So Yahoo is right wing

[queball]

Oh well I might not have a case about the welfare state but it doesn't make the Conservatives fundamentally non-conservative anyway.

What do you think defines the welfare state then?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well the former is merely a straw-man and everyone supports the latter.

hi

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

NHS spending under the Tories pretty much rose above inflation all the time.

(This wasn't necessarily a conscious decision though, often it was demographic stuff, etc but still).

im surprised at that. my knowledge on this one isnt that great but its enough to know that most of the NHS money issues come from the cash sinks of bad projects run under the tories because good projects cost too much (in a similar style to the whole railway thing, or too bring in a quote the 'Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Economic Inequality'.

(incidentally, my best guess would be that most of that money went into building crappy new hospitals. god knows its happened a lot around here)

[/incoherence]

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

What do you think defines the welfare state then?

Malpass [Malpass, 2003, p592] has commented on the difficulty in fully defining the welfare state. While in contemporary study it is an entrenched term, in the time period we're examining (largely the 1940's and 50's) it was not a commonly used term.

However, if only in hindsight we can define the welfare state as primarily dealing with five main areas of policy; health, education, social services, social security and housing [Malpass, 2003, p592 ].

I hate my degree . On the level you're talking I'd define it as any state effort under a capitalist economy where services are provided in a largely non commodified fashion. Even that's not particularly helpful, so you could look at outcomes if you want.

Originally Posted by nodrog

hi

Sorry dude, I meant everyone in the evil mainstream sense.

[queball]

How about: the contentious bits like get mentioned in the paper using the term are disavowed by both, while the whole social/economic thing is embraced by everyone.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Sorry dude, I meant everyone in the evil mainstream sense.

I'm evil and mainstream but I don't support that except in the ultra-pragmatic sense of getting people to come around to your ideas slowly instead of trying the fantastically risky revolution or drastic socio-economic change.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

These are so bland to make them practically worthless.

Obviously, that was short-hand for more fuller descriptions of how those principles work within Conservatism and how they relate to each other, for example, freedom in this context does not mean unlimited freedom, but freedom within the context of upholding certain principles for the larger good, specifically things that 'endanger' society morally.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't think it's even vaguely realistic to say that except under perhaps Thatcher the Tories have done anything even vaguely approaching "phasing out the welfare state".

I'd tend to agree with that statement, although it is fundamentally disengenuous and ignores the real crux of the matter; that Conservatism has been tolerating things like The NHS rather than 'supporting' them, as Nod bizzarely claimed earlier. Where they have had the chance ever since Thathcer, they have either ignored welfare as being fundamentally 'bad' or introduced market concepts into it, presumably as part of a gradual total dissolution/dillution of it altogether. (lo internal market.)

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Up until Thatcher, the notion of a welfare state was fundamentally part of the Tory platform.

I'm not sure whether it was "fundamental", but you have to temper that with the above, and the fact that Toryism wasn't intoxicated on gung-ho idelogical Neo-liberalism and never really has been, so working within things like The NHS wasn't a barrier, although it wasn't exactly a prefered structure.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

someone in China could call themselves a Conservative if they favoured Chinese tradition, which is probably vastly different from Western tradition. However, someone in China calling themselves a Socialist would probably still have to believe in similar sorts of things to a Western socialist.

You still seem to be hung up on this idea that tradition is the be-all and end-all of Conservatism, which it isn't, as even my rough outline above highlighted. Conservatism obviously has an inherent and strong belief in Liberal Democracy - I was taking that as a given.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Course it is. Any belief system based around tradition for the sake of tradition involves neophobia.

Even if we take dictionary defintions, then the idea that conservatism equates with neo-phobia is wrong; that's before we even challenge the idea that Conservatism is merely unquestioning faith in tradition.

[acropolis]

putin is actively working toward moving russia back towards the totalitarianism of the USSR.

i'd put him down as a right wing conservative type.

which doesn't work at all with an independent ideology, but blends with Nod's idea of a tradition-based conservatism.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The statement seemed pretty accurate to me. The societies in the 20th century which I think would have been most likely to implement policies like "Compulsory ID cards, massive reductions in civil rights, and imprisonment without trial" are all ultra left wing (in as much as the term has meaning); soviet russia, cuba, nazi germany, north korea etc etc. Its a pointless arguement until someone actually defines 'left' and 'right' wing' though.

I hear you about defining right wing and left wing, but there's no way on earth that national socialist Germany was far left wing.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Hecate

I hear you about defining right wing and left wing, but there's no way on earth that national socialist Germany was far left wing.

It was left wing (or at the most, right of centre) though. The 'socialist' gives it away.

[Hecate]

Ah I see. Read up on the differences of "Socialism" and "National Socialism" though. It's true that Germany implemented some sosialistic ideas, but they fought the marxists/bolshevists/communists (i.e. mainly Soviet Union).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Ah I see. Read up on the differences of "Socialism" and "National Socialism" though. It's true that Germany implemented some sosialistic ideas, but they fought the marxists/bolshevists/communists (i.e. mainly Soviet Union).

The Soviet Union wasn't very left wing either.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The Soviet Union wasn't very left wing either.

Schemantics maybe, but first you refer to socialists as left wing here

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It was left wing (or at the most, right of centre) though. The 'socialist' gives it away.

and then say the Soviet Union wasn't left wing. The Soviet Union was communist, i.e. socialist.
I guess then problem here is just that we're trying to discuss history with today's terms and definitions of left and right wing politics.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Schemantics maybe, but first you refer to socialists as left wing here



and then say the Soviet Union wasn't left wing. The Soviet Union was communist, i.e. socialist.
I guess then problem here is just that we're trying to discuss history with today's terms and definitions of left and right wing politics.

Again, you missed the fact that I was being facetious with my latter comment.

And the USSR has been described as 'Not very united, not very socialist, and not much of a republic'

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Ah I see. Read up on the differences of "Socialism" and "National Socialism" though. It's true that Germany implemented some sosialistic ideas, but they fought the marxists/bolshevists/communists (i.e. mainly Soviet Union).

The only real difference between "national socialism" and "socialism" was the jew ovens. Nazi germany was incredibly socialist/left wing, by any sane definition of the term. Yeah they didnt get on with the soviet union, but so what? Just because 2 countries have incredibly similar ideologies doesnt mean that the possibility of war between them is invalidated.

[Nodrog]

ok guys I'm fed up explaining this so I drew a picture of how I view politics in a 2-dimensional sense (not that I think you can adequately represent things on 2 axis but you get the idea)

http://nodrogs.madeup.info/spectrum.png

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

ok guys I'm fed up explaining this so I drew a picture of how I view politics in a 2-dimensional sense (not that I think you can adequately represent things on 2 axis but you get the idea)

I'd see it more like :

http://80.168.142.200/compass.png

Although judging how Libertarian someone is kinda hard. Who is more libertarian, Labour (UK) or Republicans (US)?

[JonnyBGood]

National socialism was pretty different from socialism nod. Certainly in terms of beliefs on race, eugenics and other related aspects (eg militarism was a result of nationalism which was a result of the beliefs on race). It's ignoring the fact that there's still huge differences despite the fact the vast majority can be traced to one main area.

[Bunga]

Originally Posted by Hecate

The Soviet Union was communist, i.e. socialist.

Err... what?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'd see it more like :

http://80.168.142.200/compass.png

Although judging how Libertarian someone is kinda hard. Who is more libertarian, Labour (UK) or Republicans (US)?

Shouldnt National Socialism be the most 'equal' system then, given they are the only political ideology in which eugenics plays a large role, and eugenics is the only meaningful way that state-sponsored equality can ever be achieved?

[Shr00m]

I don't think the dots wotk to well, nods was better in that way. Also i've usually seen libertarianism defined as oposed to social and economic control. And Nod i think is right, how can a mix of people every be cpnsidered equal when they can see that they aren't "equal" and have different traditions etc, which is frequently a cause of civil strife whcih is not a very egalitarion concept.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I'd always seen libertarianism as a promotion of freedoms, as it were.

[G_frog]

A command economy in europe around the middle of the 20th century might not be incontrovertible evidence of left-wing economic ideas. there may be another explanation.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Shouldnt National Socialism be the most 'equal' system then, given they are the only political ideology in which eugenics plays a large role, and eugenics is the only meaningful way that state-sponsored equality can ever be achieved?

Eugenics isn't an attempt (generally) at equality, it's an attempt at advancement. There's no particular reason why advancement would occur at the same rate for all members of the society. Most eugenics literature is pretty obsessed with all sorts of differences. Even if you sterilise all Jews + mentally ill, etc then you've still got the problem of less good Aryans vs better Aryans, etc. It's not a program which ever has an end.

Originally Posted by Shr00m

And Nod i think is right, how can a mix of people every be cpnsidered equal when they can see that they aren't "equal" and have different traditions etc, which is frequently a cause of civil strife whcih is not a very egalitarion concept.

What? There's a difference between between being equal and being the same. I am very different from you, but I would consider you my equal.

In terms of achieving equality, that's a matter of policy. There are various ways of achieving some libertarian, some authotarian.

The dots are merely illustrative, obviously not all members of the US Libertarian Party are exactly the same.