I’d have no problem with that, just so long as you’re willing to change the name of the Republican Party to the American Fascist Party.
Are you SURE that you really want truth in advertising?
I think that people who think people are basically good, would trust people to own a gun. Progressives don’t trust, respect or, it seems, even much like people. They like the people, an abstract concept, as the justification for such delicious power.
Still if there is one thing that the Internet, and it’s crazy old uncle Usenet has taught us, it’s that there is not a single moral or political philosophy that is not, in all meaningful ways, clearly identical to that of national socialism.
If the act is perpetrated by right wingers and it is right wingers who benifit, what, exactly makes it a left wing act? Some polysci textbook that you read way back when?
I guess it all lies in your definition of a “planned economy.” Do you think that Cheney’s old company getting a multi-million (perhaps multi-billion) dollar contract in Iraq without having to bother to bid, was unplanned? My guess is that considerable planning went into THAT little scam.
Conservative basically means maintaining the staus quo, but Nazism was a revolunatirly poltical ‘phiolosphy’. Socialism means univeral suffrage and an emphasis on social justice which was not Nazism.
As a ex-history student who’s particular area of interest is the Weimar Republic Nazisim is a right-wing non-conservative ideology which operated socialism for one race (or as Hitler siad ‘non-Marxist socialism’). As time went by the cod-socilaist ideology fell by the wayside and the racist politics that were the defining aspects of National Socialism came to the forefront.
Maybe crushing labor unions is “left-wing,” in some kind of absolute sense of the term. But take, say, Reagan’s firing of all those airtraffic control workers back in the 80’s after they went on strike. Reagan himself would have identified that as a “right-wing” act, and so would most labor union leaders, and probably so would most people in this country.
Other instances of increased govermental control that are generally considered to be “right-wing” include, say, the recent push to add a constitutional amendment that outlaws gay marriage (or flag burning, for that matter.)
I think you’re defining “right wing” as “less governmental control” and “left wing” as “more governmental control” but the fact is that most people in the U.S., and most politicians, don’t see it that way.
There is nothing abstract about the populace of the United States. We exist. As a group and as individuals. Progressives understand this. One need not distrust the group to restrict weaponry on the basis that with them individuals can do a lot of damage. None of the gun control advocates I know are in it to disempower the people. If there is some conspiracy, as you seem to be implying, that the people were to be disarmed so that they may not effectively resist unwanted or tyrannical acts by the government then that would be an authoritarian, and thus not progressive at all. Which is why it was progressive for the “Antifederalist” using the nom de plume of “Jacob Trusty” to denounce a suspected attempt by the “Federalists” ( known as the Republican party here in Pennsylvania ) to do just that under the guise of turning in their “mush sticks” for cleaning. ( Guncite.com )
I am unaware of this truism.
How is liberalism identical in a democratic way to fascism?
Yes, I thought this was a bizarre statement too until I realised he meant that every outlook is disparaged by its opponents as being akin to Nazism.
The interesting question here is, did Anne Frank believe that “The will of the dominant group, and or majority of the German populace in 1944” was basically good at heart?
The comment was not intended to imply disarmament was a prelude to something more sinister, but that allowing people to own guns implies a great deal of trust. You could do a great deal of damage, but if your core underlying assumption is that people are basically good at heart, then there is no need for concern. If conservatives don’t trust people, why do they want them to have the ability to kill them at range? I never said that Progressives distrusted the group, rather that they liked it as a means of justifying authority.
How would you suppose “Jacob Trusty” would have reacted if federal gun cleaning programs were enacted by a particularly vocal and popular people-as-group?
This was a reference to Godwin’s law. I don’t actually think every philosophy is identical to fascism, just that for any given philosophy, or idea, there is someone who believes that it is clearly every bit as bad as fascism and in particular, that anyone who disagrees with them is no different than Hitler. As the length of a thread approaches infinity, the probability of such a person posting approaches one.
Just to be silly, how exactly are two things “democratically” identical? I would assume by receiving the majority of either votes, or more broadly, popular support. Thus fascism and liberalism(any form) are democratically identical having been popularly supported by the people of various countries at various times. This naturally implies that FDR, Reagan, and Carson Daily are likewise no different, “democratically”, than Hitler.
Isn’t it perhaps just a tad obvious monty IS a right-wing ideologue? :dubious:
Your trademark, if I can call it such, is calling spades, trowels, shovels, backhoes, plows, oxen, elephants, lampshades and doorknobs a spade. It’d be a real lark if anyone expected you to try to support any of your ranting with facts. :rolleyes:
It’s sort of too bad more people haven’t mentioned this, because Communists were one of the groups rounded up and sent to concentration and labor camps by the Nazis, which says more about how they felt about Socialists than their title.
I find it a little ludicrous that people are trying to call Nazism left-wing. Let me make a comparison of a few policies, allowing for the facts that I’m being very general:
GAYS
American left-wingers: debating whether or not to support gay marriage.
Nazis: threw gays into camps and murdered them.
MINORITIES
American left-wingers: support Affirmative Action programs.
Nazis: threw blacks and Jews into camps and murdered them.
SPEECH
American left-wingers: support First Amendment and right to criticize government.
Nazis: threw dissidents into camps and murdered them, or jailed them.
PRESS
American left-wingers: support right to a free press.
Nazis: government ran a state propaganda press, destroyed presses of critics.
RELIGION
American left-wingers: support separation of church and state.
Nazis: set up a state religion based on racial purity and the Aryan ideal.
ELECTIONS
American left-wingers: have been known to complain a bit about ballot counting.
Nazis: attempted a pustch, burned down German Reichstag, seized power.
Okay, the last one was a bit tongue-in-cheek, and I’m not trying to say the American right doesn’t support the First Amendment and such. But calling Nazism left-wing is ridiculous. Calling it right-wing doesn’t make a lot of sense either, the fact is that it was an dictatorship run by an autocrat (and a not very sane one at that). Nazi Germany’s policies were whatever Hitler and his group wanted them to be. They certainly aren’t in line with classical liberalism, but it’s modern conservatism either. It’s outside of the spectrum of politics, I think: Nazi ideology stems from the Aryan Race stuff and the policies flow from that. Believing in all that Third Reich crap isn’t liberal or conservative, it’s nuts. And there are nuts on both sides of the aisle anyway.
Marley23, well done!
-
The incarceration of individuals without specific charges being made and without access to attorneys.
-
The use of technicalities to avoid following the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of POW’s.
-
Invasion of privacy (unless you consider the Patriot Acts to be police matters).
(Just to name three things that concern me.)
grib,
It seemed to me that you were challenging the consistency of progressive gun control advocates. That view is mistaken and I was trying to show why. You might not agree with the calculation that it is too dangerous to allow individuals to possess firearms but it isn’t inconsistent for someone who trusts the group not to trust individuals with them. The proposition that nearly everyone can be trusted doesn’t preclude the belief that irresponsible individuals are doing an unacceptable amount of damage with their guns.
As for the other side, you might as well ask why conservatives no longer support slave or child labor. No political philosophy takes every conservative or progressive position. If they did there would only be 2 ideologies from now until the end of time.
I don’t understand what you are saying about progressives supporting gun control as a means of justifying authority. Are you saying that they don’t care about the guns themselves? What authority is derived from depriving people of guns other than the authority to deprive people of guns?
RexDart,
Political philosophies change. My point here is that they can be divided into 2 simple catagories. Liberalism is very different from the Country ideology of the Antifederalists like “Jacob Trusty” yet both are progressive.
It appears that the Nazi economy was highly regulated (in order to support rearmament), and was dominated by large, private cartels. Unions were busted and wages depressed. I’m not sure how to classify this, but it doesn’t strike me as socialism. It sounds more like crony capitalism to me.
Anyway, I’ll actually back up my viewpoint with some cites:
There’s a good amount of detail about how this was organized, with numerous rules and regulations that were quite difficult to keep track of and follow. However, as you can see, large businesses actually remained private, which is hardly a hallmark of economic socialism.
As for the unions:
As for social issues, let’s see who the Nazis have more in common with. The Nazis sent gays to the death camps, and from the Texas Republican Party Platform for 2002, we get this nice tidbit:
http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2002.pdf
Ok, maybe they don’t want to send gays to death camps. They just want them arrested and fined.
Comparing socialism or modern liberalism to Nazism is complete nonsense.
I think you’ve got that backwards. Broadly speeaking, conservative ideals are based on the premise that people are inherently good, while liberal ideals are based on the premise that people are inherently bad. Conservatives believe that people are capable of taking care of themselves and will generally make the right decision when faced with a moral dilema, so the government doesn’t really need to get involved with people’s lives. Liberals believe that people can’t take care of themselves and wil usually make the wrong decision, so the government needs to be involved with all aspects of its citizen’s lives.
Neither view is really adequate, nor is either really descriptive of what people believe. The whole left/right and/or liberal (aka “progressive”)/conservative dichotomy is totally meaningless these days. Most people are moderates with a slight lean in some direction. The average person usually has one or two issues they care deeply about, and vote for the party that they feel represents their view on those issues.
Getting back to the main point, the attitude that “it really is just that simple” to divide people into two groups indicates that you DON’T think people are basically good. Your want to believe that people who hold different opinions than you don’t “think people are basically good,” and therefore are not basically good themselves.
You say that the answer to your question isn’t helpful in determining a person’s ideology, so why do you consider it a good standard for establishing your “clear cut black and white dichotomy?”
Basically I disagree with you on two points:
- That it is possible or at all useful to be “dividing people into a clear cut black and white dichotomy.”
- The standard you use to create the dichotomy is self-contradictory.
It’s easy to divide people into 2 groups. You simply make a distinction in your mind and, barring ambiguity, everyone naturally lines up on one side or the other. Just sitting here I have divided everyone into those I would be interested in having sex with and those I would not. The question then is the usefulness of assuming a particular binary viewpoint. I find my “trust people; not trust people” dichotomy is useful because, as I state, I have found without fail that those one one side are progressive and those who aren’t, aren’t. A clarification is in order here. Liberalism is the most popular progressive ideology in America but it isn’t alone. Similarly there is more than one conservative ideology. Further, people are often ambigous about their internal compass. So you can’t know how people will identify themselves politically. But it does tell you whether someone is leftwing or rightwing. I find that information useful. YMMV.
I assure you that I do believe in the basic goodness of people. That I recognize that not everyone agrees with me does nothing to contradict my belief. Getting back to the National Socialists, I think even they were basically good. My belief is demonstrated by the very existence of Nazi ideology. If people weren’t basically good there would be no need to build a framework to justify attrocities. Evil people wouldn’t need any justification other than self-interest to engage in genocide. I am not a psychologist but it is my understanding that the rare individual who doesn’t want to be a good person is not considered sane; they are sociopaths. If there are any mental health professionals out there I would appreciate feedback on this.
If you would care to list some examples of liberal policies that indicate distrust of the people in general then I will attempt to show you how you are mistaken. But I suspect that if you would just recognize the distinction between trusting the people and trusting all individuals that I have been making over and over in this thread then your examples will be selfexplanatory.
Otto omitted the part about Anne asking to touch another girl’s breasts?
The edition I read had that part, which was a great comfort to me after having been freaking out, totally, by more than one other girl making similar requests.
Hoo boy. Back, back elongated hijacking!
The truth is far more complex.
Nazism was a sort of hybrid of two strains of European thought. First, the Prussian emphasis on order, discip;line, military power, which itself encompassed a certain distaste for vulgar capitalism and most definitely a dislike of Jews and Poles was a founding part of Nazi thought. Secondly, socialism, albeit not liberal socialism or communism, played a major part. The Nazi’s thought, like most socialists, that capitalist society was leading humanity into a dead-end: a weak, failing state that made its citizens weak. The signs of capitalism could remain, since as long as they marched to the tune of the central government there was no real problem with them. Corporations became, in essence, a officially unconnected branch of the governemnt, as responsible as anything else for the distribution of neccessary goods and services. Make no mistake - the Nazis used capital, but they found the pursuit of wealth crass, materialistic, and “Jewish” - in all the negative connotations they could muster around it. The Jews were often blamed for Germany’s poor financial state, with amjor fingers pointing to the big banker Jews that played a huge role in the Imperial/Hohenzollern state, and the growth of Berlin.
But, even in these two cases, you’d never see an American conservative see eye-to-eye with a Prussian conservative, then or now, and liekwise for Democrats and the socialists.
I’d say being part of the KKK would be more Nazi-ish than opposing gay marriage. And what is the only party to have a KKK member elected to the US Senate? The Democrats. Nazi’s are left wing like him.
Bite me, commies.