Fascism and the left wing

[Saigon]

And that proves exactly what? The fact remains that the British had far lower taxes and far more freedom under Victoria than they ever did under the British labor party.

Really?

They had more freedoms?

What was Victoria's position on homosexuality?

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. Communists were admitted immediately into the Nazi Party.

.

Hitler:

"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive."

In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.

In this way the struggle against the present State was placed on a higher plane than that of petty revenge and small conspiracies. It was elevated to the level of a spiritual struggle on behalf of a WELTANSCHAUUNG, for the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms.

In view of the complete subordination of the present State to Marxism, the National Socialist Movement feels all the more bound not only to prepare the way for the triumph of its idea by appealing to the reason and understanding of the public but also to take upon itself the responsibility of organizing its own defence against the terror of the International, which is intoxicated with its own victory.

Most Communists ended up in Auschwitz, of course. But then BriPat knew that.

NO, most communists did not end up in Auschwitz. I can't find the quote, but Hitler stated that communists should be immediately admitted to the Nazi party. Of course, if you continued to oppose the Nazi party, then you might end up in a concentration camp, as did all opponents of the regime.

 

[bripat9643]

And that proves exactly what? The fact remains that the British had far lower taxes and far more freedom under Victoria than they ever did under the British labor party.

Really?

They had more freedoms?

What was Victoria's position on homosexuality?

Contrary to leftist delusions, attitudes about homosexuality are not the sin qua none of freedom.

 

[Saigon]

NO, most communists did not end up in Auschwitz

Most prisoners in the early concentration camps were German Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Roma (Gypsies), Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and persons accused of "asocial" or socially deviant behavior. These facilities were called “concentration camps” because those imprisoned there were physically “concentrated” in one location.

Nazi Camps

No doubt some communists decided to become Nazis rather than be executed, but none of this changes the obvious facts that the Nazi Party was fiercely anti-communist and obviously extremely right wing.

 

[Lakhota]

Who do you think Laurence W. Britt is? You say he has a degree in "marketing"? Very interesting...

 

[Saigon]

Contrary to leftist delusions, attitudes about homosexuality are not the sin qua none of freedom.

Agreed - but tolerance of sexual orientation is one aspect of freedom.

So to are freedom of religious expression, freedom of political expression and freedom of the media - all of which were suppressed under Victoria.

 

[bripat9643]

NO, most communists did not end up in Auschwitz

Most prisoners in the early concentration camps were German Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Roma (Gypsies), Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and persons accused of "asocial" or socially deviant behavior. These facilities were called “concentration camps” because those imprisoned there were physically “concentrated” in one location.

Nazi Camps

No doubt some communists decided to become Nazis rather than be executed, but none of this changes the obvious facts that the Nazi Party was fiercely anti-communist and obviously extremely right wing.

Auschwitz was not one of the early concentration camps. It was in Poland, so it couldn't have even been started any earlier than 1939.

Being anti-communist doesn't make you right-wing. Stalin executed millions of communists. Was he right-wing?

 

[Saigon]

Fascism is a form of socialism.

This would probably be a good time to present a case which establishes why you feel that way.

My OP present the three points I feel establish why Fascism is right wing - why not present a counter-case?

 

[Saigon]

Being anti-communist doesn't make you right-wing. Stalin executed millions of communists. Was he right-wing?

No, but neither did he deliver blistering attacks on communism.

 

[bripat9643]

Contrary to leftist delusions, attitudes about homosexuality are not the sin qua none of freedom.

Agreed - but tolerance of sexual orientation is one aspect of freedom.

So to are freedom of religious expression, freedom of political expression and freedom of the media - all of which were suppressed under Victoria.

Bullshit. Many newspapers launched scathing attacks on the crown. The press was probably freer under Victoria than it is now. The British government often prosecutes newspapers for publishing on various subjects.

 

[bripat9643]

Being anti-communist doesn't make you right-wing. Stalin executed millions of communists. Was he right-wing?

No, but neither did he deliver blistering attacks on communism.

Sure he did. He attacked the old Bolsheviks and all manner of communists in his country if he suspected for even a micro-second that they weren't absolutely loyal underlings, and often even if they were.

 

[bripat9643]

Fascism is a form of socialism.

This would probably be a good time to present a case which establishes why you feel that way.

My OP present the three points I feel establish why Fascism is right wing - why not present a counter-case?

HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST

 

[Saigon]

Being anti-communist doesn't make you right-wing. Stalin executed millions of communists. Was he right-wing?

No, but neither did he deliver blistering attacks on communism.

Sure he did. He attacked the old Bolsheviks and all manner of communists in his country if he suspected for even a micro-second that they weren't absolutely loyal underlings, and often even if they were.

I somehow think you can understand that Stalin raging against "wreckers" in his own party is a little different from raging against Communism per se.

Stalin WAS a communist, and there really isn't any more disputing that than there is that Hitler WAS a fascist. Hence, they were bitterly opposed to each other ideologically.

These aren't matters of opinion, they are just historical facts.

 

[Saigon]

Fascism is a form of socialism.

This would probably be a good time to present a case which establishes why you feel that way.

My OP present the three points I feel establish why Fascism is right wing - why not present a counter-case?

HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST

No, not something from some nutcase blog littered with grammatical errors - I mean a credible historical case.

I have presented three major points in my OP - so far you have not said a word about them.

Tripod.com? Really?

 

[bripat9643]

This would probably be a good time to present a case which establishes why you feel that way.

My OP present the three points I feel establish why Fascism is right wing - why not present a counter-case?

HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST

No, not something from some nutcase blog littered with grammatical errors - I mean a credible historical case.

I have presented three major points in my OP - so far you have not said a word about them.

Tripod.com? Really?

ROFL! In other words, you'll only accept something from some leftist historian.

You've resorted to the ad hominem argument here. Facts are facts. It doesn't matter who the source of the facts is. Can you dispute any of the claims made on the web page I referred you to?

 

[Londoner]

I respect the fact that the OP is humane and trying to get at the ideas.

The Right overlaps pretty significantly with Fascist doctrine.

The theories behind the Right's "Borders, Language, Culture" could have come directly from the völkisch movement, which itself privileged the organic structure of society over theoretical abstractions of fairness, justice, and equality.

Things to consider: Hitler's opposition to the French Revolution and the multiculturalism/tolerance of Enlightenment Liberalism. (Think cosmopolitanism. Think "Rights of Man" as a way of leveling cultural differences in favor of what all men shared, namely "Reason". Consider that many of the Enlightenment thinkers thought religion and tradition were superstitions or anachronisms. This is in contrast to the Right, which sees tradition as the lifeblood of a nation, something to be preserved, celebrated, imposed.)

The OP is urged to research what Hitler meant by the term "the Real Germany".

(Consider what is meant when the Right calls the Left anti-American? This slur assumes that there is one true America, and one true group of real Americans, which is in stark contrast to the pluralism and relativism on the Left. Fascism and the Right hold that there is one true identity for the nation)

The OP is urged to research Hitler's feelings about German language, religion and tradition - all which he thought were weakened by Germany's over-assimilation of non-Germans, mostly Jews.

Preserving the one true language and one true set of values and one true tradition is Fascism. And it is the essence Conservatism. (We should approach the theory of fascism intellectually rather than as a political football used by Rush Limbaugh. The theory is far less dramatic than our media sources have lead us to believe. Hegel - a widely respected philosopher on the Right - sounds like he is defending/espousing fascism in his theory of the state)

One of Hitler's biggest enemies was Liberal tolerance. He believed that an external contagion was threatening the real Germany. His second biggest enemy were the Russians. These obsessions were married inside another favorite obsession, "Jewish Bolshevism". He was inl agreement with was the Right about wanting to protect the real Germany from "outside" contagions and outside forces.

Hitler and the Right were threatened by the way the French Revolution was leveling Europe with its abstract universalism - he thought he was losing the real Germany.

Hitler was in lock-step with the Right over his criticism of Weimar. Too liberal. Too tolerant.

Hitler appealed to conservatives who wanted to preserve tradition in the face of outside forces which he believed were destroying it. His appeal came from the Right. He was a defender of German tradition against the things he thought were destroying it. He was purely on the Right, at least rhetorically. He was obviously not Libertarian like American Right. Remember: Reagan collapsed the difference between Libertarian and Conservative because business needed a populism. But I digress. I appreciate that the OP has attempted to start a discussion rather than merely flaming. This is commendable and I thank him. And yes, at the end of the day there is a big difference between Adolf Hitler and Edmund Burke. However, it is well worth pointing out that Hitler was on the Right, whatever those differences may be.

 

[Saigon]

Facts are facts. It doesn't matter who the source of the facts is.

Dictionaries are written by liberals. Anything in them that is even remotely political is bullshit.

So which is it?

Are facts facts regardless of the source, or only when they appear on illiterate blogs?

 

[Saigon]

(Consider what is meant when the Right calls the Left anti-American? This slur assumes that there is one true America, and one true group of real Americans, which is in stark contrast to the pluralism and relativism on the Left. Fascism and the Right hold that there is one true identity for the nation)

These are good points, Londoner.

The OP is urged to research Hitler's feelings about German language, religion and tradition - all which he thought were weakened by Germany's over-assimilation of non-Germans, mostly Jews.

Yes, I think that is key, and also something which we can extend across many other right wing regimes.

The rhetoric of Pinochet, Rioss Monte, Cristiani and Fujimori Fujimori are relies very heavily on the concept of traditional values and tradition.

 

[Londoner]

Below is cut from a description of fascism. Sounds more like the democratic party and the liberal left to me.

snippet:

" Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. "

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Actually, the American Right has unwittingly evolved into a statist monopoly protectorate. Consider Health Insurance, Oil or the Pharmaceuticals -- all of whom have senators in place to block any reform on their control of markets. These sectors fund elections and staff government for the purpose of creating a dynamic state sector which protects large corporations from market discipline. They have paid for extremely protectionist policies when it comes to the suppliers, but harsh market discipline for labor, which must compete globally. The right supports a very powerful subsidy system where the tax payer covers the costs.

Study the 2003 GOP Drug Bill. The market was abolished and the common man fooled. The mainstream Right may be rhetorically against intervention, but in practice they have been more interventionist than the Left by a long shot. Study K Street. The Right has handed the economy to large, unaccountable monopolies. In states like Iowa there are only two providers who have an anti-trust no-compete clause. This allows them to raise rates without losing customers. Same thing with cable providers. Cox and Charter have divided up states like California so they don't have to compete; so they don't have to invest in costly innovations to retain customers. These companies pour trillions into the GOP so they can avoid market discipline. C'mon People. Has anyone studied the methods of the Hammer (Delay)?

And what do the corporations who own government do with their profits? They pour them into talk radio which convinces well meaning idiots that any attempt to break up these monopolies is socialism. Everyone knows this, save the people who listen to talk radio.

 

[Political Junky]

That's bullshit.

The right seeks a powerful central government which is homogeneous, rooted in tradition and religion.

That's bullshit.

No it's not. The nazi party had the full backing of the pope and German Christians.

The tirade against jews that been one fo the driving forces of Christianity didn't begin or end with Hitler.

Nazi Germany was a conservative utopia.

I just saw a TV program last night about how the Catholic Church helped Nazis escape through Italy so they could sail to South America.