Liberals aren't racist, no indeed... by piratenews

Since when did Hitler run from the left? Just because it has the word socialism in its name doesn not make it left winged. Hitler was loudly and vocally against the communists whom he despised.

A lot of popular views held 100, 200 or 1000 years ago don't have a lot of traction these days - so unless you have evidence that family planning organisations support forced abortions and sterilisations, I'm not interested. And that doesn't include opening clinics whereever - unless you're being pulled through the door, it's about choice. I know the anti abortion prosthelysers hate the idea of choice, but it's at the heart of the current pro abortion movement.

Dragging up people's dubious mix of beliefs from the past is not useful or relevant.

Fir examoke - Christianity has a shocking past legacy, religious wars, persecution, torture, burning people at the stake, the legacy of the missionaries throughout the world..... I'd say a lot of organised religions continue these 'sins' one way or another, let's talk about what they do now, not what has happened in the past?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 6, 2010 4:30 PM

Magons

Wasn't saying he did. Mike was implying he was right wing, I was rejecting that notion, as the NSDAP was the center left party. Though it's true that the pre-kristallnacht Germany govt was pretty solidly socialist/corporatist, whereas post-kristallnacht Germany was pure lunacy by any stretch of the imagination.

Basically, everyone grants the left the right to disown the Nazis, but the left should at least grant the right a say so if someone implies that the Nazis were right wing, because they were emphatically not, and never claimed to be so. I had some ancestors who were Junkers, who were the right wing party, as vie mentioned before, and also Jewish, and so it did not surprisingly not turn out well for them. Point being that, yes, the Nazis killed communists, they also killed Junkers. They killed everyone who wasn't them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 6, 2010 5:58 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Just me, but I think "left" and "right" have one meaning in the US and different meanings elsewhere. Given the difference between Libs and Conservatives and "Democrats" in England, I think it might just be possible.

We label things awfully easily...

Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor

To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor

To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor

To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor

...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 6, 2010 6:11 PM

Niki

Thanks, I'd forgotten about that. This wouldn't make the Nazis any more conservative, using the commonwealth definitions, but it would certainly make them a lot less liberal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 6, 2010 8:50 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

actually the National Socialtist German Workers' Party (the Nazi Party's full name) belived that liberalism, communism (both left-wing) and even democracy were failures. the party was a far-right party and, before out-lawing all other political parties, governed in a coalition with the German National People's Party, the right-wing party, who were also anti-semitic.

the left-wing parties in the Weimar Republic were the Social-Democrat Party and the Communist Party who were the first outlawed by the Nazis.

"Junkers" was an aeroplane manufacturer taken over by the Luftwaffe.

that's from what i found on the internet and from my history teachers.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 2:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
actually the National Socialtist German Workers' Party (the Nazi Party's full name) belived that liberalism, communism (both left-wing) and even democracy were failures. the party was a far-right party and, before out-lawing all other political parties, governed in a coalition with the German National People's Party, the right-wing party, who were also anti-semitic.

the left-wing parties in the Weimar Republic were the Social-Democrat Party and the Communist Party who were the first outlawed by the Nazis.

What ^ said.

There is no ambiguity about it and it's not about difference in perceptions between countries. Nazism, being fascism is on the far right of the political spectrum.

Jeez, you've got some distorted world views if you think nazis are left winged

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 2:39 AM

AGENTROUKA

Junker were, by the early 20th century mainly Prussian landowners, often with an aristocratic background. Politically very conservative at the time we're discussing. Their politically favored party DNVP cooperated pretty well with the Nazi's in the early 30's, what with their many common interests. Antisemitism, nationalism, anti-democracy, anti-communism...

There were jewish Junker, too, as has been pointed out here, though their political view would obviously have excluded the anti-semitism prevalent among many non-jewish Junker.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 2:44 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 3:00 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I had some ancestors who were Junkers, who were the right wing party, as vie mentioned before, and also Jewish, and so it did not surprisingly not turn out well for them. Point being that, yes, the Nazis killed communists, they also killed Junkers. They killed everyone who wasn't them.

Without wnting to be insensitive, the fact that they were Jewish likely had a lot more to do with what was done to them than being Junkers did.

Junkers in the DNVP and national socialists in the NSDAP had enough in common to cooperate pretty well, even though they were political rivals for a not too dissimilar constituency.

They didn't kill Junkers on principle like they did they political opposites. They had no reason to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 4:08 AM

If you consider members of the Nazi party the "nation" of Germany, they were given a lot of socialized programs by the Nazi government. Healthcare, the autobahn.

The opposite end of this is that the the major industries weren't technically controlled by the government, but rather friends of Hitler (or at least sycophants). The success or failure of these industries was dependent upon the relationship with the fuhrer. Also, if you weren't a Nazi, or even particularly high up on the Nazi totem pole...

Cannon fodder.

The Nazis also did hate Communists (and Socialists!) with a passion, putting them in concentration camps as political dissentors, and they allied themselves with Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain.

So they weren't QUITE fascist, and not QUITE socialist, but there were some elements of a state-controlled economy, and they took some practices from the far left for preferred members.

Quote:
The Nazis denounced both capitalism and communism, accusing both of being associated with Jewish influences and interests.[16] They claimed that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences within it.[17] They claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict and its aggression against the middle class, its hostility to small businessmen, and its atheism.[17] In response, Nazis declared support for a form of socialism that is to provide for the nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.[18] Nazism, however, rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction.[18] To rescue Germany from the effects of the Great Depression, Nazism promoted an economic “third position”; a managed economy that was neither capitalist nor communist.

-From the wikipedia entry on Nazis, which does call them fascist. I suppose it could be said the elite Nazis who were businessmen, military leaders, and Hitler's friends could technically be considered the government. And because they owned and controlled all of the industry, it could be considered a state-controlled economy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 4:16 AM

Also, in regards to the Nazis and the conservatives:

Quote:
The Nazis sought to distinguish and separate themselves from conservative nationalist competitors such as the German National People's Party (DNVP) by officially denouncing conservatism, and attacking conservative nationalists for being reactionary, bourgeois enemies of the German nation who were equal in blame alongside Marxism for Germany's downfall in 1918.[13] The Nazis made alliances with the DNVP, but they claimed that these were tactical in nature and that the two parties had significant ideological differences.

Also also:

Quote:
Among the most significant ideological influence on the Nazis came from German nationalist figure Johann Gottlieb Fichte, whose works Hitler read, and who was recognized by other Nazi members including Dietrich Eckart and Arnold Fanck.[26] In Speeches to the German Nation (1808), written amid Napoleonic France's occupation of Berlin, Fichte called for a German national revolution against the French occupiers, making passionate public speeches, arming his students for battle against the French, and stressed the need of the deed of action by the German nation to free itself.[27]

Fichte's nationalism was populist and opposed to traditional elites and spoke of the need of a "People's War" (Volkskrieg), concepts much like those the Nazis adopted.[27] Fichte promoted German exceptionalism and stressed the need for the German nation to be purified, such as purging the German language of French words, a policy that the Nazis undertook upon rising to power.[27] Fichte was anti-Semitic and accused Jews in Germany of having been, and inevitably continuing to be a "state within a state" in Germany that Fichte claimed was a threat to German national unity.[27] Fichte promoted two options to address the Jewish problem, the first was creation of a Jewish state in Palestine to push the Jews to leave Europe.[28] The other option was violence against Jews, saying that this goal would be "To cut off all their heads in one night, and set new ones on their shoulders, which should not contain a single Jewish idea".

It's likely the idea from Israel came from outside, as the Allies went ahead and did just that after the war anyway. What a mess.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 4:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

If you want to imagine hypothetical Eugenics plots in a comic book master-villain sort of way, I'll participate.

1) Identify a chemical that sterilizes the user after long-term use.

2) Make sure you bury any reports about this chemical's deleterious effects, and make sure no new studies are funded.

3) Put the chemical in a product popular with the target population. Preferably a product popular with children.

That's what I would do if I was a Eugenics evil mastermind.

But two-pronged approaches are best. You can't just decrease one population. You have to ensure the desired population prospers.

So,

1) Put out propaganda to the target population advising them of the joys and benefits of motherhood, large families, and traditional unions.

2) Provide legal and financial disincentives for deviating from this ideal. Perhaps tax laws that give compensation for children and marriage.

With this two-pronged approach, the evil Eugenics mastermind can increase one target population and decrease another. Look for these insidious tactics amongst your local neighborhood comic book villains.

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

So, thinking.

For the first approach, there are a number of chemicals that I can think of that are intentionally put in food that children like that ARE NOT HEALTHY. High fructose corn syrup is one. I don't know that any of these out and out sterilize people, but the health problems they cause (diabetes etc.) can significantly contribute to the chance of death. If you make the target population sick enough, or kill them off before they come of age, you can drastically cut the reproduction rate.

The problem is, of course, that there's no real selection for target populations. However, organic and green foods without all the added unhealthy crap tends to be expensive, so that might be a "targetting the poor" thing again. These upper classes who can afford the "safe" food might get more abortions, but they also have the means to raise a few children well.

Your second approach actually sounds like a group I can think of, The Republican Party. I think that we can argue that TPTB hold the poor of the Republican Party in about as much contempt as they do other poor. However, the poor in the Republican party might remain useful, in that they come pre-brainwashed into believing in "rugged individualism" and that anyone more successful than them is simply more deserving. You too can get rich if you work hard (except you very rarely actually can).

So, by this, it looks like there's an elite, rich, moneyed group that are being preserved, and a poor, easily manipulated working class being preserved. Perfect social stratification might be the real end goal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
If you consider members of the Nazi party the "nation" of Germany, they were given a lot of socialized programs by the Nazi government. Healthcare, the autobahn.

I believe the last time I spoke to anyone here on the subjects of socialised programs, they were adamant that social programs aren't socialist, so who knows. I certainly think social programs are not enough to dictate the political ideology of the government that enacted them.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The opposite end of this is that the the major industries weren't technically controlled by the government, but rather friends of Hitler (or at least sycophants). The success or failure of these industries was dependent upon the relationship with the fuhrer. Also, if you weren't a Nazi, or even particularly high up on the Nazi totem pole...

Business was given a huge amount of latitude under the Nazis. How do you think Oskar Schindler managed to save so many Jews in his factories? He was a rich industrialist and so was above the law.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So they weren't QUITE fascist, and not QUITE socialist, but there were some elements of a state-controlled economy, and they took some practices from the far left for preferred members.

They weren't AT ALL socialist and they were very much Fascist.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
-From the wikipedia entry on Nazis, which does call them fascist. I suppose it could be said the elite Nazis who were businessmen, military leaders, and Hitler's friends could technically be considered the government. And because they owned and controlled all of the industry, it could be considered a state-controlled economy.

It was state controlled in a more corporatist than Socialist sense. It was collusion of Corporation and State, not simply state control. Corporatism is considered Right-Wing, if we're keeping score.

The Left isn't inherently authoritarian, and the Right inherently Individualist, no matter what certain voices on the right would like to claim. In fact the reality is pretty much 180 degrees to that position. Consider Communism, for all it's Authoritarianism in practice, it's actually supposed to be a stateless ideal, not a statist one. Anarchism is left wing. Libertarianism, though generally considered right wing, is an offshoot of classical liberalism, just like modern liberalism. The left is, and always has been anti-authoritarian in ideal. The further left you go, the more you find anti-authoritarianism and individualism; conversely the further right you go the more you find Authoritarianism and Statism as an ideal.

Sure there are authoritarian left wing governments, but you tend to find them where left-wing ideology has failed. You find authoritarian right-wing governments where right-wing ideology has succeeded. The Ideology of Nazism is Statist and Authoritarian; those are ideals of the right, not the left. Lets not forget where the terms left and right come from: pre revolutionary France, where the statist Monarchists, believing in a strong central absolutist authority, sat to the right of the chamber, while the Republicans and reformers, people believing in things like democracy, sat to the left.

Ask yourself which side of the political spectrum really wants to enforce the right way for someone to live? The right is forever pointing it's finger at Liberals, but lets take a random example: Homosexuals. Is it Liberals or Conservatives who think they should live their lives as they wish, is it Liberals or Conservatives who believe they should the legislated against, legally prevented from marrying for instance, because how they choose to live their lives is wrong?

Is it the right or the left wanting to dictate their lives for them? Is it the right or left that campaigns for civil liberties? For Human rights? Is it the right or the left that wants to shoe horn religion into the state, so that people can be told how to act and behave? Can we, at any stage drop this utter drivel about the right being all about freedom and individualism?

The Nazis were right wing.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 5:52 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"The right is forever pointing it's finger at Liberals, but lets take a random example: Homosexuals."

The Left pushes their lifestyle choice as normal and something to be given special status. I.E pushing their views and beliefs on others.

The Rght does not wish their lifestyle choice to be accepted as a special status. By not giving them special status, they are in effect impacting the lifestyle of homosexuals.

Either way, its always a bad idea for government to get involved in social issues.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 6:07 AM

Quote:
The Left isn't inherently authoritarian, and the Right inherently Individualist, no matter what certain voices on the right would like to claim. In fact the reality is pretty much 180 degrees to that position. Consider Communism, for all it's Authoritarianism in practice, it's actually supposed to be a stateless ideal, not a statist one. Anarchism is left wing. Libertarianism, though generally considered right wing, is an offshoot of classical liberalism, just like modern liberalism. The left is, and always has been anti-authoritarian in ideal. The further left you go, the more you find anti-authoritarianism and individualism; conversely the further right you go the more you find Authoritarianism and Statism as an ideal.

Hmm, well. I've always figured in a lot of cases as some people get more extreme on either end of the spectrum, the more power and control they want to make their ideas reality.

That's why I've always liked the grid political map better, with left and right on one axis, and authoritarian versus anarchist (left) and libertarian (right) on the other.

Even that's not perfect, though, because there is a such thing as authoritarian anarchists, who'd like to shove their utopia down society's throats. Thanks to them, anarchists get painted as bomb throwing nut jobs. 9_9

Quote:
Ask yourself which side of the political spectrum really wants to enforce the right way for someone to live? The right is forever pointing it's finger at Liberals, but lets take a random example: Homosexuals. Is it Liberals or Conservatives who think they should live their lives as they wish, is it Liberals or Conservatives who believe they should the legislated against, legally prevented from marrying for instance, because how they choose to live their lives is wrong?

Is it the right or the left wanting to dictate their lives for them? Is it the right or left that campaigns for civil liberties? For Human rights? Is it the right or the left that wants to shoe horn religion into the state, so that people can be told how to act and behave? Can we, at any stage drop this utter drivel about the right being all about freedom and individualism?

The Nazis were right wing.

I could care less about the battle between left and right, so the emotional appeal here is somewhat ineffective. I can name ways that both sides attempt to control issues, policy, and each other. You can say the Nazis are right wing, and this can be discussed. The argument above was more about trying to say the right wing are Nazis, and so I see it as beside the point, and a little biased.

Both sides seem to firmly want to to assert that they are not Nazis. They're probably both right. Nazis are Nazis, nothing really compares to the horror they did, which is why they're the archetype in modern times for brutality, intolerance, and rule by force.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 6:39 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I have to ask... why Left and RIght?

I mean, isn't a little strange that the political process is now between 2 parties?

I mean... call me paranoid... but divide and conquor?

Make it about 2 "teams" and you can control the outcome...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The Left pushes their lifestyle choice as normal and something to be given special status. I.E pushing their views and beliefs on others.

The Rght does not wish their lifestyle choice to be accepted as a special status. By not giving them special status, they are in effect impacting the lifestyle of homosexuals.

The left is categorically not trying to force a life style or a belief system on anyone else, merely trying to stop the right doing so. As usual the right-wing being prevented from taking others rights away is painted, by the right-wing, as an infringement of their rights.

How is giving homosexuals the same rights as everyone else treating them specially, exactly? How is it forcing anything on anyone who isn't homosexual?

You're correct though: The right does not wish their lifestyle to be accepted as a special status. They want their lifestyle and beliefs to be the only choice possible. A fact adequately proven by the fact that it's the right that passes laws to stop people living their lives in ways they see as wrong, not the left.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hmm, well. I've always figured in a lot of cases as some people get more extreme on either end of the spectrum, the more power and control they want to make their ideas reality.

Methods tend too, and the ideology gets more extreme, but the extreme left is replete with ideologies of statelessness, the extreme right is marked by ideologies of increasing state control.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
That's why I've always liked the grid political map better, with left and right on one axis, and authoritarian versus anarchist (left) and libertarian (right) on the other.

If you can find any extreme left political ideals that fit the Authoritarian mould (and communism doesn't count for reasons I've already outlined) I'll listen.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I could care less about the battle between left and right, so the emotional appeal here is somewhat ineffective.

And I could care less about your superiority complex, so your appeal to ridicule is extremely ineffective.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The argument above was more about trying to say the right wing are Nazis, and so I see it as beside the point, and a little biased.

It should be pretty easy for you to pick it apart with a counter-argument and evidence then; pretty telling that you don't/can't.

My argument is that Nazism is a right wing ideal, showing how the ideals of Nazism are represented to some degree or another throughout the Right-wing of the political spectrum isn't biased, so much as a required point of evidence. Trying to claim doing that is claiming all the right are Nazis, is nothing more than a strawman, and perhaps indicative of your own bias. I'd do the same thing to show how Anarchism or Communism are Left-wing ideals, though if you'd prefer to just feel superior and dismiss my statements as bias, seemingly because you didn't understand them, I won't bother.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 6:49 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well I, on the other hand, thoroughly enjoyed Citizen's eloquent thesis (of course) on an emotional level. And I think there is truth to it.

But reading all this, it seems to me again that the interpretation of all these buzz words is pretty subjective; you can find about anything to back up any claim if you look hard enough.

I think it's like mental illness in a way. We may be dx'd with one thing, but we usually have components of other diagnoses, they're just not severe enough to impact us, and virtually EVERYONE has components of one or another diagnosis; again, just not severely enough to impact our lives negatively.

Same with politics (except take out the "impacting our lives"

) I think you can find a bit of every one of those words in virtually every kind of government if you look hard enough. And I think just about any government, over time, can find something positive in any of those philosophies to utilize it.

Politics and government are so subjective, I don't see how anything can be definitive. Unless you're like our RWAs and can hold contradictory beliefs quite happily yet think they're the same. Or have such a dislike of any and all governments that you can't see beyond it.

All the cries of things we hate, in other words, all "visceral" cries: facist, communist, Nazi, socialist, etc., are used to hurl as invectives, when in actuality most people don't even know what they mean, and those who DO, have their view in some way, major or minor, skewed. JMHO.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I think you can find a bit of every one of those words in virtually every kind of government if you look hard enough. And I think just about any government, over time, can find something positive in any of those philosophies to utilize it.

Yes, you probably can. But that's because a government is a practical implementation, not a political ideal. A government is left or right based on the balance of it's political ideology, more ideals from the left, it's left wing, the balance shifted to the right makes it right wing. I'm talking about the ideologies, not the implementation; the ideology of Communism is stateless, the implementation is statism.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 7:04 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So, again, the government has no right, no need, and no cause, in getting involved in social issues.

Thats up to the society to judge, determine, and implement.

Btw, I dont care if you are of the ghey, support the gheys, or if you hate the gheys. Just don't push your ideology on me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 7:05 AM

Quote:
And I could care less about your superiority complex, so your appeal to ridicule is extremely ineffective.

How was this ridicule? You used an appeal to emotion. I called you on it.

If I'm making fun of you, I'll generally let you know. Or at least think I was trying to be funny. I wasn't. Or have a punchline. It didn't.

Quote:
It should be pretty easy for you to pick it apart with a counter-argument and evidence then; pretty telling that you don't/can't.

I haven't been asserting that Nazis aren't fascist. I've been trying to make up my mind on it. Right now, I'm somewhat leaning towards fascist, especially after reading on the wikipedia entry, which I did after I posted my initial impressions.

I'm only trying to look at the Nazis objectively. Aside from that the worst of them were mass murdering monsters, and the least of them were cheerfully (or ignorantly) complicit.

The Nazis did have some policies that were taken from the far left. It doesn't necessarily make them left-wing, no. Everyone knows what the Nazis are and what they did, and neither the left nor the right wing are necessarily Nazis.

And again, you weren't saying how the Nazis were right wing, you were comparing the right wing to Nazis. There's a difference, and yes, it's indicative of bias against the right wing.

I can think of one prominent left wing group that's somewhat authoritarian: environmentalists.

I generally agree with environmentalists on a lot of issues. That doesn't mean they don't use government power and control to decry and prevent industry and individual transgressions on the environment.

You might be able to argue that the most extreme representation of an -ism are all authoritarian in some way. Some of those isms ARE on the left.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 7:23 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

As to environmentalists (as I am one) using government power, I think we do so to a FAR less extent that big business, Big Oil, Pharma, religion, anti-choice or any other such group. They all, and others, use governmental power to achieve their agenda, and many more forcefully and more successfully than environmentalists.

And I don't think all of us are "authoritarian", in fact I don't think most of us are. I don't follow any one environmental group, or any several of them, and abhor the pracites of several. I'd like to hear what you mean by authoritarian in more depth. We do go on the concept that "once you've lost an environment, it's lost for good; even if you protect it, another power will come along to destroy it". It's happened again and again, and always will. If anything, I think we're fatalists and try everything we can to protect what we can, knowing nonetheless that we'll lose in the end, as population keeps going up and mankind's desire to keep "growing" and developing will always continue.

It always amazes me how people can be almost uniformly in favor of growth...it's as finite as oil, yet we keep doing it and it's the determinant factor as to whether a society is "good" or not, strong or not, etc.

Nothing environmentalists have ever done has protected something forever--many things still protect parts of the environment FOR NOW, but we'll lose in the end and those of us honest with ourselves know that. Doesn't mean we won't keep trying.

Nonetheless, I disagree heartily with the idea that environmentalists are anywhere near as authoritarian as the others I cited, and I really would like to understand how you think of us as such.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 7:44 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"The right is forever pointing it's finger at Liberals, but lets take a random example: Homosexuals."

The Left pushes their lifestyle choice as normal and something to be given special status. I.E pushing their views and beliefs on others.

By saying that black people, Hispanics, gays, etc., should be treated EXACTLY like everyone else, should have the SAME rights and privileges, and not be singled out for special treatment, THAT in your view equates to "giving them special status"? Just treating them as equals is "special" in your view?

Quote:

The Rght does not wish their lifestyle choice to be accepted as a special status. By not giving them special status, they are in effect impacting the lifestyle of homosexuals.

Either way, its always a bad idea for government to get involved in social issues.

No, the right ABSOLUTELY wants their own lifestyle choice given special status. They want it codified into LAW, in point of fact. They've actively campaigned on the idea of a Constitutional Amendment PROHIBITING gays from marrying. You can't get much more "special" in your status than being singled out for exclusion by the Constitution.

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 7:56 AM

I say this, in that I agree with environmentalists that we must move towards sustainability, and that I'm always happy to hear a new wilderness area has been designated.

I define authoritarianism to have two aspects: one is that authoritarian followers will listen to a specified authority, and the second is they will then act or react based on the statements and will of that authority.

Let's use the Deep Water Horizon Oil Plume as an example. Say British Petroleum says that they've done all they can to cap that damn well, it just isn't taking. Say some environmentalists call bullshit. Who are you going to believe?

And this is nothing against you, BP is a bunch of lying snakes, and it's wise to not believe a word of what they're saying, because they have a motive to reduce the damages they have to pay and the costs here of this spill.

But you would tend to listen to the environmentalists, wouldn't you? Again, nothing against you, I'd probably do the same. But being fair, this is siding preferentially with people like us, mostly because they are like us, and not like THEM (BP and other polluters), who are evil.

Of course, this presupposes also that environmentalists and BP both have equal expertise in regards to drilling and the capping of leaking wells, which of late I'm not fully convinced is true of BP.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 8:05 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, in a way "tend", but not completely. The blurb on a voter guide or TV ad which says it's supported by environmental groups, such as Sierra Club, etc., doesn't make up my mind to vote for someone or some measure. I want to know more about it, because I know environmental groups will back things that further their agenda SPECIFICALLY, and/or will compromise, so I don't agree with everything those groups' endorse.

I also feel some environmental groups go too far in what they espouse...just as I DESPISE Peta for some of their stances and actions, which I believe end up alienating people rather than giving them the opportunity to come to ideas regarding animals on their own or via education. Same with environmental groups--some go too far and don't take into account anything but the environmental agenda.

By the way, much as I also like to hear of areas being protected (or in the Bay Area, frequently mitigated or returned to their natural state--which goes on here a lot), at the same time I recognize that such is only valid until someone else gets in office and reverses it.

All of which has strayed from the original topic, and I maintain Planned Parenthood is not "liberal" per se.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 8:25 AM

And that's just the thing. They are some of us who are layered, and we don't just unthinkingly back anything. We find an appeal to moral authority fallacy like in political or activist campaigns heavy handed, sometimes even obnoxious, even if in general we agree with that particular authority.

Yet, none of us are without our biases, and through them, we can be easily manipulated. I'm very biased and opinionated, but I do try to be civil. I was in fact trying to be civil with Citizen, but I seem to have offended him, and I regret that. I think I was not careful enough in what I was saying.

Quote:
All of which has strayed from the original topic, and I maintain Planned Parenthood is not "liberal" per se.

No, I don't think so either. Nor is it necessarily evil genocide mwahahaha, and everyone involved eats babies for dinner. As ever, my concern is whether someone with bad intentions can use or abuse something like this, and how.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 8:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
How was this ridicule? You used an appeal to emotion. I called you on it.

You're entire counter was hinged around ridicule, and I called you on it. And for the record you'll have to explain to me how my statements really form an Appeal to Emotion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I haven't been asserting that Nazis aren't fascist. I've been trying to make up my mind on it. Right now, I'm somewhat leaning towards fascist, especially after reading on the wikipedia entry, which I did after I posted my initial impressions.

Didn't say you were. What I said is if my statements were as illogical and flimsy as you try and claim, you'd be able to argue against them, rather than using accusations to detract from them; something you've still failed to do: but whatever.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And again, you weren't saying how the Nazis were right wing, you were comparing the right wing to Nazis. There's a difference, and yes, it's indicative of bias against the right wing.

And again, you can't actually dismiss my argument by attacking it's content, and prefer to wave your arms around, strawman it and call it bias. There's a difference between saying the whole right-wing are Nazis, and saying the Nazis are right wing because their policies can be found throughout the Right wing to some degree or another.

Social Equality plays a big role in the left. In Liberalism it's expressed through social programs, and the aforementioned campaigns for gay marriage; in Communism it manifests as no private ownership, among other things. Oh Noes! According to you I've just called everyone on the left Communist. In this readers digest example, Liberalism and Communism are left wing because they are all about Social Equality, Liberalism isn't Communism because it doesn't take it too the same extreme.

As it is with Nazism. It's right wing because it takes the stance of a strong central government with moral authority that has been a part of the right since the birth of Monarchism; the whole right aren't Nazis because they don't take that to the same degree, the same extreme as Nazism.

Yes there's a difference, it's one of degrees and nuance. Not understanding that would seem to indicate black and white thinking.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
You might be able to argue that the most extreme representation of an -ism are all authoritarian in some way. Some of those isms ARE on the left.

You might try and argue that, wouldn't change that you are wrong of course. Extreme expressions of Anarchy are ideologically completely non-authoritarian, so claiming that they're Authoritarian simply because you've decided extremism is authoritarianism is a non-starter as an argument.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 9:09 AM

Quote:
And for the record you'll have to explain to me how my statements really form an Appeal to Emotion.

The reason I called them an appeal to emotion is because you asked me which wing it is that doesn't allow homosexual marriage. While I would like to see homosexual marriage, I really don't see how that pertains to the conversation about which wing the Nazi party belongs to. Now, obviously the Nazis had some objection to homosexuality, but I thought that was something about eugenics and undesirables. Whereas on the right wing, the objection seems to be religious in general. That might just be a facade to hide eugenics at work on their part, I don't know.

In any case, perhaps it was just me, but I felt like the combination of bringing up gay marriage, which is something I do strongly support, was an appeal to emotion. If I didn't support gay marriage, it might have been an appeal to shame. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but that's what I felt.

And again, ridicule involves a JOKE. There was no joke. I was not ridiculing you. I'm sorry you took it that way.

Quote:
Didn't say you were. What I said is if my statements were as illogical and flimsy as you try and claim, you'd be able to argue against them, rather than using accusations to detract from them; something you've still failed to do: but whatever.

I didn't say they were ALL illogical and flimsy, and the ones I found logical and sound I didn't argue against for obvious reasons. I only objected to the ones where you started about what the right wing supports and what the Nazis support.

Quote:
And again, you can't actually dismiss my argument by attacking it's content, and prefer to wave your arms around, strawman it and call it bias. There's a difference between saying the whole right-wing are Nazis, and saying the Nazis are right wing because their policies can be found throughout the Right wing to some degree or another.

We're debating about whether the Nazis are fascist, we're starting to agree they're fascist. To strawman your argument, I'd have to be trying to make you say something you weren't saying at all, just so I'd have an easier time beating you.

Now, I think I did misunderstand the point you were trying to make, in regards to the right-wing compared to the Nazis, though now that I understand it, I do still have some issues with it.

The specific point of contention here is whether it's fair to say that because some right wing people disagree with gay marriage, or want to force religion on people, and all Nazis disagree with gay people in general, and state sponsored Christianity, that we can safely say that all Nazis are right wing.

I don't think we can, because I think those are wedge issues, and not the main socio-economic and type of government definition of what it is to be right-wing, and what it is to be Nazi.

Some people on the right wing, for example, do believe in civil rights, or believe in evolution, and some of them even support homosexuality. Just as, I imagine, some Nazis quietly dissented with the state policy on Jews, gays, Communists, Socialists, and etc. That really doesn't define either one well, though perhaps you can say, from the fact that some (many?) of them have a willingness to force beliefs on others, that they are authoritarian.

A better argument for them being right wing is the corporatism. That is a fairly water-tight argument, and a level comparison.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 9:31 AM

Let's see. Using your definitions from the French court, where the right wing wants a monarchy/dictatorship, and the left wing wants a Republic, definitely the Nazis are also right wing in that sense.

But I doubt most modern right wing people would agree with that assessment. Is the modern version "wants to remain a republic/corporatist state" and the left is "wants... something different?"

Neither one necessarily is or isn't authoritarian. We might think a Republic is a "freer" government with less authority than a monarchy/dictatorship, but the end result of both is a class of people who controls the general population.

Similarly, an anarchist can be authoritarian if they try to force their system of government on others.

As such, I do still think it's valid to say that all forms of extremism have some element of authoritarianism (including anarchism, which you were posing as an exception, I think). This does not necessarily make the entirety of the specific extremist movement authoritarian.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 10:40 AM

Actually, Byte, the right was pretty clear in that they DID want a monarchy/dictatorship of sorts. Hell, Bush even joked about it. And don't forget all the "unitary executive" talk, the "permanent majority", the claims that Cheney could claim executive privilege despite firmly NOT being in the Executive Branch (his post is in the Legislative Branch of the government, not the Executive, and he ONLY moves to the Executive upon the death or incapacitation of the President, upon which time the Vice President assumes his role and duties - none of which ever happened during Bush's term of office).

The right absolutely wanted a consolidation of all power under one leader. That they didn't *quite* get it is to our great fortune.

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 11:54 AM

Byte

Nazis *were* the social party, before they ate the nationalist party and became national socialist. The accusations of right wingedness of the Nazis posted here are absurd. The nazis favored and achieved a completely government run economy. Their policies were pretty much directly in line with those of the soviets. The reason they hated communists was that they thought communists represented Russia. They had no major policy disputes with the ideology, but I don't know at this is any defense of the left, since, objectively, the soviets were worse than the Nazis, resulting in 60 million deaths in Russia and eastern Europe, and another 70 million in China, not to mention tens of millions of their own civilians, ten times as many as the Nazis slaughtered within their own borders, which is not to say that the Nazis were not evil, but I don't know why the communists would compare favorably.

Liberals,

You can win this debate here, on this thread, because of their sheer numbers, but I would, before bowing out in the face of extremely obvious defeat, advise the members of the left here to feel free to carry this debate into the wider public, where I feel absolutely certain they would lose. This has already been gone over to the nth degree and there's not even a debate on the topic. I offered you the option of disowning the nazis, i think thats a better tack. If you bring the communists Stalinists, and maoists, into your argument, you will go down even more resoundingly.

Sure, the right can be wrong on a lot of issues, from unregulated business to gay marriage. Fight those battles, if you want to win.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 12:26 PM

Question: Is Fascism and state one party Communism the same thing, in practice?

Not communism like the hippy communes, which actually do fulfill the proported original idea of a stateless society. The Stalinist style of Communism that tries to claim that only creating a one party government with absolute power and getting rid of dissenters can "prepare" their nation for a true government-less commune state.

From what I can tell, you have a strong centralized economy in both cases, and a large working class (cannon fodder) supporting an elite class, which reaps full, socialized-style benefits at the expense of the working class (plus the slave labour they get out of people in concentration camps before they kill them).

Did the workers in Soviet Russia get anything, besides bare minimum subsistence wages? In Italy, what did the workers get?

I understand the philosophical and ideological differences, but what are the differences in practice?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The reason I called them an appeal to emotion is because you asked me which wing it is that doesn't allow homosexual marriage.

You need to look up the definition of "appeal to Emotion".

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

And again, ridicule involves a JOKE. There was no joke. I was not ridiculing you. I'm sorry you took it that way.

You might want to check out "appeal to ridicule" while you're at it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I didn't say they were ALL illogical and flimsy, and the ones I found logical and sound I didn't argue against for obvious reasons. I only objected to the ones where you started about what the right wing supports and what the Nazis support.

I've clarified it even further, I'm not going to continue with you misunderstanding/strawman/whatever further.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
We're debating about whether the Nazis are fascist, we're starting to agree they're fascist. To strawman your argument, I'd have to be trying to make you say something you weren't saying at all, just so I'd have an easier time beating you.

Actually we're debating whether they're right-wing; whether they're fascist is ancillary. It's what type of right-wing ideal they are.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The specific point of contention here is whether it's fair to say that because some right wing people disagree with gay marriage, or want to force religion on people, and all Nazis disagree with gay people in general, and state sponsored Christianity, that we can safely say that all Nazis are right wing.

We can safely say Nazism is a right wing political ideal. If someone is an adherent of a right wing political ideal, its fair to say they are "right-wing".

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Some people on the right wing, for example, do believe in civil rights, or believe in evolution, and some of them even support homosexuality. Just as, I imagine, some Nazis quietly dissented with the state policy on Jews, gays, Communists, Socialists, and etc. That really doesn't define either one well, though perhaps you can say, from the fact that some (many?) of them have a willingness to force beliefs on others, that they are authoritarian.

What if some communists believed in Capitalism and not communism? Oh erm, well they'd be Capitalists and not Communists, right

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
A better argument for them being right wing is the corporatism. That is a fairly water-tight argument, and a level comparison.

Well given that your best argument for Authoritarianism not being a right wing ideal is "maybe some Nazis weren't Nazis" I'm not sure you're in a position to say that avenue isn't water tight.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Similarly, an anarchist can be authoritarian if they try to force their system of government on others.

No, because you are confusing ideology with implementation. I've already dealt with this very point; you find authoritarians on both sides of the aisle, but where you find authoritarianism in the left its where a left-wing ideology has failed: vis a vis Communism. Communism is stateless, it's not an Authoritarian in ideal, but it works out that way in implementation because it fails in the real world.

But there are Right-wing ideologies that are Authoritarian by design, Fascism for instance. They're Authoritarian in practice, not by accident like communism, but because they're meant to be.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 12:59 PM

One other major difference between "classical" fascism and communism is that fascism INSISTS on the whole warrior mythos thing. Mussolini may have summed it up best by saying that Italy would reclaim its Roman greatness in the same fashion as Rome, by constantly being at war, and the Nazis also played into that, in that they believed that glory could be found ONLY through constant war.

Communism, even under the Stalinist monstrosity, didn't really go for war that heavily. Hell, Stalin even refused to believe that Hitler had attacked Russia when Operation Barbarossa kicked off.

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 1:09 PM

Hmm, okay, so that answers my question about Communists versus Fascists pretty well. Well, assuming the authoritarianism in Stalinist Communism wasn't the end goal, and that the communist ideology the espoused was just an excuse.

To put it more simply, assuming that it was, in fact, an accident.

What about American libertarians? I know that globally, libertarians actually mean the same thing as anarchists, but over in America, we call the anti-capitalist type an anarchist, and the pro-capitalist type is a libertarian. The American libertarian identifies as right wing.

Quote:
We can safely say Nazism is a right wing political ideal. If someone is an adherent of a right wing political ideal, its fair to say they are "right-wing".

Based on your outline of the Nazi platform, I don't think we can still. In the corporatist sense, Nazis are right-wing, and also fascist, even though they take care of their elite with social programs.

But I'm not prepared to concede that racism, homophobia, and religious intolerance defines what the right wing is. You yourself said that originally, right wing just meant they sat to the right of the king/dictator and supported him.

I will grant that intolerance is common among members of the right wing, but it is not what defines it. Similarly, I'm not sure intolerance is what defines the system of government the Nazis promoted, though their intolerance is definitely what's remembered best about them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
You can win this debate here, on this thread, because of their sheer numbers, but I would, before bowing out in the face of extremely obvious defeat, advise the members of the left here to feel free to carry this debate into the wider public, where I feel absolutely certain they would lose.

Which "wider public" are we talking about? The US public, who've grown up in a country whose political system is so skewed to the right that the Democrats are considered it's left wing party? Or the wider public of the world, who by and large on board with the Nazis being right-wing? Really the first (and only) time I ever heard any suggestion that the Nazi's weren't of the right, is from American Right-wingers.

Continue to believe as you wish, but don't think you're anything but the minority, or doing anything but denying the evidence.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This has already been gone over to the nth degree and there's not even a debate on the topic.

Indeed, the Nazis were Right-wing; and as your retreat shows, there's is no debate on the topic

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 1:15 PM

So both are nationalistic, but one is more martial?

What about the Cold War? Russia was pretty competitive with us for a while, until they drained their coffers.

Actually, kinda glad we didn't go to actual war against Russia. In all likelyhood, we would have been slaughtered in a Napoleon-esque way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hmm, okay, so that answers my question about Communists versus Fascists pretty well. Well, assuming the authoritarianism in Stalinist Communism wasn't the end goal, and that the communist ideology the espoused was just an excuse.

No, because assuming it was just an excuse, it's still the case that Communist Ideology isn't Authoritarian.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
What about American libertarians? I know that globally, libertarians actually mean the same thing as anarchists, but over in America, we call the anti-capitalist type an anarchist, and the pro-capitalist type is a libertarian. The American libertarian identifies as right wing.

Another thing I talked about in a previous post. Libertarianism is an off-shoot of classical liberalism.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Based on your outline of the Nazi platform, I don't think we can still. In the corporatist sense, that's right-wing, and also fascist, but I'm not prepared to concede that racism, homophobia, and religious intolerance defines what the right wing is. You yourself said that originally, right wing just meant they sat to the right of the king/dictator and supported him.

No, I said it was rooted in Monarchism, further Absolutist Monarchism; which is inherently about a strong centralised religious state (since an absolutist monarch is one ruling with divine providence).

But you're trying to drag up details and ignoring what they are. The Nazi's enacted Racism, Religious Intolerance et al. as part of a state dictated master race. It's the details of Nazism's implementation of their Authoritarian ideal.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I will grant that intolerance is common among members of the right wing, but it is not what defines it. Similarly, I'm not sure intolerance is what defines the system of government the Nazis promoted, though their intolerance is definitely what's remembered best about them.

No, Authoritarianism does, intolerance was merely one of the mechanisms they used to impliment their Authoritarian Ideal.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
What about the Cold War? Russia was pretty competitive with us for a while, until they drained their coffers.

And the US was also pretty martial (and arguably more so), while also had it's own witch hunts under Joseph McCarthy: A republican senator.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So both are nationalistic, but one is more martial?

Somewhat. It's one of the key tenets of fascism that war = glory = the greater good of the nation. Communism believes in the sacrifice of the few for the good of the state, but it doesn't necessarily go all-out in insisting upon a constant state of invasion and conquest, and it doesn't necessarily preach the self-sacrifice in military endeavors to be the greatest glory achievable.

Quote:

What about the Cold War? Russia was pretty competitive with us for a while, until they drained their coffers.

Actually, kinda glad we didn't go to actual war against Russia. In all likelyhood, we would have been slaughtered in a Napoleon-esque way.

They were on a "showboat" footing with us, but how often did we actually go to war with each other? Look at the Soviets' actual record of military invasion, conquest and takeover. Not much success there. Contrast it with Nazi Germany, where you had them rapidly taking on - and beating - France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, etc. Add that to the Italian sweeps through the Mediterranean (backed by the Germans, of course), and the backing they gave in the conquest of nationalists in Spain, and you see a real dedication to conquest, and some real skill in it - up to a point, anyway! Really, had the Germans not launched attacks against England and Russia, they likely could have held the European continent pretty easily.

I'm not real sure how a hot war between the U.S. and the Soviets would have played out. I'm glad we never had to find out, because I doubt it would have stayed non-nuclear for very long at all.

Anyway, that's my take on some of it.

Nationalism = All for the glory of the state, through armed conflict and conquest.

Communism = All for the glory of the worker, through the death of the state. Or so they say. ;)

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Byte

Nazis *were* the social party, before they ate the nationalist party and became national socialist. The accusations of right wingedness of the Nazis posted here are absurd. The nazis favored and achieved a completely government run economy. Their policies were pretty much directly in line with those of the soviets. The reason they hated communists was that they thought communists represented Russia. They had no major policy disputes with the ideology, but I don't know at this is any defense of the left, since, objectively, the soviets were worse than the Nazis, resulting in 60 million deaths in Russia and eastern Europe, and another 70 million in China, not to mention tens of millions of their own civilians, ten times as many as the Nazis slaughtered within their own borders, which is not to say that the Nazis were not evil, but I don't know why the communists would compare favorably.

Liberals,

You can win this debate here, on this thread, because of their sheer numbers, but I would, before bowing out in the face of extremely obvious defeat, advise the members of the left here to feel free to carry this debate into the wider public, where I feel absolutely certain they would lose. This has already been gone over to the nth degree and there's not even a debate on the topic. I offered you the option of disowning the nazis, i think thats a better tack. If you bring the communists Stalinists, and maoists, into your argument, you will go down even more resoundingly.

Sure, the right can be wrong on a lot of issues, from unregulated business to gay marriage. Fight those battles, if you want to win.

The left doesn't have to disown the Nazis because they were an extremed right winged party, and only someone with a sorry understanding of history and politics would call them left winged. The NAME meant nothing. Their characteristics were extreme nationalism, law and order, militarism and of course the whole racial purity deal. They were a dictatorship. EXTREME RIGHT WING. Just as Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy were extreme right wing.

Yes, the Nazis were different. They were crazier.

Fascinating having this topic discussed where this is even questioned. Gives me an insight into some of the rewriting of history by the American right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 1:45 PM

You put DT's name in there for some reason, Citizen.

Quote:
But you're trying to drag up details and ignoring what they are. The Nazi's enacted Racism, Religious Intolerance et al. as part of a state dictated master race. It's the details of Nazism's implementation of their Authoritarian ideal.

Quote:
No, Authoritarianism does, intolerance was merely one of the mechanisms they used to impliment their Authoritarian Ideal.

Hmm. It's going to take me some effort to grasp that. But I think the background on the kings helped to make the connection to divine right and such with the Nazis.

Are we necessarily sure that this does represent the modern right wing? The religious right, maybe, but there's multiple kinds of right wing.

You know, someone else I know, besides DT, also thinks the Nazis were left, and we had an argument two weeks ago about it. I might check in again with him to see if I can his arguments in simple form, and see what you make of them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 4:45 PM

Quote:
Byte: Question: Is Fascism and state one party Communism the same thing, in practice?

Undoubtedly some, but not enough to make a serious difference, the corporatist fascists created the same kind of centralization of power and control over industry.

Mike makes a good point on the warrior myth, I'll add another one, fascists were pro white babies, and anti Jew.

Citizen, sorry, I should have clarified, Americans misuse the word liberal, as we do football, and in the sense that liberal means austrian economics and libertarian policies, the Nazis were not it. I do historical research for the head of your own British head of history, so I can tell you from that dept, that there is virtually no one, none that I've met, who thinks that the Nazis were right wing, this is a liberal fantasy with no basis in fact.

That said, sorry for the rant guys. I wanted to clarify a point on Junkers. Junkers were not a political party, they were much more like the tea party, and not hat dissimilar ideologically. 56% of Germans allied themselves with the junkers, and around 40% with the Nazis. When the propaganda campaign first started in the 20s, anti semitism was virtually non-existent, polling around 2%. after successfully blaming the Jews for wwi, the German defeat in wwi, the economic crisis and the international hostility towards Germany, it hit a peak of around 50%. with roughly 80% of those voting Nazi, anyone can crunch the numbers and see that yes, there must have been some anti Semitic Junkers, but also, that it must have been a slim minority.

As for junker businesses supporting the NSDAP, junker businesses were confiscated, so it really doesn't imply anything.

Again, the left is free to disown the Nazis, they are not free to push them off on the right, which is a preposterous idea.

If you go back to the right wing that precedes modern conservatives, meaning the monarchists, then your not talking about the same group of people at all: today's Tories are the former Whigs, the ones who opposed the tories of the 18th c. Most americans don't get this. Tory is a nickname, it comes from the Celtic toreigh, for rebel, which first surfaced I believe it was the Irish who resisted british rule.

Oh, citizen, welcome back, good to see you. Your people elected David Cameron, good choice, I wish we had a candidate like that to vote for here. Alas, I suspect well get Sarah Palin. Not quite the same thing ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 4:54 PM

Quote:
Mike makes a good point on the warrior myth, I'll add another one, fascists were pro white babies, and anti Jew.

Actually, that seems to be kind of unique to the Nazi brand of fascism, which rather sets it apart. And heck, it seems as if every nation and "-ism" has had its anti-Semitic period(s).

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 5:05 PM

Good point byte. Russia and Germany both had over the top pageantry. Germany mainly conquered things to remove enemies from the board, Russia actually tried to control the things it conquered, which ate a ton of resources. Russia in that regard was much more like china or Rome, probably halfway in between. China tends to destroy the local culture, rather than use it.

Quote:
The left doesn't have to disown the Nazis because they were an extremed right winged party, and only someone with a sorry understanding of history and politics would call them left winged. The NAME meant nothing. Their characteristics were extreme nationalism, law and order, militarism and of course the whole racial purity deal. They were a dictatorship. EXTREME RIGHT WING. Just as Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy were extreme right wing.

Preserving this for posterity. That was a pretty warped view of the right. My point earlier was that no one in the real world agrees with this position. I suspect the rewriting of history is happening on this board right now.

Oh, and Magon, just in case you missed it, there was absolutely nothing right wing in the argument you just put forth.

If the right is racist, then why were the major civil right achievements historically made by the right?

If the right is warlike, why have almost all wars been initiated by the left, and the bloodiest ones overwhelmingly left-on-left?

If the right is so nationalistic, then why is it always left wing governments who nationalize everything?

If the police state is a right wing concept, then how come libertarian individualism is a right concept, almost all police states have been set up by left wing parties and the police seem to always align themselves with the left wing party?

I know this isn't just the US. I see Cameron has already gotten rid of the national ID card program (a racist police state policy of warmonger Tony Blair, no?)

I think your projecting on to the right a lot of boogeymen rather than looking at us as people who have real beliefs, values, and an idea of the best way to run a government, which I believe is minimalist, not fascist.

I believe we had this conversation a lot ealier, and on this side of the aisle we conceded pinochet as a right wing dictator, but really it's not a common phenomenon at all. I think almost always it's a structure that has the word socialist actually in the name.

What boggles my mind is that after a couple hundred million deaths were still debating whether or not socialism is a good form of government, it seems to me that if it kills everyone, then no, its not.

Ironically, I suspect we would actually agree on a lot of specific policies. We just seem to disagree on who has historically stood for those policies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 5:14 PM

Quote:
The Nazi's enacted Racism, Religious Intolerance et al. as part of a state dictated master race. It's the details of Nazism's implementation of their Authoritarian ideal.

Citizen,

Thank you for making my point for me. I agree entirely.

As I said, this was not liberal of them, but it wasn't conservative either.

Oer the thread, I think John's point was not to simply condemn the left, but was to answer the claim that the racists were on the right.

The reality is that the racists are everywhere, and I think that was the point, so saying random tea par tiers are racist, and hence the tea party movement is a racist movement is fallacious, like saying all fruits are bananas.

I mean, sure, I could make the argument that in the 1990s the democrats opposed intervention in Rwanda tl save blacks from being massascred and then supported intervention in bosnia to save whites, and ask whether people really thought that race played no part in that decision. Really?

But I generally avoid such arguments because they're pointless. I am only forced to make the "Nazis were left-wing" argument to refute the rather absurd claim that Nazis were right-wing

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 5:22 PM

Mike,

Good point, though it's safe to say that Italy was anti-Semitic under Mussolini,, it was just that it wasn't genocidally anti-Semitic, but it was still a lot more anti-Semitic than today's Iran. (actually I think the latter is mostly in the minds of the zionists. As a pretty strong supporter of Israel myself I think the whole anti-Iran thing is absurd. Oh, and israel, is making itself very hard to support rit now, so I ue everyone, blame Netanyahu, the man and his govt, which I'll grant is rit wing, and not Israel as a country. It seems highly unlikely that six million people wanted to attack a flotilla, and right now I'm sure their alk being told that the flotilla was full of terrorists which shipments of arms...)

Right now, this country is anti Mexican, and anti Muslim, those worry me a lot more. No one is about to set up camps filled with Jews, but someone might set up "deportation camps" for mexicans, or internment calms for"terrorist suspects" read Muslims

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 5:31 PM

Quote:
Preserving this for posterity. That was a pretty warped view of the right. My point earlier was that no one in the real world agrees with this position. I suspect the rewriting of history is happening on this board right now.

It seems to be spreading, quite rapidly and widely. Would you say that Wikipedia represents the "real world" in at least some capacity, given that real-world people can edit it?

From Wiki, re: Fascism:

Quote:

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy.[5][6] Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but gravitated to the political right in the early 1920s.[7][8] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.[15] In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[16][17] They advocate the creation of a single-party state.[18] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[19] They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

That certainly bears an awful lot of similarity to the 7 years following 9/11, it seems.

Okay, so that's a real-world working definition of Fascism. But what of Nazism, which was a specific outgrowth of fascism? What does the real world hold for that idea of government and state?

Again from Wiki, re: Nazism:

Quote:

Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and anti-Semitism.[9] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[10]
Racial ideology is an important component of Nazism, that stresses the belief in the supremacy of an Aryan master race.[11] The Nazis claimed that the German nation represents the most racially pure Aryan people.[11] The Nazis deemed the greatest threat to the Aryan race and the German nation as the Jewish race, which the Nazis described as being a parasitic race that has attached itself to various ideologies and movements to secure its self-preservation, such as the Enlightenment, liberalism, democracy, parliamentary politics, capitalism, industrialization, Marxism, and trade unions.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

So it seems the real world - or at least the parts of it that are online - holds that fascism and Nazism ARE hard-right forms of government.

I know that doesn't jibe with your belief system, but if you're going to try to disown the Nazis, maybe you shouldn't be surprised if they get thrown back at you when you try to throw them onto the left. Nobody wants the Nazis. Well, PN maybe, but nobody RATIONAL wants them. :)

And if you say that none of those tenets of fascism are held by the right in this country, I'll merely point out that these were the exact kinds of things the Republicans did or tried to do, or talked about wanting to do, during the Bush years. You can claim that they weren't really "on the right", but that's as ludicrous as claiming that Hitler was on the left!

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 5:40 PM