How far to the left can you go before you're right?

[TimMooring]

The view of the left and the right as meeting at 360 degrees on the compass of political thought is a well known theory. I'm not sure that I accept it entirely as it seems likely to be an over simplification. But for lack of a better model i accept that it has some legitimacy. From the perspective of the proletariat the difference between Marxism (the practice not the abstraction) and pure capitalism (which unlike Marxism/Communism can and often has existed in a near pure state) there's not much in the way of discernable difference.

Capitalism in it's pure form is the clear objective of the the neocons in America. This accounts for the rise of mega-corporations that really have no national affiliation but operate at an international level. In recent years these huge companies have gained a level of control over government and public media (the internet is the sole exception) that they can form public opinion and national policy in anyway they want. The Global War on Terror can be seen as advancing their objectives on several fronts, naked aggression abroad (NAC) and subjugation thru fear at home. They are at the same time our protectors and suppressors. Not much different from the all powerful monarchies of the middle-ages. As an example Boeing Corporation recently forced their own plant in Evetret WA to compete for work on their new 7E7 aircraft against air-framing companies in China. The immediate effect is lower wages and the trend will inevitably continue. Personally I don't see all this as brand new - the entire cold war - and specifically their deification of Reagan as the great slayer of the communists (patent non-sense of course) has given them the upper hand they enjoy now. If people believe it thats all that counts.

The left clearly has to play a smarter game. It's amusing to me that some people see the internet as an unassailable bastion of free expression. It could be switched off in an instant or easily restricted to any degree considered necessary (many countries do this now). I'm nearly at the point where I believe that a MIHA scenario may actually be in the works right now. This years election is a critical juncture for the neocons. A loss could and probably would, at least to some extent, rollback their acheivements and block their plans for at least four years and perhaps indefinitely. It's their golden moment and they do not want a repeat of 1992. They may not accept a repeat of 1992.

There's incongruity between the first paragraph and the two that follow. WTF?

[kiahzero]

1. Um, your underlying thesis is wrong.

It could be switched off in an instant or easily restricted to any degree considered necessary (many countries do this now).

The Internet is not "easily switched off", unless you're talking about dismantling phone lines, or maybe attempting to shutting down access points. As for restricting it, that's not so easy to do. There's a famous saying that the Internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

2. Not restricting it, but how about spying on it's users?

such as us.

[TimMooring]

15. It could be either or both with equal ease (nt)

[TimMooring]

3. We disagree

And besides that's not my underlying thesis.

The internet was designed to be resilient from attack and to route around failures - true. But traffic could easily be disrupted or filtered by authorities at backbone interconnects.

Your phone line goes to the phone company.

[not systems]

7. In my opinion this...

is an optimistic and naive expectation entire areas of
the internet area easy to block off.

True it would be extremely hard to snuff out the internet
because 2 computers plus 1 wire or radio makes a net.

But to control this at state borders when companies must
operate under total state regulation is nothing.

How would you even know.

You wouldn't and don't and given the current climate
of secrecy probably never will.

[TimMooring]

9. There's a big difference between the internet and a private network (nt)

Hook your computer to your neighbors computer and you can talk to your neighbor.

[not systems]

12. You sure???

:crazy:

My point was it is easy to cut up the internet at state
borders because the backbones are highly centralized and
all controlled by dependent tightly regulated corps.

Think they are going to tell you what gets filtered and where.

[TimMooring]

14. They would restrict your access at the backbone interconnect

i.e. the phone company.

State borders and even international borders are not relevant at all.

[Solon]

4. The internet can't be switched off, so to speak.

However, the government can cut the United States off from easy access to it. The government can shut down all ISP's within the US, that's possible. Unless we decide to dial to international servers, the Internet would be out of reach.

[TimMooring]

5. dream on (nt)

[Solon]

10. Such a stinging rebuttal, I am speechless.

OK, not really, technically it is possible for the government to cripple the internet. However, I did not say they would, it would disrupt commerce enough as is. The internet is resiliant, however, over half the servers that provide its "backbone" with OC-3 lines, etc. are located in this country. How hard would it be for the FBI to shut them down?

[TimMooring]

13. Their objective would not be to cripple the internet

Simply to restrict your access to it.

[TimMooring]

11. You can't really believe this - can you ?

It's exactly what I find so amusing. As I said earlier, our phone line goes directly to the phone company. They can do whatever they want to your ISP service.

What happens if you don't pay your phone bill?

[Solon]

16. Two things.

First off I am not disagreeing that the Internet cannot be crippled or restricted. That's a given, and easy to do for the Government. However, the Government has no compelling interest to do this at this time, however if they did, they would restrict it at the user level, not the server level. Lines of communication have to be left open for National Security and control of the population if it is needed.

[TimMooring]

17. We're not talking about crippling the internet

And the point is they might very well want to restrict the very type of activity that you and I are engaging in right now. It could be a very compelling objective. The other functions you mention would not necessarily be effected in any way.

[Cleita]

6. Wprds. Words. Words.

They mean different things to different people. I think we need to define certain words universally in political and social systems to mean the same thing, kind of like airline language or cyberlanguage. Other than that politicians can and do say things that are inaccurate, ridiculous and truly meant to confuse.

Okay, let's start with the word communism. It should mean a society that shares goods and responsibility. Maybe there is a leader who coordinates this but he isn't entitled in anyway. His job is because of his ability to do this and he can be replaced, but it doesn't mean he will lose his share on account of it.

On the other hand, there is totalitarianism, a society that is ruled by a dictator and an elite class that enables him to rule. This ruler must keep his position by deception, bribery, secretiveness and a servile underclass, who doesn't dare oppose him.

My two cents.

[TimMooring]

8. I partly agree with what you say

On the political compass I'm agreeable to anything from about 90 to 280 degrees. The rest I consider the danger zone.

There is a difference between the extreme left and the extreme right:

The extreme left (IMHO) is characterized by iconoclastic mental masterbation.

The extreme right is is characterized by greed and leveraging of personal wealth. (They screw you for real).

[Elidor]

18. Marxism (the practice not the abstraction)...is called Stalinism

If there is an intersection of pinko leftyism and authoritarian dictatorship, it is the disconnect between the ideals and the reality of capital-C Communism, between Trotsky and Stalin. Murder for the state or murder for the self. Extremists, whatever the stripe, usually suck.

[TimMooring]

19. Very True !!!

Pure capitalism is a natural state. Marxism is an ideal that has never been and (IMHO) probably never will be successfully implemented. It tends to degenerate and implode. It was the difficult lesson that Soviet Russia learned the hard way. I think you probably would agree with that.

Moderate forms of socialism may be the best that can be achieved.

[tom_paine]

20. Wall and succintcly said, Hardhead!

I knew I'd find a nest of True Moderates at DU!

Been a long time, fellas!

:toast: :hi:

[TimMooring]

21. I'm not upset by the posts from the ultra left - but..

I do believe that comparisons of Nazi Germany and the U.S do not advance the cause of the democratic party.

IMHO the same applies for people who display upside down flags. It's not that I don't agree with what they're expressing - it's simply unproductive.

Perhaps if bushco wins this year :-(

My belief is that such activity has allowed the word liberal to be effectively used as a pejorative i.e. the L word.

The left has a tendency to be self-destructive.

The extreme left and extreme right may actually find common ground in their desire to turn our democracy on its head. My view is that they're not that much different from each other and generally co-exist quite happily in repressive states.

The ability to distinquish between your friends and your natural opponents is an essential survival skill. (IMHO)

[Elidor]

22. Thanks. However...

I'm not terribly moderate. I'm pretty far to the left. I'm in danger of becoming an extremist, in fact.

But yes, :toast: