If that's what it is, I'm in deep doo-doo, because you and I went to the same University. You know, that one in Austin that's going to win the National Championship in college football this year!
We appear to agree on quite a bit. I agree that this was one source of confusion. My initial reply was unclear and I did not consider leftist/anarchists in my statement, which makes it look like I was unaware of them. I would not say the beliefs are non-existent, but I would say that given current common usage, "libertarian socialism" is (from my biased point of view) oxymoronic. That is, there are still political ideologues who can be called "libertarian socialists" using the original definition of those words-- but, given that the original definitions don't carry that same meaning in the broad public discourse nowadays, I don't see them as relevant to the comment I made about the seeming incompatibility of libertarianism and socialism. Ironically, I think I was speaking in narrow terms when I made my broad generalization. In other words, I didn't consider radicalism within my blanket statement. I'm definitely not cut out to be a political philosopher. I was referring to the "conventional wisdom" view of fascism as extreme conservatism. I was taught that in high school and in college as well. I didn't agree with it in either instance. I was flat-out wrong to assume you did. I meant that I suspected you subscribed to that belief simply because (what I consider) the most intellectually damning ideology-- fascism-- is often equated with far-right conservatism. That was incorrect, as you've stated you don't automatically believe that. Sorry. You're right. I was not considering anarchists. That does poke a rather large hole in my liberalism = totalitarianism statement. I don't think my statement was broad enough in that I don't think it incorporated radicalism on either end. I think that's a logical extension of what I considered condescension. That's the only explanation I could come up for it, anyway. The state school/Limbaugh remarks were jokes. That's all. PS: Great, now it looks like the conservatives on this BBS are going to start with the back-slapping. We'll be a "cadre" in no time. PPS: Tex, .
OK, that makes some sense, if you are considering libertarian vs state-socialism. I guess my usage caused consternation, but I used the original terminology simply because there are, and have been, so many offshoots that they cannot really be classified as cohesive - so I just went back to the most modern descriptive "source." I also just used it because I think it is funny as far as the definition of 70 years ago to the modern definition flows. I have seen it written, and find it to be fairly true - that some extreme leftists and extreme rightists can be almost identical apart from economic theory (sure, there are more, but they are fairly minor). It is almost as if the political spectrum should be an open ended circle or something, as opposed to just a flat line. Actually, there have been attemts to create new "specturums" but they are quite numerous and none ever seem to allow for everything.
BK vs rimbaud posts - interesting and informative tbagain's back-slapping condescention - utterly worthless Thanks for taking us out of a well-thought-out conversation into another "liberal are p*****s" vs "conservatives are assholes" ignorant thread. Great job.
LMAO Jeff, did you take your time to write an entire post just about me?? This sounds like a personal problem.
Since Hitler wrote the book while in jail and before his rise to power, what exactly would he be writing propaganda for? Probably not 7th grade reading material however. BTW, is it just me or does BK win every argument based mainly on the power of his use of the bold text.
What have I done.... OH RIGHT, I started a thread that wasnt about kagy's supposed ignorance, rimmy's attitude, tbagain's views on liberals and conservatives, or Jeff's recent mayoral race happenings... HAVE YOU READ THE ****ING BOOK OR NOT?
Ah yes, back to the topic at hand. I read it after reading Payne's The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler and Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in high school. It was interesting (and not just a little disturbing) to read his words after reading historical analysis of his person.
Wow all this seriousness. Mein Kampf in 7th grade??? You have got to be kidding me. All I remember reading in 7th grade was The Outsiders and my dads Playboy's.
When I was a kid, a friend of mine on our street lived with his grandparents. It was an extended family... he had 2 great-uncles who had fought in WW-1 (U-boats). We went fishing with them often... his grandmother was born in Germany. Great people. Anyway, one day I noticed a copy of Mein Kampf on a book shelf. My Dad was a WW-2 veteran and if you were a kid in the 50's, you heard about the war all the time. "What did your Dad do in the War?" You played with toy weapons (or sticks instead, as was usually the case) and fought over who would be which side. So I had heard about Mein Kampf, even though I was about 9 or 10 at the time. I "borrowed" it and read most of it. What a mind blower. That guy had one hell of an imagination. I returned it and never said anything about it, even to my friend, because I thought all hell would break loose if anyone found out. Until now, I guess. It didn't hurt me to read it. But I wouldn't want it in my son's middle school. A high school history class, if it was pertinent. If they still teach history in public schools (lol!). I read Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" when I was ten, to give an idea about my reading level back then. Sorry if I'm rambling, the subject just brought up some memories.
BK, Don't take this as siding one way or another with anything else that has been said here, but I just find 18th C philosophy pretty interesting. You are right that 18th-liberalism (Enlightenment/Locke) championed individual rights, which produced Mason's Virginian Constitution and Bill of Rights. And I would agree that you cannot credit present day liberalism with that. For instance, Scalia is a champion of originalism in interpretation of the Bill of Rights, and he can definitely read some conservative view into their original intent...he has. The original views are considered by many to balance both present day social views of individual rights. I think we are in agreement. But this part seems like a mixup in either my predilection to suffer dyslexia in interpretations or something. Let's ignore England. We are talking about the Bill of Rights. We really need look no further than the battle of the Federalist vs the Jeffersonians. The Federalist wanted no Bill of Rights and a strong centralized govt. Jefferson/Mason wanted strong state govt and limitation of federal govt (the Bill of Rights). (Despite Jefferson/Mason, Virginia was split nearly 50% on ratification.) Washington was a Federalist. Jefferson was not. Who are you saying the present day liberals are "far more in common" with? I don't think it is necessary or true to history to try to interpret present day liberialism or conservatism with what was happening in the huge battle over the ratification of the Constitution. 18th C liberalism, when taken out of Locke's writings and put into practice (Declaration of Independence, Virginia Constitution and the Bill of Rights) was greatly debated at the time, and it was largely about some States not wanting to give up autonomy versus Federalist who wanted a "strong government" and thought the Bill of Rights was too much detail and unnecessary. In the end, Libertarianism is closest to Jeffersonian tenents than Liberals or Conservatives. Oh, and I'm not a Libertarian, but imo, they are truest to 18th C liberalism. So, let me give this a try. You are saying Conservatism at its extreme is Libertarianism in that Scalia as an extreme originalist is Locke? hehe And by contrast, Liberalism at its Extreme is Totalitarian in that the King of the Federalists--George Washington--with an extreme ego would have been King George with no Bill of Rights. hehe
