Ironically, “the Big Lie” has currently become a tool of Rush Limbaugh and the extreme Right.
So was the US. That doesn’t make us a communist nation.
I just remembered,
we have a sitting Senator who wrote a book titled Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot and called ORielly out in his book about liars. That makes me snicker.
Like it was found before,
smiling bandit is just proud of failing history forever.
[quote=“SmashTheState, post:13, topic:505972”]
For the record, here is the official platform of the Nazi Party. Pay particular attention to the statement, “The Common Good before the individual good.” This is the very definition of collectivism. On paper, the Nazi Party is certainly a leftist organization.
[ul]We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.
[li]We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.[/li]
[li]We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.[/li]
[li]Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.[/li]
[li]Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.[/li]
[li]The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.[/li]
[li]We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.[/li]
[li]Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.[/li]
[li]All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.[/li]
[li]The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:[/li]
[li]Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.[/li]
[li]In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.[/li]
[li]We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).[/li]
[li]We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.[/li]
[li]We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.[/li]
[li]We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.[/li]
[li]We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.[/li]
[li]We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.[/li]
[li]We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.[/li]
[li]The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.[/li]
[li]The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.[/li]
[li]We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.[/li]
[li]We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race; b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language; c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.[/li]
[li]We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The Common Good before the individual good.[/li]
[li]For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
History shows that Hitler and his henchmen added socialist ideas and the socialist name to the Nazi party to gain support early in the game. The addition of the **National ** word should had been a huge clue that this was not going to be a regular socialist party. Once Rohm and the SA were eliminated at the instigation of the German capitalists, any socialist pretensions were thrown out the window.
Funny thing was that by that time the **socialist party **of Germany had dropped the socialist part of its name a few decades before because Bismark had banned all socialist parties.
However, the socialist ideas were not out, the socialists were one of the few to vote against the last legal attempts of Hitler taking over, the socialists and communists found then how lefty Hitler was: almost all the leaders and many of the members of the socialist and communist parties in Germany ended in the concentration camps.
If one is just mildly curious about the whole history one could see that in reality Hitler added the socialist name to fool many in Germany. It is clear that Hitler has even fooled many in America in the 21st century.
Virtually all in Europe laugh at any American that insists on passing Hitler as a leftist.
Collectivist != leftist. Individualist != rightist.
For a party of the left, they had endless actual battles with and were sworn enemies of the socialist and communist parties through the early thirties until they seized power. The first thing Hitler did when he did seize power was open Dachau and fill it full of trades union leaders, socialist party leaders, professors etc. So it’s difficult to describe Hitler as a man of the left, unless you’re full of Oxycontin of course.
Seriously–this is a bizarre understanding of the term.
The 1956 Invasion of the Bodysnatchers is a fantastic movie that has been viewed by some critics as a warning on the dangers of Communism, and by other critics as an indictment of 1950s American conformity. According to the director, both got it wrong: it’s really indicting mindless, threatening conformity in any guise.
Conformity and collectivism don’t fall on just one end of the political spectrum. Leftists have tended to advocate for control of property by the people and an equitable distribution, but there have been rightists who are happy with a strong government that controls a great deal of property.
If the conventionally defined “far right” is an autocracy in which the state (a tool of organized capitalist corporations) holds all power over other people, and the conventionally “far left” is an autocracy in which the state (which owns all business endeavors as its own tools) holds all power over other people, I, as an anarchist, can readily concur that I see damn little difference between the left and the right, and insofar as the conventional “map” from left to right doesn’t seem to contain anarchy (even as a hypothetical position) anywhere but instead bends from autocracy to autocracy with the hypothetical middle occupied by some flavor of electoral democracy still containing corporate states and institutionalived governmental power over other people, I do tend to see the conventional “line” as a rather bent and round thing with my own perspective located somewhere completely off the diagram.
I do recall the days when Boris Yeltsin of Russia (former Soviet Union) had to face down “hard-liners” who were former communist party honchos devoted to the old system. The “hard-liners” were described as right wing. Hello, former communist party? Modern Russia is embracing the free market (and perhaps organized crime and corruption but what the fuck) and glasnost (hence a free press) and yet the “hard-liners” are right wing?
We need a better political vocabulary.
But all this does is support the notion that it may be unfair or irrelevant to continue to categorize Hitler as “the right”. It does not support any claim that he could with more authority be designed as part of “the left”, at least not unless Rush defines his terms.
First off, the wikipedia information is not false, but rather skewed, and certainly doesn’t well-represent the origin and development of fascism. Many Fascist supporters were people who might have supported a more conservative government had the situation been otherwise. But they supported the new Left gainst the old Left; they were not supporting the Right at all, and did not see themselves as such. Rather, the new left was the force of modernity and industry and progress, and sought to co-opt people by being above “mere” politics.
Mussolini was an avowed leftist and lifelong student of radical Leftism and to his grave continued to claim such. Hitler was the only one to tack in any way to the Right, and even then did not change his social prescriptions. They were both fundamentally corporatist, favoring strong government-run or controlled unions and huge semi-national industries. They were opponents of both the old Left and classical Liberalism (which became* what we now call Libertarianism and Conservativism).
*Let’s not argue over this in this thread. It is true, although I would agree it’s ridiculously simplified way to state it and it’s a worthy discussion of its own.
Edit: I just realized a big issue other posters have hinted at. Communism is not Socialism. The Fascists claime dot be the latter but not the former. However, most leftist dictatorships have been Communist and disdained to admit that there were any Socialists that were not Communists.
Added onto this was the fact that even before WW2 was over, Stalin decided to go for the 'Big Lie" version of myth-making. His organs, which included many of the most important literary and social organizations throughout the world, were instructed to proclaim mightily that Fascism was the last-gasp of bourgious Rightism and the symbol of its decline which all non-Communist societies would be inevitably drawn into. Stalin was extending Lenin’s nonsensical 'Imperialism" argument to a new era, where any enemy of COmmunism could be called a tool of the “Right” and reactionary forces, etc.
Hitler enacted such well-known liberal ideas as increasing military spending, expanding police powers, banning abortions, and outlawing labor unions. So obviously he was a lefty. Just like Obama is a socialist.
The platform of the Nazi party didn’t really have any relationship to the actions of the Nazi party, and any leftist tendency (the “National Bolshivist” wing) became irrelevant after the Bamberg Conference.
You’re wrong once again. Mussolini was a left-wing socialist but the only way he would have been one to his grave is if he had died in 1914. Mussolini did a political 180 during World War I and became a right-wing nationalist which is what he remained for the rest of his life.
This is horse crap. At the time these movements were seen as the conservative countermeasure to leftist movements, openly and avowedly right-wing. Since that time the perception that Fascism and Nazism were far-right political movements has remained steady, outside of Limbaugh land.
:rolleyes:
Yeah, funny that even the commies at the Encyclopedia Britannica came to a similar definition.
Fascism.
From John J. Reilly’s review of Fascism: A History, by Roger Eatwell:
I heard this live today. He made a pretty rational argument with quite a few caveats. First off, he talked about the comparison. Bush was compared to Hitler. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid both compared the town hall protesters to Nazis.
Based on that he felt he had the mandate for a little historical context. He pointed out that several totalitarian and fascist regimes have gotten started from a leftist or socialist viewpoint. Hitler’s Nazi party was the National Socialist party, and they did promote universal healthcare. It was, Rush argues the entry point into totalitarianism. Nationalizing health care gives the government control over every aspect of your life. It makes it all the government’s business, what you eat, how you exercise, how often you go to the doctor, who gets health care. The government gets control over it all.
So, to correct Pelosi, Reid, et al. nationalizing healthcare is much more of a fascist move than protesting said takeover.
Now, some of those that were denying Rush his context will jump in to point out that Rush is denying Pelosi and Reid their context, which is that attempting to attack political positions that one doesn’t like with hostile violent protesting crowds is a nazi tactic.
I would then point out that they didn’t think so when Bush was President, and it was just peaceful protest until Obama brought his Union guys in. You would than make some other counterargument which I wouldn’t hear because why would I listen to what you bunch of Nazis have to say anyway?
Anyway, when all is said and done, I think I’m going to have to give the point to Rush. Not because of anything he said, but because of what Obama did.
That thing about punching back “twice as hard,” is something I find vaguely worrisome, and that site where they ask people to report bad things said about the healtchare plan is not so much vaguely alarming as stupendously terrifying.
(please don’t report me.)
Then why have the other industrialized democracies that have adopted UHC not become fascist/totalitarian states?
No, it’s legitimate politics. Activism vs. activism. That’s how the process is supposed to work. And the RW doesn’t get to raise the stakes in terms of violent disruption and then cry “Oppression!” when the LW retaliates in kind.
Got that in context, anyone? Not claiming anything about it, just curious. I thought their “unamerican” comment was politically pretty stupid but it wasn’t what several articles reported it to be. They didn’t say protests or opposing opinions were unamerican. They said shouting down your opponent to prevent honest discussion was.
So, let’s see the nazi reference.