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."
The only problem with that theory is that the left often uses the chaos of anarchy to implement their communism. (Look at the losers going berserk at the globalist meetings.)
In my view, Libertarianism could be called extreme right.
Personally, I think it is a mix between the two, and I can use that as an excuse not to have grasped it before hand. I undrstood it on a deep level but never stated it. At least thats my rationalization. :D
In addition, Mass is not an economic entity that can support itself. It uses Keynesian economics to get the rest of the country to support massive projects in Mass. Yes, it does work but that does not change the fact that Mass would crumble if we could not force the rest of the country to siphon capital into the state.
I have frequently said that the situation up here is getting more fascist by the year and although I call them Commies, the label of Fascist is more accurate. They proclaim "Globalism," up here but the interests of the State come first IMHO.
God, such a great state has truly fallen to a very dishonorable condition... and they are PROUD of it.
I might add that beyond the hatred of communism, there is little about Fascist regimes that I agree with.
Almost nothing in fact and I consider myself to be far-right.
The extreme right of the spectrum would be the opposite. No control of the means of production. Some call it "Anarchy", whereas I prefer the term "Utopia".
The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" engender confusion, especially to students of history, due to the evolution of the term "Liberal" from that of an anti-statist to that of a statist-socialist. While the term "Conservative" has such a defeatist connotation without context. To "conserve" what? The status quo of 1984, 1954, 1860, 1789?
It seems that in the era of mass "miscommunication", the only real use for the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" is to enable politicians and pundits to engage in sophistry en masse.
--Boris
How so?
It was known as "The National Socialist DEMOCRATIC Party"
Semper Fi
Neither Israel nor Switzerland(!) has its neighbors worried about being invaded by its army. The issue is the size of the military relative to realistic threat assessment. Israel's neighbors are afraid of Israel's military--afraid they won't be able to conquer Israel because of it, that is.And the Algerian military vetoed an election precisely to prevent Islamic militants from making Algeria a threat to other countries. So IMHO your criterion needs work.
First of all, if you think of Nazism and Fascism as 'excessively lawful', then you are seriously confused. The Nazis may have been militaristic, but they had nothing but contempt for democracy and the law. Hans Frank attempted to develop a legal system for the Nazi Reich, but found that Hitler, (like all leftists) enjoyed the protections of the law before his rise to power, but completely disregarded it afterwards. Furthermore, the Nazis made it clear that they would only use the forces of democracy in order to extinguish it. They proved, as all Socialists believe, that Democracy (mob rule) is the path to Socialism.
When I refer to lawfulness, I refer to the concept of the Law of Natural Rights endowed upon us by our Creator, which all Socialists disdain, prefering to proclaim themselves gods, and endow us only with such rights as they wish.
The problem with the terms left and right is that they are relative. Relative to a right wing American Conservative, (someone who believes in the Constitution) all Socialists, Anarchists, and other assorted misfits are leftist. Compared to Monarchists, Republicans are leftist. The Founding Fathers most certainly thought of themselves as Liberals in this classical sense. The Nazis saw themselves as a balancing force (Hegelian synthesis) between the forces of Revolution (communism) and Reaction (monarchy). Relative to the Monarchists and democrats, they were leftists, but compared to the Commies they were rightists. (But that's not saying much, is it?)
Militias are not anarchist, but they are rightist libertarians, just like the founding fathers. They are conservatives who believe in Constitutionally limited Federal government. No anarchists believe in the Constitution. If some paramiltary group advocates the overthrow of the government, then they are most certainly not right wing. Likewise, leftists who advocate the unconstitutional growth of government power beyond that mandated by the Constitution, are most certainly not to be considered 'excessively lawful.'
You are confusing economics with government. No control over the means of production is not anarchy, it is Free Enterprise. Anarchy is an absence of all government. Government is required to ensure that Free Enterprise will flourish. The first duty of our government is to protect our private property. If we had no government, very few people would have any private property.
Anarchosyndicalists like yourself extol lawless capitalism, not Free Enterprise. The best example of succesful anarchosyndicalism is the Mafia.
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.