Posted on 12/10/2001 10:32:57 AM PST by Ditto
Not usefull if we're debating Monarchy vs Democracy, but how many people today base their political identity on the post WWII definition of these terms. Again the question is: If the far left is total government as we had in the Soviet Union, or Mao's China, what is the far right? How could the Nazis be far right is they are so similar to the far left?
If, we're reading by an aforementioned definition (left = more centralized control, right = less/more distributed/no control), I would venture to say that far-right ("Absolutely no governmental control" === "No government") nations don't exist in the world today, and probably have never existed in history.
Don't mean to throw a monkey-wrench into the cogs of discussion.. Just a little bit of dT theory.
Personally, I think that Left can generally be described as "In favor of centralized Governmental control" and Right can be described as "In favor of less-central or more-distributed Governmental control." -- and that's without taking into account extreme sides. Personally, I honestly believe that this interpretation (a traditional American interpretation, it is!) on left vs. right is still completely valid at present, if perhaps vastly misunderstood by the "centrists" (which, in previous rants/discussions, I've asserted don't exist).
It's no wonder polysci grads don't ever accomplish anything in the private sector... The laws of Politics have no parallel in real life.
;) ttt
... But if the Communists had TOTAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL (and they _did_), how can the Left be different from the Top?
;) ttt
Is this 2-D graph a Mobius Strip? Right is state control of all economic resources (companies natural resources etc.) and left is state ownership of all economic resources? What is the difference?
The two primary events that defined National Socialism as being on the right-wing were the Spanish Civil War and operation Barbarosa during World War II. When Hitler supported the rebels in Spain the first break with the Stalinist USSR occurred. There then came a rapproachmont with the non-agression pact of 1939 between the Third Reich and the USSR. If one reads early accounts of the Second World War Germany and the Soviet Union were considered allies in 1939 and 1940. It was not until 1941 when Germany invaded soviet occupied Poland that the two were at war.
When Hitler first came to power in Germany it was the Soviet Union that provided military training facilities for German paratroops. The original ideaology for Nazism was very much socialists so much so that the bronshirts were often refered to as Beefsteak Nazis. That is they were brown on the outside but red on the inside. The social programs of the Nazi Party were very much socialist. Expansion of national medical insurance and guaranteed employment were part of the Nazi programs. In fact the initial extermination of mentally handicapped was started both as a eugenics concept and a cost saving measure.
Mussolini also got his start as head of the Italian Socialist Party.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
So if Hitler is right wing, and Marx is left wing, where, pray tell, does Thomas Paine fall on your political spectrum.
The difference between National Socialism and Communism is the difference between Vanilla and French Vanilla. To think that they are the defining extremes on a scale that describes all political thought is absolutely delusional.
I'm not surprised. When you go through life saying 'I'm better than you because I'm not a Nazi" and then someone tells you that what you are is the same as a Nazi.... well, that isn't going to be received too well. I have had this debate going off line for nearly a week with a lefty poster, and he has called me every name in the book. I kept asking him to give me some concrete definition of what is left and what is right. He only responded emotionally. This isn't something that was part of my 'inner core' before, and I had never really done any research on it until now. But from my days in high school 30+ years ago, I never bought into the political spectrum chart that placed the Nazis and Commies on opposite ends. They were different in some ways, but their differences were not all that great while their similarities (genocide, totalitarian, cults of personality, atheistic, central economic planning) had to put them on the same side of any logical political spectrum.
To me we can call them left, right, up or down, but you can not logically call the Nazis and Commies opposites.
So did Al Capone become a 'crime fighter' with the St. Valentine's Day massacre? ;~))
I haven't read Mein Kampf but I bet Hitler never wanted to create the Marxist utopia after the totalitarian phase. Although, Hitler did manage to avoid the bloody revolution on his way to power...
The vanguard can be class envy. It can be racism. It can be religion.
Originally, Marx and Engels felt that nationalism was an impediment to Marxism. With the failed rebellion in Ireland at the turn of the century, however, it became clear to some Marxists that nationalism itself could be the vanguard. The leftist uprising that led to the Axis and World War II used nationalism as part of its motivating interest. Notice how the radical left that trashed Seattle a few years ago was nationalist in nature.
The Shootist claimed that Hitler was not a socialist because whatever views his were based on, he perverted to his own end. That is just the point; Marxist theory holds that this is precisely what will happen and why the progression from private ownership to a form of socialism and then to communism is inevitable. Men will grab hold of a vanguard and twist it to their own ends, with it resulting in socialism. Whatever it takes. The result is what is important, not what path is chosen.
Heck, if you go to Marxists.org and read their philosophies and current thinking, you will find that now radical Islam is accepted by them as being a tool for "social change". Yes, Marxist theory holds that religion is a crock, but they accept and understand that it can be used to acheive the progression they feel is inevitable.
That is why you have radical leftists like Ramsey Clark stating that "Islam has probably a billion and a half adherents today. It exists. And it is probably the most compelling spiritual and moral force on earth today. People hate to hear that." Clark is a communist, yet to those who would deny that Hitler was a product of the left would deny that Islam is compatible with Marxism because Marxism states there is no God. It appears as if the communists themselves understand- whatever vanguard it takes.
Notice that the radical Islamics such as Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban all are virulently opposed to capitalism.
This is called Begging The Question. You are assuming the conclusion of your argument (fascism is on the right) is true in order to prove it. But what justifies putting the word "fascist" on the right side of this graph, in the first place?
Imagine that I am trying to prove to you that 10 is a larger number than 20. You disagree and say "no way", so to "prove" my statement I say, "One must imagine a number-line graph with 20 being on the left, the numbers increasing as you move right, and 10 being on the right."
You would correctly recognize that this is a nonsensical argument and wouldn't "prove" a thing.
Right v. Left is a question of economic outlook
Okay, this is a starting point, then. On the left of your graph we have communists/international socialists who believe that property should be owned and operated by the government, for the "public good" (as the government defines it).
On the right of your graph we have fascists who believe... that property should be owned and operated by the government, for the "public good" (as the government defines it).
Hmmm. What exactly is the difference between these two economic outlooks? (I mean, the Nazis allowed nominal private ownership by government lackeys, but other than that?) Let me know.....
Correct, half correct, and incorrect. IMO. totalitarianism need not be either, or it may be both. My read is that the totalitarian craves power above all things, and will lean (or lurch) in either social direction to maintain and/or increase power. Therefore, in my very humble opinion totalitarians are inherently
CENTRISTS
Two separate worlds. Always in conflict.
Off the top of my head, I'd say Somolia in 1992, most of China in the 1920s, and parts of Afghanistan as we speak are places where there is 'no government'. It is anarchy. I'm sure there are many other examples. I didn't say it's a good thing, but to me, that would be the far right, not a megga state that managed nearly every aspect of life like Hitler's Germany.
All genocidal tyrants of the past and current century were/are left-wing/socialists. The left and the right are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The further left you go, the more "big government" you will find. The further right you go, the lesser "government" you will find. An "extreme right wing" ideology can most accurately be described as libertarian.
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.