Newbie safe zone(ask any simple questions)

scheister

If you look in the poker section there is a section for not dump question but newbie question is best i can put it. Decided to set one up here and see if it works


Start off with a really newbie one

all the time in politics you hear about people being centre left right wing someone please explain to me what that is all about and what the sides stand for?

thanks

Raiser

Why are FF et al so scared of the potential fallout ahead of the upcoming Local Elections?

- According to a friend here in work they're only to elect Local Councillors - ie. the 93 year old backwards dopes grumbling about petty issues like where can we put an extra rubbish bin and lets vote to increase the price of a parking disc again this week

Secondary to my original query is how can the common Citizen use their vote [Is this from the usual registrar of electors?]to hurt the likes of FF and The Greens and send them packing !!!

Have I received bad counsel ? Please forgive my ignorance BTW

turgon

I dont want to answer question no 1 cas its a bit complicated and I might make an arse of myself!

Raiser wrote: »

Why are FF et al so scared of the potential fallout ahead of the upcoming Local Elections?

I suppose the confidence people have in any party is reflected in the number of officials they have at any level. So the goal should always be to get as many as possible. For future times, I would imagine its easier to re-elect an incumbent than elect new faces.

Coming into the next general election the last local elections will be used as an indicator of the result, and a bad result will reflect, em ... badly.

Also the councilors elect 70% of the senate. On second thoughts, that means nothing.

Raiser wrote: »

Secondary to my original query is how can the common Citizen use their vote [Is this from the usual registrar of electors?]to hurt the likes of FF and The Greens and send them packing !!!

Not voting for them usually works, but if you want to buy a load of dynamite and plant it outside some FF office you could probably use your burning ballot paper as ignition.

turgon

As regards question one, wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_politics might be of use.

The whole left right thing is not that very descriptive to be honest. The Political compass offers an alternative to the left-right divide, its worth checking out. Link: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Akrasia

scheister wrote: »

If you look in the poker section there is a section for not dump question but newbie question is best i can put it. Decided to set one up here and see if it works


Start off with a really newbie one

all the time in politics you hear about people being centre left right wing someone please explain to me what that is all about and what the sides stand for?

thanks

The terms left and right are a hangover from the french revolution, before the revolution, the nobles and monarchists sat on the right side of the national assembly and the republican socialists sat on the left.

The term is applied today to descripe people's attitude towards economics. Left wing describes people who believe wealth should be redistributed according to equality and need, while right wing opinion prefers capital to be assigned to economic activity as a means of meeting social needs.

Socially, left wing refers to collectivist, while right wing refers to individualist
(left = we should distribute resources according to need and care for the weak, right = everyone is responsible for themselves and if we all act in our own interests the 'invisible hand' will lead to the optimum outcome for society.)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

WoW, thanks Donegalfella thats cleared some stuff up, even for me.

nyarlothothep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is inaccurate. Hitler and Stalin were not on the left by any means. Calling them so makes as much sense as saying China is communist or Bertie Ahern is a socialist. Both were defined by their authoritarianism. On Castro, yes he was a dictator as is Raul, perhaps because Cuba is under siege with the sanctions and failed coup attempts/assassinations . Nonetheless I don't agree with it.


Also some right wing dictators/dictatorships

Franco, Napoleon, Mussolini, Pinochet, The Apartheid Regime

turgon

nyarlothothep wrote: »

This is inaccurate. Hitler and Stalin were not on the left by any means.

No, what donegalfella said is right, ignore this comment newbies

I suppose whereas Stalin is defined as a complete lefty - he was both creating an authoritarian government as well as controlling the economy. He did this through farm collectivization (where farm land was seized and huge estates made, "collectives") and the five year plans. In a hard left economic state, the government owns most of the industry such as coal and oil.

Hitler isnt as easy to pin point. He had an authoritarian style of government with no freedom of press etc. However economically he still had a freer market compared to stalin. That is why the political compass came about, because very often you cant place people on the left right line.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

DF if this thread is going to work then you should keep your personal politics out of explanations unless someone specifically asks you about them Suggesting the nazis were socialists is just a crass opportunistic smear (intended to make people think socialists are nazis) on your part.

In addition, your equation of communism or socialism with overbearing state control is wildly inaccurate (one might ask, deliberately so?), Engels explicitly writes about the gradual withering away of the state.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

And this children is a perfect example of why it's so hard to get simple answers to simple questions in politics because quite simply there's almost always some perceived bias in the answers.

The answer I'm happiest with regards where Stalin and Hitler are on the political spectrum is this one: http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 (read down)

In reality while both Hitler and Stalin were extremely authoritarian and Statist, Hitler allowed a lot of private enterprise in the Third Reich while Stalin abolished almost all (if not all) private enterprise with his version* of the communist model. These two positions economically are very far apart.



Right and left wing have two separate meanings in terms of attitudes towards social issues and economic issues. Right wing in social terms is Conservatism and Left wing is Liberal and all the various shades between the extremes. In economic terms, right wing is at the extreme utterly free and unfettered market economy and at the extreme left is Stalin's total state control and production.

Untangling these two meanings like they did with the political compass allows far better analysis and avoids the fights like the above.


*Stalin's version was not the only form of communism and to equate this with socialism is an untruth and a good way to provoke a reaction from left wing people. Similarly arguing that anything but state control of things like the Health System will automatically bring about the kind of inequality we see in the US is equally disingenuous. Both are a very good way to lose the respect of "the other side" in political debates and for newbies to this kind of thing it's worth keeping this fact in mind.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Um, the above diatribe is hardly in the spirit of the topic and is mostly fed by a pathalogical hatred of 'collectivism'

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nyarlothothep

always? Firstly you're equating collectivism de facto with regimes. This is untrue. Secondly you're saying by implication that collectivism=regimes=mass slaughter. The first assertion is untrue but moreover there are collectivist societies which have not descended into mass slaughter, for example the Kibbutz. In the interests of impartiality you should mention all those non collectivist right wing regimes which have descended into bloodbaths.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You think Thatcher wasn't conservative socially and that Friedman wasn't mildly liberal in this regard?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm more interested in what Hitler did when in Power than early manifestos of the Nazi Party. He didn't abolish or seize private enterprise to the same extent that Stalin did separating them economically in ideology.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is a separate issue.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Liberty, egalite fraternity the values of the french revolution are the values of socialism, not economic 'liberalism' (where equality and brotherhood mean zilch, and freedom only applies to capital)

Just because the word had not been popularised does not mean my first (deliberately simple) explaination was invalid.

As for the virtues of collectivism, newbies should be aware that collectivist regimes killed over 100 million people during the twentieth century. That is equivalent to wiping out the current population of Mexico. And yet today's starry-eyed collectivists refuse to acknowledge that collectivist regimes always degenerate into repression and mass slaughter.

Collectivist is different from totalitarian... Collective action is what made human civilisation what it is, cooperation, sharing resources, sharing ideas, trade and culture. Totalitarianism is not the same as socialism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gorilla

Hi,
Whats the difference between Patriotism and Nationalism?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

Id agree with donealfella.

American patriots like to hang the American flag outside their house.
Irish nationalists like to burn the British flag.

nesf

Gorilla wrote: »

Hi,
Whats the difference between Patriotism and Nationalism?

I'll try and answer this in simple terms rather than attempting to fully capture the scope of the difference.

Patriotism is the love of one's country/nation/whatever. Nationalism is more of an ideological position focussing on some concept of a nation-state. Patriotism is almost always part of a nationalist position but not all patriots are nationalists.

For instance with regard to the north. Nationalists in common parlance would be people who believe that the nation should consist of the entire island of Ireland rather than just the Republic. It's an ideological position on what should be rather than a love of what is the nation etc.


Edit: The real basic questions to ask yourself are:
"What is a nation?"
"Am I really closer to someone else who is a citizen of this nation than another person from a different one?"
"Why are the boundaries of our nation drawn as they are? Are they just arbitrary or is there something deeper going on?"

scheister

not sure if this section is working the way it is meant to so far 3 questions have been ask and a couple of fight have broke out some trying to explain left againest right a comparison came between thatcher and hitler if i read it correctly

what does everyone else think

nesf

scheister wrote: »

not sure if this section is working the way it is meant to so far 3 questions have been ask and a couple of fight have broke out some trying to explain left againest right a comparison came between thatcher and hitler if i read it correctly

what does everyone else think

Welcome to political discussion, it's always about trying to sort out the signal from the noise.

In reality there generally isn't a simple answer accepted by all for every simple question. Politics is an area where even the fundamental questions can be disagreed upon.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sgt. Sensible

This thread makes history cry.

It looks like the Hitler was a socialist nonsense has been lifted from this tripod site. Great source. Strange how such a fundamental fact has not yet found its way into any orthodox historical studies of Hitler and the nazis.

AngryHippie

Many of Hitlers statements and ideals were socialist. But the fact that he was a ruthless anti-semetic with a god complex turned what few socialist concepts he had into a total farce. He shouldn't really be considered a socialist. Because of his actions and his justification for them. How much of it actually came from the people, and how much of it did they know about ?

Soldie

AngryHippie wrote: »

He shouldn't really be considered a socialist.

Of course not! Real socialism has never been tried! The likes of Pol Pot, Stalin & Mao were not socialists!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In fairness they were escaping communism which is just one implementation of socialism and one that many socialists abhor. We've had far different experiences with the type of socialism that's dominated politics in the Nordic countries etc.

It's a broad church, I don't think you can dismiss socialism simply because communism didn't work.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We're both well versed enough in academics to know that terms evolve in politics and what Marx's opinion was on what socialism is is not the end of the story. Classical liberalism has come a long way since the 19th century for instance.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While we have Pinochet. A man who managed to dramatically rise the quality of life for his people in exchange for just a "handful" of disappearances.

Utopian socialism is very much vulnerable to authoritarianism but it is not the sum total of socialist thought. Popper drew the distinction between Utopian socialism and a more piecemeal approach to socialism typified in the Nordic model. They're different animals.

I'm considering splitting off a lot of the side discussions in this thread at the moment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

AngryHippie wrote: »

Many of Hitlers statements and ideals were socialist. But the fact that he was a ruthless anti-semetic with a god complex turned what few socialist concepts he had into a total farce. He shouldn't really be considered a socialist. Because of his actions and his justification for them. How much of it actually came from the people, and how much of it did they know about ?

Communists/socialists/social democrats etc were also interned in the concentration camps, identity marker being the red triangle.

Socialism is the broadest of political ideologies, but at almost all strand's heart, is the idea that humans are co-operative beings. Not really compatible with Hitler's ideology (given racial stratification)


However, I have no time for extreme forms of socialism or the concept that socialism requires a revolutionary vanguard.

roygmitchell

I have to say that I found the political compass test really useful!
It just cleared up a lot of things. Really well written and meaningful passages that teach an enlighten you. It also points out which Irish political party you may be most aligned with...if you compare your map with the Irish political parties' map. Cheers for the recommendation and I would further add it as a recommended must try for all newbies!

gotBass

Firstly I'm glad this is a newbie safe zone - here comes my silly questions:

Does anyone think that there is a way to balance, capitalism, and whats right and wrong
Will Ethical standards ever apply, or will we have the same global downturn that we are now in 25-30 years from now.

I'm sure that many will think that ethics have no place alongside capitalism, but one can hope...

turgon

Well, define what you mean by ethics.

If you mean that the banks acted unethically in taking in risky debt etc then no, ethics will continue to suffer. Why? Because each time these bankers act unethically and put the risks of their customers and themselves last they just come crawling up to the government. And the government will give them all the money they need, and refuse to punish them for a lack of ehtics.

Thus is the "self-correcting" (or something like that, me not equal to an economist) thing in capitalism is gotten rid of, and the real risk of risky deals is removed.

So he lessons of the bank story for me is that a lack of ethics means the government will not allow you to suffer losses. Which makes having no ethics and beneficial thing to oneself, financially.

I also think its up to the consumer to buy from ethical companies.

gotBass

buying from ethical companies I'm in favour of.

I just think that in the way doctors take a pledge to preserve life etc,

surely bank CEO's have a duty of care to share holders and account holders.
really they looked after themselves by focusing only on every quarterly result.

Surely one of them took a moment by the photocopier to think, "holy Sh*t, we are way to highly exposed,it's in the interests of those I represent to reduce this exposure"
I suppose they did that but forgot that ordinary Joes are share holders too.

I just feel that if ethical behaviour was taught throughout 3rd level and graduate programs then the junior guys become more senior hopefully they take the ethics up the chain with them.

it's wishful thinking but ultimately if we could get this in place the future might not be as bad....

I'm all for risk and reward, but common sense has to fit in somewhere. Failure to do this would translate to telling the next generation that we don't give a damn about them.

Joycey

OK ive got one:

What is meant when the "revolutionary vanguard" is spoken about? Twas mentioned a few posts ago and I dont have an accurate idea of what it means.

Some kind of violent revolutionary force which brings about socialist change in Marxist ideology? If this is what it is, is this the force which then retains "order" (control) under the new state?

Just give me what Marx (or whoever it was/is who wrote/writes about it) means by it, not some skewed version from either side plz.

Joycey

Just thought of another couple of (related) questions:

How mainstream is Austrian school economics? Is it just libertarians and internet people who actually propound it or is it popular in America/Europe?

Is a belief that humans are rationally choosing individuals fundamental to the system? Without this belief would the school of thought be workable?

Is there any mainstream school or amalgam of schools of economics which makes provision for the fact that humans are not capable of "rational" choice (and certainly not in every instance)? If so what are they?

Thx

turgon

gotBass wrote: »

surely bank CEO's have a duty of care to share holders and account holders.
really they looked after themselves by focusing only on every quarterly result.

Damn right! But they squandered it all and how are they being rewarded for their incompetency? Bailout.

This government isnt pursuing a policy that rewards ethics. Instead the probability of the government giving you money is inverse proportional to the lack of ethics you have, it would seem.

I dont know where all the blame lies. I mean, could you make an argument that the CEO's weren't being monitored by their shareholders? In the case of the right action being taken (ie let the banks fail for their mistakes instead of expecting everyone else to support them), then the shareholders would have suffered. Thus, it is the responsibility of the shareholders to monitor those in charge.

I fully agree with your education proposal. Civics at JC is a really weak subject (me and my friends had a 2euro bet for who would finish the JC exam first - I left after 33 minutes and still got an A). I think there should be maybe a subject Civics and Government. Explaining not only the Irish governmental system, but also how it compares to others. Also explaining the meaning of policies such as left and right. Preparing people to be smart electors.

But in fairness., its probably better for the govt to keep the electorate dumb.

gotBass

the Mushroom Act of 2009 - keep em in the dark etc....
If the parties are persisting on this they are going to get a political hiding in the next few years. they must realise that:

1. Our population is more aware than ever of news events and media alerts.
2. we are ( for the most part) better educated than previous generations.
3. we as a population are aging and with this age comes experience.

In short it will be more difficult to pull the wool over our eyes.
the aul fashioned Cute Hoor thing will, be replaced by a media savvy type.

blogs etc, ( no matter how controversial and sensationalist) at least raise debate and from that comes general awareness, of the goings on.

just look at the forum/blog sites, I wonder how many new posters have sprung up in the past 12/18 months. In short it's a growing movement and long may it continue. the parties need to take note of this.


I'd like to think we're a little better than the sort who says:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."

silverharp

Joycey wrote: »

Is a belief that humans are rationally choosing individuals fundamental to the system? Without this belief would the school of thought be workable?

The article below seemed to be quite readable.


http://mises.org/story/2249

What Do Austrians Mean by "Rational"?
Mises Daily by Michael Rozeff | Posted on 7/26/2006

Joycey

silverharp wrote: »

The article below seemed to be quite readable.


http://mises.org/story/2249

What Do Austrians Mean by "Rational"?
Mises Daily by Michael Rozeff | Posted on 7/26/2006

Cheers for the link.

Found it interesting, but must say that it feels biased to me. I mean, first of all its on a Mises website, which is fair enough, but means that Im fully entitled to treat it as slightly partisan.

A belief has been building up for a while now in me that humans are not "rational" in the way the majority of philosophers of action, or even philosophers of pre-20th century in general tend to portray us as.

I understand completely the point the article makes about the distinction between irrational and rational action being pretty much meaningless, as far as Im concerned every action is as irrational as it is rational, there is no "objective", and hence entirely rationally motivated way to preference one goal, or end, over another.

However Ive come to this conclusion from reading a fair few articles about the experiments in behavioural economics and some other behavioural psychology which this article is retaliating against, and I feel that they are treated very unfairly by this piece. The guy who writes it assumes that their methodology is at fault, in that they are taking as axiomatic certain rules of behaviour, whereby if the experimentee's behaviour does not corelate with these axioms the behaviour is deemed to be "irrational". This is a gross oversimplification and a misrepresentation of most of the articles which I have come across. A deliberate attempt is usually made to find the axioms of classical economics, or any other branch of thought which assumes or requires some conception of human "rationality", or at least choice in self interest in order to operate as the creators intended. It is not arbitrary behavioural predictions generated by the researchers which are usually violated by these experiments, but rather assumptions which are taken for granted by classical economics or the Austrian school.

It would be necessary for me to read Mises himself outside of the context of the article-writers possible bias in order to determine whether something like "rationality" (I know this term has been thrown out by Mises but I cant think of any alternative) is necessary to his theory.

The question really comes down to: why would we expect the markets to find "equilibrium", or to act in a way which we perceive as "rational", if the individual actors which constitute it show no analgous trait? If it is determined that there is not adequate justification for letting the markets do their own thing then this would surely be an absolute refutation of Austrian school economics as it is usually conceived? Im not saying we should throw it out entirely, because most influential schools of thought, such as Marxism, have some great ideas, but to still maintain belief in the validity of a school of economics 100 years after its conception and in the face of contradictory evidence about human behaviour seems to me to be madness.



Edit:

An example: that whole thing about Caplan's Model, where a trade off takes place between a loss of possible predictive powers (cost) and psychic benefits which accord to the self deception which takes place when an individual maintains a "belief" in astrology (benefit). I mean, that just seems like such a contrived notion of human psychology. Does anyone really believe that that's how humans operate nowadays? I know someone who thinks like this, that for every single thing we do that there is some kind of "probability calculator" which works out the costs/benefits of each possible action, but is this actually seen as a viable way of looking at humans, still, in the 21st century? Surely all this rests on there being one absolute, unified ego, which is responsible for every sphere of my behaviour etc etc etc, something which I just cant buy into.