Debate and Discussion

Conservative or Liberal?
ozoneocean at 9:44AM, Sept. 25, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
STUPID political compasses… I hate the way that systems like military dictatorships, Monarchies, and Theocracies are all assumed to be essentially conservative or even fascist. Fascism is something in of itself, no system resembles it. The closest I've seen was the aspirations of the hardcore Punk groups in the 70's and 80's that espoused “anarchy”, when in reality they were closer to fascism than anything else (uniformity of look, espousing the efficacy and the beauty and also worship of violence and violent ideals, the group and the gang above all else, etc.).

But on to characterising those other systems as conservative. That's wrong. They are all different things and all work very well, just as well as democracies when you look at it objectively. They work as badly as democracy too.. There are bad and good examples all round.

In the end though, just as the broad label of “conservative” doesn't truly describe those systems, labels like conservative, liberal etc, don't really define or properly characterise people or parties that label themselves as such, either in outlook or title. And anyone that SEEKS to conform themselves, or their ideal TO such a label is someone to be wary of. You have to follow what people actually do, not what they call themselves or who they are. So I suppose that's more like Ronson's approach.

That said, I'll sort of go back on what I said about labels to state that Democracy is always essentially centre right moderate conservative, no matter what party elect. Extreme right governments don't stay democratic for long, extreme leftists can't get elected, and moderate leftists can only get elected by moving to the right. It's an observation that holds pretty true around the world and has been espoused by a lot more people than just me.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:28PM
Bekefel at 9:53AM, Sept. 25, 2007
(offline)
posts: 4,457
joined: 10-15-2006
This thread is a gold mine for my A-Level politics!



IF YOU WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT AMERICA. D:<

Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats.
Please, please, you give me too little credit.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:18AM
ozoneocean at 10:11AM, Sept. 25, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
Bekefel
Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats.
And those parties could all be described as being centre right at the moment, couldn't they? :)
Definitely New Labour. And the Tories are as moderate as they've been for a long time. The liberal democrats are the most left leaning of the group, but only as a way of differentiating themselves from the others.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:28PM
dueeast at 10:31AM, Sept. 25, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
I'll say this about the compass quiz – the questions were definitely loaded. I didn't find it unbiased or objective at all. So I can't disagree that they'd lump things together too generally. It's sort of like in the media when they load poll questions, because they know the result they want to encourage.

ozoneocean
STUPID political compasses… I hate the way that systems like military dictatorships, Monarchies, and Theocracies are all assumed to be essentially conservative or even fascist. Fascism is something in of itself, no system resembles it. The closest I've seen was the aspirations of the hardcore Punk groups in the 70's and 80's that espoused “anarchy”, when in reality they were closer to fascism than anything else (uniformity of look, espousing the efficacy and the beauty and also worship of violence and violent ideals, the group and the gang above all else, etc.).

But on to characterising those other systems as conservative. That's wrong. They are all different things and all work very well, just as well as democracies when you look at it objectively. They work as badly as democracy too.. There are bad and good examples all round.

In the end though, just as the broad label of “conservative” doesn't truly describe those systems, labels like conservative, liberal etc, don't really define or properly characterise people or parties that label themselves as such, either in outlook or title. And anyone that SEEKS to conform themselves, or their ideal TO such a label is someone to be wary of. You have to follow what people actually do, not what they call themselves or who they are. So I suppose that's more like Ronson's approach.

That said, I'll sort of go back on what I said about labels to state that Democracy is always essentially centre right moderate conservative, no matter what party elect. Extreme right governments don't stay democratic for long, extreme leftists can't get elected, and moderate leftists can only get elected by moving to the right. It's an observation that holds pretty true around the world and has been espoused by a lot more people than just me.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
mapaghimagsik at 12:13PM, Sept. 25, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Sounds like the definition of fascism has changed.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
ozoneocean at 1:38PM, Sept. 25, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
Fascisim never had a definitive definition. It was something Mussolini came up with and changed as he went along. But the main parts of it were change through violence and the ascendency of the group.
As I've said about labels though and people calling themselves things, you can't rely on them. Franco for instance. He was simply a crazy military dictator. Maybe he was fascist to start with, but in the end he was simply a dictator with very conservative ideas. People have socially constructed and re-engineered the definition based on a post WW2 image of an idea of conservative militarism.

But I go to the origins. Italy in the 1920's, Europe in the 30's. It had nothing to do with the military and it was opposed to monarchies and existing power structures. It was GROUPS who aspired to exactly that power, not to support it, but to replace it, which it did. It gained control of the military and remade it, used it to further it's own aims. Used the church, used the monarchy, but wasn't part of any of those pre-existing institutions. In fact, fascist groups started out using violent terrorist tactics and continued to use them after they gained control on the centres of power.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:28PM
kyupol at 1:50PM, Sept. 25, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
I Guess Due East is best suited to be a leader of the nation (the other part… if he/she has the political charisma to do it.)

Anyway based on my independent study of politics, any extreme is bound to fail or cause problems in the future. ANY form of government is susceptible to be converted into a one-man dictatorship.
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
dueeast at 1:55PM, Sept. 25, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
*picks jaw up off of floor* :nervous:

…and just to clarify, I'm a he. :)

kyupol
I Guess Due East is best suited to be a leader of the nation (the other part… if he/she has the political charisma to do it.)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
kyupol at 2:36PM, Sept. 25, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
SLIGHTLY OFFTOPIC

… and speaking of political systems, there is this game called Earth2025… where players are running their own country. Its an economic-military simulation browser kind of game. Parentheses are my comments…

Yeah… its just a game. But this has been researched based on political systems.:)

http://games.swirve.com/earth/help/govt.htm

Monarchy
None

(Not sure why this government has no advantages and disadvantages)


Fascism
+15% Food Production (Maybe as a result of government-controlled industry?)
+50% Oil Production
-10% Per Capita Income (Corruption)
-15% Population (People have to be executed from time to time)


Tyranny
+20% Attack Gains (Perhaps we got a greedy tyrant?)
-10% Military Upkeep Costs
Only 1 Turn Required Per Attack
-25% Maximum Per Capita Income (And the people don't have too much money cuz of one man's greed)


Dictatorship
+25% Military Strength (Since dictators are too paranoid especially of revolt)
+30% Spy Effectiveness
-30% Construction Speed (Since the people arent motivated to work. Obey out of fear.)


Communism
+20% Technology Effectiveness
+35% Industrial Production
10% Market Commissions

(Communism looks good at first… but if you actually play as a commie, having a large army is hard to maintain. And if you try selling stuff, you wont be getting as much cash. Communism in real life LOOKS GOOD AT FIRST too. There's a saying that “communism is only good in paper”.)


Theocracy
-20% Military Costs
+40% Construction Speed
-50% Maximum Technology
Double GDI (the “UN” equivalent) Expenses

(Strong belief in God makes the army cheaper to maintain… since volunteer soldiers cut costs alot. And based on playing that game, if you are a theocracy, its much easier to recover because of the construction speed. You get to rebuild faster. But with weak technology, don't expect a strong army. A theocracy tends to be too traditional that they resist technology)


Republic
+20% Land Exploration
+20% Maximum Per Capita Income
-10% Military Strength

(If you play as a Republic, you'd get lots of cash. But your military is weak. Since republics arent war mongers, military tends to get neglected)


Democracy
0% Market Commissions
3 Turns Required per Attack

(Free market… Free trade… all that. If you “buy” or “sell” stuff, you wont be paying any “commissions/taxes” on your products. If you sell oil barells for lets say $100 a piece, you get $100. Not deducting a 6% if you're something else… or 10% of you're commie. The 3 turns per attack is perhaps the long amount of debating whether or not you need to do an attack.)


Its just a game… but this game is very educational. At least it gives you a rough idea about politics. :)
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
bobhhh at 11:29PM, Sept. 26, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
kyupol
Its just a game… but this game is very educational. At least it gives you a rough idea about politics. :)

very rough.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Bekefel at 9:48AM, Sept. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 4,457
joined: 10-15-2006
ozoneocean
Bekefel
Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats.
And those parties could all be described as being centre right at the moment, couldn't they? :)
Definitely New Labour. And the Tories are as moderate as they've been for a long time. The liberal democrats are the most left leaning of the group, but only as a way of differentiating themselves from the others.


Very correct Mr Ozone. Well said.

They are all very similar right now, but as you say the Lib Dems try to lean to the left a bit for attention. Clearly it's not working. ;)

Conservative party conference next week I believe. Just have to wait and see what they have to say.
Please, please, you give me too little credit.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:18AM
mapaghimagsik at 12:07PM, Sept. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Well, since we're talking video games as a way of explaining political philosphy….

Everything I learned about politics, I learned from Grand Theft Auto. My favorite:

#8. If you have a nice enough car, all the call girls will climb into it. Then you can
drive it off a cliff, and they will all drown.

Bekefel
Conservative party conference next week I believe. Just have to wait and see what they have to say.

I trade you your conservative party for mine. Whattya say?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved