The Policy Blender

if you send a self addressed envolope to the PolicyBlender customer care team, they will then know where you live.

Chris, you know very well that Genghis was a big old leftie.

Just because he killed people doesn't make him right wing.

You'll be saying Hitler was right wing next.

My understanding, if oversimplified, is that left wing means you care about people, whether they're a waste of space or not, and right wing means you care about money, which in turn takes care of the people. Genghis Khan cared about eating and raping people. He wasn't even on the political spectrum. so don't let's lump him in with left or right. Let's lump him in with Tony, right in the middle.

Genghis created the worlds first socialist super-state. I'd say if you were to the left of Genghis you'd be a communist.

I disagee about the money link:

In my veiw left wingers want to make everyone equal - 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need' etc..

and right wingers want everyone to have an equal chance of helping themselves.

for my part, I think that in a world where everyone is different the latter is more suitible.

Well, either way, a world where people aren't raped and eaten is definitely better than a world where they are. Not sure that it's an argument for capitalism though.

not sure it's an argument against either...

Good - Chris, you're wrong, you should slag off the current US Administration as much as you like - but leave Genghis out of it, what did he ever do to you?

Right, where were we....suggesting the UK was generally a bit socialist, but that we're getting a much righter government than traditional Labour values would suggest?

Really?

A cruel and unforgiving ruler who imposed a system of meritocracy upon all the people in his empire, ruling by the code of the yassa that stipulated death for those that did not comply to his specific social rules. He attacked and destroyed centres of trade in East Asia using the conquered people as slave labour. Those that weren't subjected to work for his bloating bureaucracy were taxed mercilessly and Khan was forced to constantly expand his empire to stave off total economic collapse.

But then enforcing equality, imposing meritocracy, taking industry from private hands and taxing a population to its knees aren't Socialist ideals at all are they?


I always chuckle at the phrase 'public ownership' - what you mean of course is that ownership is taken away from a member of the public and held by the state. But then 'public ownership' sounds a lot less autocratic than 'state ownership' doesn't it?

Wow - let's continue this discussion in a full post about Genghis and what we can learn from him.

Sorry, rhetorical questions there.

Bad form. Apologies.

I refuse to believe that people weren't industrious in the 13th Century.

Of course there are right-wing and left-wing autocrats, in fact, the only way for Socialism to function properly is for it to be imposed on people autocratically - otherwise some damned capitalist makes some money for himself and his family and stuffs the whole system.

Its entirely possible to have a feudal socialist model - Orwell's 'some are more equal than others' concept underlines this - and look no further than the preference in schools and services given to Party hierarchy in the USSR.

I admit it's easy to argue that Khan and co weren't socialists, but then the same can be argued about any other socialist regime on earth. This is because pure socialism - the bastardised ideals of Marx and Engels that is pursued by so many - does not and cannot exist. There's inequality in even the most puritanical socialist regimes - I can't imagine Castro wants for much.

It's pertinent at this point to turn discussion around and ask what's so right-wing about Genghis?