PDA

View Full Version : Nazis - right wing, left wing? [sf various threads]



Pages : [1] 2

Axiom
30-05-2008, 08:57 PM
A lefty, yet, corporate media ?????



Contemplate for a moment , the dove-tailing of, or synergy between, socialism and fascism .

Reflect on the accuracy of definition of the terms , "left" and "right".

Igor_Goldenberg
30-05-2008, 10:22 PM
A lefty, yet, corporate media ?????


Are you surprised? Large corporations are often biggest beneficiaries of a large leftist government.

Axiom
30-05-2008, 10:38 PM
Are you surprised? Large corporations are often biggest beneficiaries of a large leftist government.
precisely igor.
i was trying to confront others to examine their understanding of their definitions of these concepts. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2008, 02:41 AM
A lefty, yet, corporate media ?????
Yes, as long as lefty governments insist on interfering with the economy, opportunistic corporations will use this to their advantage. After all, if a corporation mugged customers of a rival for a cut, it would be reegarded as criminal. But if they can persuade the government to apply tariffs, practically the same result will occur, without penalties, even though the acts are morally equivalent. Or else the corporations capture "licensing boards" and use them to restrict new entrants that might compete with them.


Contemplate for a moment , the dove-tailing of, or synergy between, socialism and fascism.
Of course. Fascism was historically a movement of the Left (e.g. national socialism), as documented by Jonah Goldberg in Liberal Fascism (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjBiYzdhODQwNmE0MTc5Y2M0NmM2ZGY4MWRhMTkxYjA=).

Axiom
31-05-2008, 02:57 AM
Yes, as long as lefty governments insist on interfering with the economy, opportunistic corporations will use this to their advantage. After all, if a corporation mugged customers of a rival for a cut, it would be reegarded as criminal. But if they can persuade the government to apply tariffs, practically the same result will occur, without penalties, even though the acts are morally equivalent. Or else the corporations capture "licensing boards" and use them to restrict new entrants that might compete with them.
yes, so again we have failure of government , be they from the so called left or right. Both controlled by big money or corporations. Hence why i implore political analysts to see the real power dynamic at work, rather than this misleading illusory 'left-right' paradigm.
Note too that major media is corporate media , and that major multi national corporations be they , millitary, agri , pharma or media cooperate for their mutual benefit , often at the cost of the uninformed masses.


Of course. Fascism was historically a movement of the Left (e.g. national socialism), as documented by Jonah Goldberg in Liberal Fascism (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjBiYzdhODQwNmE0MTc5Y2M0NmM2ZGY4MWRhMTkxYjA=).
You certainly seem closer than most in understanding the overlap and intertwining of these concepts rather than as many see them , as largely distinct opposites.

pax
31-05-2008, 10:00 AM
Of course. Fascism was historically a movement of the Left (e.g. national socialism), as documented by Jonah Goldberg in Liberal Fascism (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjBiYzdhODQwNmE0MTc5Y2M0NmM2ZGY4MWRhMTkxYjA=).

Just because some right-wing hackjob (ass opposed to you know - a proper historian) writes a book about it doesn't make it true.

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2008, 11:59 AM
Just because some right-wing hackjob (ass opposed to you know - a proper historian) writes a book about it doesn't make it true.
"Right-wing hackjob" is Paxspeak for anyon not as loony left as More-On.

It's easy to check the ardent socialism of Mussolini, how Westerners all regarded him as a man of the left, and see how American progressives admired him at the time. It's also easy to contrast the economic policies of Mussolini and Hitler with the small-government policies of right-wing conservatives, as well as the fascist slogans of unifying their people while conservatives recognize that people are always going to disagree.

The Fascists and Communists fought over the same Leftistterritory. But their internecine struggles have allowed intellectually dishonest lefties to class fascism as a movement of the Right.

pax
31-05-2008, 04:48 PM
"Right-wing hackjob" is Paxspeak for anyon not as loony left as More-On.
No, it's a label reserved for a very special few. Count yourself privileged :)

A more generous label would be "conservative commentator". The guy is paid to be opinionated, and has no history qualifications. He has zero credibility in mounting a historical argument aligning liberalism with fascism.

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2008, 07:26 PM
A more generous label would be "conservative commentator". The guy is paid to be opinionated, and has no history qualifications. He has zero credibility in mounting a historical argument aligning liberalism with fascism.
Translation: I can't and won't deal with Goldberg's historical documentation, because it suits me to paint Fascism as a movement of the Right.

Another problem is that modern liberalism is basically the same as what was called Progressivism in those days, which really did talk about "third way" rubbish and increased government controls. Liberalism, as it's known in America, is actually very illiberal.

Kevin Bonham
31-05-2008, 09:46 PM
He has zero credibility in mounting a historical argument aligning liberalism with fascism.

It's also a one-shot argument as I've pointed out before. It's certainly true that fascism has more in common economically with socialism than capitalism or "conservatism" (to the limited extent that the latter has any kind of coherent and definable economic vision at all). It's also true that it has more in common with modern "liberalism" (ie the doctrine of the typical American Democrat) than with classical "liberalism" of the 19th century.

But economics is just one of the many defining characters of fascism. Fascism is also distinguished by:

* populist anti-modernism
* centralised authoritarianism
* militarism
* nationalism
* state control of practically all areas of life
* anti-communism

Right-wing reactionism, which often calls itself "conservatism" although it isn't, far more enthusiastically embraces these areas than US left-liberalism does. On this basis, the broad bracketing of fascism as part of the Old Right is absolutely correct.

Instead of trying to use the limited similarities between fascism and left-liberalism (and the differences between both and capitalism) to argue that fascism is a movement of the "left", it makes more sense to point out the extent to which a genuine laissez-faire capitalism would fail to fit the right-wing mould. (That is, to the extent that the terms "left" and "right" have any use at all.)

Igor_Goldenberg
31-05-2008, 10:56 PM
But economics is just one of the many defining characters of fascism. Fascism is also distinguished by:
* populist anti-modernism

Any specific examples?

* centralised authoritarianism
Like communism

* militarism
Like communism

* nationalism
That's the biggest different between fascism and communism, nationalism versus internationalism.

* state control of practically all areas of life
Like communism

* anti-communism
Chinese and Soviet communist parties viewed each other as almost bigger enemies then capitalism. It is quite natural for two similar branches of the same ideological movement to treat each other with hostility. After all, the gang can have only one leader.

We can see one major difference (nationalism versus internationalism), hate for each other and similarity in almost everything else.

Axiom
31-05-2008, 11:02 PM
Any specific examples?

Like communism

Like communism

That's the biggest different between fascism and communism, nationalism versus internationalism.

Like communism

Chinese and Soviet communist parties viewed each other as almost bigger enemies then capitalism. It is quite natural for two similar branches of the same ideological movement to treat each other with hostility. After all, the gang can have only one leader.

We can see one major difference (nationalism versus internationalism), hate for each other and similarity in almost everything else.
Brilliant Igor !
Beautiful, i couldn't agree more with that response.
Spot on .

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Kevin Bonham
31-05-2008, 11:25 PM
Any specific examples?

Both German and Italian pre-WWII fascism had a strong emphasis on throwing out the supposed modern rationalist curses of liberty and democracy and getting back to a nostalgic concept of better days in the past. The main difference between them was that in the German case that concept was racially loaded. This nostalgic aspect is an important difference between fascism and communism because communism considers itself to be the ultimate development of rational intellect rather than a reaction against it.

As for "like communism", communism as a statism has indeed generally been authoritarian and militaristic. Communism as an ideology is not necessarily so.

I agree that statist versions of "communism" that have been put in place have closely resembled fascism in many ways, but again, this highlights the extent to which statist communism is leftism carried to an incoherent aberrant extreme , rather than making "fascism" a leftist movement.

Davidflude
31-05-2008, 11:32 PM
The Oxford dictionary defines fascism as an extreme right wing political system.

Franco fought against the extreme left. Anyone who thinks that he was left wing has lost his marbles. (He may well have been right as the communists were close to siezing power.) The USA supported him after the Second world war because he was strongly anti-communist. (Also he knocked back Hitler's request that he enter the Second World War on the side of the Germans and insisted that Jews with Spanish passports should not be harmed.) The Germans desperately needed Spanish minerals especially Tungsten.

Germany was not a fascist state like Mussolini or Franco. It had a mixture of left wing and right wing ideas plus some horrible ideas of their own. Mussolini was very anti Hitler until the British and French pushed him over Abysinia. Incidentally
I have read Count Ciano's Diary. (He married Mussolinis daughter and kept a diary). Hitler plus all of the Italian administration wanted Italy to stay neutral) but the great leader wanted to join the war.

Axiom
31-05-2008, 11:45 PM
why is it that nazi germany are commonly referred to as fascists , and socialism is seen closer to lefty/communism , yet the nazi party was in fact called the national socialist party ?

Kevin Bonham
31-05-2008, 11:56 PM
why is it that nazi germany are commonly referred to as fascists , and socialism is seen closer to lefty/communism , yet the nazi party was in fact called the national socialist party ?

It intrigues me that this question is so often asked by those who would certainly not accept, for instance, that the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is especially democratic. Party names often exist more for propaganda reasons than because the party actually lives up to them.

The Nazis wanted to encourage working-class Aryans to join their party rather than joining the Communists. They would hardly have pitched themselves effectively to the proles had they been more accurate and called their party the Nationalist Economically-Mishmashed Racist Militarist Party.

Axiom
01-06-2008, 12:03 AM
It intrigues me that this question is so often asked by those who would certainly not accept, for instance, that the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is especially democratic. Party names often exist more for propaganda reasons than because the party actually lives up to them.
The Nazis wanted to encourage working-class Aryans to join their party rather than joining the Communists. They would hardly have pitched themselves effectively to the proles had they been more accurate and called their party the Nationalist Economically-Mishmashed Racist Militarist Party.

What intrigues me even more is that people don't question the labels of the particular governments that govern them now ! (given, what you say)

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2008, 12:04 AM
What intrigues me even more is that people don't question the labels of the particular governments that govern them now !

Don't they? Some do. I think in Australia there is a fair degree of cynicism about whether Labor is really the party of the workers, and also about whether the Liberals are actually liberal.

Axiom
01-06-2008, 12:22 AM
Don't they? Some do. I think in Australia there is a fair degree of cynicism about whether Labor is really the party of the workers, and also about whether the Liberals are actually liberal.thats one level , but not at higher levels of comprehending the political system .
General low level cynicism is one thing , but understanding that governments are puppets of big money corporate power is quite another .
as is understanding the blurred beyond useful recognition - left/right paradigm .

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2008, 12:45 AM
It's also a one-shot argument as I've pointed out before. It's certainly true that fascism has more in common economically with socialism than capitalism or "conservatism" (to the limited extent that the latter has any kind of coherent and definable economic vision at all). It's also true that it has more in common with modern "liberalism" (ie the doctrine of the typical American Democrat) than with classical "liberalism" of the 19th century.
That's Goldberg's main thesis.


But economics is just one of the many defining characters of fascism. Fascism is also distinguished by:

* populist anti-modernism
* centralised authoritarianism
* militarism
* nationalism
* state control of practically all areas of life

Goldberg documents such fascistic elements of Democrat Woodrow Wilson's presidency. He was a white supremacist who introduced segregation into several federal departments and loved the KKK-glorifying film Birth of a Nation, had dissenters imprisoned, took over the railroads, Before his presidency, he was an academic political scientist who attacked the American Constitution because of its checks and balances. Wilson strongly pushed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 that led to the imprisonment of 170,000 Americans and also the collapse of newspapers critical of him when the US Postal Service refused to carry them. And he set up a propaganda ministry, the United States Committee on Public Information.

FDR's New Deal had fascistic elements. Both of these presidents used war imagery.

Now war is not such a fashionable crisis used to justify increasing government control. But Czech president Václav Klaus thinks that global warm-mongering has been a convenient crisis for those who want to remove individual freedom (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/208338,czech-president-klaus-ready-to-debate-gore-on-climate-change.html):


Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said.

"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat — this time, in the name of the planet," he added.

Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he oppposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change.

"It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda," he said.

Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming.

"It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only," Klaus said.


* anti-communism
fighting over the same territory. Compare Stalin and Trotsky.


Right-wing reactionism, which often calls itself "conservatism" although it isn't, far more enthusiastically embraces these areas than US left-liberalism does. On this basis, the broad bracketing of fascism as part of the Old Right is absolutely correct.
Yet they tend not to support increased government controls on everything from production to education.

Yet fascism was not inherently antisemitic. There were Jews in Mussolini's fascist party right up to the time he allied with Hitler. And Franco repealed the edict of expulsion of Jews from Spain, and refused to hand any Jews over to Hitler.

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2008, 12:50 AM
The Oxford dictionary defines fascism as an extreme right wing political system.
That's an example of the revisionism. Yet there is nothing right about Fascism. The right wants small government, not large government control as fascists advocated. It's a historical fact that Mussolini made his name as a leading socialist, and never abandoned this philosophy. But while Lenin wanted international socialism, Mussolini supported national socialism. Goldberg documents that during most of his reign, no one doubted that he was a man of the Left.


Franco fought against the extreme left.
Over the same territory. On a related matter, Churchill noted that communists despised politicians of the Left who were not quite communist.


Anyone who thinks that he was left wing has lost his marbles. (He may well have been right as the communists were close to siezing power.) The USA supported him after the Second world war because he was strongly anti-communist. (Also he knocked back Hitler's request that he enter the Second World War on the side of the Germans and insisted that Jews with Spanish passports should not be harmed.)
Yes, as I said, fascism was not inherently antisemitic.


Mussolini was very anti Hitler until the British and French pushed him over Abysinia.
Correct.

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2008, 01:19 AM
Goldberg documents such fascistic elements of Democrat Woodrow Wilson's presidency.

And what did you make of the link posted by Axiom (yes, I'm aware that's hardly a ringing endorsement but it was well above his usual standard!) casting Churchill in a similar light?

It's not that hard to find "fascistic" elements in a wide range of political movements if you go back that far to look for them. Doesn't mean Wilson represents leftism as it exists today.

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2008, 01:41 AM
And what did you make of the link posted by Axiom (yes, I'm aware that's hardly a ringing endorsement but it was well above his usual standard!) casting Churchill in a similar light?
Hard to believe. But Wilson's political writings against checks and balances, and his imprisonment of any critics of his war policy, was what Goldberg thought was the closest that America has come to fascism.


It's not that hard to find "fascistic" elements in a wide range of political movements if you go back that far to look for them.
But the similarities of American Progressives, the ancestors of today's liberals, were marked, and also explicitly stated at the time before WW2 made "fascist" a swear word.

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2008, 01:59 AM
Hard to believe.

For what reason?


But Wilson's political writings against checks and balances, and his imprisonment of any critics of his war policy, was what Goldberg thought was the closest that America has come to fascism.

Lucky for it if that is the case. After all, illiberal crackdowns on dissent during wartime are not uncommon even in the least worst of democracies (alas), and trying to judge Wilson's rule by what he said before he was elected is a bit like trying to understand Australia's current environment policies by analysing the few Midnight Oil lyrics that were actually written by Peter Garrett.


But the similarities of American Progressives, the ancestors of today's liberals, were marked, and also explicitly stated at the time before WW2 made "fascist" a swear word.

Well, one of the similarities you refer to is racism, which has since receded greatly. Not that racism is quintessentially "fascist" anyway; movements can be racist without being fascist or fascist without being racist, easily.

Axiom
01-06-2008, 03:06 AM
It is evident that a substantial majority of U.S. citizens are, in principle, opposed to the most destructive governmental policies stemming from the nation’s capital. These include, but are not limited to—the continuing war and occupation of Iraq, as well as the pervasive consumer fraud that preys upon the innocent and the unwary and causes them undue hardship. These charges are born out by the abysmal approval rating of Congress and the president. It is equally evident that the government, while pretending to be sympathetic to these views, continues to carry forth those same policies both at home and abroad. It does so without the consent of the people and, therefore, it has abrogated its responsibility to them.

These destructive policies are formulated in the various branches of government and in the corporate board rooms of America. They are a prominent feature of the run amok presidency of George W. Bush, where they manifest themselves to the world. However, their history precedes Bush and his corporate gangsters by generations, and they are an outgrowth of the exploitive capital system.

In some respects the presidency serves as a distraction from the machinations that are operating behind the scenes to spew forth one disastrous policy after another. With so much attention given to Bush, the people are failing to confront the root cause of which George W. Bush is but a single manifestation: the sociopolitical system that put the present criminal regime in power.



What is so exasperating to many of us is that the corruption of the political system is widely understood and yet so little is done about it. The people continue to participate in it; they continue to vote in the absence of meaningful choice and they continue to support it with their taxes. There have been peace marches and other forms of token protest, but they have had little bearing on the continuing policies of economic disparity, environmental destruction, and imperial war that are prominent features of American capitalism.

Because protest in America has become more symbolic than effective, those in power can afford to ignore it. Even when participation in protest is great, it is of short duration; it does not cause serious economic or political disruption, and it does not pose a real threat to the established orthodoxy. After a few hours of peaceful marching, the people pack up and go back to their lives and everything remains as it was before they came.

Effective protest causes economic and political disruption. It persists until the just demands of the people are met. The established orthodoxy feels pain and discomfort from it; it feels a palpable threat and understands that the injustice cannot continue. Either it addresses the demands of the people, or it perishes. This is a manifestation of democracy. It is serious stuff that requires enormous sacrifice from those who protest in this way. The Montgomery bus boycott of the 60s was that kind of protest; and it was a protest that was won by the people, despite a constant threat of violence and death.

These days few people are willing to put anything tangible on the line. One wonders: Is there anything that the American people are willing to fight and die for? Is there anything real that we really believe in? Or do we relish the symbols of freedom more than we love freedom itself?


American exceptionalism is fostered in all of our social and political institutions. This includes the educational system and religious institutions. Thus, these beliefs are continually reinforced from cradle to grave, and never more so than in the corporate media. So it is not surprising that our political leaders behave as if they were endowed with the powers of deities, even though they are nothing more than fallible human beings like everyone else. It requires enormous hubris for anyone to adopt such doctrines, but there appears to be an inexhaustible supply of hubris in this country and a paucity of humility and compassion. Those who think in this way are prone to behaving toward the world with vitriol, as we witness daily.

The collective result of so many individually destructive paradigms is dehumanization. When we allow people to be dehumanized it is easy to hate them and to exploit them; to see them as entities endowed with less inherent value than ourselves or our chosen kind. It is easy to kill or subjugate inferior people and inferior beings. That is also how the government (the economic elite) perceives the working class and in their eyes that perception makes working people exploitable and expendable. Giving our continued allegiance to such government is irrational and immoral; it is also cowardly and self-destructive.

We are faced with a situation in which the body politic not only does not care what the American people think; it disdains populism as much here as it does in Latin America and elsewhere in the world. Populism and its close cousin—democracy—pose an enormous threat to the established order; and that order provides wealth and privilege to a select few, while denying it to everyone else. This is why corrupt politicians and so many academicians spare no effort to suppress and crush democratic movements, and cover up their crimes through a disingenuous rendering of history.

Yet with so much of the population aware of the government’s disdain of the people’s needs, why isn’t there effective organized resistance to it? Why isn’t there widespread social and economic disruption? Why do the people not revoke their consent to be governed and refuse their allegiance to a government that is not only corrupt and devoid of moral capital but is also clearly predatory or even cannibalistic? Why do we continue to fund criminal governments, including our own, with our taxes? Why isn’t there social unrest and civil disobedience in the streets? Why are those who expose these crimes punished and the criminals go free and reap financial reward for their malfeasance?

One explanation for the widespread social malaise in this country is that people are overwhelmed by it; shocked and awed by it; disorientated by it. They cannot believe the audacity of the Bush regime. Disorientation makes the plunder of the commonwealth easy to carry out. Even while dazed and confused, so many people remain wed to the idea of America’s inherent goodness and moral superiority to the rest of the world, despite mountains of evidence against such views. Thus, they view the criminal Bush regime as an aberration rather than a continuation of an historical pattern.

Social justice advocates are rightly infuriated to know that amidst this worsening climate a solid majority of the people can remain indifferent and willfully ignorant of what is being done in their names. There is a reason for this. The American people do not want to acknowledge any wrong doing on the part of their government, which is, in theory, an extension of the people. Of course, that is not the actual practice. This refusal psychologically absolves them from guilt or complicity and it permits them the luxury of apathy. By refusing to acknowledge wrong doing, no further action is required of them. They can go on consuming, falling asleep in front of the television and sending their offspring to die in unnecessary wars, while sinking ever deeper into debt and economic servitude.

Furthermore, the inert masses are mentally and spiritually ill equipped to deal with reality; so they block it out of their minds—aided, of course, by the corporate media and the propaganda apparatus of the government, itself. This is why fantasy is freely substituted for reality; plutocracy is mistaken for democracy, and the majority of the people do not know the difference. Millions of good people thus refuse to allow into their psyche the suffering and misery that U.S. policy has produced and exported to the world, even as that reality is closing in upon them. Unfortunately, I can point to my own family as an example of such delusional thinking, as no doubt can many of my readers.

Understanding this, the greatest obstacle to creating a vibrant and effective social justice movement is convincing the inert masses that they must acknowledge the suffering we have caused and are continuing to inflict upon the world. The multitudes must see the wisdom of looking behind the veneer of propaganda and confronting an ugly and often painful truth: the brutal and violent history of our nation, including the suppression of democracy wherever it is encountered.

We the people must find the courage to confront reality, and that means that we must be willing to feel the pain and suffering we have inflicted on others. We must admit that we are not exceptional or superior, and that we are not more entitled to our share of the world’s bounty than any other people. But we must go even deeper than that: we must bring about restitution for our past wrong-doing.

The citizens of the United States must become one with the world and look beyond nationality; beyond race, sex, and religious creed. Suffering and joy are conditions of life and they should be kept in balance as much as possible. Because suffering causes discomfort that few people want to experience, the alleviation of suffering is powerful motivation to demand justice; and that is the force that motivates most good people to do what they do, which is resist the tyranny of evil government. Once our indiscretions have been acknowledged and acted upon, we will find that the world is more than willing to forgive our past transgressions. This act alone will allow us to rejoin the world, so to speak.

Many years ago I questioned my mother about eating meat and the suffering it caused so many innocent animals. Her response revealed much about the American consciousness. She did not witness the suffering of those animals. She did not hear their cries of pain. She saw no blood in the sanitized product that was sold in the grocery store, wrapped in clear plastic and served up on pristine styrofoam. So their suffering was not real to her; it was too far removed from her experience. But the suffering of those animals and their cries of pain are very real indeed; and so is the suffering the United States government is inflicting upon the world.

Were we on the receiving end of our government’s foreign policies, we would have a very different perception of them. But like wrapped meat in the grocery store, we do not see the pain and the blood—or the suffering. So for many people it is not real; it is not happening…but it is.

By admitting some of this pain into our lives we are simultaneously admitting all of the other things into our lives that define our collective humanity; among them hope and joy. Then, and only then, can we take a principled stand for social and environmental justice and build an effective movement toward these ends. We must pry open closed minds and allow reality to penetrate delusion, as witnessing cause and effect often does. By this process sheeple are transformed once again into people, each of them endowed with a conscience capable of distinguishing right and wrong. This moral evolution is itself a revolutionary act of monumental import to any justice movement. It provides the means for people to act according to the dictates of conscience, and that is an act of liberation from dogma.

Revolution begins by altering consciousness. We stand at the brink of a multitude of possible futures, many of them tragic. The failure to act and rebel when the conditions demand it is a betrayal not only of our own humanity; it is a crime of great magnitude. The world’s foremost thinkers and visionaries have always understood this. Can we?

http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=733#more-733

Davidflude
01-06-2008, 04:01 PM
why is it that nazi germany are commonly referred to as fascists , and socialism is seen closer to lefty/communism , yet the nazi party was in fact called the national socialist party ?

Political parties like to give themselves names that may or may not reflect their beliefs.

Axiom
01-06-2008, 04:09 PM
Political parties like to give themselves names that may or may not reflect their beliefs.
like "labour" ,"liberal", "democratic party" , "conservative" and "republican" ?

Igor_Goldenberg
01-06-2008, 09:22 PM
Not that racism is quintessentially "fascist" anyway; movements can be racist without being fascist or fascist without being racist, easily.
Correct. That erases the large significant difference between communism and fascism (as ideology).

Igor_Goldenberg
01-06-2008, 09:23 PM
Political parties like to give themselves names that may or may not reflect their beliefs.
Fascist parties of early twenties in both Germany and Italy considered themselves socialist. And they were.

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2008, 03:17 PM
Speaking of fascists, a Holocaust-denying couple, Heath and Deborah Campbell, named two of their kids:


Adolph Hitler Campbell
JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell


This is far sicker even than other celebrity parent giving their kids stupid names or weird spellings of normal names, since the latter is just making a sick joke or showing off at the child's expense. But honouring mass murders and celebrating racist groups goes well beyond that.

Supermarket defends itself over Adolf Hitler cake (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081217/ap_on_fe_st/odd_hitler_cake)

A supermarket is defending itself for refusing to a write out 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell's name on his birthday cake. Deborah Campbell, 25, of nearby Hunterdon County, N.J., said she phoned in her order last week to the Greenwich ShopRite. When she told the bakery department she wanted her son's name spelled out, she was told to talk to a supervisor, who denied the request.

Karen Meleta, a ShopRite spokeswoman, said the store denied similar requests from the Campbells the last two years, including a request for a swastika.

"We reserve the right not to print anything on the cake that we deem to be inappropriate," Meleta said. "We considered this inappropriate."

....

Space_Dude
19-12-2008, 09:10 PM
Speaking of fascists, a Holocaust-denying couple, Heath and Deborah Campbell, named two of their kids:


Adolph Hitler Campbell
JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell

....
Now theres a bully victim.

CameronD
19-12-2008, 11:20 PM
I think the sate has a responsibility to remove the children at birth. The parents are clearly incapable of raising these kids by society standards and the state has a duty of care to the children.




Speaking of fascists, a Holocaust-denying couple, Heath and Deborah Campbell, named two of their kids:


Adolph Hitler Campbell
JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell


This is far sicker even than other celebrity parent giving their kids stupid names or weird spellings of normal names, since the latter is just making a sick joke or showing off at the child's expense. But honouring mass murders and celebrating racist groups goes well beyond that.

Supermarket defends itself over Adolf Hitler cake (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081217/ap_on_fe_st/odd_hitler_cake)

A supermarket is defending itself for refusing to a write out 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell's name on his birthday cake. Deborah Campbell, 25, of nearby Hunterdon County, N.J., said she phoned in her order last week to the Greenwich ShopRite. When she told the bakery department she wanted her son's name spelled out, she was told to talk to a supervisor, who denied the request.

Karen Meleta, a ShopRite spokeswoman, said the store denied similar requests from the Campbells the last two years, including a request for a swastika.

"We reserve the right not to print anything on the cake that we deem to be inappropriate," Meleta said. "We considered this inappropriate."

....

Kevin Bonham
19-12-2008, 11:29 PM
The parents are clearly incapable of raising these kids by society standards and the state has a duty of care to the children.

Inclined to agree with you here ... and the supermarket shouldn't even have to defend itself against this sort of nonsense.

Some jurisdictions do make some attempt to disallow stupid names of this variety.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2008, 02:02 AM
Here I too would make an exception to my usual distrust of government intervention, since the parents are clearly trying to raise neo-Nazis. Kudos to the supermarket.

Kevin Bonham
20-12-2008, 01:20 PM
Here I too would make an exception to my usual distrust of government intervention, since the parents are clearly trying to raise neo-Nazis.

I'm not sure they are. From the article:


Campbell said he was raised not to avoid people of other races but not to mix with them socially or romantically. But he said he would try to raise his children differently.

"Say he grows up and hangs out with black people. That's fine, I don't really care," he said. "That's his choice."

I just think that parents should not subject their children to ridicule and bullying by giving them unbelievably stupid names and that there is some point where the State can reasonably step in in the interests of the child.

Ideally that point should have been immediately after birth; simply refuse to register the name, make the parents pick something more sensible, and then there's hopefully no need to intervene further.

I'm not sure quite how restrictive such a limit would need to be (eg whether you need to stop parents calling their child "Dwayne Pipe" and so on) but to me this seems outside it.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2008, 11:37 PM
I'm not sure they are. From the article:
I read that too, but "Aryan Nation" for the other child, and a Swastika for a birthday cake? It's hard to believe that these jerks admired Hitler just for making trains run on time.


I just think that parents should not subject their children to ridicule and bullying by giving them unbelievably stupid names and that there is some point where the State can reasonably step in in the interests of the child.
I agree. It should be sparing, just like the state should step in if a child is severely malnourished, but not dictate what foods all parents must give their children.


I'm not sure quite how restrictive such a limit would need to be (eg whether you need to stop parents calling their child "Dwayne Pipe" and so on) but to me this seems outside it.
Or Randolph Mann because the first name can be abbreviated, Wayne King (say it fast), or if the initials spell an unpleasant word (Robert Alexander Thomas) ... ?

Kevin Bonham
20-12-2008, 11:43 PM
I read that too, but "Aryan Nation" for the other child, and a Swastika for a birthday cake? It's hard to believe that these jerks admired Hitler just for making trains run on time.

OK, perhaps they are trying to raise neo-Nazis, but not all that fussed if they fail.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2008, 11:55 PM
OK, perhaps they are trying to raise neo-Nazis, but not all that fussed if they fail.
Or they are saying what they thought the reporter wanted to hear?

Capablanca-Fan
30-05-2009, 02:55 AM
Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (http://jim.com/hayek.htm)

Although our modern socialists' promise of greater freedom is genuine and sincere, in recent years observer after observer has been impressed by the unforeseen consequences of socialism, the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under "communism" and "fascism." As the writer Peter Drucker expressed it in 1939, "the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany."

No less significant is the intellectual outlook of the rank and file in the communist and fascist movements in Germany before 1933. The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa was well known, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. The communists and Nazis clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties simply because they competed for the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common, was the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits made of the right timber, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.

antichrist
30-01-2011, 11:10 AM
Lefties make me wanna puke.

well Gunnar when your Mother Country was battling Moustached Monster it was only the leftie partisans across Europe who put up a decent resistance - the right-wingers were joining in alliances with him (stalin did also but nobody was supposed to know about that)

Capablanca-Fan
30-01-2011, 12:23 PM
well Gunnar when your Mother Country was battling Moustached Monster it was only the leftie partisans across Europe who put up a decent resistance - the right-wingers were joining in alliances with him (stalin did also but nobody was supposed to know about that)
Hitler was a Leftard: a big-government National Socialist. His squabbles with Commies was a war over the same ideological turf, like Trotsky v Stalin.

antichrist
30-01-2011, 01:22 PM
Hitler was a Leftard: a big-government National Socialist. His squabbles with Commies was a war over the same ideological turf, like Trotsky v Stalin.

He was supposedly wiping out the Jews because of their support of Communism - maybe he was a hybrid, just don't let him hear us you call him that.

Did he take over Jewish businesss? Only Jewish businesses? Nationalise them for the state?

Rincewind
30-01-2011, 03:17 PM
Hitler was a Leftard

:lol: that is one of the most ridiculous things you have said outside of your church newsletters. :lol:

Nazism and fascism are far-right politically. You are confusing the moderate bourgeois right-wing (the like you you and Iggy) with the ultra right-wing.

Nazism is anti-liberalism and so is nothing like the left until you get to the far-left of Stalinist Russia. And then the similarity is just that they are both authoritarian.

In the early days there was socialist element to the National Socialist party which was headed up by Otto Strasser. But they became inconvenient for Hitler (forming the splinter Black Front party) and anyone of importance from that faction was liquidated (or like Strasser fled) in the Night of the Long Knives purge in 1934 and the Nazi party was pure far-right from then onwards.

Capablanca-Fan
30-01-2011, 03:58 PM
Nazism and fascism are far-right politically.
No they are not. Nazism = National Socialism. It is a big-government ideology, not at all free market. Thomas Sowell writes (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223648/who-fascist/thomas-sowell):


The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free-market economy. Their agenda included minimum-wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and “rigidly secular” schools.

Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run.

They were for “industrial policy,” long before liberals coined that phrase in the United States.

Indeed, the whole Fascist economic agenda bears a remarkable resemblance to what liberals would later advocate.

Moreover, during the 1920s “progressives” in the United States and Britain recognized the kinship of their ideas with those of Mussolini, who was widely lionized by the Left.

Famed British novelist and prominent Fabian socialist H. G. Wells called for “Liberal Fascism,” saying “the world is sick of parliamentary politics.”

Another literary giant and Fabian socialist, George Bernard Shaw, also expressed his admiration for Mussolini — as well as for Hitler and Stalin, because they “did things,” instead of just talk.


You are confusing the moderate bourgeois right-wing (the like you you and Iggy) with the ultra right-wing.
No, Leftards have exploited the internecine turf war on the left between national socialists (fascists and Nazis) with international socialists (Communists) to claim that the former must be "right" because they fought with the Communists on the Left. Sowell continued:


Fascism, initially recognized as a kindred ideology of the Left, has since come down to us defined as being on “the Right” — indeed, as representing the farthest Right, supposedly further extensions of conservatism.

If by conservatism you mean belief in free markets, limited government, and traditional morality, including religious influences, then these are all things that the Fascists opposed just as much as the Left does today.

Kevin Bonham
30-01-2011, 04:18 PM
This one goes around and around so often on here it can have its own thread instead of contaminating others.

I like the Political Compass axis with liberty/authority on one scale and socialism/capitalism on the other. On that scale Nazis are extreme authoritarians, but economically a mixed bag.

antichrist
30-01-2011, 09:34 PM
Jono, I could not give a shit what Thomas Sowell says, when are you going to say something on behalf of yourself for a change

Rincewind
30-01-2011, 10:07 PM
If by conservatism you mean belief in free markets, limited government, and traditional morality, including religious influences, then these are all things that the Fascists opposed just as much as the Left does today.


This demonstrates part of Sowell's confusion. The right are not defined as simply advocates of free-markets. In fact in the 19th century the right were generally opposed to capitalism and free-markets and were more about support for Monarchism and the existing social order provided by the gentry. It is only a post industrial revolution idea that the capitalists become the new gentry capitalism and free-markets were advocated by the moderate right.

But don;t just take my word for it, you could look at what Stephen Fisher (Lecturer in Politics at Oxford) wrote for the Oxford Dictionary of Politics...

Oxford Dictionary of Politics: right(-wing)


The opposite of left. As with the term left-wing, the label right-wing has many connotations which vary over time and are often only understood within the particular political context. In advanced liberal democracies, perhaps more than anything else the right has been defined in opposition to socialism or social democracy. As a result, the ideologies and philosophies of right-wing political parties have included elements of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism, libertarianism, and nationalism; and for extreme-right parties racism and fascism. As the policy platforms of parties have varied, so has the popular conception of the left-right dimension. In surveys, self-placement on a ‘left-right’ scale is associated with attitudes on economic policy, especially redistribution and privatization/ nationalization, post-materialism, and (particularly in Catholic countries) religiosity.

— Stephen Fisher (emphasis added)

So as you can see the particular details of platforms change over time but fascism (of which Nazism is a subset) is extreme-right not left.

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2011, 01:21 PM
The fact remains that the National Socialists were big-government authoritarians, with nothing in common with modern conservatives and libertarians. The undoubted Left in the West viewed the fascists as fellow travellers before their invasions, since they had many policies in common. The National Socialists were not the "opposite" of the Communist Left, but fought over the same ideological territory.

Kevin Bonham
31-01-2011, 02:04 PM
The fact remains that the National Socialists were big-government authoritarians, with nothing in common with modern conservatives and libertarians.

Modern "libertarians" are not considered especially right-wing when viewed across a full spectrum of issues, so no surprises there. And many modern "conservatives" are actually pro-big-government, except when it suits them not to be. The later Howard was a typical example of this. A small government position is a radical position and hence one conservatism is wary of.

Manack
31-01-2011, 03:09 PM
The undoubted Left in the West viewed the fascists as fellow travellers before their invasions, since they had many policies in common.

How do you support this assertion?

collectivism <> individualism
guided economy <> economic liberalism
internationalism <> nationalism
athiestistic <> religious
pro-union <> anti-union
pro-sufferage <> anti-sufferage
anti-colonial <> pro-colonial
revolutionary <> reactionary
social-progressive <> traditionalist

Rincewind
31-01-2011, 08:55 PM
The fact remains that the National Socialists were big-government authoritarians, with nothing in common with modern conservatives and libertarians. The undoubted Left in the West viewed the fascists as fellow travellers before their invasions, since they had many policies in common. The National Socialists were not the "opposite" of the Communist Left, but fought over the same ideological territory.

The fact remains that the the National Socialists where opposed to egalitarianism, a position they share with most conservatives today. Especially those of the religious right life Family First and the former darling of the right, the One Nation party.

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2011, 06:08 AM
The fact remains that the the National Socialists where opposed to egalitarianism, a position they share with most conservatives today.
Well, depends what you mean. Conservatives support equality of opportunity, while lefties support equality of outcome. Similarly, conservatives support equality under the law, while lefties make different laws for different groups to try to force an artificial equality of outcome. For example, they support "affirmative action" that rewards some people and punishes others according to sex or race, and "hate crimes" that make some class of victim more important than others. And what lefties usually don't let on, they support huge inequality of power for the Anointed, necessary to forcibly equalize wealth and impose quotas.

Another problem is when conservatives oppose yet another expensive government program, leftards demagogue them as hating the people that the program is ostensibly meant to help. Rather, the conservatives point out that these programs are often counter-productive.


Especially those of the religious right life Family First and the former darling of the right, the One Nation party.
The ONP was quite leftist in its economics, e.g. its support for protectionism.

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2011, 06:09 AM
How do you support this assertion?
See post #2 above. Your other dichotomies are mostly imagined.

antichrist
02-02-2011, 11:50 AM
I notice that often Jono does not answer me coz he can't - that his how I read it anyway

Rincewind
03-02-2011, 12:16 AM
The ONP was quite leftist in its economics, e.g. its support for protectionism.

Jono, It is not a very interesting discussion if you are going to classify any economics you don't like as 'leftist' even if they are people and parties who have no political affinity with the left and are uncontroversially considered a right wing party.

You're basically trotting out the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Capablanca-Fan
03-02-2011, 12:39 AM
Jono, It is not a very interesting discussion if you are going to classify any economics you don't like as 'leftist' even if they are people and parties who have no political affinity with the left and are uncontroversially considered a right wing party.
Uncontroversially? No, it was a leftist propaganda ploy to call the statist National Socialist German Workers Party "right-wing", and the only "evidence" is that they opposed the Communists. As explained, this doesn't prove anything, or else Trotsky must have been right-wing because he opposed Stalin.

Similarly, Hanson supported more government involvement in people's lives including trade barriers.

antichrist
03-02-2011, 12:45 AM
Uncontroversially?

.........Similarly, Hanson supported more government involvement in people's lives including trade barriers.


Country Party are famous for that, agrarian socialists they are called. They in league with the Liberals want to privatise the profits and socialise the losses. Biggest hypocrites in other words.

Rincewind
03-02-2011, 12:48 AM
Uncontroversially? No, it was a leftist propaganda ploy to call the statist National Socialist German Workers Party "right-wing", and the only "evidence" is that they opposed the Communists. As explained, this doesn't prove anything, or else Trotsky must have been right-wing because he opposed Stalin.

Similarly, Hanson supported more government involvement in people's lives including trade barriers.

It seems you fall into the same trap that Sowell did in classifying party alignment by whether their economic policies and ignore what it actually means to be left- or right-wing.

I realise this is tempting for you but unfortunately you can't undertake this level of revisionism and expect to get away with it. Any right-wing party you don't like you can just say "oh policy xyz" is leftist and therefore <insert party leaders name here> was a 'leftist'.

That's just the woolly headed thinking you get when a Republican mouthpiece who specialises in economics starts to rewrite political definitions to suit their own agenda.

antichrist
03-02-2011, 12:57 AM
you could try barring Jono from quoting anyone else, make him contribute something original for a change, he would be speechless

Capablanca-Fan
03-02-2011, 01:30 AM
Country Party are famous for that, agrarian socialists they are called.
I know, and I have criticised them for that.


They in league with the Liberals want to privatise the profits and socialise the losses. Biggest hypocrites in other words.
Sounds like paranoid nonsense, but unfortunately it was true in the American Republicans who supported the bailout. But many conservative libertarians criticised such crony capitalism.

Capablanca-Fan
03-02-2011, 01:32 AM
It seems you fall into the same trap that Sowell did in classifying party alignment by whether their economic policies and ignore what it actually means to be left- or right-wing.
Don't blame me if your definitions are sloppy.


I realise this is tempting for you but unfortunately you can't undertake this level of revisionism and expect to get away with it. Any right-wing party you don't like you can just say "oh policy xyz" is leftist and therefore <insert party leaders name here> was a 'leftist'.
Yet I documented just how many Nazi policies were leftist, as was their name. You just fall back on lame assertions that they must be right-wing because people have called them that.


That's just the woolly headed thinking you get when a Republican mouthpiece who specialises in economics starts to rewrite political definitions to suit their own agenda.
Sowell is often strongly critical of the Republicans.

Rincewind
03-02-2011, 07:35 PM
Sowell is often strongly critical of the Republicans.

Probably just the left-wing ones. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
04-02-2011, 06:07 AM
Probably just the left-wing ones. :lol:
Definitely, as he should be, e.g. McCain (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223562/mccains-crooked-talk/thomas-sowell), but also some of the gutless right-wing ones who are incompetent at articulating their position (http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/can-republicans-talk.html), never expressing outrage (http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/republican-candidates.html), their rapid fall from their 2004 victories (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell111406.php3), and their pathetic ineptitude at reaching Blacks (http://patriotupdate.com/oldsite/exclusives/read/171/Conservatives-and-blacks).

Oepty
04-02-2011, 09:44 AM
I think this topic is stupid. Why does it matter? Nazis were monters, mass murdering blood thirsty maniacs who killed millions of people and started a war. The were evil, not left wing, not right wing, just evil.
Scott

Rincewind
04-02-2011, 09:56 AM
I think this topic is stupid. Why does it matter? Nazis were monters, mass murdering blood thirsty maniacs who killed millions of people and started a war. The were evil, not left wing, not right wing, just evil.

I guess that makes sense if you think they were some freak event which was entirely unpredictable. However social phenomena can be traced to earlier influences and examining those influences can lead to a deeper understanding of such phenomena and potentially help to avoid repeating phenomena which is detrimental to society as a whole.

The trouble with right-wing analysts like Sowell and right-wing idiots like Jono is they think that calling Hitler a right-wing politician taints the whole right with the extreme policies of Hitler and the National Socialists. So they do a little revisionism, define right and left wing by economic policy alone and then declare the right-wing purged of any sins.

It is the same trick Jono employed in vain to deny that Hitler and the German people were Christians. Jono would have you believe that some times earlier in the 1930s all German speaking people suddenly switched from 95% christians to neo-pagans and then in 1945 all switched back again. It is just a ridiculous proposition.

Hitler was a right-wing catholic. Get over it already.

Rincewind
04-02-2011, 09:58 AM
Definitely

:lol:

Oepty
04-02-2011, 10:07 AM
I guess that makes sense if you think they were some freak event which was entirely unpredictable. However social phenomena can be traced to earlier influences and examining those influences can lead to a deeper understanding of such phenomena and potentially help to avoid repeating phenomena which is detrimental to society as a whole.

The trouble with right-wing analysts like Sowell and right-wing idiots like Jono is they think that calling Hitler a right-wing politician taints the whole right with the extreme policies of Hitler and the National Socialists. So they do a little revisionism, define right and left wing by economic policy alone and then declare the right-wing purged of any sins.

It is the same trick Jono employed in vain to deny that Hitler and the German people were Christians. Jono would have you believe that some times earlier in the 1930s all German speaking people suddenly switched from 95% christians to neo-pagans and then in 1945 all switched back again. It is just a ridiculous proposition.

Hitler was a right-wing catholic. Get over it already.

Hitler may have been a right-wing catholic, but Nazism and mass murdering people is neither right wing or christian or left wing or anything else.
I am not arguing the same thing Jono is and I don't like it that you are trying to put me in with him. I hardly ever agree with anything he says.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2011, 10:08 AM
I am not arguing the same thing Jono is and I don't like it that you are trying to put me in with him.

I'm pretty sure he isn't.

Oepty
04-02-2011, 10:24 AM
I'm pretty sure he isn't.

The last line.

Rincewind
04-02-2011, 10:50 AM
The last line.

That was directed to western civilisation in general not you in particular. However I think both you and Jono need to accept the truth of that line but haven't yet done so, but perhaps to different degrees.

You and Jono have different positions and so I'm not lumping you together. However I think both position are potentially dangerous:

Jono's revisionism is dangerous because it does not recognise the potential danger in right-wing ideologies such as tradition and nationalism which can be used to justify racism.

Your position of claiming such classifications are meaningless is dangerous because it seeks to downplay the lessons of history which often condemns civilisation to a repeat lecture.

Oepty
04-02-2011, 11:07 AM
That was directed to western civilisation in general not you in particular. However I think both you and Jono need to accept the truth of that line but haven't yet done so, but perhaps to different degrees.


Okay.



You and Jono have different positions and so I'm not lumping you together. However I think both position are potentially dangerous:


Okay



Jono's revisionism is dangerous because it does not recognise the potential danger in right-wing ideologies such as tradition and nationalism which can be used to justify racism.


I will let Jono deal with that one.



Your position of claiming such classifications are meaningless is dangerous because it seeks to downplay the lessons of history which often condemns civilisation to a repeat lecture.

I have been more surprised by what Jono has been saying and his worrying about being identified on the same side as Hitler. That is just nonsense, he is nothing like Hitler and as far as right wing in Australia goes I don't think any politican is anything like Hitler. So Hitler was not right wing as we would generally use the term in Australian politics, he was a monster. He may have used perverted right wing thinking or perverted left wing thinking or perverted christian thinking to try and justify in his mind the actions he was taking but really he was just a monster whose thinking has nothing in common with any of our politicans as far as I know.
Scott

Rincewind
04-02-2011, 11:17 AM
I have been more surprised by what Jono has been saying and his worrying about being identified on the same side as Hitler. That is just nonsense, he is nothing like Hitler and as far as right wing in Australia goes I don't think any politican is anything like Hitler. So Hitler was not right wing as we would generally use the term in Australian politics, he was a monster. He may have used perverted right wing thinking or perverted left wing thinking or perverted christian thinking to try and justify in his mind the actions he was taking but really he was just a monster whose thinking has nothing in common with any of our politicans as far as I know.

Yes Hitler was extreme right-wing however there are parallels which can be drawn.

For example, the One Nation party were widely criticised for their policies on foreign ownership and immigration. While I would not equate Pauline Hanson, David Ettridge or David Oldfield with Hitler. But it is certainly further down that path than the centre right parties like the Liberals.

Oepty
04-02-2011, 11:26 AM
Yes Hitler was extreme right-wing however there are parallels which can be drawn.

For example, the One Nation party were widely criticised for their policies on foreign ownership and immigration. While I would not equate Pauline Hanson, David Ettridge or David Oldfield with Hitler. But it is certainly further down that path than the centre right parties like the Liberals.

I don't think that there is anything fundamental to right wing thinking that says you must be a mass murdering antisemitc war starting monster, that is my point. I have no real problem with Hitler being called extreme right-wing, but it is not right wing as Jono is, nothing like the same.
Scott

Rincewind
04-02-2011, 11:39 AM
I don't think that there is anything fundamental to right wing thinking that says you must be a mass murdering antisemitc war starting monster, that is my point. I have no real problem with Hitler being called extreme right-wing, but it is not right wing as Jono is, nothing like the same.
Scott

That's fine but I would point out that calling Hitler extreme right-wing is not controversial. That is what is used by nearly everyone. It is Sowell and (on this board by cut-and-paste) Jono who is trying to substantiate the claim highly unorthodox claim that Hitler is left-wing.

As I said already Sowell's whole argument is one based on economic policy which is a very narrow way to classify people or parties as left- or right-wing and certainly not as broad as the usual definition. After all it isn't Hitler's economic policies that people generally find to have been the most repugnant part of his platform.

In my view Sowell's argument is very shallow special pleading and Jono's defense of the same boils down to the No True Scotsman fallacy to redefine everyone's political alignment based purely on their economic policy.

I can understand why Sowell might think economics and politics are the same thing. I'm not sure why Jono has made the same mistaken except that Jono seems to be particularly smitten with Sowell.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-02-2011, 12:57 PM
There seems to be a consensus that Nazism was a mass murdering (and, as such, extremist) political regime. Is the argument about it being left/right wing based on resemblance to (or extremity of) policies of modern left/right? or right/left at the time?

Jono argument is that Nazi's ideology was based on government being supreme to individual economically, as well as politically and socially. (hence extreme left wing)
Rincewind argument is that Nazi's ideology was based on nationalism (hence extreme right wing).

Are there any other criteria both sides want to apply?

Rincewind
04-02-2011, 02:16 PM
Jono argument is that Nazi's ideology was based on government being supreme to individual economically, as well as politically and socially. (hence extreme left wing)

Wrong. SowellJono's argument has been purely economic.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-02-2011, 02:57 PM
Wrong. SowellJono's argument has been purely economic.
OK, I'll let Jono correct it if he wishes. Do you you want to add anything to your line of arguments?

Rincewind
04-02-2011, 03:20 PM
OK, I'll let Jono correct it if he wishes.

No what you said about Jono's arguments is just plain wrong. Why would Jono correct your characterisation which claims he has a broader basis for his position than he actually does?


Do you you want to add anything to your line of arguments?


I'm happy with my arguments although not your characterisation which is shallow, incomplete and poorly expressed.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-02-2011, 03:36 PM
I'm happy with my arguments although not your characterisation which is shallow, incomplete and poorly expressed.
In this case would you re-post a short summary of your criteria in deciding whether Nazism is extreme left or right?
I invite Jono to do the same.

Rincewind
04-02-2011, 03:41 PM
In this case would you re-post a short summary of your criteria in deciding whether Nazism is extreme left or right?

No. I've made roughly a dozen posts most not about the position but answers to direct questions. I hardly think that reading those posts is an onerous task.

Manack
04-02-2011, 04:10 PM
The french revolutions left wing/right wing doesn't really work for anything except the french revolution. I thinking using the liberty, equality, fraternity triangle is better for ideological comparison.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TCH.FIG31.2.GIF

Rincewind
04-02-2011, 04:59 PM
The french revolutions left wing/right wing doesn't really work for anything except the french revolution.

I'm not sure what you mean by "works" but it has been used pretty much continuously for the last couple of hundred years I believe it must serve some purpose.


I thinking using the liberty, equality, fraternity triangle is better for ideological comparison.

Perhaps but the thread is really about Jono's statement that Hitler was a leftist and the triangle loses the sense of what does left or right mean.

An alternative would be to have two axes. Say a left/right horizontal axis for reformism on the left and traditionalist on the right (the standard meanings of left and right wing) and a liberal to authoritarian (upwards) on the vertical axis. In that scheme Nazis would be authoritarian right and Stalinists would be the authoritarian left.

Kevin made some point like this around post #6.

Spiny Norman
04-02-2011, 06:41 PM
I've understood for many years, based on observing the most extreme cases of "right wing" and "left wing", that both end up being extremely authoritarian. Whereas I have a suspicion that in the somewhat distant past, left-wing was viewed most as anarchistic.

I can't say I hold this view with great confidence.

So if you place anarchy at the extreme of left-wing, and authoritarianism at the extreme of right-wing, then Hitler is right-wing.

But if you use something more like the triangle model above, then you could argue for Hitler to be either left or right, depending on a whole host of factors.

I agree with the comment that he was a monster. Most extremists who are granted significant power, whether left- or right-wing, end up trending towards being monsters (e.g. Stalin, Mussolini, Kim Jong-Il, Mao Tse-Tung, etc).

EDIT: I've seen some argue that the political spectrum is a circle, with extreme right- and extreme-left ending up being the same thing (go far enough in either direction and you end up meeting someone going the opposite way).

Igor_Goldenberg
04-02-2011, 07:03 PM
No. I've made roughly a dozen posts most not about the position but answers to direct questions. I hardly think that reading those posts is an onerous task.
You disagreed with the summary of the criteria you use. If you want to use other criteria apart from nationalism, could you please list them.

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2011, 07:10 PM
I've understood for many years, based on observing the most extreme cases of "right wing" and "left wing", that both end up being extremely authoritarian. Whereas I have a suspicion that in the somewhat distant past, left-wing was viewed most as anarchistic.

Mass-movement anarchists tended to associate themselves with "leftist" economics and were often either communist or socialist. But anarchism has always covered a huge range of economic positions. The diagram Manack posted comes from a website that deals with nasty governments. As a method for classifying nasty governments, and making the point that total state power = murder no matter what the government's economics, it does a good job. As a classification of ideologies, it's not so good.

One reason for this is that anarcho-communism is fine in theory but in practice people seem to only consistently communise at national level when forced. So while anarchist activists have often been communists, communist governments tend to be authoritarian rather than anarchist. Otherwise, they just don't last.

I just don't know where you would put anarcho-communism on that triangle, and if you tried putting it anywhere near anarcho-capitalism you'd be quite wrong, since the two have fundamentally different approaches in terms of the transition to an anarchist situation.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-02-2011, 07:20 PM
I just don't know where you would put anarcho-communism on that triangle, and if you tried putting it anywhere near anarcho-capitalism you'd be quite wrong, since the two have fundamentally different approaches in terms of the transition to an anarchist situation.
While anarcho-capitalism is possible, but very fragile, anarcho-communism is not possible in the first place, I can't even imagine non-contradictory theoretical model.

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2011, 08:15 PM
While anarcho-capitalism is possible, but very fragile, anarcho-communism is not possible in the first place, I can't even imagine non-contradictory theoretical model.

Get JaK to loan you some Kropotkin if he has any. Basically the idea (at least in Kropotkin's version) is that the people fill the role of the authoritarian state, because if anyone is or becomes too wealthy in property then the remainder spontaneously steal from the wealthy person and redistribute; since there is no police force and no law they won't be punished for doing so. Money is also abolished, as is land ownership.

In place of companies there are voluntary organisations that act as service providers so that everyone gets what they need (and to some degree want since these also cater for support of non-essential activities), and everyone of working age who isn't raising children works for these communal service providers for 5 hrs/day and then has the rest of the day off. All the property that is used for making stuff effectively belongs to anyone who needs to use it to provide communal services.

I don't think there's anything contradictory about it; I just think it relies on extremely optimistic assumptions about human nature.

Oepty
05-02-2011, 12:15 AM
Get JaK to loan you some Kropotkin if he has any. Basically the idea (at least in Kropotkin's version) is that the people fill the role of the authoritarian state, because if anyone is or becomes too wealthy in property then the remainder spontaneously steal from the wealthy person and redistribute; since there is no police force and no law they won't be punished for doing so. Money is also abolished, as is land ownership.

In place of companies there are voluntary organisations that act as service providers so that everyone gets what they need (and to some degree want since these also cater for support of non-essential activities), and everyone of working age who isn't raising children works for these communal service providers for 5 hrs/day and then has the rest of the day off. All the property that is used for making stuff effectively belongs to anyone who needs to use it to provide communal services.

I don't think there's anything contradictory about it; I just think it relies on extremely optimistic assumptions about human nature.

It strikes me as being optimistic to the point of fantasy. There is absolutely no way it could work. There are problems with gangs in countries which have governments that attempt to control them, without any control it would be a total disaster.
Scott

ER
05-02-2011, 12:43 AM
While anarcho-capitalism is possible, but very fragile, anarcho-communism is not possible in the first place, I can't even imagine non-contradictory theoretical model.


With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible. Without it, it necessarily becomes slavery and cannot exist. :P


Get JaK to loan you some Kropotkin if he has any.

That will be the day! :D Igor reading Kropotkin and poor old Peter Alekseyevich turning in his grave! :P

Capablanca-Fan
06-02-2011, 02:49 PM
Jono's revisionism is dangerous because it does not recognise the potential danger in right-wing ideologies such as tradition and nationalism which can be used to justify racism.
Nonsense. It was the Democrats in the USA who supported slavery, segregation in the federal government, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and filibustered civil rights legislation.


Your position of claiming such classifications are meaningless is dangerous because it seeks to downplay the lessons of history which often condemns civilisation to a repeat lecture.
Yes, what happens when big-government leftards, including Nazis and Communists gain power.

Capablanca-Fan
06-02-2011, 03:01 PM
The trouble with right-wing analysts like Sowell and right-wing idiots like Jono is they think that calling Hitler a right-wing politician taints the whole right with the extreme policies of Hitler and the National Socialists.
Of course, because there is nothing right-wing about Hitler, except for lefties who didn't like that they fought communists over the same ideological turf.


So they do a little revisionism, define right and left wing by economic policy alone
No it wasn't, although there were so many economic policies in common with American "progressives". It was the Nazis' statist anti-individualism that puts them on the left, as well as rigid secular schooling and abolition of home-schooling.


and then declare the right-wing purged of any sins.
Sure, you can impute sins to a group if you expand the definition to include nasty people in it, but such semantic sleight of hands prove nothing.

But if "right-wing" means free market economics and traditional values (conservative libertarianism), then the Nazis hated both planks.


It is the same trick Jono employed in vain to deny that Hitler and the German people were Christians. Jono would have you believe that some times earlier in the 1930s all German speaking people suddenly switched from 95% christians to neo-pagans and then in 1945 all switched back again. It is just a ridiculous proposition.
As I documented before, even in Ernst Mayr's childhood in pre-WW1 Germany, he said that biblical Christianity was practically non-existent. People like Haeckel had turned German culture into an evolutionary one. This was long before the Nazis. There was of course nothing Christian in the Nazis, who in fact wanted to wipe out Christianity. Here is one of their propaganda films, clearly documenting the evolutionary basis for their eugenics programs:
LiO_c5-6_Hw

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2011, 04:20 PM
It was the Nazis' statist anti-individualism that puts them on the left, as well as rigid secular schooling and abolition of home-schooling.

Home-schooling is not really a major political issue (except for those who wish to engage in it). It is not an issue on which left-vs-right can be easily categorised either.

Statist anti-individualism is far too common in politics for it to be considered a defining characteristic of either wing.


But if "right-wing" means free market economics and traditional values (conservative libertarianism), then the Nazis hated both planks.

Reactionary values are even more right-wing than "traditional values" - both being about the supposed past - and Nazism had those in spades. Nazis sought to wind back the clock to an era of racial purity and boot out all the Jews and other modernists (left and right) who had infiltrated the Aryan nation. They opposed the "conservatives" of their time because the conservatives resisted their radical upheavals and were therefore an obstacle, not because the conservatives were of another wing.

Rincewind
06-02-2011, 07:58 PM
Nonsense. It was the Democrats in the USA who supported slavery, segregation in the federal government, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and filibustered civil rights legislation.

As noted previously on this board (you must have not been paying attention) prior to the 1900s the Democrats were actually further to the right than the Republicans.

Perhaps you are relying on people unfamiliar with the history of American politics who might assume that Democrats = Left and Republican = Right since the year dot.


Yes, what happens when big-government leftards, including Nazis and Communists gain power.

Just keep repeating the mistruths Jono, just like that other great right-wing propagangist... name starts with a G. :)

Desmond
06-02-2011, 10:17 PM
Just keep repeating the mistruths Jono, just like that other great right-wing propagangist... name starts with a G. :)Gus?

ER
06-02-2011, 11:04 PM
Gus?

here is a clue "Go ... " as if you needed it! :P

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2011, 11:10 PM
here is a clue "Go ... " as if you needed it! :P

Gordon Brown. :owned:

ER
06-02-2011, 11:22 PM
Gordon Brown. :owned:
Well considering the £34 million he allegedly spent for his propaganda makes the other Go... look like a preppie in a kinda open day! :P

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2011, 11:45 PM
Well considering the £34 million he allegedly spent for his propaganda makes the other Go... look like a preppie in a kinda open day! :P

I wonder what the other Go... would have spent adjusted for inflation. Of course it would have been cheaper after 1933 with no more election campaigns required.

Capablanca-Fan
07-02-2011, 05:18 AM
As noted previously on this board (you must have not been paying attention) prior to the 1900s the Democrats were actually further to the right than the Republicans.
Rubbish. Woodrow Wilson, a hero to the Left and a former academic, introduced the Income Tax, segregated the Federal Government, and loved the KKK.


Perhaps you are relying on people unfamiliar with the history of American politics who might assume that Democrats = Left and Republican = Right since the year dot.
Many tell me that I know much more about American politics than most Americans. So I doubt that I need your revisionism to try to excuse the Dems' sordid racist past.


Just keep repeating the mistruths Jono, just like that other great right-wing propagangist... name starts with a G. :)
Gareth Evans?

Rincewind
07-02-2011, 08:11 AM
Rubbish. Woodrow Wilson, a hero to the Left and a former academic, introduced the Income Tax, segregated the Federal Government, and loved the KKK.

Woodrow Wilson was post 1900 I said "prior to the 1900s the Democrats were actually further to the right than the Republicans." I didn't assert anything about Woodrow Wilson. For an amateur logician you seem to fall into surprisingly simple logical fallacies when you argue.

Given his deeply religious background I'm not surprised by the KKK link.


Many tell me that I know much more about American politics than most Americans. So I doubt that I need your revisionism to try to excuse the Dems' sordid racist past.

I don't just pointing out that the Republicans and Democrats have split formed coalitions and changed a lot over the years. It doesn't make sense to trace the modern Democrats ideologically back much farther than Franklin D Roosevelt whose controversial New Deal program set a new ideological agenda for the party. Likewise the republican party prior to 1912 and Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party split was responsible for the rightward movement of the republicans.

So prior to those tumultuous times the republicans were the left, had the democrats were the right.


Gareth Evans?

Very, very close. :lol: Except the guy I was thinking of had a limp.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-02-2011, 08:15 AM
Any chance of Rincewind addressing #45?

Igor_Goldenberg
07-02-2011, 08:16 AM
Another question to both sides:
1. List five mass murdering left-wing regimes.
2. List five mass murdering right-wing regimes.

Don't put Hitler's on your list (yet!) as it is still in contention.

Rincewind
07-02-2011, 08:20 AM
Any chance of Rincewind addressing #45?

No you are just wasting time and your last post makes it clear you have an agenda beyond the subject of this thread. Go start you own thread before jacking this one.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-02-2011, 08:42 AM
Both sides are silent, but it looks like there is little argument that:

1. Nazi's nationalism is normally associated with right wing policies
2. Nazi's economical collectivism is normally associated with left wing policies.
3. Nazi's restriction of civil liberties is associated with either left or right wing policies depending on who is arguing (but definetely anti-libertarian).

Let's look at their social policies. Are they traditionally associated with left or right wing policies? Which of them are currently supported by moderate right and left wing parties?

1. Centralised state education
2. Extensive social welfare programs
3. Strong anti-tobacco laws
4. Opposition to women's further education and work out of home
5. "liberal code of conduct as regards sexual matters"
6. "Reich Nature Protection Act" with the concept of "perpetual forest".
7. Animal-protection laws
8. Oppression of homosexuals.
9. Support of euthanasia.

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2011, 11:25 AM
2. Nazi's economical collectivism is normally associated with left wing policies.

What "collectivism"? The Nazis were fine with profit-making businesses so long as those were consistent with their objectives. Some of them started out as socialists but that was abandoned soon enough. When they interfered with businesses it wasn't generally for redistributionist processes.

I don't see how Nazi economic policies can be attributed consistently to either wing.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-02-2011, 01:44 PM
What "collectivism"? The Nazis were fine with profit-making businesses so long as those were consistent with their objectives. Some of them started out as socialists but that was abandoned soon enough. When they interfered with businesses it wasn't generally for redistributionist processes.

I don't see how Nazi economic policies can be attributed consistently to either wing.
They were definitely to the far left from the free market, even though not as extreme as Soviet's. They regulated economy much more then many modern government that are considered left-wing. The other question to ask:
After seizing power in 1933, did they tighten the government control of the economy or relaxed it?

However, I'd like to see comments on their social policies.

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2011, 02:09 PM
They were definitely to the far left from the free market

Proves nothing even if true since if you set economic freedom as a criterion of the right then the free market is itself a polar extreme. That leaves you with them being far left of far right = approximately in the middle.

Frankly I wonder if the whole approach of trying to classify an economic left-right axis using the question of whether there is market intervention may all be a bad idea anyway. So few regimes of any kind are genuinely free-market or close to it that it may make more sense to classify economic right-left according to the degree and purposes of intervention rather than the extent of it. Thus intervention (beyond a minimal degree) for redistributionist purposes, protection of the poor, or to impose environmental restrictions might be considered "left". Intervention to support crony corporatism, to prop up war machines or to smash unions and consumer free expression might be considered "right". On that sort of view the pure free market is close to the centre (a little right of it if it lacks even minimal interventions) and interventionists occur on both sides.


After seizing power in 1933, did they tighten the government control of the economy or relaxed it?

Well, they tightened government control of almost everything, which is what totalitarian regimes generally do.

Oepty
07-02-2011, 03:23 PM
Another question to both sides:
1. List five mass murdering left-wing regimes.
2. List five mass murdering right-wing regimes.

Don't put Hitler's on your list (yet!) as it is still in contention.

Here is a list someone has put together of mass murdering regimes, no idea if it is accurate. I had heard of alot but far from all of them and no idea of the polical bent of most of them.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Scott

Desmond
07-02-2011, 03:44 PM
Here is a list someone has put together of mass murdering regimes, no idea if it is accurate. I had heard of alot but far from all of them and no idea of the polical bent of most of them.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Scott
Oh well, these are all obviously left-wing. Right, Jono? ;)

The notes at the bottom of the list are interesting.

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2011, 04:00 PM
Some of that site's judgements about who to include/exclude seem rather arbitrary/subjective to me.

Capablanca-Fan
07-02-2011, 04:36 PM
Woodrow Wilson was post 1900
His presidency was, but his philosophy was set before then as a leftist academic.


I said "prior to the 1900s the Democrats were actually further to the right than the Republicans."
Where is your proof?


Given his deeply religious background I'm not surprised by the KKK link..
Recall the indictment of former Ku Klux Klansman Bobby Frank Cherry for murder, for his alleged part in the KKK bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, 15 September 1963, which killed four black girls. This shows once more the virulently anti-Christian attitudes held by fanatical racists.


I don't just pointing out that the Republicans and Democrats have split formed coalitions and changed a lot over the years. It doesn't make sense to trace the modern Democrats ideologically back much farther than Franklin D Roosevelt whose controversial New Deal program set a new ideological agenda for the party.
Fine, his ilk regarded Mussolini and the Fascists as fellow travellers, since their policies were so similar.


Likewise the republican party prior to 1912 and Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party split was responsible for the rightward movement of the republicans.
Teddy was quite progressive.

I still haven't seen any evidence that Fascists had anything in common with the conservative libertarians of the political right today.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-02-2011, 04:40 PM
Here is a list someone has put together of mass murdering regimes, no idea if it is accurate. I had heard of alot but far from all of them and no idea of the polical bent of most of them.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Scott
There are different lists with different estimation, some of then more accurate, some of them less. This one seems not to be way off the mark, even though can't say for sure. Looking at the list:

1. Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
2. Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
3. Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
4. Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
5. Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
6. Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 7. Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
8. Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
9. Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
10. Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
11. Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
12. Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000

#1, 2,8,9,10 are widely accepted as left wings.
#12 is associated with USSR, but I am not sure it's relevant to the discussion.
#7 and #11 I know nothing about, can't comment
#3 is currently debated on this forum.
#4 is a colonial war which is probably associated with neither left or right
#5 or #6 (Japan at WWII and Turkey at WWI) - don't know. In literature they are usually not referred to as "extreme right wing" or "extreme left wing", so feel free to interpret according to your ideological/political views.

Capablanca-Fan
07-02-2011, 04:49 PM
Oh well, these are all obviously left-wing. Right, Jono? ;)
Most are, that's for sure, and it's not surprising: leftism requires a big, powerful government, just the thing to enable power-hungry murderers:

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000

[Edit: I see Igor beat me an analysis]


The notes at the bottom of the list are interesting.
Agreed.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-02-2011, 04:56 PM
Proves nothing even if true since if you set economic freedom as a criterion of the right then the free market is itself a polar extreme. That leaves you with them being far left of far right = approximately in the middle.
I compare them with developed countries of the time and modern political parties in Western World.


Frankly I wonder if the whole approach of trying to classify an economic left-right axis using the question of whether there is market intervention may all be a bad idea anyway. So few regimes of any kind are genuinely free-market or close to it that it may make more sense to classify economic right-left according to the degree and purposes of intervention rather than the extent of it. Thus intervention (beyond a minimal degree) for redistributionist purposes, protection of the poor, or to impose environmental restrictions might be considered "left". Intervention to support crony corporatism, to prop up war machines or to smash unions and consumer free expression might be considered "right". On that sort of view the pure free market is close to the centre (a little right of it if it lacks even minimal interventions) and interventionists occur on both sides.


Everyone can redefine the criteria they way it suits them. Some do it constantly to achieve desirable effect.

Rincewind
07-02-2011, 08:04 PM
Everyone can redefine the criteria they way it suits them. Some do it constantly to achieve desirable effect.

No it just seems to be Sowell who is doing the redefinition based on purely economic grounds. The reason of course is that he is an economist and sees economic policy as the defining feature. He is also a advocate of laissez-faire who views any intervention as undesirable and (so) the product of "leftist thinking". Unfortunately his ideas have infected a few posters here, but fortunately not political science generally.

Rincewind
07-02-2011, 09:04 PM
His presidency was, but his philosophy was set before then as a leftist academic.

Well Ipse dixit but he wasn't even in public office until 1911 and was only elected to presidential office thanks to the Teddy Roosevelt Bull Moose party split the Republican vote.


Where is your proof?

It's a widely-held view of political historians. The Republicans of the 1800s generally held more progressive views of issues such as slavery (and after the emancipation) on segregation. This certainly changed by the mid-1900s when racial equality and other social change policies were being adopted by the democrats. I believe you have made this point however you get into the mistake of assuming Democrat = left and Republican = right. This simply is not the case throughout history.


Recall the indictment of former Ku Klux Klansman Bobby Frank Cherry for murder, for his alleged part in the KKK bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, 15 September 1963, which killed four black girls. This shows once more the virulently anti-Christian attitudes held by fanatical racists.

I think in that case race trumped faith. He wasn't anti-Christian (as he was no doubt a christian himself) but rather just hated people of African descent.


Fine, his ilk regarded Mussolini and the Fascists as fellow travellers, since their policies were so similar.

Not his social policies and there were many people who thought the fascists were getting things done without knowing the details of the methods. Certainly Franklin D Roosevelt lead the US into a war against Mussolini and Italian nationals who would not take out US citizenship or publicly supported Mussolini were arrested. Hardly the policies of someone who saw the fascists as fellow travelers.


Teddy was quite progressive.

Indeed and so removing the progressives from the Republican gene pool leads to...


I still haven't seen any evidence that Fascists had anything in common with the conservative libertarians of the political right today.

That wasn't the claim. YOUR claim was that Hitler was a lefty. I won't use your exact wording as I find the term you used insensitive.

So what YOU need to show is that Hitler was indeed leftist.

Now Sowell has some idea that economic policy is the sole differentiator of political leanings but apart from this economist-centric and self-serving analysis I know of no serious political scientist holding this view. Unfortunately the internet IS full of nutters who share your (and Sowell's) view.

Now I know what Sowell said and I know that if you look at government control yes Hitler was a control freak. However this is a feature of totalitarian regimes and not whether such regimes are left- or right-wing.

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2011, 11:07 PM
I still haven't seen any evidence that Fascists had anything in common with the conservative libertarians of the political right today.

I still haven't seen any evidence that libertarians (conservative or otherwise) have that much in common with much of the political right today themselves, unless you define the right in such a way as to make almost everyone lefties. Much as I loathe the fairly common leftist practice of calling right-wingers "fascists" just because the leftist thinks they're mean, if you asked me to place Howard on a line running from Hitler to Ayn Rand I think I'd put him somewhere near the middle.

For more exciting information on "conservative libertarianism" (which is hardly that widely held a view - maybe a third of the Ron Paul support base?) see The 24 Types of Libertarian (http://www.leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/), specifically "Bizarrely Hypocritical".

Capablanca-Fan
08-02-2011, 03:10 AM
Well Ipse dixit but he wasn't even in public office until 1911 and was only elected to presidential office thanks to the Teddy Roosevelt Bull Moose party split the Republican vote.
Yes, one of the crass things of America's "first past the post" system. I read a column a while back on this arguing that if even a popular ex-president, war hero and Nobel laureate couldn't win as a third party, then third parties have no hope in America today.


It's a widely-held view of political historians. The Republicans of the 1800s generally held more progressive views of issues such as slavery (and after the emancipation) on segregation.
Why this should be called "progressive" is anyone's guess, except that it fits leftist propaganda, when actual soi-disant "progressives" favoured segregation. Of course, as Sowell points out:


‘The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called “the religious right” and its organization was created by conservative businessmen. Moreover, what destroyed slavery in the non-Western world was Western imperialism.’ ‘Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today’s intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world.’

See also Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero (http://creation.com/anti-slavery-activist-william-wilberforce-christian-hero).


This certainly changed by the mid-1900s when racial equality and other social change policies were being adopted by the democrats.
After long being GOP policy. The Right favour the individuals and family; the Left love to divide people into racial groups. Thus it was the Dems who were the last hangouts against racial equality. Now they support racial quotas and "affirmative action", so their mentality hasn't really changed.


I think in that case race trumped faith. He wasn't anti-Christian (as he was no doubt a christian himself) but rather just hated people of African descent.
He was a very liberal Presbyterian, and theological liberalism is not Christianity at all.


Not his social policies and there were many people who thought the fascists were getting things done without knowing the details of the methods. Certainly Franklin D Roosevelt lead the US into a war against Mussolini and Italian nationals who would not take out US citizenship or publicly supported Mussolini were arrested. Hardly the policies of someone who saw the fascists as fellow travelers.
But the Progressives did in fact see them as fellow travellers until they invaded other countries. The more extreme Left in America wanted the country to stay out of the war as long as Hitler and Stalin were allies.


Indeed and so removing the progressives from the Republican gene pool leads to...
Tea Partiers?


That wasn't the claim. YOUR claim was that Hitler was a lefty. I won't use your exact wording as I find the term you used insensitive.
It is still my claim.


So what YOU need to show is that Hitler was indeed leftist.
Already done. But those who call the fascists "extreme right" need to make a proper case.


Now Sowell has some idea that economic policy is the sole differentiator of political leanings but apart from this economist-centric and self-serving analysis I know of no serious political scientist holding this view. Unfortunately the internet IS full of nutters who share your (and Sowell's) view.
As shown, Sowell also shows how many of the "social conservative" views are also not shared by the Fascists.


Now I know what Sowell said and I know that if you look at government control yes Hitler was a control freak. However this is a feature of totalitarian regimes and not whether such regimes are left- or right-wing.
Bigger government is a facet of the Left.

Capablanca-Fan
08-02-2011, 03:18 AM
Frankly I wonder if the whole approach of trying to classify an economic left-right axis using the question of whether there is market intervention may all be a bad idea anyway. So few regimes of any kind are genuinely free-market or close to it that it may make more sense to classify economic right-left according to the degree and purposes of intervention rather than the extent of it. Thus intervention (beyond a minimal degree) for redistributionist purposes, protection of the poor, or to impose environmental restrictions might be considered "left". Intervention to support crony corporatism, to prop up war machines or to smash unions and consumer free expression might be considered "right". On that sort of view the pure free market is close to the centre (a little right of it if it lacks even minimal interventions) and interventionists occur on both sides.
I wouldn't use this analysis. I would rather deduce from the above facts that many of the "right" politicians are really left, in that they agree that money should be taken by force and given to special interest. They disagree only on which special interests should be the recipients. Of course, they never call their own constituency "special interests"—it's only other politicians who are in hock to special interests; I bring important funds to my district that benefit the country.

And "redistribution" is a misleading term, since most wealth is not distributed in the first place. Rather, it is earned; then saved, invested or spent.

Capablanca-Fan
08-02-2011, 03:35 AM
No it just seems to be Sowell who is doing the redefinition based on purely economic grounds. The reason of course is that he is an economist and sees economic policy as the defining feature. He is also a advocate of laissez-faire who views any intervention as undesirable and (so) the product of "leftist thinking". Unfortunately his ideas have infected a few posters here, but fortunately not political science generally.
Sowell started off as a Marxist! He explains that explains that working for the government turned him from a liberal to a conservative, when he saw that the bureaucrats had no interest in whether their programs actually made people better off. They showed no interest in whether minimum wage laws, for example, actually helped the poor. Leftists also ignore man's flawed nature. Listen to his three basic questions for leftist policies.


5KHdhrNhh88&NR=1

I.e. it was empirical evidence that turned him into an advocate of both the free market and traditional morality, and this required turning around his vision about humanity. He argues that both are the results of millions of individuals solving the same sorts of problems, and with more total knowledge than any elite Anointed planners could have. See also:


From Marxism to the Market (http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/markets/1331-from-marxism-to-the-market.html)
Sowell interview (http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/11/10/sowell)

Rincewind
08-02-2011, 05:36 AM
Jono,

You're just a hopeless case. Your argument comes down to...


Bigger government is a facet of the Left.

which is not true.

Next.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-02-2011, 08:44 AM
No you are just wasting time and your last post makes it clear you have an agenda beyond the subject of this thread. Go start you own thread before jacking this one.
Looks like you keep evading discussing the facts and substance.
If your claim that Hitler's regime was an extreme right-wing is correct, you'd have no problem addressing #45,#63 and #65.

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2011, 09:23 AM
I wouldn't use this analysis. I would rather deduce from the above facts that many of the "right" politicians are really left, in that they agree that money should be taken by force and given to special interest. They disagree only on which special interests should be the recipients.

But this leads to a version in which virtually everyone is a leftie or a centrist and there are very few right-wingers. Similarly, hardline lefties have versions in which virtually everyone is either right or centre-right and the left consists only of the Greens and the socialists. Neither version works because the point of these classifications is to crudely express two directions of divergence from the centre, not to provide with-us-or-against-us classifications for hardliners.

Desmond
08-02-2011, 10:45 AM
Sowell started off as a Marxist! He explains that explains that working for the government turned him from a liberal to a conservative, when he saw that the bureaucrats had no interest in whether their programs actually made people better off... I'm curious about how long he worked for the government in such a role before retreating to academia for the majority of his career. From his wiki page he seems to have worked there while studying, and after holding jobs such as delivery man and being discharged after being drafted to the marines. One would imagine he held a fairly junior position there and if such a person asks a lot of questions and wants to turn the whole department on its head, they may well be told their place and put your head down and do some work. Can you shed any light Jono?

Rincewind
08-02-2011, 04:41 PM
Looks like you keep evading discussing the facts and substance.

I just don't have time to waste on feckless nuthuggers.


If your claim that Hitler's regime was an extreme right-wing is correct, you'd have no problem addressing #45,#63 and #65.

Facts and substance were provided in posts #4 and #8. Not to mention the fact that real political scientists (not right-wing economists or internet loonies) consistently categorise Hitler and his regime as right-wing. Hence my position is that of the mainstream and it is Jono which is questioning the considered opinion of specialist political scientists and certainly deserves a the lion share of the burden of proof.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-02-2011, 07:50 PM
Facts and substance were provided in posts #4 and #8.
By no means. All you did was refer to the dictionary that says Nazism and fascism is a right wing ideology, yet neither you nor the source you mentioned substantiate it.
You might be confused by the difference between stating and substantiating.


Not to mention the fact that real political scientists (not right-wing economists or internet loonies) consistently categorise Hitler and his regime as right-wing. Hence my position is that of the mainstream and it is Jono which is questioning the considered opinion of specialist political scientists and certainly deserves a the lion share of the burden of proof.
It is a well established myth, yet they do not substantiate it (by, for example, showing that majority of Nazi's policies were right wing).
Jono shown some of Hitler's policies to be left wing. You can dispute them, or list policies that are distinctly right wing (clue - there are some, but you have to do your own work.)


I just don't have time to waste on feckless nuthuggers.
We all know that you feel more comfortable with personal abuse then logical arguments. This time, however, I'll decline your invitation.

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2011, 08:32 PM
It is a well established myth, yet they do not substantiate it (by, for example, showing that majority of Nazi's policies were right wing).

And how would you know this? Are you fully familiar with the political science literature on this topic?

Listing policies and saying you can come up with X supposedly left wing ones and Y right wing ones and X>Y therefore a party is left doesn't cut it. You also have to consider the importance and contentiousness of each of these policies. Nazi attitudes to animal protection, tobacco or homeschooling are just nowhere near as significant as Nazi attitudes to Poland, democracy or Jews.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-02-2011, 08:19 AM
And how would you know this? Are you fully familiar with the political science literature on this topic?
Is there anyone who is fully familiar with the political science literature?
Given the impact of the war on Soviet Union there was a lot of literature that covered Germany between wars, and I read a lot about that part of history.
The Soviet ideological position (that they actively promoted inside and outside of USSR) was that Nazies were extreme right wing, but rarely (if ever) substantiated with analysis. It is understandable, they had to claim that fascism was a direct opposite of communism. Official Soviet ideology could not tolerate any mentioning of resemblance between communists and fascists policies.
Back to your original question - I can't claim to be fully familiar with the political science literature on this topic, but I probably read more then everyone participating in this discussion combined.


Listing policies and saying you can come up with X supposedly left wing ones and Y right wing ones and X>Y therefore a party is left doesn't cut it. You also have to consider the importance and contentiousness of each of these policies.
Then you have to admit that painting them as right wing party is equally unfounded.


Nazi attitudes to animal protection, tobacco or homeschooling are just nowhere near as significant as Nazi attitudes to Poland, democracy or Jews.
Mass murder is not a domain of right wing. As the site Scott pointed to shows, there are more left-wing dictatorships responsible for atrocities.
Which means that the mere fact of criminality of regime or mass murder is not sufficient to brand it as right wing.

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2011, 09:25 AM
Is there anyone who is fully familiar with the political science literature?

Probably not. But you need to be very familiar with it to make the claim you do.


Given the impact of the war on Soviet Union there was a lot of literature that covered Germany between wars, and I read a lot about that part of history.

So? That is not political science literature, it is history.


The Soviet ideological position (that they actively promoted inside and outside of USSR) was that Nazies were extreme right wing, but rarely (if ever) substantiated with analysis.

And Soviet ideology is not the same thing as political science.


Back to your original question - I can't claim to be fully familiar with the political science literature on this topic, but I probably read more then everyone participating in this discussion combined.

In terms of actual political science literature I would not be so sure about that. Want to prove it by giving some examples?


Then you have to admit that painting them as right wing party is equally unfounded.

No, because that is not the method by which they are classified as right-wing.


Mass murder is not a domain of right wing.

Indeed not. But mass murder for the purposes of setting up a communist state and crushing resistance to it is quite different in underlying motives and targets to mass murder in the interests of nationalistic expansion, racism and homophobia. My point is not that mass murder defines the Nazis as of the right, but that mass murder based on particular policies makes those policies carry far more weight than others.

Rincewind
09-02-2011, 12:06 PM
Listing policies and saying you can come up with X supposedly left wing ones and Y right wing ones and X>Y therefore a party is left doesn't cut it. You also have to consider the importance and contentiousness of each of these policies.

The point it is it is the right-wing camp is just engaging in special pleading. The don't want Hitler to be classified a as right-wing because that is what they are but the same degree of deference is not shown to left-wing regimes. Exactly like the special pleading that went on after the Holocaust with the program to systematical dechristianify the Nazi regime - despite the fact that if you look at the biblical content of one of Hitler's speeches and the biblical content in say a George Bush speech then if anything Hitler referred to the bible more.

A good counterexample would be to say look at the separation between church and state as your right-wing or left-wing indicator. I'm not proposing that this IS a good idea but it is certainly no worse that the free-market indicator employed by Sowell and enthusiastically proselytised by Jono.

Using church/state separation you would classify the present French government as perhaps left-wing or even ultra left-wing. Germany (at least in the first half of C20) Denmark, etc as right-wing. Many middle-eastern countries as right-wing and a case could even be made for Stalinist Russia as right-wing where the state endeavoured to enforce a disassociation from all religion, except for a few state sanctioned pseudosciences like Lysenkoism.

As I said I am not suggesting this is a good classification but rather as a demonstration (via reductio ad absurdum) that an overly simplistic view of politics can lead to an arbitrary classification of any regime into any label you like. My personal view is that of mainstream political science. Hitler was right-wing, Stalin was left-wing, both were bad.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-02-2011, 01:23 PM
In terms of actual political science literature I would not be so sure about that. Want to prove it by giving some examples?
Won't help you much, most of them were in Russian.




No, because that is not the method by which they are classified as right-wing.
Then you have to list the methods by which they are classified as right-wing (something Rincewind ostensibly refused to do).



Indeed not. But mass murder for the purposes of setting up a communist state and crushing resistance to it is quite different in underlying motives and targets to mass murder in the interests of nationalistic expansion, racism and homophobia. My point is not that mass murder defines the Nazis as of the right, but that mass murder based on particular policies makes those policies carry far more weight than others.
That's why I went through the list of mass murdering regimes. Half of them were left wing dictatorship, another half difficult to classify. That shows that left-wing regimes are more prone (mostly ideologically) to mass murder then the rest. Given that Nazi's crimes were ideologically driven, we need to examine their policies.

Btw, there were quite a lot of books in post-communist Russia showing striking similarity between Soviet and German ideology.

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2011, 08:08 PM
Won't help you much, most of them were in Russian.

Well if most of them were in Russian then that alone shows your sample of political science literature is skewed. But in any case if they are leading Russian political scholars it is very likely there will be western commentary on their ideas somewhere.


Then you have to list the methods by which they are classified as right-wing (something Rincewind ostensibly refused to do).

If I had to break it down to a single overall word that covers a lot of the classifications, inegalitarianism. The left can be very broadly characterised by a tendency to push societies (in some cases violently) more towards equalities of rights, opportunities or in more extreme cases outcome, and the right by various strands of resistance to this. The capitalist only resists equality of outcome. The far-right types resist pretty much any notion of general human equality, including the equal right to live for those of a disliked race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, medical status etc.


Btw, there were quite a lot of books in post-communist Russia showing striking similarity between Soviet and German ideology.

Of course there are plenty of similarities to be found between the extreme left and the extreme right.

Capablanca-Fan
10-02-2011, 11:21 AM
The capitalist only resists equality of outcome.
No they (we) don't. Milton Friedman and Adam Smith both expressed concern about the real grinding poverty of their day, and both were very generous with their own money. What they resist is forced equality of outcome,a and the resistance is not due to the equality but to the force, They have no problem if this equality were to arise freely.


The far-right types resist pretty much any notion of general human equality, including the equal right to live for those of a disliked race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, medical status etc.
Why this should be defined as "far right" is beyond me. The American Progressives supported racial segregation in the days of Wilson and FDR. They were also very big on eugenics.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-02-2011, 03:02 PM
Equal treatment of the races/ethnic groups versus unequal treatment of the races/ethnic groups:
which one is left wing and which one is right wing?

Rincewind
10-02-2011, 03:12 PM
Equal treatment of the races/ethnic groups versus unequal treatment of the races/ethnic groups:
which one is left wing and which one is right wing?

According to the first sentence wiki page which cites two references

"In politics, Left, left-wing and leftist are generally used to describe support for social change to create a more egalitarian society."

I point out that the word "generally" is used there and race/ethnicity are not the only sources of inequality in society but I hope that answers your question. I think a more specific answer would be misleading.

BTW the references (which I haven't checked but you could if sufficiently motivated) are

1. T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. Pp 30.

2. Left and right: the significance of a political distinction, Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron, pg. 37, University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-02-2011, 03:15 PM
According to the first sentence wiki page which cites two references

"In politics, Left, left-wing and leftist are generally used to describe support for social change to create a more egalitarian society."

I point out that the word "generally" is used there and race/ethnicity are not the only sources of inequality in society but I hope that answers your question.
Not at all.


I think a more specific answer would be misleading.

Looks like another candidate for "the questions that make leftists chook..."

ER
10-02-2011, 07:02 PM
Looks like another candidate for "the questions that make leftists chook..."

choke? :hmm: :P

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2011, 08:18 PM
No they (we) don't. Milton Friedman and Adam Smith both expressed concern about the real grinding poverty of their day, and both were very generous with their own money.

But not sufficiently so as to bring about genuine equality of outcome. Also capitalist ideology is not uniform on this score, eg Ayn Rand said there was nothing wrong with charity so long as it wasn't coerced, but was far from keen to positively advocate it.


What they resist is forced equality of outcome,a and the resistance is not due to the equality but to the force, They have no problem if this equality were to arise freely.

It never would. You're correct that it's only coerced attempts at equality of outcome that capitalism opposes, but no other sort is even likely to ever threaten to arise.


Why this should be defined as "far right" is beyond me. The American Progressives supported racial segregation in the days of Wilson and FDR. They were also very big on eugenics.

Quite a long time ago now and clearly not relevant to much of the modern left.

Rincewind
10-02-2011, 10:22 PM
Not at all.

Well you can lead a troll to water but you can't make him think.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-02-2011, 08:43 AM
choke? :hmm: :P
And choke as well :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
11-02-2011, 08:47 AM
Well you can lead a troll to water but you can't make him think.
"Never wrestle with a pig - you'll both get dirty, and the pig will love it,",
therefore I have to decline your invitation again.

Capablanca-Fan
11-02-2011, 09:09 AM
Equal treatment of the races/ethnic groups versus unequal treatment of the races/ethnic groups:
which one is left wing and which one is right wing?
Also depends whether it's equal treatment under the law or an attempt to enforce inequality by unequal enforcement, such as the left-supported racist Affirmative Action programs. The Left now wish that the lifelong Republican MLK hadn't said that his dream was a society where people would be judged by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin. Leftists now hate both: they support race preferences, and oppose "judging" character (unless it's to say that conservatives are evil).

Capablanca-Fan
11-02-2011, 09:16 AM
But not sufficiently so as to bring about genuine equality of outcome.
They realise it is impossible, as you did also below. For example, the average 45yo has more income and wealth than the average 25yo. The former is simply because he has more experience, and even if the income didn't rise, he's had 20 more years to save and invest.


It never would. You're correct that it's only coerced attempts at equality of outcome that capitalism opposes, but no other sort is even likely to ever threaten to arise.
The point remains that it's not the inequality that capitalism opposes per se, but the coercion.


Quite a long time ago now and clearly not relevant to much of the modern left.
Interesting that a lot of heroes of the Left were strong eugenicists.

Rincewind
11-02-2011, 03:01 PM
"Never wrestle with a pig - you'll both get dirty, and the pig will love it,",
therefore I have to decline your invitation again.

Crass hypocrisy. I might be insulting but at least I don't adopt a holier than thou attitude while I do it.

Capablanca-Fan
11-02-2011, 06:41 PM
"Never wrestle with a pig - you'll both get dirty, and the pig will love it,",
therefore I have to decline your invitation again.
Good advice.:clap:

Rincewind
11-02-2011, 11:46 PM
Good advice.:clap:

Someone else who is no stranger to hypocrisy.

Capablanca-Fan
12-02-2011, 08:56 AM
“The problem with capitalism is capitalists. The problem with socialism is socialism.” Willi Schlamm, Austrian ex-socialist

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2011, 05:14 PM
jon7hnQSBcs&NR=1LiO_c5-6_Hw

Rincewind
14-02-2011, 06:00 PM
I rest my case.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-06-2012, 03:22 PM
Nazi - common short name in English of National Socialist German Workers' Party.
AFAIK, Socialist Workers' Party commonly associated with left.


Fascism (from Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Etymology)

The term fascismo is derived from the Latin word fasces. The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods that were tied around an axe, was an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate. They were carried by his lictors and could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.[21][22] The word fascismo also relates to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates.
Not exactly right or left by itself, but:
a) Collectivism against individualism - which is again associated with left.
b) Coined by Italian socialist Mussolini.

Rincewind
09-06-2012, 07:05 PM
Only one t in bit, Iggy, unless you talking about the vertical posts on the deck of a ship used to secure ropes.


Nazi - common short name in English of National Socialist German Workers' Party.
AFAIK, Socialist Workers' Party commonly associated with left.

Oh and the liberal party of Australia is liberal (also commonly associated with the left) and the Deutsche Demokratische Republik must have been democratic, right?


Not exactly right or left by itself, but:
a) Collectivism against individualism - which is again associated with left.
b) Coined by Italian socialist Mussolini.

Seems you didn't read the Wikipedia page far enough since it also says

Fascism (from Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Position_in_the_political_spectrum)


A major element of fascism that has been deemed as clearly far-right is its goal to promote the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements.

Likewise is you check out

Nazism (from Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Position_in_the_political_spectrum)


Far right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over others and purge society of supposed inferior elements.

So what is your point exactly?

Goughfather
09-06-2012, 11:07 PM
Nazi - common short name in English of National Socialist German Workers' Party.
AFAIK, Socialist Workers' Party commonly associated with left.


Fascism (from Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Etymology)

Not exactly right or left by itself, but:
a) Collectivism against individualism - which is again associated with left.
b) Coined by Italian socialist Mussolini.

Ahh, I get it. Facism is left wing/socialist because you declare the fascist leader Mussolini to be socialist, therefore fascism is socialist/left wing. All works pretty well until you realise Mussolini was not a socialist and in declaring him to be one, you are effectively asserting what you should be trying to prove.

Back to the drawing board, Iggy.

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2012, 08:34 AM
Ahh, I get it. Facism is left wing/socialist because you declare the fascist leader Mussolini to be socialist, therefore fascism is socialist/left wing. All works pretty well until you realise Mussolini was not a socialist and in declaring him to be one, you are effectively asserting what you should be trying to prove.
Mussolini was a leading socialist and atheopath, so you should love him. He edited a socialist newspaper, La Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle), then was appointed editor of the official Socialist newspaper Avanti. True, he formed his own party, but it was all about government control. The American progressives loved him until his international aggression.

Fighting communists doesn't make one a right winger. The Fascists were just squabbling over the same leftist ideological territory, like Stalin v Trotsky.

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2012, 08:38 AM
Oh and the liberal party of Australia is liberal (also commonly associated with the left)
No, liberal as in classical liberal, meaning free from government control. Modern "liberals" who love big government have hijacked the word.


URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Position_in_the_political_spectrum"]Fascism (from Wikipedia)[/URL]
Of course, they opposed the free market, private schools, and traditional values, normally staples of the Right.

Rincewind
10-06-2012, 11:03 AM
No, liberal as in classical liberal, meaning free from government control. Modern "liberals" who love big government have hijacked the word.

I love the way you consider historical contexts when it suits you but you still fail to appreciate that in 1800s US, the Republican party was left of the Democrats.

Anyway it is just proving the point that etymology is no way to decide whether a ideology should be classified as left or right.


Of course, they opposed the free market, private schools, and traditional values, normally staples of the Right.

Are you talking about Mussolini's fascism or Nazism here?

While initially anti-Catholic Mussolini eventually accommodated the church but continued to persecute the Pentecostals and Jehovah Witnesses. The Lateran Treaty of 1929 ensured Italy remained Catholic with the church having control of marriage, Catholicism would be taught in all secondary schools and birth control banned, all traditional values in Italy.

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2012, 11:13 AM
I love the way you consider historical contexts when it suits you but you still fail to appreciate that in 1800s US, the Republican party was left of the Democrats.
Crap. The Dems were always about racism and government restrictions of freedoms, both beloved policies of the Left.


While initially anti-Catholic Mussolini eventually accommodated the church but continued to persecute the Pentecostals and Jehovah Witnesses. The Lateran Treaty of 1929 ensured Italy remained Catholic with the church having control of marriage, Catholicism would be taught in all secondary schools and birth control banned, all traditional values in Italy.
Mussolini is listed in 10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name (http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/). And your beloved Wiki says:

Atheism and anti-clericalism
Mussolini was raised by a devoutly Catholic mother[134] and an anti-clerical father.[135] His mother Rosa had him baptized into the Roman Catholic Church, and took her children to services every Sunday. His father never attended.[134] Mussolini regarded his time at a religious boarding school as punishment, compared the experience to hell, and "once refused to go to morning mass and had to be dragged there by force".[136]
Mussolini would become anti-clerical like his father. As a young man, he "proclaimed himself to be an atheist and several times tried to shock an audience by calling on God to strike him dead."[135] He denounced socialists who were tolerant of religion, or who had their children baptized. He believed that science had proven there was no God, and that the historical Jesus was ignorant and mad. He considered religion a disease of the psyche, and accused Christianity of promoting resignation and cowardice.[135]
Mussolini was an admirer of Friedrich Nietzsche. According to Denis Mack Smith, "In Nietzsche he found justification for his crusade against the Christian virtues of humility, resignation, charity, and goodness."[137] He valued Nietzsche's concept of the superman, "The supreme egoist who defied both God and the masses, who despised egalitarianism and democracy, who believed in the weakest going to the wall and pushing them if they did not go fast enough."[137]
Mussolini made vitriolic attacks against Christianity and the Catholic Church, "which he accompanied with provocative and blasphemous remarks about the consecrated host and about a love affair between Christ and Mary Magdalen."[138] He believed that socialists who were Christian or who accepted religious marriage should be expelled from the party. He denounced the Catholic Church for "its authoritarianism and refusal to allow freedom of thought..." Mussolini's [socialist] newspaper, La Lotta di Classe, reportedly had an anti-Christian editorial stance.[138]
Lateran Pact
Despite making such attacks, Mussolini would try to win popular support by appeasing the Catholic majority in Italy
See, he was a lifelong fanatical atheopath, and only allied with the Church for political reasons.

Rincewind
10-06-2012, 11:41 AM
Crap. The Dems were always about racism and government restrictions of freedoms, both beloved policies of the Left.

:lol: You really are clueless Jono. I've outlined a number of times why you are wrong on this point. Your pigheadedness is noted.


Mussolini is listed

Just clarifying since this thread is about Nazism and the Fascism focus of late was introduced by Iggy. However I would classify Nazism as a flavour of Fascism.


Your beloved Wiki says:

My recent quoting of Wiki was again sparked by Iggy. You seem to either not read the thread too closely or igore the input of Mr Goldenberg, but this is the second time in a couple of weeks you have accused me of something like this when really I was responding to some Iggy-silliness.


See, he was a lifelong fanatical atheopath, and only allied with the Church for political reasons.

I never claimed he was a catholic (or even a theist) but he did accommodate the church, giving them a monopoly in secondary school religious instruction and adopting policies like vetoing birth control. This extended to his personal life including having his marriage confirmed (10 years after the civil ceremony) in the church and three of his children taking communion.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2012, 11:52 PM
Ahh, I get it. Facism is left wing/socialist because you declare the fascist leader Mussolini to be socialist, therefore fascism is socialist/left wing. All works pretty well until you realise Mussolini was not a socialist and in declaring him to be one, you are effectively asserting what you should be trying to prove.

Back to the drawing board, Iggy.
Before shouting your mouth off you might be well advised to open a book once (or search on the internet if you have problem with reading) and read a little bit about Mussolini.

Laserlite
11-06-2012, 12:45 AM
All works pretty well until you realise Mussolini was not a socialist.. He was once ! :) ........... but he got better ? ;)

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (Italian pronunciation: ; 29 July 1883 – 28 April 1945) was an Italian politician who led the National [B]Fascist Party, ruling the country from 1922 to his ousting in 1943, and is credited with being one of the key figures in the creation of fascism.

Originally a member of the Italian Socialist Party and editor of the Avanti! from 1912 to 1914, Mussolini fought in World War I as an ardent nationalist and created the Fasci di Combattimento in 1919, catalyzing his nationalist and socialist beliefs in the Fascist Manifesto, published in 1921. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

Rincewind
11-06-2012, 01:00 AM
He was once ! :) ........... but he got better ? ;)

Likewise Hitler was once a communist but he didn't talk about it all that much.

Goughfather
11-06-2012, 01:37 AM
He was once ! :) ........... but he got better ? ;)

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (Italian pronunciation: ; 29 July 1883 – 28 April 1945) was an Italian politician who led the National [B]Fascist Party, ruling the country from 1922 to his ousting in 1943, and is credited with being one of the key figures in the creation of fascism.

Originally a member of the Italian Socialist Party and editor of the Avanti! from 1912 to 1914, Mussolini fought in World War I as an ardent nationalist and created the Fasci di Combattimento in 1919, catalyzing his nationalist and socialist beliefs in the Fascist Manifesto, published in 1921. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

Whether Mussolini got better or worse I'll leave Jono and Iggy to commentate upon, but the simple fact is that Mussolini quite explicitly renounced socialism, so it seems quite strange for Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber to seek to tie Mussolini and fascism to left-wing politics.

Laserlite
11-06-2012, 01:43 AM
Likewise Hitler was once a communist but he didn't talk about it all that much.
So , we have Hitler and Mussolini .
I wonder what percentage of ruthless dictators started out as lefties ? :)

Capablanca-Fan
11-06-2012, 07:26 AM
Whether Mussolini got better or worse I'll leave Jono and Iggy to commentate upon, but the simple fact is that Mussolini quite explicitly renounced socialism, so it seems quite strange for Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber to seek to tie Mussolini and fascism to left-wing politics.
Who said Mussolini renounced socialism? He kept the big government control, never renounced his atheopathy (although like Obamov today, later curried favour with churches), still hated the free market. He just added military aggression to the mix.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-06-2012, 04:43 PM
Mussolini and Hitler called themselves socialists until their death. I understand it's an inconvenient truth for true believers in socialism, but it remains a fact.

Kevin Bonham
11-06-2012, 04:57 PM
Mussolini and Hitler called themselves socialists until their death.

So what (even if it's true)? Any number of dictatorial communists have claimed to be democrats (small d!), conservatives and socialists alike have claimed to be liberal, and illiberal hate-ridden frothing bibliopathic bigots have claimed to be Christians. Ron and Rand "I Like Mitt More Than My Dad" Paul have claimed to be libertarians.

You can't always judge a person's orientation by their self-labelling.

Goughfather
11-06-2012, 06:15 PM
Mussolini and Hitler called themselves socialists until their death. I understand it's an inconvenient truth for true believers in socialism, but it remains a fact.

Rubbish. Have you got a quote from either (or preferably both) of these individuals close to their death that justify this assertion?

Furthermore, presuming that your sloppy commentary intends some kind of reference towards myself, I challenge you to find any quote that I've made in which I declare myself to be a "true believer in socialism".

Desmond
11-06-2012, 07:17 PM
Rubbish. Have you got a quote from either (or preferably both) of these individuals close to their death that justify this assertion?

Furthermore, presuming that your sloppy commentary intends some kind of reference towards myself, I challenge you to find any quote that I've made in which I declare myself to be a "true believer in socialism".Come now GF, asking for evidence hardly seems fair now does it? We all know Igor assertions cannot stand up to such a request.

Capablanca-Fan
12-06-2012, 12:41 AM
Ron and Rand "I Like Mitt More Than My Dad" Paul have claimed to be libertarians.
Rand endorsed Romney only after his dad conceded the nomination. It makes good sense from a libertarian perspective as Paul supporter Jack Hunter explained.
3c5odNzKVbkERI52UndhE4

Kevin Bonham
12-06-2012, 10:37 AM
Rand endorsed Romney only after his dad conceded the nomination. It makes good sense from a libertarian perspective as Paul supporter Jack Hunter explained.

Yeah, Hunter's case for playing nice in order to better infiltrate later is fair enough strategically no matter how livid some of the Rondroids are about the situation so my comment about Rand was a cheapo. The problem is that neither Paul is a real libertarian in the first place.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-06-2012, 01:29 PM
Rubbish. Have you got a quote from either (or preferably both) of these individuals close to their death that justify this assertion?


Founder's words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_socialism)

Nazism's founder and chief advocate the late Adolf Hitler, called himself "a socialist":

I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism. --Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930 - Alan Bullock, Hitler: a Study in Tyranny, pp.156-7

More importantly, can you present an evidence that either Mussolini or Hitler rejected socialism?


Furthermore, presuming that your sloppy commentary intends some kind of reference towards myself, I challenge you to find any quote that I've made in which I declare myself to be a "true believer in socialism".

Your believe in socialism was quite evident from your constant, albeit quite chaotic, posting on this forum and professed undoing support for Labor party.. However, if you decided to recant and abandon support for socialism (or you never supported it and managed to fool everyone into thinking so):
a) it's a very pleasant development which I wholeheartedly welcome.
b) why are you getting your knickers into knot over my post showing etymology of both "nazism" and "fascism"?

Kevin Bonham
12-06-2012, 01:36 PM
A quote fifteen years prior to death is hardly evidence that someone called themselves a socialist "until their death". Nor is asking someone else to provide evidence that they didn't sufficient.

Rincewind
12-06-2012, 01:43 PM
A quote fifteen years prior to death is hardly evidence that someone called themselves a socialist "until their death". Nor is asking someone else to provide evidence that they didn't sufficient.

1930 was very early and at the time Hitler had not yet gained control of Germany and it was prior to the split in the Nazi party between Hitler and Otto Strasser as already mentioned in post #4 of this thread. I'd be interested in any quotes after 1934 but of course that is still a long way from 1945.

Desmond
12-06-2012, 01:55 PM
Your believe in socialism was quite evident from your constant, albeit quite chaotic, posting on this forum and professed undoing support for Labor party..Got a link to this profession of undoing support?


b) why are you getting your knickers into knot over my post showing etymology of both "nazism" and "fascism"?Oh yes where are my manners; you worked out what Nazi is short for. Obvious to most of us, but go treat yourself to a biscuit.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-06-2012, 02:33 PM
A quote fifteen years prior to death is hardly evidence that someone called themselves a socialist "until their death". Nor is asking someone else to provide evidence that they didn't sufficient.
Care to show that he changed his position?

Igor_Goldenberg
12-06-2012, 02:35 PM
Oh yes where are my manners;
Gone quite some time ago, I am afraid.

Kevin Bonham
12-06-2012, 02:39 PM
Care to show that he changed his position?

It was your claim that he maintained the position until his death. That's a positive claim of a continuing self-description. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that that self-description continued.

Let us suppose that Hitler called himself a socialist in 1930 and never discussed whether or not he was a socialist again. Then there would be no evidence that he changed his position but your claim would still be false. Therefore your question above is irrelevant.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-06-2012, 02:47 PM
It was your claim that he maintained the position until his death. That's a positive claim of a continuing self-description. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that that self-description continued.

Let us suppose that Hitler called himself a socialist in 1930 and never discussed whether or not he was a socialist again. Then there would be no evidence that he changed his position but your claim would still be false. Therefore your question above is irrelevant.
Hitler died (reportedly - if I don't say "reportedly" everyone will demand that I present a proof) on 30th of April. I cannot show that he called himself a socialist during April 1945. Extensive search didn't yield anything for the second half of March either. I guess I must withdraw my claim that Hitler never recanted his socialism view.
I also have no evidences that he did not secretly rename National Socialist German Workers' Party into National Capitalist German Bourgeois' Party, so I should probably withdraw my claim about origin of the word "Nazism".

Kevin Bonham
12-06-2012, 02:52 PM
Hitler died (reportedly - if I don't say "reportedly" everyone will demand that I present a proof) on 30th of April. I cannot show that he called himself a socialist during April 1945.Extensive search didn't yield anything for the second half of March either. I guess I must withdraw my claim that Hitler never recanted his socialism view.

I wouldn't think something from the last few months is required. If you can find something from the last, say, three years, and there is no evidence of recantation then I would accept that. After all there is no reason he should have changed his self-description during that period. But 1930 when he was just a leader of a then-emerging political force, and not yet running the show, is not suitable to demonstrate a lifelong view.

Desmond
12-06-2012, 02:53 PM
Gone quite some time ago, I am afraid.Yeah, I got dirty wrestling with a pIggy.

Rincewind
12-06-2012, 02:57 PM
Yeah, I got dirty wrestling with a pIggy.

Don't do that he'll just bring you down to his level and bludgeon you with Igorance. :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
12-06-2012, 03:02 PM
Yeah, I got dirty wrestling with a pIggy.
Well done. "go treat yourself to a biscuit":hand:

Desmond
12-06-2012, 03:07 PM
Well done. "go treat yourself to a biscuit":hand:
Thanks, you have my undoing gratitude.

Rincewind
12-06-2012, 03:11 PM
Thanks, you have my undoing gratitude.

Come on, Boris, Show some polity.

Goughfather
12-06-2012, 05:06 PM
Founder's words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_socialism)

Nazism's founder and chief advocate the late Adolf Hitler, called himself "a socialist":

I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism. --Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930 - Alan Bullock, Hitler: a Study in Tyranny, pp.156-7

More importantly, can you present an evidence that either Mussolini or Hitler rejected socialism?

I put you to proof and this is your response? Pretty pathetic really. It is as much a tacit admission of the baseless nature of your assertion as one could make without coming out directly and acknowledging that you had experienced something of a brain fart.

You would have been better off making an excuse for failing to respond to my putting you to proof and continuing to bluff and bluster like the buffoon that you are. That path looked at least a little bit less humiliating.


Your believe in socialism was quite evident from your constant, albeit quite chaotic, posting on this forum and professed undoing support for Labor party.. However, if you decided to recant and abandon support for socialism (or you never supported it and managed to fool everyone into thinking so):
a) it's a very pleasant development which I wholeheartedly welcome.
b) why are you getting your knickers into knot over my post showing etymology of both "nazism" and "fascism"?

I am not, nor have ever been a socialist. I have never held such a believe [sic].

The Labor Party does not have my undoing [sic] support.

Your description of me getting my "knickers into knot" [sic] is rather a measured response of pity concerning your buffoonery that only individuals of Jono's ilk could emulate. Apart from the simplistic way in which you construct your argument, the way in which you equate fascism with socialism, then socialism with anything that falls outside of neo-feudalism, then equating rejection of said philosophy with support for fascism is idiocy even someone like Glenn Beck would be proud of.

Capablanca-Fan
13-06-2012, 12:16 AM
Socialist or Fascist? (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/13773)
By Thomas Sowell
June 12, 2012


One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely—and correctly—regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book Liberal Fascism cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.

It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot—and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.

What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people—like themselves—need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."

Rincewind
13-06-2012, 12:42 AM
Socialist or Fascist? (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/13773)
By Thomas Sowell
June 12, 2012


One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely—and correctly—regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book Liberal Fascism cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.

It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot—and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.

What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people—like themselves—need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."


Easy to see from that snippet that Sowell is an economist and not a historian or political scientist.

Goughfather
13-06-2012, 01:23 AM
Easy to see from that snippet that Sowell is an economist and not a historian or political scientist.

Not so fast, Rincey. Thomas Sowell is a black conservative. He must therefore by definition know what he is talking about.

In other words, Sowell says it, I believe it, that settles it!

Capablanca-Fan
13-06-2012, 01:59 AM
Not so fast, Rincey. Thomas Sowell is a black conservative. He must therefore by definition know what he is talking about.
Although GF would agree with the soi-disant black leaders who call him an "Uncle Tom" (displaying their ignorance of Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel), because Sowell doesn't want to keep blacks on the Democrat plantation.


In other words, Sowell says it, I believe it, that settles it!
Indeed, for someone as well informed as Sowell, it makes sense to heed him.

Back to the thread, it happens to be true that in the early days of the Fascists, many on the "progressive" left saw them as fellow travellers. They all agreed about the need for big government, control of the means of production (even if fascists allowed nominal private ownership), rigidly secular government school education, and a bunch of unaccountable élites running society for the benefit of the benighted masses. When it came to ideals of the right or conservative libertarianism, such as traditional values, possibly home schooling, and free markets, fascists opposed these just as much as today's liberals.

The only excuse for labelling fascism as "right" is their fights with communists, but that was just a fight over the same ideological territory. This has had tragic consequences—labelling the bad fascists as "right" has led to soft-pedalling the communist atrocities, which were even worse as far as the sheer many millions murdered.

pax
13-06-2012, 02:04 AM
When it came to ideals of the right or conservative libertarianism, such as traditional values, possibly home schooling, and free markets, fascists opposed these just as much as today's liberals.

Which liberals oppose home schooling? And since when is home schooling an "ideal of the right"?

Capablanca-Fan
13-06-2012, 02:19 AM
Which liberals oppose home schooling? And since when is home schooling an "ideal of the right"?
Hitler banned it, and this ban remains in force in Germany. Today's left-liberals hate it, because the teachers' unions hate any competition. Note that I did say "possibly" when it came to homeschooling.

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2012, 11:03 AM
The only excuse for labelling fascism as "right" is their fights with communists

Many other excuses were given at http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=198199&postcount=10 (and see following posts for discussion of authoritarian "communism" and its relationship to the Left.)

Igor_Goldenberg
13-06-2012, 11:13 AM
Many other excuses were given at http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=198199&postcount=10 (and see following posts for discussion of authoritarian "communism" and its relationship to the Left.)
And all bar one refuted in the next post in the same thread:
http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=198214&postcount=11

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2012, 11:17 AM
And all bar one refuted in the next post in the same thread:
http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=198214&postcount=11

And supposed refutation addressed in http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=198235&postcount=13. That is specifically why I wrote "(and see following posts for discussion of authoritarian "communism" and its relationship to the Left.)"

Let's bring it over here too:



As for "like communism", communism as a statism has indeed generally been authoritarian and militaristic. Communism as an ideology is not necessarily so.

I agree that statist versions of "communism" that have been put in place have closely resembled fascism in many ways, but again, this highlights the extent to which statist communism is leftism carried to an incoherent aberrant extreme , rather than making "fascism" a leftist movement.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-06-2012, 11:39 AM
As for "like communism", communism as a statism has indeed generally been authoritarian and militaristic. Communism as an ideology is not necessarily so.

I agree that statist versions of "communism" that have been put in place have closely resembled fascism in many ways, but again, this highlights the extent to which statist communism is leftism carried to an incoherent aberrant extreme , rather than making "fascism" a leftist movement.
Given that every attempt to implement communism ended up being authoritarian and militaristic, we don't have empirical evidences to support the view that "Communism as an ideology is not necessarily authoritarian and militaristic", but plenty of evidences to the contrary.

pax
13-06-2012, 11:46 AM
Today's left-liberals hate it, because the teachers' unions hate any competition.

Most of the homeschoolers I know are decidedly liberal in their views. I'd say there is a pretty wide range of people from across the political spectrum who either support or oppose homeschooling for many reasons. It's perfectly legal in Australia, and has never been threatened by your so-called "left-liberals".

I'm ignoring your "liberal=Fascist-Communist" assertions because they are just so patently ridiculous.

I know that in the US "homeschooling parent" is synonymous for "right-wing religious whacko who thinks that school is a communist brainwashing conspiracy", but that is by no means universally the case.

Rincewind
13-06-2012, 12:05 PM
Attempts to divert the direction of this thread to talk about the mass-murdering status of states generally has been put into their own thread. Please don't make reposts as they will be deleted.

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2012, 07:03 PM
Given that every attempt to implement communism ended up being authoritarian and militaristic, we don't have empirical evidences to support the view that "Communism as an ideology is not necessarily authoritarian and militaristic", but plenty of evidences to the contrary.

Actually there have been many attempts to implement communism that have not become authoritarian and militaristic, and what those generally have in common is that they never obtained government. I don't think the Australian communist party ever had too much of a red militia behind it.

In my view communism as a ruling ideology is unsustainable without the addition of repression because of its false assumptions about human nature.

Patrick Byrom
13-06-2012, 08:30 PM
...Back to the thread, it happens to be true that in the early days of the Fascists, many on the "progressive" left saw them as fellow travellers. They all agreed about the need for big government, control of the means of production (even if fascists allowed nominal private ownership), rigidly secular government school education, and a bunch of unaccountable élites running society for the benefit of the benighted masses. When it came to ideals of the right or conservative libertarianism, such as traditional values, possibly home schooling, and free markets, fascists opposed these just as much as today's liberals. ...
I'm fairly sure that neither Mussolini nor Franco supported "rigidly secular government school education", so perhaps that should be removed as a criterion for Fascism.

Jono, can you give us an example of a recent government which you believe supports the "ideals of the right or conservative libertarianism"? Every recent democratic government that I have been able to think of (including those of GW Bush, Thatcher and Reagan) would be left-wing by your criteria. For example, they all support legal divorce, which is in contradiction to the traditional value of marriage "until death do us part".

Capablanca-Fan
13-06-2012, 10:52 PM
Most of the homeschoolers I know are decidedly liberal in their views. I'd say there is a pretty wide range of people from across the political spectrum who either support or oppose homeschooling for many reasons. It's perfectly legal in Australia, and has never been threatened by your so-called "left-liberals".
Teachers' unions hate it, and there are some state restrictions in QLD.


I know that in the US "homeschooling parent" is synonymous for "right-wing religious whacko who thinks that school is a communist brainwashing conspiracy", but that is by no means universally the case.
Nonsense: they are parents who don't like the lousy academic standards; the teachers' unions that are the educational wing of the Democrats; politically correct indoctrination replacing academic learning; anti-Christian bias; "socialization" meaning bullying, peer pressure, and age-segregated herds, etc. Much worse than Australian government schools.

Goughfather
13-06-2012, 10:53 PM
I'm fairly sure that neither Mussolini nor Franco supported "rigidly secular government school education", so perhaps that should be removed as a criterion for Fascism.

Jono, can you give us an example of a recent government which you believe supports the "ideals of the right or conservative libertarianism"? Every recent democratic government that I have been able to think of (including those of GW Bush, Thatcher and Reagan) would be left-wing by your criteria. For example, they all support legal divorce, which is in contradiction to the traditional value of marriage "until death do us part".

According to Jono, Genghis Khan is left-wing.

Of course, even by making this comment, I've subjected not only myself but the entire Chesschat community to the unpleasant expectation of more verbal diarrhea from Jono "you've gotta pick a pocket or two" Sarfati. My most sincere apologies to all.

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2012, 09:07 AM
According to Jono, Genghis Khan is left-wing.
He certainly wasn't right wing in the senses of the modern conservative movement, since he shares none of their distinctives.

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2012, 09:17 AM
I'm fairly sure that neither Mussolini nor Franco supported "rigidly secular government school education", so perhaps that should be removed as a criterion for Fascism.
I'm pretty sure they did, and almost certain re Hitler. He abolished homeschooling, wanting the Nazi State to indoctrinate them.


Jono, can you give us an example of a recent government which you believe supports the "ideals of the right or conservative libertarianism"? Every recent democratic government that I have been able to think of (including those of GW Bush, Thatcher and Reagan) would be left-wing by your criteria. For example, they all support legal divorce, which is in contradiction to the traditional value of marriage "until death do us part".
Pat, it seems quite common for conservatives to follow Reagan's idea of “three-legged stool of conservatism”:

1. fiscal conservatism aka free market / limited government
2. social conservatism including pro-family, pro-marriage, and pro-life
3. strong national defence

Two out of three is not too bad when compared with the alternative, although I think the analogy is apt: the other two legs won't stand without the third one.

Reagan came closest to that ideal in recent times. But when he was Governor of California, he signed a no-fault divorce law. At the time, he was suffering from his own divorce, and didn't like the need to try to find fault with one's partner. As he later realized, the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction, making divorce too easy, although a marriage vow ought to mean something.

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2012, 09:20 AM
In my view communism as a ruling ideology is unsustainable without the addition of repression because of its false assumptions about human nature.
Well, that's really the problem. For decades, too many in the Western Left were enamoured with Communism. The worst of them excused Stalin's megademocide, while the less bad blamed Stalin and Mao for the failures of Communism in practice. They were too naive not to realize that such people would inevitably be produced by the intrinsically repressive powerful government required to redistribute wealth forcibly.

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2012, 09:21 AM
And supposed refutation addressed in http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=198235&postcount=13. That is specifically why I wrote "(and see following posts for discussion of authoritarian "communism" and its relationship to the Left.)"

Let's bring it over here too:
Or else, merge the two threads, since they seem very similar topics. [done-mod]

Patrick Byrom
14-06-2012, 01:13 PM
I'm pretty sure they did, and almost certain re Hitler. He abolished homeschooling, wanting the Nazi State to indoctrinate them.
Hitler I'm not sure about, Mussolini I'm fairly confident of, and I'm certain about Franco. From the "Italian Fascism" article in Wikipedia:

In exchange for diplomatic recognition of the Vatican City and compensated territorial losses, the Fascist Government established Roman Catholic religious education in every education level; the Vatican would diplomatically recognize the Italian Fascist State.


Pat, it seems quite common for conservatives to follow Reagan's idea of “three-legged stool of conservatism”:
1. fiscal conservatism aka free market / limited government
2. social conservatism including pro-family, pro-marriage, and pro-life
3. strong national defence
Two out of three is not too bad when compared with the alternative, although I think the analogy is apt: the other two legs won't stand without the third one.
Reagan came closest to that ideal in recent times. But when he was Governor of California, he signed a no-fault divorce law. At the time, he was suffering from his own divorce, and didn't like the need to try to find fault with one's partner. As he later realized, the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction, making divorce too easy, although a marriage vow ought to mean something.
Didn't Reagan also sign an abortion bill when he was Governor of California? And President Reagan signed TEFRA in 1982, raising taxes significantly, which isn't really consistent with limited government. Although he definitely supported a strong defence.

I think he was a good President, but he seems a long way from your conservative ideal.

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2012, 12:57 AM
Didn't Reagan also sign an abortion bill when he was Governor of California?
Yes: Governor Reagan was not as conservative as President Reagan, who wrote a pro-life book, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation (http://www.amazon.com/Abortion-Conscience-Nation-Ronald-Reagan/dp/0840741162). After all, he was a Democrat once, and his evolution into conservatism didn't happen overnight:
Zh2DeQtVyJM


And President Reagan signed TEFRA in 1982, raising taxes significantly, which isn't really consistent with limited government.
Look at the context though. While not the best move, that was after Reagan signed the Kemp–Roth tax (rate) cuts the year before, which slashed the top rate from 70% to 50% and the bottom rate from 14% to 11%, with a 23% reduction phased in over three years throughout. There were some short-term budget deficits, so Reagan agreed to TEFRA. This cancelled some of the KR cuts, but was still a reduction over the Carter years.

Most importantly, this was after a promise in the Dem-dominated Congress of $3 reduction of spending for every $1 increase in taxes. The latter of course didn't materialize, but then Bush Sr. fell for the same trick to break his "no new taxes" pledge, which worked so well for him. This explains why this crop of GOP candidates didn't fall for the liberal trick of CNN's Wolf Blitzer asking them if they would agree to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts 10 times larger than the tax hikes. (Sure, but lets see those spending cuts first this time!)


Although he definitely supported a strong defence.
That would be hard to dispute, for sure.


I think he was a good President, but he seems a long way from your conservative ideal.
Maybe so, but it's a case of whether the glass is 80% full, as I think; or 20% empty, as it always is with the Paulbotulists.

Kevin Bonham
15-06-2012, 01:27 AM
Paulbotulists.

Is that another word for "Rondroids"? (Which is in itself an adaptation of "Randroids".)

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2012, 02:38 PM
Is that another word for "Rondroids"? (Which is in itself an adaptation of "Randroids".)
Yes, and Ronulans. Some of Paul's ideas are pretty good actually, especially on getting rid of all federal government departments not enumerated in the Constitution, but a main problem is a lot of his supporters.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-06-2012, 02:39 PM
Jono, can you give us an example of a recent government which you believe supports the "ideals of the right or conservative libertarianism"? Every recent democratic government that I have been able to think of (including those of GW Bush, Thatcher and Reagan) would be left-wing by your criteria. For example, they all support legal divorce, which is in contradiction to the traditional value of marriage "until death do us part".

I don't see contradiction between divorce and libertarianism/classical liberalism. Even if you concentrate on conservative part, there is a big difference between personally disliking divorce and advocating ban/prohibition.

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2012, 03:35 PM
It's also a one-shot argument as I've pointed out before. It's certainly true that fascism has more in common economically with socialism than capitalism or "conservatism" (to the limited extent that the latter has any kind of coherent and definable economic vision at all).
Modern conservatism is usually associated with capitalism. Milton Friedman denied being a conservative. People like Thomas Sowell (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/01/from-marxism-to-the-market/) and Walter Williams (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams041801.asp) usually self-identify as more libertarian than conservative, but both believe in the importance of traditional values and morals.


It's also true that it has more in common with modern "liberalism" (ie the doctrine of the typical American Democrat) than with classical "liberalism" of the 19th century.

But economics is just one of the many defining characters of fascism. Fascism is also distinguished by:

* populist anti-modernism
* centralised authoritarianism
* militarism
* nationalism
* state control of practically all areas of life
* anti-communism

Right-wing reactionism, which often calls itself "conservatism" although it isn't, far more enthusiastically embraces these areas than US left-liberalism does. On this basis, the broad bracketing of fascism as part of the Old Right is absolutely correct.
But the modern conservative-libertarian (which is similar to the philosophies of Edmund Burke and Adam Smith) is not anti-modernist (but believes that the private sector can advance science and technology far more than government can), prefers divided power because they distrust too much power in any one person or group given man's flawed nature, and wants the government out of the economy except to restrain fraud and coercion. Anti-communism, yes, because who wouldn't be anti-communist in his right mind. Nazis were anticommunist for different reasons: rivals for the same bloc. Militarism can be defensive or offensive; Nazis were the latter, conservatives tend to be the former.

Goughfather
15-06-2012, 05:45 PM
Militarism can be defensive or offensive; Nazis were the latter, conservatives tend to be the former.

Nice doublespeak. Kind of like the doctrine of "pre-emptive defence". If anyone else does it it's offensive militarism. On the other hand, if you engage in "pre-emptive defence" it's defensive militarism.

All pretty offensive, as far as I'm concerned.

Kevin Bonham
15-06-2012, 08:53 PM
Modern conservatism is usually associated with capitalism.

Unless "capitalism" is defined very broadly I find that association very problematic. Especially so in Australia where Howard and Abbott have both been regarded as "conservatives" but Howard sold out on whatever free-market vision he originally had while Abbott never had any in the first place.


But the modern conservative-libertarian (which is similar to the philosophies of Edmund Burke and Adam Smith) is not anti-modernist [..]

In my view the constitutionalist position of many "conservative libertarians" is a form of backdoor anti-modernism - use an uber-strict reading of a very dated document as a bulwark against change.


prefers divided power because they distrust too much power in any one person or group given man's flawed nature, and wants the government out of the economy except to restrain fraud and coercion.

Both of these aspects can also reflect anti-modernist tendencies. Dispersed power and small government are good ways of keeping modernist grand schemes, which conservatives are uncomfortable with, at bay, and hence attempting to restore an older idea of the market.

Laserlite
16-06-2012, 01:12 AM
modernist grand schemes
What would be your examples of these ?

Kevin Bonham
16-06-2012, 06:33 PM
What would be your examples of these ?

I don't mean "modernist" in the strictly artistic/cultural sense. Current Australian examples would be things like BER, NBN and probably the carbon tax - all examples of very major projects backed by a change-driven rationale and all opposed to some degree by many "conservatives".

There's an argument (http://fch.ju.edu/FCH-2007/Mosca-The%20Question%20of%20Nazi%20Modernity.htm) that the Nazis specifically weren't really all that anti-modernist and that they just liked to play up a critique of modernity while also using it to further their own ends.

Capablanca-Fan
02-03-2014, 04:31 AM
Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/)
By Daniel Hannan, Telegraph (UK), 25 Feb 2014

On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism.

Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.

So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:


It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.

To be absolutely clear, I don’t believe that modern Leftists have subliminal Nazi leanings, or that their loathing of Hitler is in any way feigned. That’s not my argument. What I want to do, by holding up the mirror, is to take on the equally false idea that there is an ideological continuum between free-marketers and fascists.

The idea that Nazism is a more extreme form of conservatism has insinuated its way into popular culture. You hear it, not only when spotty students yell “fascist” at Tories, but when pundits talk of revolutionary anti-capitalist parties, such as the BNP and Golden Dawn, as “far Right”.

What is it based on, this connection? Little beyond a jejune sense that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists are nasty. When written down like that, the notion sounds idiotic, but think of the groups around the world that the BBC, for example, calls “Right-wing”: the Taliban, who want communal ownership of goods; the Iranian revolutionaries, who abolished the monarchy, seized industries and destroyed the middle class; Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who pined for Stalinism. The “Nazis-were-far-Right” shtick is a symptom of the wider notion that “Right-wing” is a synonym for “baddie”.

Rincewind
02-03-2014, 10:43 AM
:lol:

Patrick Byrom
02-03-2014, 12:11 PM
Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/)
By Daniel Hannan, Telegraph (UK), 25 Feb 2014
...
The idea that Nazism is a more extreme form of conservatism has insinuated its way into popular culture. You hear it, not only when spotty students yell “fascist” at Tories, but when pundits talk of revolutionary anti-capitalist parties, such as the BNP and Golden Dawn, as “far Right”.
What is it based on, this connection? Little beyond a jejune sense that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists are nasty. When written down like that, the notion sounds idiotic, but think of the groups around the world that the BBC, for example, calls “Right-wing”: the Taliban, who want communal ownership of goods; the Iranian revolutionaries, who abolished the monarchy, seized industries and destroyed the middle class; Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who pined for Stalinism. The “Nazis-were-far-Right” shtick is a symptom of the wider notion that “Right-wing” is a synonym for “baddie”.

The association between fascists and conservatives is not just an invention of the 'Left'. When Hitler became Chancellor, he was in a coalition with a conservative party. And this pattern has continued: Fascist parties invariably form coalitions with conservative parties, as you can see from this article (http://www.theguardian.com/gall/0,,711990,00.html) in the Guardian. I can't think of any example of a recent governing coalition between fascists and left-wing parties.

Capablanca-Fan
04-03-2014, 03:00 AM
The association between fascists and conservatives is not just an invention of the 'Left'.
But then you quote a leftist source, the Guardian! So your only ‘evidence’ is the labelling by a leftists of fascist parties as ‘far right’ and ‘conservative’. But this is the very debate at issue. In reality, the Fascists were statists who opposed the free market and supported compulsory government schooling. Fascists differed from communists in that fascist socialism was national rather than international, and fascists allowed nominal private ownership of the means of production, but only under rigid state control.

Patrick Byrom
04-03-2014, 01:08 PM
But then you quote a leftist source, the Guardian! So your only ‘evidence’ is the labelling by a leftists of fascist parties as ‘far right’ and ‘conservative’. But this is the very debate at issue. In reality, the Fascists were statists who opposed the free market and supported compulsory government schooling. Fascists differed from communists in that fascist socialism was national rather than international, and fascists allowed nominal private ownership of the means of production, but only under rigid state control.
Did you read the article? I'm not claiming every party listed as far right is fascist; however several of those parties (eg, FPO, National Alliance) have stated their support for fascism, so they can be classified as fascist - or 'post-fascist' at best.

My point is the fact that fascist parties associate themselves with parties on the right (as Hitler did), and never with parties on the left. If fascists are left-wing, they should associate with left-wing parties, but this never seems to happen.

Capablanca-Fan
05-03-2014, 03:17 AM
Did you read the article? I'm not claiming every party listed as far right is fascist; however several of those parties (eg, FPO, National Alliance) have stated their support for fascism, so they can be classified as fascist - or 'post-fascist' at best.
But then I am waiting for any free market or traditional conservative view they hold.


My point is the fact that fascist parties associate themselves with parties on the right (as Hitler did), and never with parties on the left. If fascists are left-wing, they should associate with left-wing parties, but this never seems to happen.
Fighting over the same ideological territory. In politics, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Patrick Byrom
05-03-2014, 10:16 AM
But then I am waiting for any free market or traditional conservative view they hold.
Like conservatives, they believe in a strong military.


Fighting over the same ideological territory. In politics, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.
But parties normally coalesce with parties of compatible ideology, eg, L + NP, ALP + Greens.

Rincewind
05-03-2014, 04:25 PM
Like conservatives, they believe in a strong military.

Like all minorities that exploit the majority, a strong military is a necessity.

Patrick Byrom
05-03-2014, 08:59 PM
But then I am waiting for any free market or traditional conservative view they hold.
Fascists were also (viciously) opposed to homosexuality - definitely a position associated with traditional conservatives.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2014, 02:14 AM
Heheh, yet homoexuals are not very welcome in Mugabe's communist Zimbabwe.

Actually, there has been a long association of homosexuals with fascism. For example, Hitler would never have risen to power without the support of the SA (Sturmabteilung) or Brownshirts, led by Ernst Röhm (1887–1934). Yet in his huge volume on Nazi history, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, journalist and historian William Shirer (1904–1993) describes Röhm as “a stocky, bull-necked, piggish-eyed, scar-faced professional soldier…[and] like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual.” Also, the atheistic homosexual Johann Hari admits in The strange, unexplored overlap between homosexuality and fascism (http://johannhari.com/2004/06/24/the-strange-unexplored-overlap-between-homosexuality-and-fascism/):


“The twisted truth is that gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was — including the gay-gassing, homo-cidal Third Reich. With the exception of Jean-Marie Le Pen, all the most high-profile fascists in Europe in the past thirty years have been gay. It’s time to admit something. Fascism isn’t something that happens out there, a nasty habit acquired by the straight boys. It is — in part, at least — a gay thing, and it’s time for non-fascist gay people to wake up and face the marching music.”

Rincewind
08-03-2014, 03:22 AM
Hitler would never have risen to power without the support of the SA (Sturmabteilung) or Brownshirts, led by Ernst Röhm (1887–1934).

Certainly Rohm and many of the SA leaders were openly homosexual and this was a liability for Hitler. Although not executed primarily for being gay (the main problem was they were too socialist). Regardless Hitler had Rohm and most of the SA upper echelon executed and replaced with dependable, family men like Viktor Lutze.

Patrick Byrom
08-03-2014, 11:14 AM
Actually, there has been a long association of homosexuals with fascism.
Another similarity between fascism and traditional conservatism :)

Fascists and traditional conservatives are both strong supporters of 'traditional' families, which is one reason they are both classified as right-wing.

Capablanca-Fan
09-03-2014, 12:01 PM
Another similarity between fascism and traditional conservatism :)

Fascists and traditional conservatives are both strong supporters of 'traditional' families, which is one reason they are both classified as right-wing.

So you managed to ignore the strong connection, admitted by the homosexual Hari, that homosexuals in both Hitler's time and now were at the forefront of fascist movements. Fascists were not traditional conservatives in their view of the family; they believed that children belong to the State. That's why Hitler abolished homeschooling, a law still on the books in Germany.

Desmond
09-03-2014, 12:15 PM
So you managed to ignore the strong connection, Seems to be pretty small fry compared to ignoring the "gay-gassing, homo-cidal".

Rincewind
09-03-2014, 12:41 PM
Seems to be pretty small fry compared to ignoring the "gay-gassing, homo-cidal".

Yeah the funniest part being Jono "strong connection", Ernst Rohm, was so fundamental to Nazism that Hitler had him executed in 1934. That's just how homo-friendly the Nazis were.

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2014, 07:05 AM
Yeah the funniest part being Jono "strong connection", Ernst Rohm, was so fundamental to Nazism that Hitler had him executed in 1934. That's just how homo-friendly the Nazis were.
Since both Shirer and Hari have documented how the early Nazis were homosexual. Hari writes (http://johannhari.com/2004/06/24/the-strange-unexplored-overlap-between-homosexuality-and-fascism/):


And this Gaystapo has an icon to revere, an alternative Fuhrer to worship: the lost gay fascist leader Ernst Rohm. Along with Adolf Hitler, Rohm was the founding father of Nazism. Born to conservative Bavarian civil servants in 1887, Ernst Rohm’s life began – in his view – in the “heroic” trenches of the First World War. Like so many of the generation who formed the Nazi Party, he was nurtured by and obsessed with the homoerotic myth of the trenches – heroic, beautiful boys prepared to die for their brothers and their country.

He emerged from the war with a bullet-scarred face and a reverence for war. As he put it in his autobiography, “Since I am an immature and wicked man, war and unrest appeal to me more than the good bourgeois order.” After being disbanded, he tried half-heartedly to get a foothold in civilian life, but he saw it as alien, bourgeois, boring. He had no political beliefs, only prejudices – particularly hatred of Jews. Historian Joachim Fest describes Rohm’s generation of alienated, demobbed young men humiliated by defeat as “agents of a permanent revolution without any revolutionary idea of the future, only a wish to eternalize the values of the trenches.”

It was Rohm who first spotted the potential of a soap-box ranter called Adolf Hitler. He saw him as the demagogue he needed to mobilize support for his plan to overthrow democracy and establish a “soldier’s state” where the army ruled untrammelled. He introduced the young fascist to local politicians and military leaders; they knew him for many years as “Rohm’s boy.” Gay historian Frank Rector notes, “Hitler was, to a substantial extent, Rohm’s protégé.” Rohm integrated Hitler into his underground movement to overthrow the Weimar Republic.

Rohm’s blatant, out homosexuality seems bizarre now, given the gay genocide that was to follow. He talked openly about his fondness for gay bars and Turkish baths, and was known for his virility. He believed that gay people were superior to straights, and saw homosexuality as a key principle of his proposed Brave New Fascist Order. As historian Louis Snyder explains, Rohm “projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behaviour pattern of high repute… He flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted his cronies do the same. He believed straight people weren’t as adept at bullying and aggression as homosexuals, so homosexuality was given a high premium in the SA.” They promoted an aggressive, hypermasculine form of homosexuality, condemning “hysterical women of both sexes”, in reference to feminine gay men.

This belief in the superiority of homosexuality had a strong German tradition that grew up at the turn of the twentieth century around Adolf Brand, publisher of the country’s first gay magazine. You could call it ‘Queer as Volk’: they preached that gay men were the foundation of all nation-states and represented an elite, warrior caste that should rule. They venerated the ancient warrior cults of Sparta, Thebes and Athens.
Rohm often referred to the ancient Greek tradition of sending gay solider couples into battle, because they were believed to be the most ferocious fighters. The famous pass of Thermopylae, for example was held by 300 soldiers – who consisted of 150 gay couples. In its early years, the SA – Hitler and Rohm’s underground army – was seen as predominantly gay. Rohm assigned prominent posts to his lovers, making Edmund Heines his deputy and Karl Ernst the SA commander in Berlin. The organisation would sometimes meet in gay bars. The gay art historian Christian Isermayer said in an interview, “I got to know people in the SA. They used to throw riotous parties even in 1933… I once attended one. It was quite well-behaved but thoroughly gay. But then, in those days, the SA was ultra-gay.”

Rincewind
11-03-2014, 10:00 AM
Hari is very emotional about his subject but unfortunately that has lead him into a number of historical inaccuracies.

For starters Rohm was not a fascist per se. He was at heart a socialist and the night of long knives was in part instigated by Hitler's rich supporters being made nervous by the Rohm and the socialist aspects of the SA. A minor but again wildly inaccurate comment he makes about the 300 that held the pass of Thermoplae being 150 gay couples is just ludicrous. He has confused the battle of of Thermoplyae where 300 Spartan hoplites resisted the Persian army with another battle, the less well known Battle of Leucra where the Sacred Band of Thebes fought against the Spartans. I assume the reason for the confusion was because of the number 300 appearing in both battles but it shows sloppy scholarship.

Patrick Byrom
11-03-2014, 10:48 PM
Since both Shirer and Hari have documented how the early Nazis were homosexual.
But Hari believes that fascists are (viciously) opposed to homosexuality:
"It’s time all gay people realised that fascists will not bring on a Fabulous Solution for gay people. They will bring a Final Solution for us all."

Whether individual fascists are gay or straight is irrelevant. Fascist ideology is clearly anti-homosexual.

Of course, even if all fascists were gay, fascism should still be classified as right-wing because fascists ally themselves with right-wing parties and oppose left-wing parties.

Capablanca-Fan
24-06-2014, 01:32 AM
Fascism (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html)
by Sheldon Richman, Library of Economics and Liberty

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:


The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)

Capablanca-Fan
26-08-2014, 03:09 PM
The Biology of the Second Reich
Explore the influence of Social Darwinism on German militarism in the years leading up to World War I in this fascinating 14-minute documentary featuring historian Richard Weikart.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n900e80R30#t=288

Rincewind
26-08-2014, 03:32 PM
See

Does Science Education Need the History of Science?
Gooday, Lynch, Wilson and Barsky.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/588690

Specifically...


What can historians of science do to counter this clear misuse of history? Somewhat perversely, much of our community has remained silent over the past decade while antievolutionists have publicly twisted historical fact regarding Haeckel. It took three biologists to set the record straight in 2005. They explicitly made the point that Darwin did not in fact rely on Haeckel but, rather, on information taken from the antievolutionary Karl von Baer. They further noted that the creationists “are deeply confused or intentionally confusing regarding the history and significance of this well-known field.”

This preoccupation with Haeckel is taken a stage further by Richard Weikart, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the leading organization promoting and funding the dissemination of intelligent design. In his provocatively titled From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Weikart implicitly indicts Darwin and Haeckel for acts that occurred long after their deaths. In line with older creationist claims, we are asked to reject modern scientific theories because of how older versions of these theories were misused. Unlike the claims regarding Haeckel's embryology, Weikart's claims regarding a lineage from Darwin to Hitler via Haeckel have been examined by historians of science and indeed have generally been found lacking. Numerous reviews have accused Weikart of selectively viewing his rich primary material, ignoring political, social, psychological, and economic factors that may have played key roles in the post-Darwinian development of Nazi eugenics and racism. Since there is no clear and unique line from Darwinian naturalism to Nazi atrocities, useful causal relationships are difficult to infer; thus, as Robert J. Richards observes, “it can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis.”

Sounds like Weikart is not a very good historian because (surprise, surprise) he an ulterior motive. To spread to gospel of creationism. Which is just blatant religious dogma dressed up to look like science because teaching religion in schools as science is no longer acceptable.

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2014, 05:01 AM
Humph, Robert Richards has made huge errors in biology and history because of his infatuation with the racist fraud Haeckel. See these papers that go back to the original Haeckel sources and to modern embryology knowledge:


Countering revisionism—part 1: Ernst Haeckel, fraud is proven (http://creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven)
Countering revisionism—part 2: Ernst Haeckel and his triple-woodcut print (http://creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven-part-2)
Ernst Haeckel: a hostile witness to the truth of the Bible (http://creation.com/haeckel-hostile-witness-bible-truth)
Haeckel the hero? (http://creation.com/haeckel-not-a-hero)

That article also sets up a straw man, because Weikart explicitly disclaims a “clear and unique line from Darwinian naturalism to Nazi atrocities”, but points out the strong evolutionary infestation and explicit claims that Darwinian evolution undermined sanctity-of-life ethics and was used by Darwin's own family and leading Darwinists to justify eugenics and euthanasia.

Weikart has also refuted Richards' own ideologically motivated attack here (https://www.csustan.edu/history/response-richards), which also refutes the straw man of monocausality.

antichrist
04-09-2014, 05:28 PM
I have witnessed a bitch smother to death her slow feeding pups, she used to have large litters and the last one out would be short of oxygen. That is the one she would smother. Humans are also part of the animal kingdom so some characteristics are the same. If we do not control our population, wars, famine, disease and global warming will do it for us.

jammo
23-11-2014, 11:04 AM
Yes, we know how the anti-Christian Nazis and Communists lived as one even though both were socialist.

And I always thought the Nazis were fascists!

"No, they are not the same, far from it. Fascists are rabidly anti-communist, and communists are rabidly anti-fascist. Communists were one of the many groups of people persecuted and killed during the Holocaust by Hitler. National Socialism was socialist only in name, just like how the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is anything but democratic.

Nazism/National Socialism is the German strain of fascism. The common misconception is that fascism is a quintessential far-right ideology. Economically, fascism is center-right. Fascism allows for private ownership of business and enterprise, but they are also state-run in the sense that there is a one-sided government-business cooperation favoring the former; economically, fascism is pure corporatism. Fascism is also characterized by nationalism or ultra-nationalism in the case of Nazis, which isn't necessarily right-wing. Fascism is highly totalitarian above all else.

Socialism is the transitional stage in the development of a communism. In both socialism and communism, there are no classes or forms of social stratification. In addition to this, production is for satisfying needs rather than profit, hence why neither are conducive of rapid economic growth and why both are theoretically more sustainable than capitalism (since something can't grow forever). In socialism, the economy (prices, wages, etc.) is centrally planned by the state and income is based upon the amount of labor one contributes to society. Marxist theory pertaining to the capitalism-communism transition relies heavily on the premise that this period of socialism will bring about a superabundance of wealth in the form of material goods and money, at which point communism is feasible. Income is then able to be based upon "need" rather than "deed". Both the monetary system and the state itself become redundant since at this point the workers will become self-sufficient and independent, and are abolished. There is no money, no state, no classes: that's communism. I hypothesize that that transitional period which sees the transfer of the economy to the state is why these despotic regimes (USSR, China, etc.) come about. Hypothetically, if socialism wasn't necessary, none of those countries would be as bad as they were.

Now you can see how the three ideologies are VASTLY different. Economically, fascism is center-right, socialism left (not center-left), and communism far-right. Politically, fascism is extremely authoritarian, socialism is theoretically centrist but historically has been authoritarian to varying degrees, and communism is anarchic."

Capablanca-Fan
23-11-2014, 11:17 AM
And I always thought the Nazis were fascists!
You thought right. Mussolini was strongly socialistic. The word Nazi is a contraction of the German for National Socialist German Workers' Party.


"No, they are not the same, far from it. Fascists are rabidly anti-communist, and communists are rabidly anti-fascist.
Of course, fighting over the same ideological turf.


Communists were one of the many groups of people persecuted and killed during the Holocaust by Hitler. National Socialism was socialist only in name, just like how the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is anything but democratic.
True of the latter, but the Nazis were consummate statists, with control over business and public works programs.


Nazism/National Socialism is the German strain of fascism. The common misconception is that fascism is a quintessential far-right ideology. Economically, fascism is center-right. Fascism allows for private ownership of business and enterprise, but they are also state-run in the sense that there is a one-sided government-business cooperation favoring the former; economically, fascism is pure corporatism. Fascism is also characterized by nationalism or ultra-nationalism in the case of Nazis, which isn't necessarily right-wing. Fascism is highly totalitarian above all else.
Exactly, so it is hardly right wing in the sense of the free-market. Fascism also had a tightly run state educational monopoly, and also tightly controlled the churches with the intent to exterminate them eventually.

PS: if you are going to quote, it would be helpful to tell us where it is from.

Kevin Bonham
23-11-2014, 02:02 PM
PS: if you are going to quote, it would be helpful to tell us where it is from.

It's from Yahoo Answers:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120219224931AAHydUt

Capablanca-Fan
23-11-2014, 02:29 PM
It's from Yahoo Answers:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120219224931AAHydUt

Thanks. That site would explain the absurdities such as communism being called economically far-right and politically anarchic."

Capablanca-Fan
10-02-2016, 09:22 AM
Waking Up to the Reality of Fascism (http://fee.org/articles/waking-up-to-the-reality-of-fascism/)
The great extant threat to liberty is nativist authoritarianism
Jeffrey A. Tucker, Foundation for Economic Education, 9 December 2015

Donald Trump is on a roll, breaking new ground in uses for state power.

Closing the internet? Sure. “We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people… We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some ways.”

Registering Muslims? Lots of people thought he misspoke. But he later clarified: “There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems.”

Why not just bar all Muslims at the border? Indeed, and to the massive cheers of his supporters, Trump has called for the “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

Internment camps? Trump cites the FDR precedent: Italians, Germans, and Japanese “couldn’t go five miles from their homes. They weren’t allowed to use radios, flashlights. I mean, you know, take a look at what FDR did many years ago and he’s one of the most highly respected presidents.”

Rounding up millions of people? He'll create a "deportation force" to hunt down and remove 11 million illegal immigrants.

Killing wives and children? That too. “When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families.”

Political Vocabulary

This litany of ideas has finally prompted mainstream recognition of the incredibly obvious: If Donald Trump has an ideology, it is best described as fascism.

The word fascism has been used too often in political discourse, and almost always imprecisely. It’s a bit like the boy who cried wolf. You warn about wolves so much that no one takes you seriously when a real one actually shows up.

Lefties since the late 1930s have tended to call non-leftists fascists — which has led to a discrediting of the word itself. As time went on, the word became nothing but a vacuous political insult. It’s what people say about someone with whom they disagree. It doesn’t mean much more than that.

Then in the 1990s came Godwin’s Law: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100 percent.” This law provided a convenient way to dismiss all talk of fascism as Internet babblings deployed in the midst of flame wars.

“The rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period,” wrote Hayek [The Road to Serfdom], “but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.”

In Hayek’s reading, the dynamic works like this. The socialists build the state machinery, but their plans fail. A crisis arrives. The population seeks answers. Politicians claiming to be anti-socialist step up with new authoritarian plans that purport to reverse the problem. Their populist appeal taps into the lowest political instincts (nativism, racism, religious bigotry, and so on) and promises a new order of things under better, more efficient rule.

Last July, I heard Trump speak, and his talk displayed all the features of fascist rhetoric. He began with trade protectionism and held up autarky as an ideal. He moved to immigration, leading the crowd to believe that all their economic and security troubles were due to dangerous foreign elements among us. Then came the racial dog whistles: Trump demanded of a Hispanic questioner whether he was a plant sent by the government of Mexico.

There was more. He railed against the establishment that is incompetent and lacking in energy. He bragged about his lack of interest-group ties — which is another way of saying that only he can become the purest sort of dictator, with no quid pro quos to tie him down.

Patrick Byrom
10-02-2016, 06:14 PM
Waking Up to the Reality of Fascism (http://fee.org/articles/waking-up-to-the-reality-of-fascism/)
The great extant threat to liberty is nativist authoritarianism Jeffrey A. Tucker, Foundation for Economic Education, 9 December 2015

…“The rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period,” wrote Hayek [The Road to Serfdom], “but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.” In Hayek’s reading, the dynamic works like this. The socialists build the state machinery, but their plans fail. A crisis arrives. The population seeks answers. Politicians claiming to be anti-socialist step up with new authoritarian plans that purport to reverse the problem. Their populist appeal taps into the lowest political instincts (nativism, racism, religious bigotry, and so on) and promises a new order of things under better, more efficient rule. Last July, I heard Trump speak, and his talk displayed all the features of fascist rhetoric. He began with trade protectionism and held up autarky as an ideal. He moved to immigration, leading the crowd to believe that all their economic and security troubles were due to dangerous foreign elements among us. Then came the racial dog whistles: Trump demanded of a Hispanic questioner whether he was a plant sent by the government of Mexico. There was more. He railed against the establishment that is incompetent and lacking in energy. He bragged about his lack of interest-group ties — which is another way of saying that only he can become the purest sort of dictator, with no quid pro quos to tie him down. …
So if Trump is a fascist, and fascism is the outcome of socialism, why is Trump doing so well in the Republican primary? And he has far more support among Republicans than Democrats (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jan/21/mike-rogers/mike-rogers-says-trump-appeals-democrats-much-repu/) - which implies that far more Republicans than Democrats are fascist supporters!

Of course the real reason so many Republicans support Trump is that they've been convinced by right-wing media that the US is in crisis, so naturally they are looking for a political strong man. Most of the 'fascist' rhetoric mentioned above is echoed by the other Republican candidates - Trump just has more machismo.

Capablanca-Fan
11-02-2016, 05:20 AM
So if Trump is a fascist, and fascism is the outcome of socialism, why is Trump doing so well in the Republican primary? And he has far more support among Republicans than Democrats (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jan/21/mike-rogers/mike-rogers-says-trump-appeals-democrats-much-repu/) - which implies that far more Republicans than Democrats are fascist supporters!
His large support among Republicans is certainly a concern. But they seem to be the low-information wing of the Republicans that probably don't realize his fascist tendencies, largely because the word has been overused.


Of course the real reason so many Republicans support Trump is that they've been convinced by right-wing media that the US is in crisis, so naturally they are looking for a political strong man.
Don't blame the right-wing media. Even the left-wing media, ludicrously self-described as "mainstream", can't hide the reality that many people are unemployed or underemployed, or have lost their health insurance or faced massive premium hikes. They can also see the Obamov/EPA war on coal, and the IS targeting of conservative groups, the racial polarization spread by the Obamov Justice Department.


Most of the 'fascist' rhetoric mentioned above is echoed by the other Republican candidates - Trump just has more machismo.
Not at all. The more conservative candidates are echoing Reagan, whom you admitted was "quite a good president", who identified government as the problem not the solution.

Ian Murray
11-02-2016, 01:10 PM
...The more conservative candidates are echoing Reagan, whom you admitted was "quite a good president", who identified government as the problem not the solution.

And who went on to become The Big Spender. The lowest spending President since Eisenhower (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/#d4ed1957eca1) is Barack Obama

Patrick Byrom
14-02-2016, 10:14 PM
And now we have the anti-Semitic Ted Nugent supporting both Cruz and Trump - and receiving support from Cruz in return. (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/10/after-promoting-anti-semitic-image-ted-nugent-s/208505)

Rincewind
14-02-2016, 10:21 PM
Let's not forget that this happened and we let it happen...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyDFtJdh0Zs

From wikipedia...


The song is about a man chronicling his long history of promiscuous sex, and lamenting (or perhaps, celebrating) his inability to control himself or the women he has sex with, and vice versa. The main reason for his lament is that his active sexual lifestyle results in him getting "Cat Scratch Fever"; however, the narrator does gleefully and explicitly (if somewhat resignedly) describe the pleasure he gets from the sex. The song makes heavy use of cats and their claws scratching things and people as sexual metaphors.

Capablanca-Fan
02-05-2016, 01:46 PM
Putting the Socialism Back Into National Socialism (http://volokh.com/posts/1185254785.shtml)
Volokh Conspiracy, 24 July 2007

The idea that Nazism was an extreme form of "capitalism" and Hitler primarily a tool serving the interests of "big business" is a longstanding myth that even now retains a measure of popularity in some quarters. This, despite the fact that the full name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party, and that Nazi political strategy was explicitly based on combining the appeal of socialism with that of nationalism (thus the choice of name). Once in power, the Nazis even went so far as to institute a Four Year Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Year_Plan) for running the German economy, modeled in large part on the Soviet Union's Five Year Plans.

I. The Socialist Elements of Nazism.

Two recent books further explain the socialist elements of Nazi economic policy, and will hopefully put the final nails in the coffin of the myth that the Nazis were "capitalists" or free marketeers. In The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Econom (http://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0670038261/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4748107-9974452?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185258596&sr=8-1)y, historian Adam Tooze describes the statist nature of Nazi economic policy in great detail, and concludes that the Nazis imposed greater government control over the economy than any other noncommunist regime in modern history. (pp. 658-60). Tooze notes that, even before the outbreak of World War II, government military spending accounted for some 20% of the GDP, while much of the rest of the economy came under government control as a result of the Four Year Plan and other similar measures.

In Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State (http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Beneficiaries-Plunder-Racial-Welfare/dp/0805079262), Gotz Aly argues on the basis of extensive evidence, that German support for Nazi rule was maintained by the creation of a massive welfare state funded in large part by plunder captured in Hitler's foreign conquests, but also partly by means of "soak the rich" taxation within Germany itself.

Some nonetheless persist in viewing the Nazi economic system as "capitalist" because 1) some big businessmen (such as the Krupps) supported the Nazi regime, and 2) most of the means of production remained under private rather than state ownership. It is certainly true that much industrial capital remained formally under private ownership under the Nazis. However, under the Four Year Plan and other similar policies, it was primarily the government that determined what goods would be produced, what prices would be charged, and (in many cases) who would be the consumers. "Capitalist" private firms in Nazi Germany played a role far more similar to that of socialist managers of enterprises in the Soviet Union than that of actual capitalists in a market system. The Krupps and others certainly profited greatly under the Nazis, but so too did high-ranking Communist Party enterprise managers in the Soviet Union. Neither, however, detracted from the state's ultimate control over economic production. All of this is described by Tooze in much greater detail than I can do here.

These two new books are useful complements to Avraham Barkai's 1990 work Nazi Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Economics-Ideology-Theory-Policy/dp/0300044666), which explored the ideological origins of Nazi economic policy and showed how Nazi economic theorists explicitly advocated statism, while rejecting free markets. Like some modern opponents of globalization and free trade, the Nazis viewed economics as a zero-sum game between nations, where increasing wealth for one country could, in the long run, only be achieved by impoverishing or conquering others (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/03/hitlers_argumen.html).

II. Why it Matters Today.

Desmond
09-05-2017, 08:19 AM
The French have not forgotten the past, and reject far right party. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-08/emmanuel-macron-beats-marine-le-pen-french-election/8504814)

Kevin Bonham
09-05-2017, 08:38 AM
The French have not forgotten the past, and reject far right party. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-08/emmanuel-macron-beats-marine-le-pen-french-election/8504814)

Deep In Macron Country (http://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2017/05/deep-macron-country)


It's so good to be out of the Paris bubble, meeting some authentic French people to answer the biggest question in European politics: why did so many people vote for Emmanuel Macron? Was it a lack of economic anxiety, or a lack of racism?

Either way, their concerns deserve to be heard. Some might find them unpalatable, but history has taught us that repressing such views only makes them more virulent. It might not be pleasant to hear them, it might offend our sensibilities, but we have to share our towns and cities with pragmatic centrists, so we must strive to understand them.