http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/10/11/the-electric-tea-party-acid-test/
Posted on 10/25/2010 12:53:38 PM PDT by Feline_AIDS
What was Franco?
A dictator. People disappeared. Lived in real poverty.
I met an old guy who spoke of living under Franco with fondness. Odd, that conversation. Only Franquista I ever met.
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini.
Pursuing the corporatist ideas of the fascists gives the biggest payoff in modern comparisons because it is apt. The state support of BOA, or GM, or AIG, or whatever bailout you want to pick is corporatism to a T. As is funding green energy and the state meddling in non-bankrupt business. And as is the threats made against businesses going against the State like the few medical companies that have spoken out against the health care takeover. Corporatism = Fascism, Fascism = Corporatism. Magaziner, Hillary Clinton’s main person who wrote the monstrous health care takeover bill in 1993 wrote books lauding the Japanese corporatist economic system in the 1980’s . . . the left in America gladly embraced the corporatist ideas of the Japanese when they appeared to be working. They stopped talking about them in the 90’s and 2000’s . . . but when they came back into power, they actually implemented them. We are living in a fascist state right now. It’s just the early years of it. If we don’t react, it’s just a matter of time until state control is complete enough to allow for a dictator to succeed in taking full power.
Remember that there was a Senate under the Caesars. Elections in the Soviet Union. Not all fascist systems get rid of the pretense of a Republic.
Very true. In Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism he tells the story of a visiting professor in Germany meeting with students prior to Hitler's rise. They are very much into Communism. He returns to visit after the Nazi party comes to power and these same students have all soaked up the Nazi propaganda - basically, the ideology didn't change, just the closeness of the ideology (Germany for Germans, as opposed to Communism for everyone).
It is a mistake to assume this bears any resemblance to American Conservatism. Our right is NOT comfortable with ‘totalitarianism’ ... Our Left IS... like Hitler. If you really want to be confused, read about Il Duce... there was one Left/Right guy for sure!!
get a grip-— being right wing in America has NOTHING to do with the Nazis...
NAZI stood for national SOCIALIST party....
try reading a bit
Just buying into the “left-right” model is your first mistake.
The spectrum should be “more freedom” versus “less freedom”. Or, more government versus less government. The details of how this “total government” versus that “total government” are pretty indistinguishable, when it comes right down to it.
Fascism, socialism, communism, are variations on a theme that, in fact, usually appear together in the same government. Chavez of Venezuela, for example, is both a marxist (or communist) and a fascist. Mussolini, the original fascist, was a marxist. Nazism competed with the communists for the same gangs of street fighters. The only difference was that the communists were coordinated by the NKVD and the Nazis were not; that, and the fact that the Nazis made ethnicity more of a fetish than did the fascists and communists.
It was no less totalitarian for all that. Nazis killed maybe 12 million in their camps, while Stalin killed maybe 20 million.
If you imagine a continuum with communism on the left and fascism on the right, its a pretty short continuum since they are two sides of a single coin (with the nazis as their freakazoid inbred cousin). Classic liberal freedom lovers aren’t on that continuum at all, if you want to define it that way. We are not the half-way point between two identical brands of totalitarianisms. We are a thing of our own.
If you want to think of it as some do, a continuum with the totalitarians on the far left and anarchy on the right, classic liberal constitutional liberty is pretty far to the right. Even thats a bit slippery, though, since most self-named “anarchists” are actually marxists. And real life “anarchies” like Somalia wind up as a collection of petty gangster totalitarians.
So, even that continuum is a bit fictitious. Its better to just recognize that limited government, self-government, rule-of-law liberty is a thing of its own; it has nothing to do with totalitarianism and every effort to put it into the same spectrum with communism and fascism is going to distort the truth.
Let’s keep it simple. The only reason the left considers the Nazi’s ‘right wing’ is because they attacked the Soviets. You can read all the definitions and review all the political philosophy you wish and not get a satisfactory answer why a socialist party is considered ‘right wing’. The only ‘definition’ that counts is this: the enemy of my friend is my enemy. The Nazi’s attached Stalin, so they must be the left’s enemy as well. Therefore, the Nazis must be ‘right wing’.
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/10/11/the-electric-tea-party-acid-test/
Believe it or not, Right-Wing politics do not solely consist of Liberal-Conservatism.
Nazi’s are socialist, through and through. They were never ‘right-wing’. The left today likes to call Nazi’s right-wing to taint conservatives. The Klintoons are, if we use history to define them, Nazi’s. The used the military-industrial complex to further their socialist ‘dreams’. That is what Hitler did.
Both the Nazis and the Communists were big government.
Nazi stands for National Socialist.
First, see post #2.
Then understand that 'nationalistic' and 'nationalize' are neither synonymous nor mutually exclusive.
Nationalism means loyalty toward one's country. In German and many other instances this means "Fatherland". Here (in part because of the onus on Fatherland) we have moderated it to "Homeland" and probably still feel a bit antsy when we use the term.
Best local example is "My country, right or wrong, but my country".
Nationalization is centralization of most or all aspects of society, financial, industrial, educational, social, and anything else not nailed down, by government fiat. The state might simply take over a company or it's local assets (as has happened in Latin America to foreign oil and other operations), take over or establish an entire industry (PIMEX), or pull the owners of a major industry in and explain to them that they WILL cooperate for the national good - and their own (Hitler's route).
Nationalism has nothing to do with "right wing". Today, that term gets applied to most conservatives; those who favor limited government, free markets, individual investment, profit, an ability to advance financially. (Formerly, liberal economic policy and conservative social policy, but I digress.)
Nationalism does not necessarily support nationalization while today's conservatism is almost totally antagonistic to any form of nationalization - hence the newly dubbed "Government Motors". Germans had no need to be made into nationalists following WW1. National Socialism was the means used to recruit neer-do-wells into the anti republican movement and later it was the means of keeping potential dissenters in line.
At root nationalization is a means of removing the individual direction of assets ("rich fat cats") and relying on a central body to manage things "for the good of all" - socialism. It is historically espoused by those claiming to act for the working man or peasants who, in turn, relish believing that it will somehow benefit them - as per Marx/Engles and Mao. So far it has failed in that regard about 100% of the time - in large part because centralization can only survive where there is a small elite group doing the directing.
Not that most liberals would admit to it, but the most glaring absence in all this is the original linkage between Marxist socialism and internationalism. Too bad because that may be the only anchor that the left has in this debate - if socialism equals internationalism, the opposite must then equal nationalism...right?
Not to worry because just about every bit of evidence we see today shows the current socialist administration aiming directly at ceding sovereignty to centralized international bodies, whether they be unions, rioting mobs, borderless terrorists, United Nations, or NGOs.
End of rant - hope it helps with your liberal associates.
Please define “socialist”.
nazis were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS... even an idiot can’t spin that fact.
LLS
My grandfather was from LaCoruna in Galicia province in Espana. He passed on when I was very young, but my father told me that “Pappy” was a Franco supporter. He was a very conservative Catholic who hated the communists, and was very fearful of Russia, and their desire to digest Espana into the communist orbit. He was faced with an choice between something bad, and something infinitely worse, and he through his lot in with the bad. Franco was a Galician (Gallego) and Franco’s family was from a small town next to A Coruna, so I’m sure that had something to do with it. Also, Angel Castro, Fidel Castro’s father was a Galacian from Santiago Compestelo.
Well here’s a great video detailing exactly what ‘left’ and ‘right’ are, with respect to economics and government. Part one of a series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTQQJOEn9yI
Whatever their politics, one thing the Nazis did better than other bloodthirsty scum like the Leninistas, Stalinistas, Maoists was their adherence to an impeccable sense of sartorial excellence.
With uniforms that cool, they had to be gay.
One of the major problems with these questions is that American conservatism (right-wing) is very different from European right wing.
We try to “conserve” the principles of the American Revolution, the most truly radical revlution of all time. It is thus a conservatism of revolution.
European right-wingers are descended from the much older aristocratic, authoritarian ideologies, often blended with hare-brained blood and soil idiocy.
Hindenburg would have had very little in common with an American conservative of his day, much less now. OTOH, today’s liberals or progressives have a great deal in common with both commies and nazis, the main difference being that they intend to reach the same goals using kinder, gentler methods.
Franco was a Nazi and was aided in the Spanish civil war by Hitler's Germany. German troops as well as air and mechanized support provided a preview of "Blitzkrieg" tactics prior to their invasion of Poland.
Franco establish a authoritarian military dictatorship. He maintained his control in Spain through the implementation of severe measures, the systematic suppression of dissident views through censorship and coercion, the imprisonment of ideological enemies in concentration camps throughout the country, the implementation of forced labor in prisons, and the use of the death penalty and heavy prison sentences as deterrents for his ideological enemies. During the Second World War, Franco officially maintained a policy of non-belligerency and later of neutrality. His regime lasted until 1978. During the "cold war" Franco's Spain was considered by the US government to be a "strong ally" because of his strong anti-Communist policy.
Regards,
GtG
PS To further confuse the left/right issues, communist Russia provided military aid to the "Popular Front" opposing Franco during the civil war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.