The sentence “Nazi-ism is an extension of liberal, left wing political thought”, so glibly uttered by Mr. TheRobb, I find problematic. The question is whether TR was referring to Nazism or merely to its latter day reincarnations. While it is clear to me that Nazism is a far-right movement - more on that later - it could be that TR was merely referring to the fact that, much to the shame of all concerned, there is nothing liberals can do about Neo-Nazism. While never actually supportive, a liberal feels obliged to protect everybody’s right to express their opinion, which may prove troublesome at times.
It could be, however, that TR was indeed referring to classical Nazism. If this be so, I disagree. The trouble is that, as always, one tries to portray multidimensional beings - being of multiple characteristics - onto a single-celled vector, or dimension. If we are to examine three rival ideologies prevalent during the first half of the 20th century - Liberal Capitalism, Fascism, and Communism - we can clearly see that each shares one denomination with every other ideology and differs from it by two. A rough generalization as it may be, the following least may prove to be of use:
Fascism: Tyranny, Capitalist Economy, All Human Beings Are Definitely Not Equal
Communism: Tyranny (at least during Stalinist period), Communist Economy, Equity
Liberal Capitalism: Democracy, Capitalist Economy, Equity (although to a lesser extent than communism)
What then is the dimension Fascism and Communism are on different sides of which whereas Liberal Capitalism is somewhere in the middle? Equity. A communist sees all men as equal, countries obsolete relics of the past. For one man to attain wealth is sinful, although it bodes well for Siberian housing contractors. A fascist is not only capitalist – seeing monetary inequality as necessary and right – but also delves further into national borders. A fascist sees men as belonging to their country, rather than the opposite. And above all, there rises the fascist leader, worshipped and revered (this may have been the case concerning Stalinistic Communism as well, but shouldn’t have been). Nazism is tricky. Some would have it placed to Fascism’s right, differentiating, as it were, between presumed races as well. Some would have it acknowledged as little more than a stupider form of fascism. Liberal Capitalism, as practiced in some current day countries, is in the middle: it acknowledges the existence of countries and monetary inequality, but does not sees the people of other countries as inferiors. One should further the interest of one’s countries, if only by way of consequentially furthering his own interests; but there lacks that zealousness of fascism. Also, democratic as Liberal Capitalism is, there is no deified leader, and the country is at the hands of the people, rather than the opposite. The Liberals referred to are obviously leaning to the left (historically, due to opposing French Revolution factions, thus called); Taking From The Rich And Giving To The Poor While Absolutely Not Wearing Green Tights. Conservatives, on the other hand, are willing to except greater inequality. This Does Not Make Them Bad People. They Too Are Not Obliged To Wear Tights. Clearly, Liberals and Conservatives also differ on other levels, other dimension not hereby discussed; ever is this the case when one compares ideologies based on a single value.
(Not to bad for a first post, is it? It is? Darn.)
