I tell you what you can do with it". With property taxes and regulations on land usage, we don't control the land, we only lease it. The situation is similar with monetary transactions, especially asset forfeiture.

For Andrew Vincent, "The word ‘socialism’ finds its root in the Latin sociare, which means to combine or to share...The original socialists condemned liberal individualism as failing to address social concerns of poverty, social oppression, and gross inequality of wealth...

There's simply no room for "fascism" under the above.

Share what? How? Share responsibility, or use the government to define what a "fair" share is and how we achieve "fairness"--the most abused word in the dictionary.

 

[Sunstone]

How is it wrong. Do you deny that technically all government is socialism. All I'm saying is that the definition was narrowed (by the forces that decided these things, not me) to what I laid out there to avoid it being a useless redundancy. Trying to say that Fascism and Nazism aren't socialism because they're dictatorships is just as bogus as saying communism isn't socialism because it's run by dictatorships or oligarchies.

I guess that begs the question that if a benevolent dictatorship possible. I'd have to say no. I s'pose it's possible for a dictator to have the best intentions, but then the dictator would still have control and that will always lead to problems even if the guy is a saint.

Sounds like you've got your mind made up.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Sounds like you've got your mind made up.

It's a 1+1=2 sit'ation. Cut and dried. The only things involved here are definitions, and the attempts to try and modify them to fit an agenda--which is 95% of politics, and a large segment of that is known as political correctness. Making up one's mind isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just pisses people off because it makes you look arrogant to some. It's the who the hell do you thing YOU are syndrome. The only problem with making up your mind is you have to admit your errors if and when they occur--which has been happening less and less for me with the passage of time and with the acquisition of experience. Of course, you don't know that, which is why the argument doesn't depend on me or my state of mind...it justifies itself, or not.

Well, that was longer than I intended.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Franco was a fascist in the Hitler Mussolini mould. He was an extreme anti communist and also a Royalist.
I lived in Franco's Spain in the late fifties.It had a strange mixture of left and right policies.
The Falangists were in effect a Spanish version of the Italian original Fascists but transformed from Republicans to royalist by Franco.

The country was totally and officially unionised into Syndicates. They controlled every aspect of work including individual pay (rather than collective)
Each year two member from the syndicate and a member from management and yourself reviewed your Job and changes to your needs and established your new rate of pay. ( marriage, births, deaths, and living cost changes)
Employers were responsible for paying for your medical and dental needs.
Movement between jobs was regulated You could not leave the country if you had a job contract ( you, the syndicate and the employer had to agree)

Communists or ex-communists could not hold a job that put them over or in charge of a non communist.

(As a foreign national I had to prove that no Spanish person was available and qualified to do the Job I was applying for)
Those that refused to work and support their families, were gathered each morning by the police and put to work. earnings from this was paid directly to the wife.
Church law was equal to civil law. Those that did not attend were refused education for their children.
Dress code in public was strictly enforced by the police. For instance no sleeveless dresses and no tight swimming costumes for men or women.( you cold swim in them but had to put a towel around your waist when out of the water.

These are just a few of the regulations and restrictions that were imposed on daily life.
Spanish Fascisms was a sort of highly regulated and controlled socialism. It was distinctly opposite to the liberalism of the individual.
It controlled both business and the individual equally.

Every one including the uniformed police were equally terrified of the Civil Guard and secret police.

Every time I saw Franco he was accompanied by his Moorish Guard on horse back.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The country was totally and officially unionised into Syndicates. They controlled every aspect of work including individual pay (rather than collective)

That's what I'm talking about. The degree of control determines the degree of actual ownership, regardless of whose name's on the deed or contract. Whether the government legally owns something it controls, or not, is irrelevant.

Each year two member from the syndicate and a member from management and yourself reviewed your Job and changes to your needs and established your new rate of pay. ( marriage, births, deaths, and living cost changes)
Employers were responsible for paying for your medical and dental needs.
Movement between jobs was regulated You could not leave the country if you had a job contract ( you, the syndicate and the employer had to agree)

Control.

Communists or ex-communists could not hold a job that put them over or in charge of a non communist.

Control.

(As a foreign national I had to prove that no Spanish person was available and qualified to do the Job I was applying for)

Control.

Those that refused to work and support their families, were gathered each morning by the police and put to work. earnings from this was paid directly to the wife.
Church law was equal to civil law. Those that did not attend were refused education for their children.
Dress code in public was strictly enforced by the police. For instance no sleeveless dresses and no tight swimming costumes for men or women.( you cold swim in them but had to put a towel around your waist when out of the water.

Control. A theocratic aspect in this case, but still, socialism--the group imperative subverting individual rights.

These are just a few of the regulations and restrictions that were imposed on daily life.
Spanish Fascisms was a sort of highly regulated and controlled socialism. It was distinctly opposite to the liberalism of the individual.
It controlled both business and the individual equally.

Exactly so.

Every one including the uniformed police were equally terrified of the Civil Guard and secret police.

I spent some time in Spain in the 70s. I'd been warned about the Guardia, but I didn't know till later how bad things actually were.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

That's what I'm talking about. The degree of control determines the degree of actual ownership, regardless of whose name's on the deed or contract. Whether the government legally owns something it controls, or not, is irrelevant.



Control.


Control.



Control.



Control. A theocratic aspect in this case, but still, socialism--the group imperative subverting individual rights.


Exactly so.



I spent some time in Spain in the 70s. I'd been warned about the Guardia, but I didn't know till later how bad things actually were.

What perhaps you did no know was how far the secret police could reach.
My gilfriends father was head of the secret police in Madrid. ( he had been a colonel under Fanco in the civil war)
One one occasion when she came to London he asked why she had not gone directly to her flat.
He told her all about me my family and Grand father, Who fortunately was well liked in Spain, as he had been responsible for much of their rail electrification.
We knew she was being watched while here, but never had any indication of it. When her mother came over she had a guard on duty all the time she was alone. Each time she joined us he went away, he was probaly still around but we never noticed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

OK Folks. 1. Israel is not becoming "right wing"". Israel is a liberal democracy where even the right wing politicians are more left wing than our so called liberals here in the US.

Rubbish.

Jayhawker
I was just stating facts. You do not have to accept them. If you knew anything about Israeli politics or the actual positions of the people, you would know I am correct. If you knew anything, at all, about the Arab/Israeli conflict you would also know I am correct.

To claim that Netanyahu, Bennet, and Lieberman are "more left wing" than the likes of Obama and Biden and the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is simply laughable.