Posted on 07/08/2002 1:02:47 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
In the course of my radio interview with self-described socialist professor Robert Jensen of U. Tex-Austin, (7/1) he predictably referred to me as "right-wing." I responded by pointing out that as an American conservative, I believe in limited constitutional government where rights emanate from the creator, not the state. I contrasted this belief with those of Hitler, traditionally called right-wing, and pointed out that Hitler didn't exactly personify limited government, but rather the socialistic idea that the State, acting on behalf of "the people," is the source of all rights. I told Jensen that I would be proud to accept the imprimatur "right-wing" if he would acknowledge that Nazism was left-wing.
Jensen responded with the conventional assertion that the Nazis were right-wing because "corporate interests" supported them. This contention is worth examining. It is true that the Nazis, and other Fascist regimes were supported by corporations but not in the free-market capitalist sense. Fascist regimes granted monopoly control over specific areas of industry to select corporations in exchange for their support. The corporation, therefore, actually became a part of the Fascist government by forming a legal and formal partnership with the executive branch. Fascist Italy, for example, had an assembly of corporations.
This is significantly different from the free-market capitalist system where the corporation, as a matter of principle, is separate from the government and must compete on the open market. While in a free-market system the corporation has influence, and often too much influence resulting in shades of socialistic fascism, nevertheless the corporation remains private and without direct legislative power.
The merge between corporations and government, the hallmark of the fascist system, is actually corporate socialism not free-market capitalism. This system differs with communism in that communism abolishes the corporation outright. The communist government itself becomes the corporation with monopoly control over all areas of industry. Among the first orders of business for a communist government is the abolition or "nationalization" of all corporations under their control along with their assets and property. Communism also calls for the abolition of all labor unions, as the communist government itself becomes one massive labor union operating in the name of "the worker." Private property " is also transferred to the communist state which assumes control in the interests of "the common good."
In a real sense, fascism is not as radically left-wing as communism, but both are socialist in that both govern on the principle of "public ownership of the mode of production," the dictionary definition of socialism. Fascism isn't as far left as communism to the extant that fascism allow for at least a pretense of private ownership while the government, de facto, controls everything through monopolistic corporate combines. In this regard, communism is the more honest of the two socialist systems. Communism makes no pretence regarding private ownership, they own everything openly and as a matter of state policy.
The other old left-wing canard Jensen tossed out during the interview was that America was the most militarily oriented society in history. To understand the absurdity of this accusation, especially in light of the records of both militant socialistic fascism and an international communist movement that was, according to the "Black Book of Communism" responsible for the deaths of over 100 million human beings, a brief examination of Marxist relativism is in order. To the authoritarian/utopian leftist, anything done to promote freedom, whether it is defending property rights, individual rights, free-market capitalism, morality, the family, or national sovereignty is bad while "progress" toward socialism is good. Therefore, communists can militarily conquer the world, and righteously encourage unspeakable brutality in the name of "the people" while America, when assisting a government in their defense against international totalitarian aggression, can be labeled "repressive."
Maybe that's true, if those in the dustbin of history don't count. But if they do, there is no example of a Communist country that spent less of its GDP on arms than the U.S. 'Course some of them were pretty good at cooking the books to disguise that fact, but . . .
The Chinese Communists are no longer communists at all. They are fascists.
I would say that anarchists represent the extreme right not the ultimate conservative.
Communism, Facism, Socialism, these are at the extreme left.
The Fascists are at least a little more intellectually honest. They realize from the start that some folks are "a little more equal" than others....and proceed from there.
And now that the press seems to understand that Communists are "left-wing," they don't use a "wing" label, but merely call them "conservatives."
So, no, anarchists are not right wing. They are left wing. Lawlessness is always left wing. Liberal is a synonym of licentious.
Like health care and "controlled substances," for instance.
There is a direct correlation between spiraling drug costs and the monopolies granted to drug manufacturers by the controlled substance laws, but the rabid drug warriors will say it is a small price to pay.
I thought maybe I was holding the paper upside-down.
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.