Walter Hinteler wrote:Foofie wrote:Nazi is an acronym;
OmSigDAVID wrote:Nazi is not an acronym.
Nazi is a shortened version of the word "Nationalsozialistische"
of "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei"
or acronym: NSDAP.
Origianally, Nzi was the affectionate form for the prename
Ignaz.
From the 1930's onwards it is (and was used) in German analogue to "Sozi" (members of the SPD) for members of the NSDAP.
Neo-Nazi thus labels a member of the right-wing neo-Nazi parties.
Seems that it is in German differently used than in AE.
Walter, do u have any thoughts as to the reason
that the nazis were ofen said to be " right-wing " ?
That term ( taken, as I understand, from where the conservatives sat
in the French Parliament ) was intended to mean those who opposed change
in the political system.
As I remember, Hitler asserted that his government was a
socialist revolution. ( confirm or deny ? )
If his government was a revolution, based on collectivist ideas,
then shud it be considered a leftist government ?
His government was not conservative.
I suppose, the very only socialist action of Hitler was the introduction of the 1st May as Labor day holiday.
OmSigDAVID wrote:As I remember, Hitler asserted that his government was a socialist revolution. ( confirm or deny ? )
If his government was a revolution, based on collectivist ideas,
then shud it be considered a leftist government ?
His government was not conservative.
As I've shown in one of my first posts on this board, Hitler did implement a socialist program. There is little difference between National Socialism and Soviet Socialism. The main difference is that National Socialism had a veneer of private property and the profit motive- as long your property and profits benefited the state. National Socialism is only a little to the right of Soviet Socialism. The political spectrum that puts communism on the far left and Fascism, i.e., Nazism, on the far right is simply propaganda created by the leftist intelligentsia who don't want to acknowledge the close association between Socialism and Fascism.
Walter Hinteler wrote:I suppose, the very only socialist action of Hitler was the introduction of the 1st May as Labor day holiday.
Not to mention his insistence that business and industry produce only what the Nazis wanted produced and sold for prices that were set by the Nazis;
Or his very high taxes which paid for massive welfare spending;
Or his Kraft durch Freude program which subsidized leisure-time activities for labor while subsidizing factory upkeep for business and industry;
Or his state-run labor unions and craft guilds;
Or his pre-paid Volkswagon program that eventually built tanks;
Or his laws that said a worker couldn't be fired and couldn't change jobs without the government's OK;
Or his laws that set wages for labor at what ever ludicrously low levels business and industry owners wanted to pay;
Or his massive farm subsidies and laws that said farmland couldn't be sold or mortgaged and had to be inherited by the farmer's oldest son or nearest male relative.
Walter Hinteler wrote:I suppose, the very only socialist action of Hitler
was the introduction of the 1st May as Labor day holiday.
Well, he raised a militia ( S.A. ) of unemployed German working men,
several times larger than the German Army.
I doubt that he did that by promising them that he 'd strive to help the rich.
Hitler himself came from poverty.
flaja wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:As I remember, Hitler asserted that his government was a socialist revolution. ( confirm or deny ? )
If his government was a revolution, based on collectivist ideas,
then shud it be considered a leftist government ?
His government was not conservative.
As I've shown in one of my first posts on this board, Hitler did implement a socialist program. There is little difference between National Socialism and Soviet Socialism. The main difference is that National Socialism had a veneer of private property and the profit motive- as long your property and profits benefited the state. National Socialism is only a little to the right of Soviet Socialism. The political spectrum that puts communism on the far left and Fascism, i.e., Nazism, on the far right is simply propaganda created by the leftist intelligentsia who don't want to acknowledge the close association between Socialism and Fascism.
I believe that history supports your position.
I have always seen it that way.
Hitler railed against " the cult of the individual. "
If communism is on the left and national socialism is on the right,
then
where is the place for Adam Smith free market libertarianism
and INDIVIDUALISM. Roosevelt n Truman were hostile to the free market also.
Maybe Walter will help us with this.
David
flaja wrote:As I've shown in one of my first posts on this board, Hitler did implement a socialist program. There is little difference between National Socialism and Soviet Socialism. The main difference is that National Socialism had a veneer of private property and the profit motive- as long your property and profits benefited the state. National Socialism is only a little to the right of Soviet Socialism. The political spectrum that puts communism on the far left and Fascism, i.e., Nazism, on the far right is simply propaganda created by the leftist intelligentsia who don't want to acknowledge the close association between Socialism and Fascism.
Well, I'm sure 40 hours credit points history gives the right to say such.
Smith is a liberal - and you find liberals as well on the right (like today in Austria and some other countries) as more to the left.
Historically e.g. in Germany we had liberal parties from the left to the rather far right. Like in many other countries.
re Hitler, I really suggest to read a book about the German/European system of poltical parties.
OmSigDAVID wrote:Hitler himself came from poverty.
Hitler came from the middle class. His father was a minor customs official for imperial Austria. Hitler wasn't impoverished until he frittered away his inheritance and then wouldn't look for a regular job while he played the little tramp in Vienna.
flaja wrote:The political spectrum that puts communism on the far left and Fascism, i.e., Nazism, on the far right is simply propaganda created by the leftist intelligentsia who don't want to acknowledge the close association between Socialism and Fascism.
please ask your school to give your money back.
OmSigDAVID wrote:flaja wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:As I remember, Hitler asserted that his government was a socialist revolution. ( confirm or deny ? )
If his government was a revolution, based on collectivist ideas,
then shud it be considered a leftist government ?
His government was not conservative.
As I've shown in one of my first posts on this board, Hitler did implement a socialist program. There is little difference between National Socialism and Soviet Socialism. The main difference is that National Socialism had a veneer of private property and the profit motive- as long your property and profits benefited the state. National Socialism is only a little to the right of Soviet Socialism. The political spectrum that puts communism on the far left and Fascism, i.e., Nazism, on the far right is simply propaganda created by the leftist intelligentsia who don't want to acknowledge the close association between Socialism and Fascism.
I believe that history supports your position.
I have always seen it that way.
Hitler railed against " the cult of the individual. "
If communism is on the left and national socialism is on the right,
then
where is the place for Adam Smith free market libertarianism
and INDIVIDUALISM. Roosevelt n Truman were hostile to the free market also.
Maybe Walter will help us with this.
David
I don't see communism, i.e. Marxism based on the Communist Manifesto, as being all that important. It is not necessarily all that malevolent but it is rather impossible to implement in the real world because of human nature. To some extent Marxist communism is very similar to the most extreme form of libertarianism and they collectively occupy places on the left and right depending on the issue under consideration. Both advocate stateless societies with no formal government, a position I put on the extreme right. Conservatism is right-center since human nature makes some amount of government necessary (otherwise the rich can oppress the poor). Liberalism is to the left in that liberals see even more government as necessary (to the extent that the poor can oppress the rich with high taxes and the welfare state) while socialists are on the extreme left in that government is maximized at the expense of individual liberty and self-responsibility so everyone and everything is equalized- by force when necessary.
Libertarians and communists also share the same position regarding social conventions like marriage- they both see legal sanctions for such things as detriments to individual liberty. Libertarians want the individual liberty to sleep around while communists see things like marriage as bourgeois tools of oppression. Conservatives see these things as necessary tools for maintaining a stable, functional society.
I would put Smith's free market somewhere between libertarianism and conservatism. Libertarians believe that the free market can function perfectly well on its own as people freely trade with and compete against each other to produce and consume goods and services. However, libertarians don't understand human nature. They don't see how greed can lead to the defrauding of consumers and the exploitation of labor. Conservatives do understand human nature; we realize that wealth is power and a wealthy plutocrat is just as dangerous to freedom as excessive government is. For this reason we don't support purely laissez faire capitalism. Some amount of government regulation is necessary to level the playing field.
Walter Hinteler wrote:flaja wrote:As I've shown in one of my first posts on this board, Hitler did implement a socialist program. There is little difference between National Socialism and Soviet Socialism. The main difference is that National Socialism had a veneer of private property and the profit motive- as long your property and profits benefited the state. National Socialism is only a little to the right of Soviet Socialism. The political spectrum that puts communism on the far left and Fascism, i.e., Nazism, on the far right is simply propaganda created by the leftist intelligentsia who don't want to acknowledge the close association between Socialism and Fascism.
Well, I'm sure 40 hours credit points history gives the right to say such.
You cannot honestly say that the Nazis were not socialists. Their economic policies were decidedly socialist in nature.
BTW: How much history have you studied in a university setting?
Walter Hinteler wrote:Smith is a liberal - and you find liberals as well on the right (like today in Austria and some other countries) as more to the left.
Historically e.g. in Germany we had liberal parties from the left to the rather far right. Like in many other countries.
re Hitler, I really suggest to read a book about the German/European system of poltical parties.
Based on your description I gather that the U.S. doesn't use the same terminology as you Europeans do. Our political spectrum is not your political spectrum. What I say about your politics, I say from my American perspective.
flaja wrote: What I say about your politics, I say from my American perspective.
That shouldn't hinder you to look for original sources.
Walter Hinteler wrote:flaja wrote: What I say about your politics, I say from my American perspective.
That shouldn't hinder you to look for original sources.
I'm not so sure that your original sources would have any bearing on American politics becuase Americans and Europeans don't have much in the way of a collection of common political issues. Creating a political spectrum and placing people on it based on their political ideologies and real world socio-economic and political goals is more art than it is science. I doubt that American and Europeans could be placed on the same political spectrum.
flaja wrote: Creating a political spectrum and placing people on it based on their political ideologies and real world socio-economic and political goals is more art than it is science. I doubt that American and Europeans could be placed on the same political spectrum.
We call such political party here.
Conservative and liberal are both RELATIVE words;
i.e., thay have meaning only insofar as thay relate to something else,
for instance, a rule, or a body of rules; perhaps some agreement.
Conservative means conserving, keeping; not varying from.
As in keeping your word.
Conservative means ORTHODOX or rigidly unvarying, unbending, not bending the rules
( whatever those rules may be; i.e., the subject matter of the conservation ).
The rules that are conserved need not be political; thay cud be anything.
For instance, dressing in strict accordance with an accepted style is dressing conservatively.
The opposite is true for liberalism.
It means that there IS bending of the rules; there is variation therefrom.
For instance, if one is conservatively dressed in evening attire, while wearing red sneakers,
the sneakers constitute a liberal variation from conservative, orthodox attire.
If someone shows up naked,
that is a RADICAL treatment of or full rejection of the rules of attire;
( pulled up from the root ).
Some scales of liberalism have been based upon the degree to which
the poor are assisted; the left side of the spectrum being assigned
for liberalism and the right side for no liberalism ( = conservatism ).
It makes sense to me to have a scale
within which personal freedom and individualism are on one side
and
authoritarianism and collectivism are on the opposite side.
Boris Yeltsin was a liberal ( and later, a radical ) relative to communism.
If men are playing poker and one has 5 cards of all the same suit,
he can rightfully assert that he has a FLUSH; that is a conservative
interpretation of the rules of poker.
If one of the poker players has 4 diamonds and a heart,
and tries to get away with claiming a FLUSH,
he is taking a LIBERAL vu of the rules of poker ( because of the VARIATION ).
If he claims to have a flush with only 3 cards of one suit,
he is being even MORE LIBERAL ( because of more VARIATION ).
If he pulls out a gun and robs his fellow players of the pot,
he is being RADICAL, throwing out the rules entirely
( pulling them up " by the ROOT " ).
If a man asserts that 5 + 5 = 10 he is taking a conservative vu of mathematics ( no variation ).
If a man says that 5 + 5 = 10.3, he is taking a liberal vu of math,
to the extent of the .3 ( because of the VARIATION from the paradigm ).
If u and I enter into a contract for the sale of 5 guns in exchange for $1000,
I pay u the cash and u deliver only 4 guns,
then u are taking a liberal interpretation of the contract of sale.
If u accept the cash and deliver only 3 of the sold guns,
then u are taking a more liberal interpretation of our contract
( because of greater VARIATION therefrom ).
If u grab the money and run, delivering no guns,
then u are taking a radical vu of our contract.
David
Hmm, seems to be not so common, David, at least not among historians and in political sciences.
But on the other hand: I don't know what is taught at US-universities.
You can tell OmgSigDavid is a conservative by his refusal to vary from the dictionary approved spellings of words.
I am liberal in my application of fonetic spelling,
because it DEVIATES from the currently accepted orthografic paradigm.
I am endeavoring to tear down that paradigm insofar as it is not fonetic,
as non-fonetic spelling is anti-logical and inefficient.
I wish to lead by example, showing other, better available options of spelling.
( In law school, about 40 years ago, the esteemed legal authority Prof. David Siegel
once denounced me for my conservative statutory interpretation as:
" You will go to your grave with a steel brace in your back ! " )
Mr. Parados, in my post,
I was merely taking cognizance of long enduring concepts
( concerning rigidity of interpretation of philosophy and of judicial practice
in decisions concerning interpretation of contracts, of statutes, or of constitutions ).
If someone accepts and applies a given philosophy INFLEXIBLY,
in an ORTHODOX fashion, then he is a conservative as to that philosophy,
whereas if he applies it only loosely, ofen bending its precepts
and with many exceptions, then he is a liberal as to that philosophy.
These concepts of interpretation were well understood and applied
long before my grandfather was born; I did not invent them.
David
P.S.:
I am not an obsessive worshiper of lexicografers.
I do not accept the belief that all knowledge is to be found
in practitioners thereof, nor that thay r infallible in defining reality.
There r other competent sources of knowledge.
As an aside, some years ago, I was assisting a Chinese girl in learning English
for her medical board tests in NY. I got her some vocabulary books
and went over them with her. I was shocked and chagrined
at the poor quality thereof; terrible quality; very inaccurate.
