Building the new left

My mistake. I won’t bother responding to your troll posts in this P&R forum again.

The Bush II Administration has no similarities to the USSR than the Clinton, Bush I, etc. administrations didn’t also have. It’s a completely baseless accusation, an extremely unclever soundbite that might impress your friends but won’t hold up to any degree of analysis.

I don’t know whether you are dishonest, ignorant about communism, or ignorant about the current US system, but it’s definitely one of those.

And I’d love to see you explain how the post you replied to was trolling.

Ze 3rd Reich vas 12 years and did more damage than ze Russians in 40.

Midnight- Even if that was true(and it absolutely isn’t), what’s the relevance? I’m arguing effect on American national psyche, not whether the USSR was worse than the 3rd Reich.

Our involvement with the Third Reich was only 4 years long, I was being generous to include the entire war. The USSR lasted for more or less 70 years, but it wasn’t our prime rival until after World War II.

I see. I agree the impact of the Soviets was much longer than the Nazis. Nevertheless, the Nazis are the greater villains in the popular media. In movies, books, comics, computer games and so on, Hitler’s Boys are worse and thus I argue the impact is greater.

Well, we have a left, I just assumed by all this talk about a “real” left and Debs that we were talking about something like the Social Democrats.

Oh, I don’t think the positions of the Democrats need to move much farther left. We just need to win. :D

OK. I was responding to your relatively simple statement that “none of the crazy people on the left have any money”. If by “have any money” you mean “spend large sums of money to demonize the other side”, OK. But your original post wasn’t exactly clear to that effect. Agreed? :P

I also don’t agree that money-and-power-hungry-crazy-ass liberals like Al Sharpton and Hillary Clinton reflect the opinion of the mainstream left and don’t spend their resources demonizing the right, but OK.

Heh, only in America…

Heh, only in America…[/quote]

So what’s it like in Sweden then? I’m always interested in the international perspective.

OK. I was responding to your relatively simple statement that “none of the crazy people on the left have any money”. If by “have any money” you mean “spend large sums of money to demonize the other side”, OK. But your original post wasn’t exactly clear to that effect. Agreed? :P

I also don’t agree that money-and-power-hungry-crazy-ass liberals like Al Sharpton and Hillary Clinton reflect the opinion of the mainstream left and don’t spend their resources demonizing the right, but OK.[/quote]

I think you missed my point: Hillary and Sharpton don’t have any money.

Heh, only in America…[/quote]

You’re make a false assumption, which is that it has to be all or nothing. Systems are lossy, governments more so. But if it comes to extremism I’d take what I wrote above against a bunch of fanatics constantly genuflecting to an “invisible hand” all the time.

Maybe, but isn’t your current ruler George II Bush?

Heh, only in America…[/quote]
So what’s it like in Sweden then? I’m always interested in the international perspective.[/quote]
It’s the “defining aspect” part of Andrew’s post I reacted to. Since here, the defining aspect of economic liberalism is quite the opposite, namely free enterprise. You know, liberalizing the economy. Something that is happening right now, by the way, led by Socialdemokraterna (the Social Democrats). The caretakers of Sweden and its nationalized assets (there used to be quite a few of them) for most of the past century.

Of course, an argument could certainly be made that one could liberalize the economy from an oligarch-esque situation (or a new nobility), where the economic movement among the population is sorely lacking, represented by the conservatives.

At the moment, though, our conservatives are trying to paint themselves as socially (the economic socially) conscious, while the liberals are going the other way. They maintain their positions on social matters, like gay marriage and such, though.
This is just the two major right parties, Folkpartiet Liberalerna (liberals) and Moderaterna (conservatives), the two others are the “compassionate conservatives” Kristdemokraterna and the former farm party Centern.
In short, in Sweden the liberals and conservatives make a united front against the “nanny-state” of the socialistic ideals that Socialdemokraterna were founded on.