Bolsheviks don't believe in comprehensive democratic systems so they aren't left, even though they claim to be left, many people and institutions lie, they are one of them.
No sir, it is a correction of the false narrative of the nature of the dichotomy of left and right, the dichotomy is comprehensive democracy vs. totalitarianism/violence, regardless of the propaganda the agent uses, it is their actions that betray their ideology. Just as those who claim to be "Independents" have a very clear set of policy option selections and voting trends. If I call myself a pacifist and bomb a bank, then I'm not a pacifist. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is not that which it claims to be. Left vs. Right is not about economics it is about belief in a democratic process with minority rights, accepting results, a bill of rights, or killing people until you get what you want. The political spectrum is a circle, not a line. That which actors claim does not define them, their actions define them. Left means you are a small "d" democratic republican or democratic parliamentarian, it means you prefer systems by which peoples with commonwealth determine how to allocate and utilized their resources with a process that includes voting, free speech, right to assemble, rights to and from religion, etc., all that is outlined in Thomas Paine's 'The Rights of Man'. There are increments on the circular political spectrum to the left and to the right and at two points they meet. Mostly in the United States Republicans and Democrats utilize their democratic republic to solve policy option alternatives. It is when there are undemocratic outside influences, like corporations that you shift right, away from democracy and towards Monarchy/Philosopher Kingdoms/Elitism/Fascism/Totalitarianism. But it's incremental, most of these words have lost their utility because they lack nuance.
1. Political Actors and Groups are what they DO not what they SAY.
2. The Dichotomy between Left and Right is comprehensive democracy or lack there of.
3. There is nuance and increments in the political spectrum, that is a circle, not a line.
4. democracy isn't popularity, it's creating an environment for a free market place of ideas and sustaining the market by accepting outcomes so long as they don't destroy the market.
All violent extremists are rare, because they are political minorities, by definition. There are just as many Christian branded terrorists as any other brand, the Militia Groups, McVeigh, the the Norwegian actor, the White Supremacists that are active in much of Europe and the Americas, the people who attack abortion clinics, but that doesn't matter. Just because they claim to be Christian, their actions show opposite. Just as Al-Q's actions show them to be non-Muslim. There are Buddhist brand terrorists, there are Sikh brand terrorists, there are Green Environmentalist terrorists, it doesn't matter what they claim, as soon as they try to terrorize the society to gain political goals, they are all Totalitarian and Fascists to me, because they have absconded the democratic republican system or what ever form of access they have. In nations where there is no comprehensive democracy, like the US Colonies under King George, what do we call them then? Revolutionary Freedom fighters, people fighting for their natural rights. If their is no system for redress of grievance, no market to take your political ideas for fair trade the best action is passive resistance, like in India, Egypt, Syria, The South during the Civil Rights Movement. Masses of peaceful people passively gumming up the works, absorbing violence, as long as it is relentless and the aims are to create a free democratic market of ideas with a bill of rights, is LIBERAL and Progressive. An idea that didn't exist in the colonies of King George, but liberalism progressed over time to find a better way to become unlamented from natural rights. If the aims are democratic, if the masses are consistent and relentless, they receive the sympathy of outside actors, people of other nations, and if they are right, and comprehensive democratic systems that restore the people's relationship with their natural rights, are correct, they usually win. The Right can only win low turnout elections, The Left can only win high turnout elections...there is a reason for this. If you can't win fairly, then you need to use propaganda, lies, violence, money, to steal the rights of man. Forget the labels, they are red herrings, follow the actions, the means, and the ends.
Again, groups will claim ideology that is popular sounding, but they are to be judged by their actions not how they brand themselves. The KKK is not Martin Luther, even though they both claim Christianity. Most groups that claim Communism are really Fascists, like China which is corporate and doesn't share anything, because the concept is popular in the region.
The IRA is pretty Conservative, they are on the Right on Social Issues, but this is a good point to make, the Moderates found a way to curb the violence in Ireland when they transcended labels and got down to actions and appreciated that they all had the same fundamental goals, health, jobs, peace, progression, most groups want the same ends, but have different paths, the violent have different means and a different end, that's why they are unsuccessful in the political realm. Politics is war by other means, terrorism is a method to scare people into adopting your political goals because you can't win an election. This is Fascist. The real political dichotomy in the world is Totalitarianism/Fascism and democracy, and not just voting democracy, but the full panoply of democracy, the rights of the minority, a bill of rights, redress of grievance, etc. Everything else is propaganda. Actions not words. The KKK had some rationalizations for their terrorism, they claimed biblical rationale, but their ends were totalitarian, "you will do what I want or I will kill you." Instead of, I will bring my ideas to a free market of ideas and if I lose an election I will accept the results and continue in the process. Everything else is BS. And when people get caught up in the labels and the claims by the groups it makes the reality of the political calculation fuzzy, and it only benefits non-democratic republican/parliamentarian forces pleased. To me Communists are Fascists, there is an absence of comprehensive democracy and that makes it no different then Nationalistic Fascism, it's Pepsi or Coca-Cola.
Once you resort to violence you have completed the political spectrum circle where the right intersects with the left. It has nothing to do with the brand, Christians can be like MLK, II or the KKK or The NAZIs, the Stalinists were fascists by another brand name, The Chinese are Fascists, they claim to be Communists, but they don't even have universal health care, that is salesmanship, label propaganda. The "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is neither Democratic, the People's or a Republic, judge people and groups by what they do, not what they say. This is fundamental to understanding political ideology to separate the stage craft from the actions and the means to implement policy option selections and what those selections are.
Terrorism is the manifestation of political ideology that cannot earn its policy option selections through traditional systemic channels, and it's usually reactionary, aka Right Wing. Al Qaeda, White Supremacists, Fascists, Tim McVeigh, are all Right Wing Political Minorities. The Left tends to use non-violent passive resistance, like with Gandhi and MLK, Jr. The Political Spectrum is of course a circle, and Revolutionaries and Reactionaries do meet, but it seems The Right has violence as part of its DNA, and terror is when you can't muster 5% of the vote or adopt your policies.
Nice to read you again Juan, I was a regular on The Poorman.net for a long time, cheers!
Bolsheviks don't believe in comprehensive democratic systems so they aren't left, even though they claim to be left, many people and institutions lie, they are one of them.
No sir, it is a correction of the false narrative of the nature of the dichotomy of left and right, the dichotomy is comprehensive democracy vs. totalitarianism/violence, regardless of the propaganda the agent uses, it is their actions that betray their ideology. Just as those who claim to be "Independents" have a very clear set of policy option selections and voting trends. If I call myself a pacifist and bomb a bank, then I'm not a pacifist. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is not that which it claims to be. Left vs. Right is not about economics it is about belief in a democratic process with minority rights, accepting results, a bill of rights, or killing people until you get what you want. The political spectrum is a circle, not a line. That which actors claim does not define them, their actions define them. Left means you are a small "d" democratic republican or democratic parliamentarian, it means you prefer systems by which peoples with commonwealth determine how to allocate and utilized their resources with a process that includes voting, free speech, right to assemble, rights to and from religion, etc., all that is outlined in Thomas Paine's 'The Rights of Man'. There are increments on the circular political spectrum to the left and to the right and at two points they meet. Mostly in the United States Republicans and Democrats utilize their democratic republic to solve policy option alternatives. It is when there are undemocratic outside influences, like corporations that you shift right, away from democracy and towards Monarchy/Philosopher Kingdoms/Elitism/Fascism/Totalitarianism. But it's incremental, most of these words have lost their utility because they lack nuance.
1. Political Actors and Groups are what they DO not what they SAY.
2. The Dichotomy between Left and Right is comprehensive democracy or lack there of.
3. There is nuance and increments in the political spectrum, that is a circle, not a line.
4. democracy isn't popularity, it's creating an environment for a free market place of ideas and sustaining the market by accepting outcomes so long as they don't destroy the market.
All violent extremists are rare, because they are political minorities, by definition. There are just as many Christian branded terrorists as any other brand, the Militia Groups, McVeigh, the the Norwegian actor, the White Supremacists that are active in much of Europe and the Americas, the people who attack abortion clinics, but that doesn't matter. Just because they claim to be Christian, their actions show opposite. Just as Al-Q's actions show them to be non-Muslim. There are Buddhist brand terrorists, there are Sikh brand terrorists, there are Green Environmentalist terrorists, it doesn't matter what they claim, as soon as they try to terrorize the society to gain political goals, they are all Totalitarian and Fascists to me, because they have absconded the democratic republican system or what ever form of access they have. In nations where there is no comprehensive democracy, like the US Colonies under King George, what do we call them then? Revolutionary Freedom fighters, people fighting for their natural rights. If their is no system for redress of grievance, no market to take your political ideas for fair trade the best action is passive resistance, like in India, Egypt, Syria, The South during the Civil Rights Movement. Masses of peaceful people passively gumming up the works, absorbing violence, as long as it is relentless and the aims are to create a free democratic market of ideas with a bill of rights, is LIBERAL and Progressive. An idea that didn't exist in the colonies of King George, but liberalism progressed over time to find a better way to become unlamented from natural rights. If the aims are democratic, if the masses are consistent and relentless, they receive the sympathy of outside actors, people of other nations, and if they are right, and comprehensive democratic systems that restore the people's relationship with their natural rights, are correct, they usually win. The Right can only win low turnout elections, The Left can only win high turnout elections...there is a reason for this. If you can't win fairly, then you need to use propaganda, lies, violence, money, to steal the rights of man. Forget the labels, they are red herrings, follow the actions, the means, and the ends.
Again, groups will claim ideology that is popular sounding, but they are to be judged by their actions not how they brand themselves. The KKK is not Martin Luther, even though they both claim Christianity. Most groups that claim Communism are really Fascists, like China which is corporate and doesn't share anything, because the concept is popular in the region.
The IRA is pretty Conservative, they are on the Right on Social Issues, but this is a good point to make, the Moderates found a way to curb the violence in Ireland when they transcended labels and got down to actions and appreciated that they all had the same fundamental goals, health, jobs, peace, progression, most groups want the same ends, but have different paths, the violent have different means and a different end, that's why they are unsuccessful in the political realm. Politics is war by other means, terrorism is a method to scare people into adopting your political goals because you can't win an election. This is Fascist. The real political dichotomy in the world is Totalitarianism/Fascism and democracy, and not just voting democracy, but the full panoply of democracy, the rights of the minority, a bill of rights, redress of grievance, etc. Everything else is propaganda. Actions not words. The KKK had some rationalizations for their terrorism, they claimed biblical rationale, but their ends were totalitarian, "you will do what I want or I will kill you." Instead of, I will bring my ideas to a free market of ideas and if I lose an election I will accept the results and continue in the process. Everything else is BS. And when people get caught up in the labels and the claims by the groups it makes the reality of the political calculation fuzzy, and it only benefits non-democratic republican/parliamentarian forces pleased. To me Communists are Fascists, there is an absence of comprehensive democracy and that makes it no different then Nationalistic Fascism, it's Pepsi or Coca-Cola.
Once you resort to violence you have completed the political spectrum circle where the right intersects with the left. It has nothing to do with the brand, Christians can be like MLK, II or the KKK or The NAZIs, the Stalinists were fascists by another brand name, The Chinese are Fascists, they claim to be Communists, but they don't even have universal health care, that is salesmanship, label propaganda. The "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is neither Democratic, the People's or a Republic, judge people and groups by what they do, not what they say. This is fundamental to understanding political ideology to separate the stage craft from the actions and the means to implement policy option selections and what those selections are.
Terrorism is the manifestation of political ideology that cannot earn its policy option selections through traditional systemic channels, and it's usually reactionary, aka Right Wing. Al Qaeda, White Supremacists, Fascists, Tim McVeigh, are all Right Wing Political Minorities. The Left tends to use non-violent passive resistance, like with Gandhi and MLK, Jr. The Political Spectrum is of course a circle, and Revolutionaries and Reactionaries do meet, but it seems The Right has violence as part of its DNA, and terror is when you can't muster 5% of the vote or adopt your policies.
Nice to read you again Juan, I was a regular on The Poorman.net for a long time, cheers!