A Handmaids Tale

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

So only right-wingers can be racist nationalists.
Got it.
Then you want to change it from a simple left-wing/right-wing narrative to one where "well they are a right-wing in all the bad parts", but "the parts I like are left-wing".
Got it.
Was Abraham Lincoln right or left wing...

I didn't say that. I only said that the Nazis are commonly considered right-wing on account of their racist nationalist authoritarianism. I also never said that I like any part of their system. I only acknowledged that they were leftists when it came to economics.

You're going personal. If you don't believe that racist nationalism and authoritarianism is distinctly right-wing, that's a fair statement of opinion. However, leftists typically favor equality, worker solidarity, and democracy within a system of checks and balances that tends to reduce authoritarianism and dictatorship. This isn't a denial that many leftists have gained power and threw equality, solidarity, democracy, and checks & balances out the window. But those who do betray the platform on which they claim to stand and had typically campaigned on.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I didn't say that. I only said that the Nazis are commonly considered right-wing on account of their racist nationalist authoritarianism. I also never said that I like any part of their system. I only acknowledged that they were leftists when it came to economics.

You're going personal. If you don't believe that racist nationalism and authoritarianism is distinctly right-wing, that's a fair statement of opinion. However, leftists typically favor equality, worker solidarity, and democracy within a system of checks and balances that tends to reduce authoritarianism and dictatorship. This isn't a denial that many leftists have gained power and threw equality, solidarity, democracy, and checks & balances out the window. But those who do betray the platform on which they claim to stand.

Venezuela is both racist nationalists and authoritarian and it is left wing.
Pol Pot was a racist nationalist and authoritarian and left wing.
Mao was a racist nationalist and authoritarian and left wing.
I could go on and on...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Venezuela is both racist nationalists and authoritarian and it is left wing.
Pol Pot was a racist nationalist and authoritarian and left wing.
Mao was a racist nationalist and authoritarian and left wing.
I could go on and on...

Yes, you could go on and on.

However, even if you choose to go on and on, the Nazis are typically regarded as being right-wing on account of their racist nationalist authoritarianism...whether you believe that is a true assessment of the reality within the regime or not.

Hitler vehemently denounced the leftist Marxists within Germany and had them arrested and often murdered. Most Jews in Germany were noted Marxists or accused of Marxism, this was one justification for Hitler's police action against the Jews. And while I had said that the Nazis tended to be leftist economically, their economics leaned more towards fascism in that the social prosperity promised to the people didn't materialize as promised. The redistributed wealth was redistributed to the military-industrial complex of Nazi Germany and civil reconstruction, the wealthy few helping to fund the war, and those in authority. Not to mention the corporatism that began to flourish under Italy and Germany. This corporatism had syndicates such as the “National Fascist Confederation of Commerce,” the “National Fascist Confederation of Credit and Insurance,” and so on. All of these “fascist confederations” were “coordinated” by a network of government planning agencies called “corporations,” one for each industry. One large “National Council of Corporations” served as a national overseer of the individual “corporations” and had the power to issue regulations of a compulsory character. All these factors make the Nazis right-wing according to many sources.

I'm not saying if these assessments are true or false. I'm only saying that this is why they are considered right-wing.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Like Nero who had a young male slave castrated. Then he married the slave?
Who hated women because of his mother?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

No problem.
I do have to agree somewhat with Aquila, that there are far more nuances than just right or left.
For example the students during the Evergreen college fiasco were far left, but they did not believe in equality or inclusion.
And I do not believe you could term the Inquisition as either left or right wing.
Was Hugo Chavez left or right wing?

wouldn't the Catholic Church have been considered right wing? authoritarian and Nationalist?

Chavez was a nationalist with a socialist economy, so he could have been branded either way.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

wouldn't the Catholic Church have been considered right wing? authoritarian and Nationalist?

Chavez was a nationalist with a socialist economy, so he could have been branded either way.

All of these factors is why the notion of left vs. right is rather naïve and is more of a tool to keep the population divided and arguing among ourselves instead of focusing in on what either "side" is actually doing or not doing.

But, to stay on topic.... a Christian Reconstructionist government would be a form of right-wing theocracy.

The ironic thing is that these right-wing Theonomists advocate libertarian economics, yet the Scriptures depict ancient Israel's economic system as one that is better compared to "agrarian socialism" or in the minds of some, "distributism". The only caveat is that land and the means of production aren't viewed as belonging to the state in biblical economics. They are viewed as being owned by God who has ordained the ruler to administer justice among human beings who are but stewards of God's land and means of production (for example, millstones).

For one to say, "This is my land.", or, "This is my millstone.", in the sense of absolute ownership is thought of as theft against God and a failure to be a steward over what God has entrusted to man. And so the landowner has no right to his land, God can order what is to be done with it. For example, corners and edges of crops were to be left for the poor, dropped gleanings for the poor, and the required poor tithe (agrarian tax for the poor).

The ultimate manifestation of this reality is seen in God's ordained, Year of Jubilee. Every 50 years all land and significant means of production were to be given back to the family line of the original owners. So imagine, one could have purchased land a week before the Year of Jubilee and have to surrender it back to the original family line that owned it. The result of this prevented the nation's aggregated land and wealth from falling into the hands of a wealthy small percent of the population, leaving the rest wage slaves or turning to indefinite indentured servitude to pay off debt, or just to survive. In fact, in the Jubilee, all debts were also cleared and wiped clean. Every generation was given a fresh start to make wealth to be passed down to the next with the land that was essentially borrowed from God and returned to the original family lines, regardless of how many times it changed hands.

It was like resetting a Monopoly game every 15 to 20 rounds, without asking the players to return their game money to the bank. So capitalism (with obligatory provision for the needy of the nation) would be practice for 50 years, and bam!, the economy would reset. This could cause immediate loss for some, and immediate gain for others. But long term, it served for the benefit of all. It sure isn't libertarian capitalism.

What many on the so called "right" fail to see is that this kind of socio-economic structure is a form of agrarian socialism. And... it was God's vision of a nation.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Amanah

wouldn't the Catholic Church have been considered right wing? authoritarian and Nationalist?

Chavez was a nationalist with a socialist economy, so he could have been branded either way.

Amanah, Chavez could have been branded either way????
Seriously?
Is that why Bernie Sanders, Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, Danny Glover and Jesse Jackson supported him?
Chavez was a total leftist.

I am really puzzled about your entire point in this thread.
Antichrist right wing or left wing?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Amanah, Chavez could have been branded either way????
Seriously?
Is that why Bernie Sanders, Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, Danny Glover and Jesse Jackson supported him?
Chavez was a total leftist.

I am really puzzled about your entire point in this thread.
Antichrist right wing or left wing?

you are right about Chavez.

But my question was could the man of sin arise from a Christian right wing government similar to the story line of a handmaid's tale.

[Aquila]

Oh, another thing about "biblical economics", it tended to prevent inflation and leaned more towards causing deflation. The longer property remained in the hands of a given owner (steward), the less value it maintained on the market, seeing that in fewer and fewer years, it would have to be returned to the original family line. The Year of Jubilee, had it been obeyed as written, would have not only ensured that there would be no truly poor family in Israel, it would have caused some crazy market forces that encouraged families to maintain land, or sell it after the Jubilee for greater profit. Of course, such forces would tend to cause those who could buy such land to try to hold off buying it until the price dropped to something more desirable, thereby slowing the process of the ultra wealthy acquiring too much land or means of production too fast at the expense of the people.

Biblical economics is truly fascinating. Because if a society truly abided by it... there would be no truly poor for more than a portion of a single generation.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Oh, another thing about "biblical economics", it tended to prevent inflation and leaned more towards causing deflation. The longer property was owned, the less value it maintained on the market, seeing that in fewer and fewer years, it would have to be returned to the original family line. The Year of Jubilee, had it been obeyed as written, would have not only ensured that there would be no truly poor family in Israel, it would have caused some crazy market forces that encouraged families to maintain land, or sell it after the Jubilee for greater profit. Of course, such forces would tend to cause those who could buy such land to try to hold off buying it until the price dropped to something more desirable, thereby slowing the process of the ultra wealthy acquiring too much land or means of production too fast.

Biblical economics is truly fascinating. Because if a society truly abided by it... there would be no truly poor for more than a single generation.

But this would only be feasible in an agrarian patriarchal society right? I'm more interested in how the early church functioned as a society. They seemed to function more as a family then I think the typical church does today.