Could we just use a 2 axis definition (Authoritarian/Anarchist) and (Free Market/Communal)?
Hitler then would be Authoritarian/Centralist while Stalin would be Authoritarian/Communal. Nasty pair either way.
I don’t know what’s worse, but the extreme left scares me much more than the extreme right, even though I have little use for any of them.
The far left - more so than the far right, IMHO - is much more effective at hijacking the moral high ground to justify its extremism. Actions taken by the far left are carried out with a ready-made morally sound justification (“saving” the environment, reverse jingoism [as in "the poor and dispossessed are oppressed solely because of big bad America], radically bridging the gap between rich and poor, and their belief in transferring power to a “beneficent” central authority at the expense of individual freedom). I think that the justification gives the far left much more carte blanche to carry out their agenda.
And nothing scares me more than the far left’s unquestioning belief that people will pay a price for something other than what it’s worth.
I’m not crazy about the fundamentalists, but I see their influence waning as America becomes more urbanized and diverse. And while the neo-Nazis and Christian Identity folks are indeed pricks, the government and people have effectively marginalized them to the point where I pretty much laugh at how ineffectual they are.
I cant tell any difference between what you are saying.
You are mixing up right and left(esp if you think lefties, and card carrying socialists, who want bigger government, bigger social spending, involvement in foreign wars, massive government works projects, government health plans, government pension plans, government intrusion into private businesses, massive personal and business regulation, etc" are not lefties. i.e. Hitler).
Hitler was not on the “right” in anything.
The only difference in leaders, is between those who like/want individual freedom and more power in the hands of individuals, like Washington, Jefferson, etc, and those who want more power in the hands of governemnt(Hitler, Stalin Mao, etc).
Hey Diogenes, it’s not witty or enlightening when minty green continues to spew that phrase, and it is no different coming from you. Please try again.
It’s not meant to be witty or enlightening. It’s meant to be accurate.
How is it accurate, then?
I’m a lefty, but I gotta go with the left extremists being much much more dangerous. It pains me, that’s the way it looks.
1st - Left/Right are only useful in terms of economic left/right. Neither the traditional left or the traditional right has the market on authoritarianism or personal freedom.
2nd - It’s a copout to use the two-axis mode or to say both sides come together at the extremes. It’s not true. The extreme left has a much more infamous history.
Hitler was an economic leftie.
Stalin was certainly
Pol Pot was
Mao - yes
Saddam Hussein said he was a socialist - I’m not sure what in practice Iraq’s economy was like.
I don’t get the people saying they’re hard pressed to find leftie extremist atrocities - it’s the right wing I have to scratch my head and think about.
It’s pretty obvious why, too why the left has such a bad history - a centralized economy lends itself nicely to totalitarianism - it’s hard to have a totalitarian state when the wealth (power) is not fully in the hands of the government. And it’s in totalitarian states that you get the mass bloodshed.
Of course not. It’s just Liberal Porn.
:rolleyes:
Hello Dopers!
I’ve been warned:
making ones first steps in GD is considered dangerous by some.
anyway:
What I think the difference between the extreme left and the extreme right - and that would exclude conservatives or die hard capitalists (“manchester capitalism”, neoliberalism) and anarchists -, the extreme left believes in progress, culture and civlisation while the extreme right wants to "re"establish a “natural” law, mostly is racist, and does strongly believe in a hierarchy thats declared “natural”.
manche meinen lechts und rinks kann man nichtvelwechsern
werch ein illtum.
some think reft and light could not be mistaken
absorutery wlong
Ernst Jandl
What makes discussing this hard is that:
what one calls communism is not necessarily what everyone understands it to be.
What you consider to be “extremist” depends on what you believe to be the “center”.
oh, and:
Hitler was NOT a leftie.
His rise to power with the help of big German (as well as some international, even American) corporations,
the slave labourers that were “lent” to private businesses by the Nazis,his racism, his antisemitism, the Nazis thing with the occult and his fierce anti-communism make me have Hitler on the very right.
This is my first post,
be nice.
Das kann nicht sein - wir sind Dopers. 
Bei jedem Fall, Wilkommen.
The idea that the extreme left believes in “culture, progress, and civilization” is not credible. Unless your idea of “progress” is the Cultural Revolution or your idea of “civilization” is that of Pol Pot.
Marxism on the left has at least as strong a belief in “re-establishment of a natural law”. Marx’s idea of thesis-antithesis-synthesis and the cycle of history was expressed as if it were a natural law. And the Left’s hierarchy is based, not on race, but on class - the dictatorship of the proletariat and the slaughter of the kulaks and the Cultural Revolution, with its merciless attacks on the “four olds”. Not much respect for “culture” there.
I think the Left and Right can agree on who are the extremists without regard for who is in the “center”. I am on the Right, and I think clinic bombers are extremists. I think those on the Left would agree that Stalin or David Fine were extremists as well.
Slave labor? You mean like the Soviet gulags and the enforced slave labor of the Red Chinese prison camps?
Not sure what the occult has to do with any Right-Left axis. If it does, think about “deep environmentalism”, if you need an example of semi-occult thinking among the Left.
Certainly Hitler was anti-communist, but he identified his party as “National Socialist”. And he was certainly in favor of more state involvement in the economy than the Right traditionally does. It is more reminiscent of the disagreements between, for instance, the Marxists and the Trotskyites, or Maoists and other kinds of socialists, than anything else.
If you are going to identify anyone who is anti-communist as being on the Right, you will have to class socialists and anarchists on the Right as well, and then the distinction loses utility.
Regards,
Shodan
Hitler was clearly an extreme leftist.
Hitler was an admitted, self proclaimed leftie.
He himself called himself a socialist. His policies were clearly socialist, leftist.
Hitler rose to power by being elected as a socialist.
Hitler was a bonifide member of both the German Workers Party and the National Socialist Party.
The german people regarded and voted for him as a socialist, and as the leader of the National Socialist Party in germany.
There was nothing seriously “anti-communism” about Hitler. Hitler was “anti-Russia”. It just so happened that Russia was communist at the time, the only country that was. If Russia was facist, democratic, or Libertarian, Hitler would have hated it and invaded Russia regardless of whatever political party was in office at the time. Russia being invaded had nothing to do with “who” was premier in 1941.
As far as big corporations go, big business traditionally supports and gives money to “leftist” causes, leftist concepts, and leftist candidates.
Racism and antisemitism have nothing to do with right or left. There are plenty of people on the left(as well as on the right) who distrust or hate whites, blacks, and yellows. E.g, the Soviet Union(extreme leftist) was never known for being kind to various minorities, different races, or other ethnic groups.
The slave laborers in germany, were only “lent” to businesses if they were strictly controlled by the nazi government and only if those businesses firmly supported Hitler and his Nazi Socialist Party causes. Most businesses in Nazi germany included or had to include socialist party members into positions of power in those businesses.
Agreed, the occult has nothing to do with left-right.
@ Shodan
Dankeschön - and damn that german accent 
The atrocities of Pol Pot are certainly not my idea of civilisation.
However the communist claim to be the next step in the evolvement of civilisation and think highly of the concept. This does not necesseraily mean that everything everyone claiming to be a communist is does, does turn out to be civilised.
But the increase of literacy was wery important to Lenin and Mao (and even Stalin - and is imptortant to Fidel Castro), communists in the
soviet union industrialized their country from scratch and made huge efforts to “educate the masses” (not that one has to agree with this sort of “education”).
But I’d say it’s save to assume that communist claim to strife for equality (see the emphasis on “unity”), while the extreme right emphasizes differences (racism, social darwinism,…)
I did not mean “culture” in the senses of “different cultures…” but as in the concept of culture opposed to the concept of nature. And even slughter can be done in the name of “Culture” or “in the name of god” or for Biological reasons (Racism).
I’m not even saing that ones is better or worse than the others, but there are distinctive differences.
What i meant is Hitler “lent” these workers to PRIVATE businesses. This was to emphasize the capitalist nature of Nazi-economy.
And when I call the Nazis murderers Idon’t have to say: and Stalin was to at the same time. One is evil enough on it’s own. And one does not justify the other the same way it does not mean I justify the killings of Hitler when I point out the ones of Stalin.
I meant occult as opposed to enlightment (kant). I’m aware that you can find other examples in the extreme left, but communism is opposed to the occult as are most modern day marxis thinkers.
Why would I do that?. There are many leftist thet are strongly opposed to communism. be it communism as a whole or the evil dictators that (via lenins “socialism in one countrs”) turned communism into the stalinist nightmare that caused millions of victims.
The distinction has lost utility anyway.
For theres so many views that describe themselves as/are seen as extreme left that disagree completely. As some would not believe nationalism and occult thinking to be “left”, others form socialist parties that are very nationalistic and environmentalists often have views of “heimat” and nation that remind me of that of the Nazis. I guess there’s different views on the extreme right as well.
electrozion
Hitler only lent workers to GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED businesses, to business which were sympathatic to and controlled by the (Nazi) SOCIALISTS. This was to emphasize the socialist nature of the Nazi-economy.
Actually, the big businesses in nazi socialist germany had almost no say in how they ran their businesses. They did not determine what products they produced, who they hired, or in the management of who was in control of the businesses. The lefties were in complete charge of the big businesses in nazi socialist germany.
Not a bit - German accents remind me of my grandmother, of whom I was extremely fond. So I react very well to accents. And you know how to code an umlaut, which I do not.
Probably true, but I don’t think this would have been different if Lenin and Mao were not on the Left. I think this was part of the process for any country that wanted to enter the twentieth century. For instance, the semi-rightist government of Japan made serious efforts to industrialize and educate their country following the Meiji Restoration. So, for that matter, did the United States earlier. It is a necessary process for any country that wishes to switch from an agrarian to an industrial economy (and even more necessary for a post-industrial economy).
I would see this as the Left’s desire to identify people primarily as groups, where the Right focusses much more on people as individuals. Hence the Marxist tendency to interpret everything I do as a function of my membership in the industrial bourgeoisie, or their efforts to raise “class consciousness” so that everyone identifies with their group membership. And my own understanding of conservatism is that the ideas of individual rights, personal responsibility, and private property rights, are central.
Of course, at the extremes it blurs together again. The Christian Identity movement (an American racist, extreme right organization) focusses on group membership (white Gentiles) as the be-all and end-all of political activity, just as strongly as any classical Marxist would speak of membership in the urban proletariat.
Now that’s an interesting thought, and one that never occured to me - “nature” vs. “culture” and Right vs. Left.
I think you are correct that the Left believes more strongly than the Right in their ability to change humans by changing their culture. The “new socialist man”, and all that. The Right is more likely to believe that human nature is not as perfectable, and therefore limits are put on government (and Constitutions written) to limit the power of the majority. Indeed, capitalism itself is predicated on the belief that self-interest is a stronger motivation than altruism - i.e. nature is stronger than culture.
I will have to think more about this.
Or, I could actually do some work.
Regards,
Shodan
After a quick reading, except for one small sentence, I agree with everything she wrote (and even that sentence I can interpetrate in a way which I agree with). So I guess that makes me a Nazi as well. Duh! :rolleyes:
I stand corrected Tars Tarkas. It’s worse than just stupid. Surreptitiously use of words like fascist and Nazi etc. will only help to debase the value of such words, and belittle the suffering done at the hands of the real Nazis and fascist. If you call the pizza-boy a Nazi swine for being five minutes late with the pizza, or the traffic cop a fascist-pig for giving you a speeding ticket, or the sometimes humorous political writer Ann Coulter a Nazi for writing articles you disagree with - you are in fact doing not so much as slowly removing the stigma associated with such evil politics – thereby making it so much easier for people to take them up again. I’m advising you that, besides short circuiting the debate, you are in fact also running errands for the brown-shirts.
As for the OP:
Perhaps the extreme left (or what is often been designated as such) is often deemed less evil because their ultimate aim is not in itself evil, just a utopia, an impossible dream invariable turned nightmare; which don’t necessarily make them guilty of more than screaming naivety. Whereas the extreme right (or what is designated as such) strive for ends that are in themselves evil.
- Rune
Please cite where i said Nazi.
Also, since Your arguing her point MINUS the very point i brought up, which is the crux of the argument, you are basically arguing that red is red, conveniently leaving out that the point was red-ORANGE isn’t red.
The rest of your drival is word association filler, similar to a post i wrote after the september 11th attacks complaining about the constant reshowing of the fotage and how it causes desensitivity towards the lose of life. Except my post didn’t ignore the major argument.
@Susanann:
discussing this Hitler was a leftist/was not thing is not really go with the OP.
So I#ll just comment one some of your arguments,
Susanann wrote:
“Hitler rose to power by being elected as a socialist.”… "The german people regarded and voted for him as a socialist, and as the leader of the National Socialist Party in germany. "
No. They voted for him as the leader of the Nationalsocialist Workers Party of Germany (Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands, NSDAP). There was no party by the name of
“National Socialist Party”, but there were Socialdemocrats (SPD) and the communists (KPD, Spartakus, various others). So socialsits would have voted for them. The Nazis anti-communism even lead the conservatives and royalists to believe they would be better of with him.
Susanann wrote:
"The slave laborers in germany, were only “lent” to businesses if they were strictly controlled by the nazi government and only if those businesses firmly supported Hitler and his Nazi Socialist Party causes. "…“Most businesses in Nazi germany included or had to include socialist party members into positions of power in those businesses.”
Businesses supported Hitler before they got slave workers. They supportet him smashing the unions and wrote letters to the Nazi government in which they inforem the Nais about their demand of slave labourers.
Many German industry leaders where members and/or supporters of the Nazi party early on - some gladly joined later when they had opportunities to take over jewish businesses . Krupp, Thyssen, Blohm and Voss, IG Farben made millions with the collaboration with the Nazis.
This doesn’t have much to do with the Op however and would be another thread.
To the OP:
WinstonSmith wrote:
“Perhaps the extreme left (or what is often been designated as such) is often deemed less evil because their ultimate aim is not in itself evil, just a utopia, an impossible dream invariable turned nightmare; which don’t necessarily make them guilty of more than screaming naivety. Whereas the extreme right (or what is designated as such) strive for ends that are in themselves evil.”
I agree with that.
I’d have to say right wing extremists scare me the most.
The boots, the shaven heads, the swastikas, the violence against the most helpless victims.
This may well have to do with me living in Germany where Neo-Nazis have killed and wounded many (nigerans, vietnamese, and “left” youth the call “zecken”- “ticks”, homeless,…). Sometimes with the whole german neighborhood applauding them (Rostock, Hoyerswerda,…).
Oh, and personal reasons too: some Nazi-skinhead-bastard once beat me and i chipped a tooth…
Sorry, but just being “anti-communist”, or anti-Stalin, does not automatically make you a “rightest”.
…unless you think all socialists are right wingers, and no one here is claiming that the socialists are right extremists.
Lets not confuse what is “leftist”, and what is “rightest”.
Socialists and communists are both “leftist”.
Hitlers and Mao’s anti-Soviet Union attitude did not make them rightest.
Both socialists and communists are lefties. I hope we all can agree on that.
Socialists and communists can disagree with each other, even hate each other, but they are still both leftist.
(P.S. Stalins hatred of socialist Hitler and of the German Socialist Party NAZI did not make Stalin a right winger either)
Given the amount of controversy over “left” and “right”, it’s easy to see that there are some rhetorical differences at play here with respect to word definitions, the bane of productive argumentation. I think it’s important to watch what politicians and leaders do, not worry so much about what they say, or watch as those with a political axe to grind try to put everyone in nice, neat categories.
FDR was widely considered a “Liberal” — but the NRA was a carbon copy of national socialism. It’s a handy trick for politicians to play. If FDR was a lefty, why then of course any of his suggested policies had to have been liberal…
Authoritarians are the problem, whether from the “left” or the “right”; and today’s so-called liberals are every bit as authoritarian as any “conservative”, don’t anyone kid themselves.
Unfortunately in this country, our leaders have had the luxury of picking and choosing ideas, methods, and techniques from all the sordid regimes with which we’ve been involved with over the last century.