Was Stalin a Progressive or a Conservative?

So is Anarcho-syndicalism LW or RW according to your ideas?

 

Neither. He was a power hungry megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur. Trying to categorize him as left or right is a waste of time and resources. SAme really is true of Hitler and most other such. Might as well ask if Caligula was left or right. Authoritarianism, in the end is neither left nor right it is just authoritarianism and whatever tools are used are just means to an end and that end is perpetual power for fearless leader whomever he may be.

 

We aren't discussing the etymology of the terminology "left" and "right". We are discussing the etymology of the word libertarian.

Just look at the spending histories.

Obama made promises as well. I see Trump as no different- same old authoritarian tactics to confuse the masses.

Lol...I detect a Google-fest

 

Nope, just more than a passing interest in the Spanish Civil War.

 

Not by you.

Most people have no idea about anarcho-sydicalism just like most people can't see why the systems that produced Trump and Obama are authoritarian.

 

Oh sorry. I think some of the concepts from the Spanish Civil war are fascinating, whether Anarchists, anarcho -communists but particularly the Anarcho Syndicalism in Catalonia.

 

If one is going to view both Trump and Obama as the product of authoritarianism then any and all governments become by definition authoritarian, and the term itself loses any real meaning.

 

Dictatorship of the proletariat by any other name is still dictatorship of the proletariat and it doesn't seem to be anarcho anything except maybe very temporarily.

 

Accusations of fascism are tossed around like candy at a Fourth of July parade. It’s been this way for a long time. Anything that hints of some person or some group not getting to do whatever they want or with which there is violent disagreement is often labeled fascist. Today is no different.

George Orwell saw the same problem in 1944 when he wrote, “It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless.”

In fact, he wrote a lot more on the subject that year in a piece titled, “What is Fascism?”. Here it is:

“Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: ‘What is Fascism?’

continued

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/george-orwell-what-fascism

 

Orwell's article about the definition of Fascism circa 1944 (its funny)

http://www.alexpeak.com/twr/wif/

 

Actually, it describes the socioeconomics of the right / left spectrum in the US perfectly.

 

Actually, the definition describes them both perfectly, as well as the rest of the government.

au·thor·i·tar·i·an
adjective

1. 1.
   favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

 

I subscribe to Proudon's notion that there is no legitimate popular sovereignty, so I have that in common.

 

It's Chomskyesque gibberish like pretty much everything else Chomsky has ever said outside work in Linguistics half a century ago.

 

All governments operate at the expense of personal freedom. At the other extreme is the law of the jungle. Anarchism is inherently unstable.

 

It's a political party and that's about it. I can't recall ever seeing the term in Nozick, Epstein or even any of the Austrian stuff. Maybe it's in there somewhere and I missed it.

No google needed, already knew the term "anarcho syndicalism" is nebulous jargon.

Sanskrit's Litmus Test: If a term is so vague that it can't be included in a legal document without incurring a malpractice complaint from a client, then it should be discarded from all discourse of any type. Of course colloquial use as shorthand in informal places like this is still fine.

 

Based on my experience over the last forty years, a working definition of fascist is the guy in charge right now that you don't like.

 

Stalin was a socialist.

 

That last is horse crap. Conservatives did not produce the EPA, the Department of education, or most of the other 30 odd departments that came out of Roosevelt's New Deal. To pretend that people who prefer that you don't murder your unborn child are as authoritarian as people who think the government should determine what sort of light bulb you use or how many MPG your car gets, is absurdist fiction.

 

On the worldwide political spectrum, Ronald Reagan would be at the far right end. As you move left, you encounter the American political center, then the American left, then AOC (who overlaps with European socialists). If you keep going left, you eventually get to China and then the final stop at the left end of the spectrum: North Korea.

Moving left on the spectrum, you gradually see a more active and powerful central government with increasing power over the individual. With Reagan, there is a generally weak government and maximum freedom. With North Korea, there is total control over the individual.

 

I thought the political right is oppose to political correctness. Individual freedom is just code to have others socialize your cost of doing business.

 

Literally every professor I have ever had would beat you to within an inch of your life for trying to utilize the American left/right system on a European politician and its landscape. They are literally nothing alike in any way shape or form.

In Russia you essentially had monarchists and communists/socialists. Neither one of those would be considered "right wing" in American parlance.

 

An authoritarian, in the Chinese-style mold.

 

What the hell has Chomsky got to do with 1930s Spain?

 

I admit you have lost me now, as I said my interest came from the Spanish Civil War, now I will do a google fest on Proudons notion! I am guessing it means there should be no private property?