Most readers of Rowling’s novel – including many Christian readers — interpret the characters’ tutelage in spells and potions as harmless fantasy, or as metaphors for the development of wisdom and knowledge. Similarly, they read incidents in which Harry and his friends disobey adults or make questionable choices as opportunities for characters and readers alike to learn important lessons and begin to develop their own moral and ethical codes.

For some fundamentalist Christians, however, Harry’s magical exploits pose an active danger. According to them, Hogwarts teaches the kinds of witchcraft explicitly condemned as punishable by death and damnation in the biblical books of Deuteronomy and Exodus. They believe the books must be banned — even burned — because their positive portrayal of magic is likely to attract unsuspecting children to real-world witchcraft.

I would be more concerned with liberals teaching 5 and 6 year olds about transgenderism.

By definition, Christians might believe in the supernatural , but not in witchcraft.

Christians might believe in the supernatural , but not in witchcraft.

They're kind of the same thing.

How so?

That's kind of silly, actually. People used to be tortured so that they would admit that witches existed. It was heretical to not believe in witches.

Angels aren't supernatural? Demons? Satan?

How so?

Witchcraft also incorporates supernatural elements, much like christianty does.

Don't forget the miracles and visions.

I would be more concerned with liberals teaching 5 and 6 year olds about transgenderism.

What are you afraid of happening if grade school students learn that someone in their class might be transgendered?  Does someone exhibiting tolerance towards others scare you?

liberals teaching 5 and 6 year olds about transgenderism.

In Harry Potter that would be the "Swish and flick!"...

What could justify the use of such drastic measures to keep these books out of the hands of young readers?

I don't know, some people are just full of themselves I guess....

"What do protests about Harry Potter books teach us?"

It tells me there are a lot of ignorant people in the world who consider their life's work to be spreading their ignorance over as wide a demographic as possible.

Buzz, you hit the nail on the head, and then some!

I think if the fundies don't like the books, they shouldn't read them. It's that simple.

True....those fundies are as bad as the left wingers when it comes to censorship and burning and banning books.

I think if the fundies don't like the books, they shouldn't read them. It's that simple.

Unfortunately, they're not happy unless everyone else cannot read them.

It's the old "do as I say" thingy

Man...I am so sick of people trying to tell me what I can or can't do

I think if the fundies don't like the books, they shouldn't read them. It's that simple.

Religious fundamentalists are never that logical. They think that their beliefs determine the rights of others. If they dont you like the idea then you can't do it, but if you do the same to them you are trampling on their rights.

Seems the same for some Liberal types too, if I don't agree with what that guy is saying, he doesn't have a right to say it.  to anyone......a la Berkley.

True....those fundies are as bad as the left wingers when it comes to censorship and burning and banning books.

I've never heard any progressives/leftists banning/censoring or burning books.  That falls on the freak fundamentalist whackjobs.  

You're not looking hard enough, or denying the reality of it. It extends to shouting down speakers or trying to prevent them speaking in the first place...happens a lot at universities .

You're not looking hard enough, or denying the reality of it. It extends to shouting down speakers or trying to prevent them speaking in the first place...happens a lot at universities .

Conservatives would never shout down a speaker......

Who's the majority of people shouting down people on the college campus? Leftists?

Since when do people have the right not to be disagreed with? He had to know what kind of response that he would receive at a campus like Berkley. If he wanted to be agreed with he should have stayed at Bob Jones or Liberty Univ where the bible babbler eats up that racist nuttery. 

Milo, like Ann Coulter, is only interested in tossing conservative grenades instead of having a reasonable discussion of race and sex in the US so why should people bother to listen to him.? He is a professional conservative troll and closet paedophile.  

Did conservatives go on a rampage, light things on fire, cause violence to others?  No a jackass shouted out interrupting the president, which is rude.

rampage, light things on fire, cause violence to others?

Running down 3 people in a car in Charlottesville wasn't very polite. Shooting a church choir is violent.

I've never heard any progressives/leftists banning/censoring or burning books.  That falls on the freak fundamentalist whackjobs.

You're forgetting the censorship of books in the Soviet system.

You're forgetting the censorship of books in the Soviet system.

When exactly did Russia become a progressive country?

You're forgetting the censorship of books in the Soviet system.

No, you are confused.  They used left wing slogans but their ideology was far right. It continues today.  Authoritarianism and totalitarianism, not at all like the American left.

1922-1991...

How exactly was Russia progressive? It was a violent totalitarian dictatorship that was extremely poor except for the ruling elite. 

Authoritarianism and totalitarianism, not at all like the American left.

The Soviet Union was not American!

But it was a leftist ideology-- an extreme form of leftist ideology.

Communism, Socialism and Fascism are all Far Left.

The first two are leftist foprms of Totalitarianism...but Facism is usually considered to be a right-wing form of totalitarianism.

(Actually when you get to extreme forms of leftist and rightist political systems, they tend to resemble each other in many ways...).

Socialism has many forms-- some can be democratic, others not. But Communism is inherently undemocratic* (and also inherently Atheistic).

___________________

*With a few minor exceptions-- democratic Communism can exist but only in small relatively isolated communities-- i.e. where participation in the system is voluntary, and those that don't like the system are free to leave.

Communism, Socialism and Fascism are all Far Left.

You don't know the difference between propoganda and fact. 

Fascism is an extreme right idea of connected capitalism that benefits the state and an extremely authoritarian government.

Russia wasn't communist because the people were far from equal and it wasn't a free association state of common ownership.

The workers didn't own and control the means of production so it wasn't the socialist economy. There were no civil rights so it wasn't a liberal country. 

Russia was closer to a feudal society if you swap the ruling family of the king for a police state dictator. That is about as far from a progressive form of government as is possible.

They used left wing slogans but their ideology was far right.

Nope-- it was far left.

I have noticed that many on the left think all forms of conservatism is undemocratic-- just as many on the right think that all forms of leftist/Socialist ideology is undemocratic. Both views are incorrect.

Russia wasn't communist because the people were far from equal and it wasn't a free association state of common ownership.

I think the goal was Communism. But IMO real Communism can not exist in the real world-- except in small isolated communities where participation is voluntary. (In a larger setting, for example an entire country,  there will be people who don't want equality of all people-- so the government will have to force them into doing what the system wants-- i.e. its inherently undemocratic. )

When exactly did Russia become a progressive country?

Russia and the Soviet Union are two different entities.

I was responding to 

I've never heard any progressives/leftists banning/censoring or burning books.  That falls on the freak fundamentalist whackjobs.

Please note the term "leftists" 

Can I assume this was left out unintentional from your reply?

No, you are confused.  They used left wing slogans but their ideology was far right.

No, it was a Communist collective system. They used similar tactics as the Facists, secret police, torture, show trials, and forced labour camps, yet they were by self definition a Communist State.

Fascism was state run capitalism, which is still Socialism.

Your reply jumped the shark in its first sentence.  You don't know the difference between the two economic ideas.

You also don't understand the difference between propaganda and fact.

No, it was a Communist collective system. They used similar tactics as the Facists, secret police, torture, show trials, and forced labour camps, yet they were by self definition a Communist State.

Does that means that North Korea and East Gemeny  are/were democratic replublics, as they claim?

Or is that just propoganda? 

Fascism was state run capitalism, which is still Socialism.

Good grief.   How on Earth do you define the term 'socialism'?   

The Goal was still Communism. No state has ever truly achieved that goal, because when ever it fails, or looks bad, the Left will always say that it isn't Real Communism or it isn't Real Socialism. Sorry, I don't buy the revisionism. They were a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the rule of the Communist Party. 'Nuff Said.

The goal of Lenin was not Communism.   Lenin knew that Russia was nowhere near the industrial level needed to even achieve  Socialism much less achieve the idealized form known as Communism.   What he (and mostly Stalin) accomplished was to forever change the meaning of 'Socialism' and 'Communism' in the vernacular of the West.

As is true with Mussolini and Hitler, Stalin used the term 'Socialism' as propaganda.   The terms were seen as positive back then so they represented a promise of distributed control - where the people were truly in power.   That never materialized - indeed the opposite (in the extreme).   Thus these terms were historically tied with a brutal authoritarian single-state command economy.   Pretty much the opposite of their original meaning.

Dig into the history before the Russian Revolution and a very different reality emerges.

How on Earth do you define the term 'socialism'?

Like many Americans, socialism is apparently a catch-all term for anything that they oppose. Its the political equivalent of calling someone a dirtbag.

Americans are woefully ignorant of civics but that has a reason. We cant have a discussion on the subject and possibly change the current corrupt system if we can not have a reasonably intelligent conversation on the subject if we cannot define the terms. Put in another way; stupid people are easier to govern.

I have more understanding of it than you. If you can offer no rebuttal than you concede.

I have a minor in political philosophy and was approached to teach the subject at the college level. If you understood what my moniker meant you might have had a clue.

plato.stanford

That didn't really answer episette's question. And if you were going for humor, you failed miserably

How do you define it?

I ask a question and the answer is to merely ask me the same question??

Step one , use a respectable dictionary to establish the basic framework.    Oxford :

Socialism - A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

This and other starter definitions focus on the major distinction between socialism and capitalism.   Under socialism the public collectively owns the heart of their economy - the means of distribution and production (MoPD).   Under capitalism, the MoPD is owned by a small minority (the capitalists).   Note that when a state predominantly owns the MoPD that is NOT socialism.   It is minority control by state officials - labels for this include facism and state capitalism.    The key aspect here is the distinction of the state as the owner/controller versus the use of government as the administrator.   The former is minority ownership (capitalism), the latter enables community ownership (sharing of resources).

Step two , carefully follow the etymology.   The word 'socialism' is overloaded with many conflicting meanings.   Socialism has existed for centuries but was formalized by Marx and Engels.   One should not base one's understanding of socialism on the Soviet Union (and offshoots) but rather what socialism actually sought prior to the Bolshevik Revolution.   Lenin, et. al. brought the terminology and promises of socialism (per Marx) and then instead delivered an authoritarian, single-party state.   Lenin arguably had good intentions but realized he had to seize control first and then start evolving Russia towards socialism.   He died well before making any progress in that regard.  Stalin, in contrast, simply continued the terminology with apparently zero interest in providing economic power to the masses .   The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was nothing of the sort - just a name.

Step three , study modern proposals for socialism (by any other name) such as ' Economic Democracy ' (very, very simple intro) to understand what socialists are advocating.

Break free of Cold War propaganda.   Socialism is arguably the opposite of capitalism.   Under capitalism, economic control is held by a small minority.   Under socialism economic control is distributed among the people.   This is a radical departure from anything we have seen in history and no major economy has even attempted socialism.   They have used the terminology and the promises to achieve authoritarian rule - no more.

My opinion is that socialism has no chance of forming today or even in the near future.   I am not convinced that human beings can (in the large scale) cooperate at the level required by socialism (per Marx and per modern socialist thinking).   The goals are admirable (to increase the economic control of each individual) but it seems to me that the majority of human beings want others to do the thinking (and in many cases ... the work).   Socialism would require active, informed involvement by the vast majority (both economically and politically).   I think societies (and cultures) require a bit more evolution before that will occur (if ever).

Another reason it will not be around in our lifetimes IMO is that capitalists are not going to voluntarily give up control over the MoPD.   Societies would necessarily evolve to the point where businesses are predominantly controlled and owned by the workers.   This process is just beginning with notions such as workplace democracy.   The point is that this is not revolution (where control is ripped from the controllers) but rather evolution.   Societies would need to evolve to where socialism is the natural and desired way of operating.   (Think Star Trek to get an image -albeit fantasized- of such a society.)

So no worries that socialism is going to come in and replace capitalism in our lifetimes.   What we can do, however, is end the pointless cold war propaganda and understand the meaning of socialism as advocated by the socialists (Marx in the past and -most importantly- contemporary socialists).   One need not accept their views as valid, but one should at least properly use the terminology.   

Today, the term 'socialism' is used (by most) as nothing more than a pejorative.  It is used to describe anything from the presence of public services (e.g. USPS) to social democracy (i.e. capitalist economy funding government social programs) to brutal authoritarian rule.   None of these are socialism.   The casual labeling of various things as 'socialism' routinely poisons productive discourse.

So you're going with the "No True Scotsman" argument?

No.   The 'No True Scotsman' rebuttal is itself a platitude.   Whenever a term has multiple meanings one can claim that the other is employing 'No True Scotsman'.   Cheap theatrics IMO, not debate.

Far more impressive than tossing out cliches is to make an actual argument supporting your point of view.   Whatever that might be.

Mussolini was a Lifelong Socialist, Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin and Mao were Communists. Lenin and Trotsky were Marxists. Their ideology all comes from the same source. None of them were big fans of Individualism and independent thought.

Your 'argument' is that they were what they called themselves??   Mussolini was indeed a socialist and then abandoned it to advocate facism - an entirely different approach.   Hitler was never a socialist (read your history).   Stalin and Mao were dictators and not socialists by any stretch of the imagination using labels for their own interests.   Lenin and Trotsky were Marxists (socialists).   Lenin (not Trotsky) used the labels and promises with (I think) good intentions but immediately grabbed control and never even started the evolution of Russia towards socialism (as he understood the concept as a Marxist).   Trotsky arguably tried to evolve socialism but lost the battle (and his influence).

Go beyond the labels and follow the etymology.

Source?

LOL!

No....it didn't. All you did was mention one country. You didn't even describe what the political atmosphere of that one country is.

Nice try

"The goal of Socialism is Communism" - Lenin

That is a correct statement per Marx.  Apparently you did not understand my comment.   

Here it is again:

TiG:  The goal of Lenin was not Communism.   Lenin knew that Russia was nowhere near the industrial level needed to even achieve  Socialism much less achieve the idealized form known as Communism.   What he (and mostly Stalin) accomplished was to forever change the meaning of 'Socialism' and 'Communism' in the vernacular of the West.

My point is that Lenin was faced with a pre-industrial society that was incapable of operating as a socialist economy.   Lenin clearly understood this.   His approach was to use the labels and promises of socialism (and communism) to rally political support and take control.   IMO he had good intentions - really was going to try to evolve Russia towards socialism.   But he had to first get control, then establish a mature industrialized society and then much later evolve towards socialism.   Lenin was a very knowledgeable person regarding Marxism and societal politics.   No way did this man hold communism as his goal.   That would be like John Kennedy holding colonization of Mars as his goal.

As for your post, I stopped reading after the simple definition you gave at the top. You're not interested in a discussion, so why would I read a long winded post?

   You stopped reading my answer because I started with a definition from Oxford??   

It is obvious to me (and probably others) that it is you who is not interested in a discussion and that you complaining about snark is the height of irony.

Most recognize when someone is running from a challenge.    Platitudes, facepalms and other cliche tactics are a thin smoke screen that most see through.

And Fascism was just an authoritarian form of Socialism.

Get a clue.

You don't know TiG very well if you don't think he's interested in discussion.

Actually it did.

No, you didn't.  I don't mind because you have been wrong in almost every reply that you have posted in this thread. It is obvious that you don't have a clue and are attempting to BS your way through the questions posed to you.

I dare you to take the quiz and post the score. I'm to the very lowest left. Two blocks up and one block over from the left edge.

politicalcompass

At least he's not throwing CoC violations at you. I constantly start discussions with "Good grief" when I'm talking to certain people.

My stating that I have a minor in Poli philosophy isn't an argument from authority. You should learn what that fallacy is and what it isn't before you start to toss it around.

logicallyfallacious

.

Political Philosophy and Political Science are useless degrees and become even more of a joke with all the Far Left professors turning Colleges into daycare centers. The intrinsic value of a college degree has been significantly devalued in recent years.

I said that I have a minor., It wasn't my primary course of study, if you know the difference.  

Political science and philosophy are the basis for many graduate degrees so they weren't meant for someone who wanted to do 4 years and get out with a BS or a BA.  

If you think that all colleges profs are lefties then you didnt go to college. I had more conservtives than liberals as professors.  

To have a discussion or debate I suggest the following:

• If you ask a question or pose a challenge then at least carefully read the full answer. 
• Ideally, formulate an intelligent, thoughtful response.
• Rather than complain of mistreatment simply because someone disagrees with you just make an argument to support your position.

I suspect most people are bored with petty personal complaints and would much rather read a cogent, well-founded logical argument.   

Go beyond the labels and follow the etymology.

Oh no, not another one of these debates? Am I going to be debunking this one forever and ever?

Hitler was a socialist, he claimed so himself, but he also modified socialism into a nationalist form of socialism rejecting the whole Marxist belief that socialism will sweep the world. He calle it international socialism and the Russian were the epitome of International socialism which was controlled by international jewry...

I just posted all the absolute factual proof of this a month ago.....

Why do we constantly have to revisit this crap?

Lenin and Stalin. Lenin understood Marxism as a political philosophy would never work to take over the world all on it's own... it needed something else for it to gain any actual power. But socialism does have some very alluring ideals for the brainless.

What Lenin did was add hatred to the mix, class envy coupled with incessant vitriol. The only way to get socialism out of the brain and functioning in the real world was add force.....

Socialism only works with force, cause nobody in their right minds will ever accept it as a good governing principle....

Lenin understood that Marx's regressive point to socialism (wanting to go back to the "Craftsman" societies of the mid 19th century in the midst of the industrial revolution) needed to be reversed for it to work as a governing principle, the only way to do that was to fool the people into thinking that they were actually receiving something that they weren't getting (freedom)..... Once the revolution is over, and people start asking about the promised freedoms, those people are removed from the society. (which reached brutal levels under Stalin)

Hitler hated communism cause it was international socialism controlled by international jewry...

There isn't anyone on the planet that is going to tell me Hitler didn't know what he was....

My goodness! You certainly have a lot of rules for how you want people to talk to you!

But if you can't handle the occasional "good grief" we shall part ways right here

You do not understand Marx, Marx ABHORRED the industrial revolution, railed against those he felt were leaving the peasantry behind in their grabbing at greater wealth. he though this wasn't fair, the worker should have his share since he generated the wealth in the first place...

At it's foundation Marxism (Marxism IS socialism according to Marx) is all about class envy inciting the masses to revolt against those that they can be convinced are taking unfair advantage of them....

Which means Marxism, and all it's derivative forms, is based entirely upon hate and hate alone with a good dose of jealousy and envy thrown in for good measure.

it is you that needs to read a book or two... How about the ones that Marx and Hitler wrote themselves for a start...

When you get done with those. I'll show you to a whole world of factual proof of what they really were....

I don't need your score to know your a hard leftist....

See it in your comments everyday....

Me, I'm a mildly left leaning libertarian according to your test....

Hitler was a socialist, he claimed so himself , ...

Hitler was a socialist because he said he was?   

... but he also modified socialism into a nationalist form of socialism rejecting the whole Marxist belief that socialism will sweep the world. He calle it international socialism and the Russian were the epitome of International socialism which was controlled by international jewry...

An important 'but' right?   So Hitler used the label 'socialism' as a beard for Nazi facism.   Do you truly think that what Hitler implemented was socialism?   That is, in what way did the Germany people have distributed economic freedom?   Seems history has made it quite clear that Nazi Germany was under totalitarian rule and all resources were used to advance the agenda of the dictator.

Why do we constantly have to revisit this crap?

Judging from what you wrote, the answer is because you are not necessarily correct.   If you make statements that are arguable or factually incorrect they will continue to be challenged.   For example, the second quote (above) has you arguing that Hitler was a socialist but that he implemented his own form of 'socialism'.   Consider the possibility that what he implemented was something other than socialism and that the label no longer applied.

Socialism only works with force, cause nobody in their right minds will ever accept it as a good governing principle....

I do not believe socialism can work by force.    Forced socialism does not even make sense.

Lenin understood that Marx's regressive point to socialism (wanting to go back to the "Craftsman" societies of the mid 19th century in the midst of the industrial revolution) needed to be reversed for it to work as a governing principle, the only way to do that was to fool the people into thinking that they were actually receiving something that they weren't getting (freedom)..... Once the revolution is over, and people start asking about the promised freedoms, those people are removed from the society. (which reached brutal levels under Stalin)

I agree that Lenin knew that Russia could not possibly move to socialism.  I also agree that he knowingly introduced authoritarian rule.   I think he had good intentions of giving the people more economic control (eventually).  But he died well before anything got started in that regard and Stalin had very different ideas.

Hitler hated communism cause it was international socialism controlled by international jewry...

What Hitler hated was the growing power base of the socialists / communists.   He used that popularity as a beard to implement his form of facism.   Labels are powerful things.

There isn't anyone on the planet that is going to tell me Hitler didn't know what he was....

Plenty of people will argue that Hitler was not a socialist - just using the name for his own purposes.   But Hitler talk really is going on a even further tangent.

Fascism was state run capitalism, which is still Socialism.

Exactly.

Capitalism is identical to Socialism!

To deny that obvious fact is the epitome of fake news.

That is an undeniable fact-- as are these obvious truths:

War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.

Ignorance is Bliss.

You do not understand Marx, Marx ABHORRED the industrial revolution, railed against those he felt were leaving the peasantry behind in their grabbing at greater wealth. he though this wasn't fair, the worker should have his share since he generated the wealth in the first place...

Marx' work is based upon moving from a mature industrial base established by the bourgeoisie into one that is collectively owned and operated by the proletariat.   The industrial base is necessary to provide the production to support society.   He did indeed value craftsmanship and other forms of labor that engaged the talents of a human being, but he was not against advancements in technology - quite the opposite.

Marx was against the growing stranglehold of capitalism and the class disparity that it brought.

I suspect you need more than my word on this so here is one of many comments from a third party ( Professor Charles McKelvey ):

Marx viewed automated industry as a new mode of production that would constitute the material foundation for a fifth stage in human history, that of socialism.  Marx had a long-range view of automation from the vantage point of the worker.  He saw it as establishing conditions for a society in which human beings would be freed from work in its conventional form.  Instead of laboring as a slave, serf, or appendage to a machine, human beings would now have the work of designing and maintaining machines, a form of work that is much more versatile and requires education and creativity.  In addition, since machines work with high efficiency, human societies would be able to produce their needs with less labor time.  So not only would work be more versatile, but also labor time would be reduced.  This would make it possible for human beings to engage in a variety of activities above and beyond work, such as gardening, crafting their own furniture, or studying literature.  Thus Marx viewed automation as establishing the foundation for a society characterized by the efficient satisfaction of human needs, by creative work, and by the reduction of labor time.  

Capitalism is identical to Socialism!

You might want to explain this claim.   I suspect you define capitalism and socialism in very special ways.

The claim remains, ...

... as mere claims.   You were asked a question and then instead of answering declared it a 'stupid question' and then asked it of me.   I offered a thoughtful, detailed comment which you refused to even read.   Then, and without even considering my answer, you simply declare that your claims remain.

Yet you spin this as me not wanting to engage in discussion.       

I suspect you need more than my word on this so here is one of many comments from a third party (Professor Charles McKelvey):

Intellectualism at it's finest.

You can rationalize all you or Dr McKelvey wants, changing what Marx actually WROTE! to fit your revised paradigm to rehabilitate the image of the true nature of socialism.

Marx's theories were actually tried you know, three towns in southern France tried to make socialism work, the experiment lasted abut thirty years before they finally abandoned the concept as unworkable. they called their little experiments "Communes", and hence those living in said communes were called "Communists".

People of the day asked Marx if these "Communes" and the "Communists" living in them were socialists, his answer?

COMMUNISM IS SOCIALISM! - SOCIALISM IS COMMUNISM! they are one and the same

Marx embraced communism as the operative practical phase of socialism.

But it failed massively in the three places it was willingly tried, WHY? cause as the community grows, it cannot provide for everyone, it is that inefficient. This is what Lenin realized, Socialism as Marx laid it out is impractical. So he modified it to use the trappings of the industrial revolution, controlled by the leaders using force, to provide for the community. But the problem then becomes you have a monarchy and not a communist revolution don't you?

Monarchy being government with all federal power controlled by a single leader or a few leaders, (a junta) with absolute authority. doesn't matter if it is a king, a premier, a generalissimo or a chairman, they are all monarchies and impose their will instead of ruling with consent.....

Did Lenin implement absolute Marxism, of course not, did Hitler? of course not, they modified it to suit their goals....

THIS is what Dr McKelvy is doing also, modifying Marxism to suit his goals......

Marxism, socialism, communism has failed everywhere it has been tried in every form it has taken throughout it's short history on this planet.

Monarchism has also failed and every society based upon it has also collapsed or altered itself till it is no longer a monarchy or a monarchy in name only.

America was the first nation to openly declare that it will not be subject to all past failed ideologies and social theories.....

And it has been a huge success.....

That's why the socalists and monarchists are desperately trying to tear it down....

The Doctor is entitled to his opinions I could care less, he, and you, can espouse his theories, but the fact remains you cannot rehabilitate the actual results of everywhere those theories have been applied and what historically took place there. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Maoist China, Marxist Cuba, Maoist Vietnam, in fact soon after Uncle Ho died, the Vietnamese government abandoned socialism completely as a failed governmental and social system....

That tells the truth more than anything else....

They should debate socialism in the universities all they want, but that is where it should be limited to, cause in the real world it is a massive failure and perfect demonstration of what greed and envy brings to a population. and anyone espousing such will never ever give the revolutionaries what they promise....

Does that means that North Korea and East Gemeny  are/were democratic replublics, as they claim?

Irrelevant, we are discussing book censorship under the Soviet system, the main purges happened 1920 -1940.

Do you deny they happened?

Do you deny they happened?

No, I am not denying it happened and I am not defending any of those totalitarian states.

It is obvious that my argument was over your heard. You just proved my point.

I like that quiz because it is the most accurate and doesn't try to pin people in political pigeonholes where they don't belong. It has both the authoritarian-libertarian vertical scale and a left-right economic scale.

Your comments, to me, read as a Far Left anarchist or a social-progressive.

That would be an unqualified yes to both.

So I question the accuracy of the quiz. May I ask If you are an anarchist or have a supportive view of anarchism?

I do have a supportive view of left anarchism, even if it is unworkable in the current society. The best that we can do now is a mixed market socialist economic system and to be civil libertarian on rights and freedoms.

No, I am not denying it happened and I am not defending any of those totalitarian states.

Totalitarian doesn't equate to right wing, it doesn't matter how many times you use it. There have been left wing totalitarian States, they use similar methods as the right wing totalitarian States to achieve the same goals.

It is obvious that my argument was over your heard.

No, I simply don't agree with you, nor am I interested in playing games. 

You just proved my point.

Meaningless.

I dare you to take the quiz and post the score. I'm to the very lowest left. Two blocks up and one block over from the left edge.

Your Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -3.75  
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59

It should be noted that this test you're pushing includes the concept of the authoritarian left. 

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist

Also this

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing" , with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

politicalcompass

Charger's results

Your Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.0

We were discussing your claim that Marx did not see industrialization as a necessary step to socialism.   On this your response nets to repeating your claim.   I do understand your opinion so repeating it without additional support is not necessary.

Other things you tossed in ...

You can rationalize all you or Dr McKelvey wants, changing what Marx actually WROTE! to fit your revised paradigm to rehabilitate the image of the true nature of socialism.

Not sure why you think I would be compelled to rationalize anything.   If you have read my comments you would understand that not only am I not a socialist, I have genuine doubts as to whether it would ever work.   Certainly not in today's world.   

Regarding the 'true nature' of socialism, it seems to me your understanding of socialism is based upon labels and slogans.   Claiming to understand Marx is fine but failing test one (not recognizing Marx' view of industrialization and focusing only on his objections to capitalism) encourages me to question your other claims on this topic.  

Marx's theories were actually tried you know, three towns in southern France tried to make socialism work, ...

To 'try' socialism one would have to establish an economic system in which economic power is distributed rather than being held by a small minority.   Experiments in communal living have been going on since before Marx was born.  Local pocket experiments within a capitalist nation should be recognized as such.

COMMUNISM IS SOCIALISM! - SOCIALISM IS COMMUNISM! they are one and the same

Communism is an idealized condition in which society is so adept at shared economic power that there is no real need for a state.   Marx only briefly touched on this since it was in his mind something that is so subject to future conditions that speculation was pointless.   Socialism, to Marx, was the transition from capitalism to the idealized communism.   So they are not one and the same - socialism is a bridge to communism (at least in Marx' view).

But it [socialism] failed massively in the three places it was willingly tried, WHY? cause as the community grows, it cannot provide for everyone, it is that inefficient.

As I have noted in my earlier comments in this article, I do not think societies are even now appropriate for socialism.   There has never been a nation that has adopted a socialist economic system and I am not convinced that one ever will.   But it is wrong to parrot the cliche that 'socialism has failed wherever it has been tried' since no socialist economic system has ever existed.   One can speak of socialist-like experiments that have failed and also socialist-like experiments that seem to be working (like the Mondragon cooperatives) or the early trials of workplace democracy.   It all depends on whether one is pushing an agenda or following the evidence to where it leads.

This is what Lenin realized, Socialism as Marx laid it out is impractical. So he modified it to use the trappings of the industrial revolution, controlled by the leaders using force, to provide for the community. 

Yes Lenin most definitely modified socialism - so much so that it became something that did not even qualify as socialism.   I weighed in on this yesterday I believe.

Monarchy being government with all federal power controlled by a single leader or a few leaders, (a junta) with absolute authority. doesn't matter if it is a king, a premier, a generalissimo or a chairman, they are all monarchies and impose their will instead of ruling with consent.....

True.   What does this have to do with socialism?

Did Lenin implement absolute Marxism, of course not, did Hitler? of course not, they modified it to suit their goals....

Modified to the point of keeping the name and replacing the content with authoritarian, single-party rule.   As I have noted already.

THIS is what Dr McKelvy is doing also, modifying Marxism to suit his goals......

Your opinion is noted.

Totalitarian doesn't equate to right wing, it doesn't matter how many times you use it. There have been left wing totalitarian States, they use similar methods as the right wing totalitarian States to achieve the same goals.

I never said that totalitarianism was limited to conservative governments.  Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were very totalitarian. Dictators tend to be that way.  It is how they hold on to power.

There has never been a nation that has adopted a socialist economic system and I am not convinced that one ever will.

To me, this is an equivocation, excuse if you will, yes it has been tried but the attempts are laid off as invalid cause they are not true socialism, and that no true socialist society or nation has ever existed. (Some call it the big lie)

Define true socialism? Whatever the good doctor wants it to be?

But it is wrong to parrot the cliche that 'socialism has failed wherever it has been tried' since no socialist economic system has ever existed.

You see this is the real lie in my opinion, no socialist economic system has ever existed. what you are implicitly saying is that we would have to change human nature to make socialism work. Since you cannot legislate or command human needs, there will never be a situation where humans will subjugate themselves to the masses.... Ergo Sum, socialism as described herein cannot ever actually function as a workable system.

One can speak of socialist-like experiments that have failed and also socialist-like experiments that seem to be working (like the Mondragon cooperatives) or the early trials of workplace democracy.

Another experiment in socialism, very small scale, much like those three french towns that tried it, they lasted thirty years before they finally decided it wasn't working for them. So, in essence what is happening again is we are modifying the ideals of socialism to see if we can make it actually work practically...

100 years of experimenting in socialism wasn't enough? they didn't kill off enough people in those experiments? What is it in the intellectual mind that thinks that such a system is a good thing? Tweak it all you want, it doesn't work on a large scale without force.

It all depends on whether one is pushing an agenda or following the evidence to where it leads.

Not pushing an agenda, following the actual course of history, which by rule is following the evidence where it leads. In fact tweaking the ideals of socialism in whatever manner one wants in attempting to make it work is pushing an agenda in and of itself. The agenda is that Socialism in theory is the best economic/governmental system ever thought of and we have to figure out how to make it work in a practical environment....

Let me ask you one question, in a true socialist system, there are I suspect rules/laws, who enforces the law? The law represents a states police power. In a true socialist system there is no police power...  All power resides in the citizens.

Everything being argued in support of this is pushing an agenda against the very real factual proof of what socialism in all it's forms actually represents..... Tons and tons of historical proof of that.... (there is always going to be that person that wants one thing more than the next person)

Fascism is considered 'Far Right' in Europe because

Naziism, Fascism, and Communusm all all specific forms of government that each have certain characterisitics. And orig9nally those terms were used with their accurate meanings.

But things have changed. Now someone could say a few nasty things in an Internet discussion, and they may be falsely accused of "being a real Nazi!">

Are they actually a Nazi-- probably not. 

(I say "Probably" because on the Internet in many cases no one knows who you really are!)

Naziism, Fascism, and Communusm all all specific forms of government that each have certain characterisitics. And orig9nally those terms were used with their accurate meanings.

Now a days the term "fascist" is loosley applied to anyone a who is strict or rigid in their thinking. Or some, like "Nazi" its applied to anyone the speaker doesn't like! (Butnthey probably asre not a believer in the system set up my Mussolini...if they even know anything about it!).

Like Nazi, Facist etc, "Communist" is sometimes used to indiocate someone who's rigigd and/or unfasir.

And sometimes those on the Right will accuse anyonwe who is left of center of being a Communist.

So at this point, at least in popular usage, those words no longer have their original meaning-- at least for most people.

BTW that cartoon was rather famours in the "early days" on the Internet:

" On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog " is an   adage   about   Internet anonymity  which began as a   cartoon   caption by   Peter Steiner   and published by   The New Yorker  on July 5, 1993. ^{[1] [2]}   The cartoon features two dogs: one sitting on a chair in front of a computer, speaking the caption to a second dog sitting on the floor listening to the first. ^[3]   As of 2011, the panel was the most reproduced cartoon from   The New Yorker , and Steiner has earned over US$50,000 from its reprinting

There's a lot more about the early days of the Internet in the article.

This is what I answered

I've never heard any progressives/leftists banning/censoring or burning books.  That falls on the freak fundamentalist whackjobs.

Note the use of the word "leftists"

Here is what your linked test has to say about Stalin

By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist

This supports my initial contention.

I don't think I have anything more to prove, thank you for providing the test, it was very helpful.

I've never heard any progressives/leftists banning/censoring or burning books.

I'm surprised you never heard of Communism (or perhaps you didn't know it was a leftist i deology?).

Censorship in the   Soviet Union   was pervasive and strictly enforced.

(Read it all)

You're not looking hard enough, or denying the reality of it.

Yes, I don't like to use sources such as Breitfart or the American Stinker or whatever whackjob 'right wing' sources  to find the 'truth'.  

Yes, I don't like to use sources such as Breitfart or the American Stinker

Where did Rex Block mention your two (misspelled) sources in his comment 6.1? That's right, he didn't.

How about we just call them Dumb and Dumber.  Neither are truthful sources, and one is blatantly racist and sexist. Both pander to Trump's favorite voters, the uneducated (his words).

How about we just call them Dumb and Dumber.  Neither are truthful sources, and one is blatantly racist and sexist. Both pander to Trump's favorite voters, the uneducated (his words).

I choose to not live in the rigid world that you and those who voted up your comment live. I keep an open mind, read all sources, and then form my own opinions/decisions. I also do not ridicule people's or sources' names, because that is juvenile behavior.

Rowling is a better writer and enjoyable to read

Rowling is a better writer and enjoyable to read

My children and I enjoyed reading the Harry Potter books together.  But, just like the fundamentalists on the Left have periodically banned "To Kill a Mockingbird" and either banned or rewritten Mark Twain's novels (which condemned racism, etc BTW) it's no surprise that ignorant fundamentalists of both Right/Left or Christian/non-Christian still exist.

the fundamentalists on the Left have periodically banned "To Kill a Mockingbird" and either banned or rewritten Mark Twain's novels (which condemned racism, etc BTW)

Actually it's usually the racist RWNJs who have tried to ban those books, apparently because they don't like children being exposed to those truths about the south.

Actually it's usually the racist RWNJs who have tried to ban those books

That's been true for a long, long time.

However in recent years I have seen the beginnings of a new trend-- many on the left acting basically the same way-- wanting to ban things they don't like.

Traditionally the left was supportive of free speech and other democratic values-- but I've been seeing strong evidence that its starting to change-- and I find this alarming!

(The vanguard of this move away from democratic vaslues seems to be strongest on many college campuses).

So a group of people dumb enough believe the bible as the absolute truth (despite it being the result of centuries of the game "telephone" and severe edits) wants to ban a fictitious book about a "wizard kid"?  

I hope they don't expect to be taken seriously.

Maybe you're onto something there it may just be fear that this fantasy book could replace theirs.  You know with the right marketing, punishments, etc and a 1000 or so years it could happen

So a group of people dumb enough believe the bible as the absolute truth (despite it being the result of centuries of the game "telephone" and severe edits) wants to ban a fictitious book about a "wizard kid"?

We need to rename the Bible with a more accurate title. The Goatherders Guide to The Universe is catchy.

e need to rename the Bible with a more accurate title.

And move it to the fiction section.

Catchy. But it will likely offend Muslims when this is applied to the Koran.

I'm an equal opportunity offender of people who believe myths to be facts. 

Why? Muslims eat goats. They also use their milk

And move it to the fiction section.

I have always considered the religion section in a bookstore to be fiction or anthropological mythology.

That's what some of them do. What's the problem?

Meaning that's what they do for a living. What should I call them...shephards? They're still herding goats, aren't they?

Does that include people who discount science and biology to believe Gender is malleable? Or is that a myth you're OK with conflating with fact

Gender identity isn't malleable, despite your beliefs. Physical gender is malleable.  

So all people that read the Koran are goat herders?

Oh....you're right. Not all Koran readers are goat herders. Some are professionals and others are terrorists.

but some Koran readers are goat herders, aren't they? There are some goat herders that read the bible. You do know what a goat herder is, don't you?

You're repeating yourself

malleability. Physical Gender is a fixed construct encoded in your Chromosomes. The Left have lost their Science books, it seems.

You still do not understand gender identity, so it is a waste of my time and the abuse of my keyboard to continue this conversation with a brick wall.  Denying that gender identity exists or trying to reinforce the birth gender identity doesn't solve the problem, despite your approval.

I hope they don't expect to be taken seriously.

I know religious people-- in many cases devout Christians-- who believe the Bible is allegorical and not meant to be taken literally.

Often the problem in discussions of this sort is that sometimes we tend to over-generalize about an entire group based on the behaviour of of only some of their members...

Often the problem in discussions of this sort is that sometimes we tend to over-generalize about an entire group based on the behaviour of of only some of their member

I don't think I'm over-generalizing it.  The group as a whole believe that, somehow, this book applies today.  And as they apply it to today, they cherry pick what applies. They, all of them, omit the evil that this "God" committed.  And on the rare occasions that they do acknowledge it they attach a nonsense happy ending.  

What Do Protests About Harry Potter Books Teach Us?

That some people have broomsticks up their asses?

LOL! 

BTW, speaking of broomsticks: after things quiet down here on NT for the night-- would anyone like to get together for a friendly game of Quidditch?

Actually - the appropriate response is for parents who disprove to tell their children not to read the books. The New Testament gives instruction on how Christians should conduct themselves and interact with other Christians. It does not say anything about PACs or lobbying or forcing others to behave according  to their standards.

The protests point out the Dominionists and Reconstructionists in our midst.

The only thing ever came of attempts to ban books was turning banned books into best sellers...

The only thing ever came of attempts to ban books was turning banned books into best sellers...

I see NT is afflicted by gad dum gubble bum, too...

or rewatching one of the blockbuster films

It wouldn't be hard. I swear those movies are on tv constantly.