That matter is not what I have seen that history is teaching us.
As I noticed before in reality I’m not the one that needs to take remedial history the Nazis in the 1930s began to switch from a “people’s party” to gain the support of industrial owners, and it shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes, as pointed before it was the left elements in the Nazi party who wanted to keep the banks in state control but Hitler “convinced” them that that ship had passed.
I have no idea why the fact that most socialists or communists ended in concentration camps is not considered to be repression.
Sorry, but I’m using the modern and more pertinent definitions, what I see is that you do want to use even the old definitions that the fascists used on the way up, many were indeed fooled by their early rhetoric, nowadays many do know what the real designs and the acts of the fascists were, it is mostly in the USA that we see a heavy effort into rewriting history to make it more in tune with current silly talking points that claim that the left in America are the fascists of today.
I’m not entirely sure what you said there. For someone so certain he’s right, you can’t seem to type a coherent sentence.
Italics mine. This alone shows you do not understand the history of the Nazi party. At no time was it ever anything but a national socialist, anti-semitic party. The fact that their particular brand of socialism wasn’t identical to the Communists doesn’t make them Right-Wing. It never shifted to anything.
I don’t recall saying any such thing. What I did say was that Nazi attacked
the Communists and their political base in a very different way than they attacked real German conservative groups. The later were turned into puppers: the former were either absorbed or destroyed. Second, Socialists were not neccessarily going to concentration camps, and many Communsits didn’t either. Hard-left socialists were often treated as state enemies, but the democratic socliasts were usually not. Communists who abandoned the Red flag for the brown shirt were as Nazi as anyone. It was the hardliners who refused to join a nationalist movement who were repressed.
What are you talking about?
There’s a been a discussion of what exactly the word conservative means, and I tried to cover every variant as best I can. if you simply can’t accept that a radical group came form the left while still embracing nationalism, military expansionism, tyranny, and anti-semitism, then I don’t know much what to tell you. All I can say is that the Communist movement in every county where it succeeded, and for that matter the French Revolution, was all of those, except not so anti-semitic. That was a unique feature of German culture of the era, but not particularly right or left.
In short, I identified my terms and stated the facts as they apply. You may not like it, but which one of us is forcing language to mean what they like? You’re the one who made specific claims for history in vague and semi-unreadable prose.
And yet, I’m not saying this taints all leftists of any stripe. Despite the Wilsonian era* American progressives are usually big-hearted. I think they’re insane and bound to outmoded concepts which didn’t do all that well even when they were young, not evil. They don’t bear responsibility for the Nazis: that lies with the Nazis. At the same time, you can’t really pretend that Mussolini’s fascism was not directly inspired by Wilson, because Mussolini proudly proclaimed it, and AMerican progressives cheered him on.
*I’d point out how this kneecaps’ fumster “arguments,” but I don’t think he’d listen.
Guilty as charged on the grammar issue, so corrections are needed:
The Nazis in the 1930s began to switch from a “people’s party” into one that dropped those ideals and this was done to gain the support of industrial owners, and it shifted into having even stronger anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.
More understandable, thank you. However, that’s factually incorrect. Hitler laid out (in his own twisted way) his plans right on the table well before he took power. At no point were the Nazis anything except anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist If you want to argue it wasn’t a Marxist party, I would agree. But Marxism is not the sum total of the Left.
The Nazism became whatever they needed to be to take and keep power, true. They never forgot their overall national-socialist program in the process, and in this respect they were no different from any other totalitarian party.
The terms “liberal/leftist” includes several characteristics such as workers rights and state control of industry. You keep ignoring the 2nd characteristic (central planning) and remain hyperfocused on the 1st (workers unions) to the exclusion of all other data.
It’s as if a conservative denies that modern Republicans are not conservative because it “abandoned the ideas of fiscal conservatism and spent all their time arguing about pro-life instead balancing the budget.” No, that type of definition would be laughable to liberals.
If you’re purposely cherry picking a single liberal bullet point to the exclusion of all else, you’re just playing semantic games and being obstinate.
No, once again in the place these things took place, Europe, they will look at you weirdly if you insist fascism was liberal/leftist and it is not only just because of workers unions.
William F. Buckley once wrote that a conservative’s duty is “to stand athwart history and shout ‘Stop!’” But in fact he always seems to end up hanging on the tail-end of it dragging his heels.
And once again, the rulers in the USSR, China and other communist nations do hate liberals. As Tony Benn, former leader of the populist left in the British Labour party would tell you, and it is because virtually all liberals support democracy among other things.
I haven’t read the thread, but I can’t resist adding my two cents.
It has little to do with conservationism and progressivism.
I’d rather distinguish between realism and idealism.
Idealism has almost always been a positive force when it came to the spreading of ideas and when it allowed societies and individuals to act on those ideas freely and in their own time (in othet words, when idealism allowed to be checked by realism). Idealism has almost NEVER been a good thing when it was forced on people, forcing them to ignore the realities of everyday life. Both communism and religion are good (or rather, bad) examples of that. Communism demonized economic and sociological realities; Many religions have demonized and failed to channel existing human urges.
Because they weren’t and aren’t? Eugenics is a conservative ideal. It’s all about purifying society of the “unclean” and “unfit”; usually translating to people who are of the “wrong race” or who are poor. It’s conservatives who panic over the “genetically unfit” outbreeding the “fit”.
Not so. It’s neither conservative nor liberal. Famous left-wingers such as John Maynard Keynes, William Beveridge, George Bernard Shaw, and so on, were known for supporting eugenics. The left/right wing divide was based on class, not race; that’s the only difference.
Margaret Sanger and most of the scientific and college professor community were conservatives? Interesting. Malden added some big names that i hadn’t thought of.
Okay, one more time. “Progressives” killed from eighty to one hundred and twenty million people in Eurasia in the twentieth century. They chanted pretty much the same kind of mantras about social justice, equality, and all the rest of that noble sounding claptrap that progressives in the United States do. The radical left has butchered far more people than the radical right. The left should never be allowed to forget or ignore this.
the Nazis in the 1930s began to switch from a “people’s party” to gain the support of industrial owners, and it shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes, as pointed before it was the left elements in the Nazi party who wanted to keep the banks in state control but Hitler “convinced” them that that ship had passed.