Why the (almost) World-wide shift to the right?

[LoAmmi]

WWII only intensified the nationalist urge.

At the time, but nationalism kind of became a dirty word after it. Even today it's often when people speak of being nationalists the specter of the Nazis is evoked. It is often tied to race.

 

[Belk]

We have been told that when the Berlin Wall fell on November 9 1989 and then the Soviet Union began to dissolve in Dec 1991, it was the proof that Communism doesn't work and therefore that the right wing was right.

It could conversely be said that Yeltsin's adoption of the free market in Russia was a complete disaster and that showed in the case of Russia that the free market is worse than Communism and Russia being such a varied country that is probably applicable everywhere.

Well guess which story the media tells?

Both of these stories seem to be simplistic and gross misrepresentations of the facts.

 

[Albion]

Um, sounds like the free market...

You're being sarcastic, of course, but if we're speaking of a free market, we are not just speaking of a market that is Capitalistic but yet full of official corruption, cartels, and other forces that restrict that freedom.

 

[Larniavc]

You're being sarcastic, of course, but if we're speaking of a free market, we are not just speaking of a market that is Capitalistic but yet full of official corruption, cartels, and other forces that restrict that freedom.

You don't think that is just as mythical as pure communism where everyone pitches in for the good of everyone?

Both are Platonic dreams.

 

[Albion]

At the time, but nationalism kind of became a dirty word after it. Even today it's often when people speak of being nationalists the specter of the Nazis is evoked. It is often tied to race.

Well, this is why I said earlier that nationalism didn't actually die down but it shifted to other peoples.

The Europeans and Americans were thinking more of multi-national cooperation and free trade zones, etc. just as the remaining colonial peoples began to feel that they deserved their independence since they had fought the good fight against Japan or Germany as well as the major powers. And so we got independence for India, then Pakistan, the Philippines, a number of former French and British colonies in Africa, and others.

 

[Albion]

You don't think that is just as mythical as pure communism where everyone pitches in for the good of everyone?

Both are Platonic dreams.

This is one of those times when it's necessary to trace the discussion back to where it started. This began with the claim that, after the fall of the USSR, Russia turned to free enterprise. But it actually did not. Why not? Because it was rent with the kind of corruption that makes the economy unfree even if there were more industries and businesses privately owned. So then you say that Communism is more of an ideal, too.

My answer to that is that the two are not entirely comparable. That's because completely free enterprise may fall short in the real world, but Communism will never come into existence. I'm speaking of "Communism" meaning a stateless society of shared wealth without coercion.

That ideology argues that it's necessary to have a totalitarian government before it (in theory) transforms the people sufficiently for the government not to be needed anymore. Communism, as we know it in recent history is always in the totalitarian preparatory stage of Socialism and there's nothing but a theory to say that it will ever go away of its own accord, becoming the 'workers' paradise' of Marxist propaganda.

 

[Larniavc]

This is one of those times when it's necessary to trace the discussion back to where it started. This began with the claim that, after the fall of the USSR, Russia turned to free enterprise. But it actually did not. Why not? Because it was rent with the kind of corruption that makes the economy unfree even if there were more industries and businesses privately owned. So then you say that Communism is more of an ideal, too.

My answer to that is that the two are not entirely comparable. That's because completely free enterprise may fall short in the real world, but Communism will never come into existence. I'm speaking of "Communism" meaning a stateless society of shared wealth without coercion.

That ideology argues that it's necessary to have a totalitarian government before it (in theory) transforms the people sufficiently for the government not to be needed anymore. Communism, as we know it in recent history is always in the totalitarian preparatory stage of Socialism and there's nothing but a theory to say that it will ever go away of its own accord, becoming the 'workers' paradise' of Marxist propaganda.

I see your point but no country is yet to move to a completely free market so they're comparable, although not identical.

Currently the nearest thing to a completely free market, Voodoo economics, has been repeatedly shown to be a poor sociology-economic model.

 

[Albion]

I see your point but no country is yet to move to a completely free market so they're comparable, although not identical.

Well, I explained why that's not the case.

Currently the nearest thing to a completely free market, Voodoo economics, has been repeatedly shown to be a poor sociology-economic model.

That's not the point I was trying to make. More important was the point that Communism, which was mentioned to me, is not actually the opposite side of the coin.

 

[Rion]

Speaking of the shift to the right, anyone else note all of the gains the Tory's had in the local elections?

 

[AJTruth]

A shift to the right, WHY?

If you like you doctor, you can keep him

If you like your medical plan, you can keep it

Under the In-Affordable Health Care Act you premiums will decrease by $2500 per year for a family of 4.

NUFF SAID!