Reply #80: Well the term originated in France. [View All]

[K-W]

"Based on the actual definition of the terms. The left right destinction refers to the french parliment when it was devided between loyalists and populists, not between the mythological dueling ideologies of cold war propaganda."
Imagine one of our greatest gulfs caused by seating arrangements! Anyway, the left/right then was more like nobility as the right and everyone else(peasants, merchants basically any non aristocrat) on the left. Not necessarily populist.


I should apologize, I vastly oversimplified the history of the term. But it did originate in France. The right was royalists and then eventually the people who supported the dictatorship of Napoleon. The left changed, but was generally defined by opposition to royalty, support for revolution, support for the democratic constitution etc. The devide was between the supporters of authoritarianism and those who supported at least a somewhat more democratic society and in some cases a vastly more democratic society. This is the left. Anyone who claims to be a leftist, but supports authoritarianism is a hypocrit or a liar.

"Communism wasnt practiced for a great deal of the 20th century, it was only preached."

And people wonder why those advocating communism are regarded with suspicion ;-)

Educated people dont wonder why they are regarded with suspicion. They are regarded with suspicion because they have been stigmatized in our society for decades upon decades.

"You are using definitions for these terms based on US and Soviet Propaganda. The only two groups who wanted you to think Stalin was a communist were Stalin and his loyalists and US elites and thier loyalists. Stalin traded in the rhetoric of communism (much like authoritarian US politicians trade off the rhetoric of democracy and freedom) and the US government(which had been oppressing communists for generations already) was happy to agree with him that he represented communism."

Stalin as the communist wasn't really the point. I just picked out 3 examples where the rhetoric didn't meet the reality by a long shot. My question deals with whether the left can/has EVER be/been authoritarian. Responding that's not really left is kind of s copout.

Yes Stalin as the communist IS exactly the point. You were trying to prove that people on the left are authoritiarian by citing Stalin, you obviously think Stalin was on the left. But if we look at the facts rather than the propaganda we see that Stalin stated ideology was a load of bullshit. He wasnt really a communist, he wasnt really a leftist.

If he wasnt really a leftist, if he was just a thug who propagandized people, he doesnt support your argument.

Stalin was as right as right can be. He was the authoritiarian, he supported preserving the authoritarian society and his opponants in the Soviet Union, the dissidents, were the left. They were the ones who wanted democracy, they were the ones who opposed authoritarianism.

How is it a copout to point out that you are using false examples to prove your point? How is it a copout to point out that you are referencing liars and hypocrites as your examples of leftists.

"This is why most revolutions failed"

I would say most fail because they are uncompromising, regard detractors as traitors to the cause and the leadership grows quite corrupt by power.

If the revolutionary movement is being run by people like that it has already failed.

"Iran is one of the few governments in the world that would oppose a US attack on Cuba were the US"

It depends what you mean by oppose (taking up arms in defense, protesting, UN condemnation or what?)I seriously doubt that. It didn't happen with Iraq and Saddam and they were considerably more isolated than Cuba is.

Iran was an enemy of Saddam Hussien, that is why Iran did not strongly oppose the Iraq war. You will notice that Iran has benefited greatly from the overthrow of Saddam becoming a major force in the new Iraq.

But you have now pretty much proven my point. Cuba wants a relationship with Iran and vice versa, because they do not want to be as isolated as Iraq was.