AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@okie,

Here is all you need to know to identify Nazism as a form of leftist ideology, cyclops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
"To rescue Germany from the effects of the Great Depression, Nazism promoted an economic Third Position; a managed economy that was neither capitalist nor communist.[15][16] The Nazis accused communism and capitalism of being associated with Jewish influences and interests. They declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation."

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I have always made it clear that the distinction of left vs right as applied to Hitler, the Nazis, and Fascism should be in context with how we now understand those philosophies now. Hopefully, we have a better understanding of those things now than existed in Germany in the 20s and 30s. Did that point totally escape you?

This is your error, Okie. You don't have a better understanding of what was Right-wing and what was Left-wing in Germany at the time. There exists no universal principles defined as either Right or Left. All are relative. Yet you seem to believe that Conservatives have always believed exactly what you currently believe. This is totally wrong and foolish on your part.

You edited out the part of my post that discussed what the actual definition of 'Conservative' is. Why did you do that? Because it shows that you are in fact wrong.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

You should really get off the Hitler's 25 points bit okie. You are stuck in a fruitless and pointless effort to measure how far right or left a perfectly vertial line goes.

The Nazis were first and last authoritarians, and dedicated to absolute control in the pursuit of their anti libertarian aims. They happily used the rhetoric and cant of both the right and the left in their ceaseless internal propaganda. Hitler eagerly colluded with the major capitalist industrialists of Germany in his ascent to power and afterwards, while, at the same time, endorsing all the socialist goals of the German Social Democrat party, which he bitterly opposed, and many of whose members he imprisioned - along with the communists. He mandated most of the workforce goals of the German labor unions and then abolished them entirely, substituting an all-Germany labor "union" ruled exclusively by the Nazi Party. In short, he happily used the propaganda of both left and right while he shut down all their independent political and social organizations, making everyone and everything subsurvient to the Nazi state.

Socialist systems tend to be more authoritarian than purely capitalist ones. However, that doesn't necessarily make them undemocratic or equivalent to the Nazi or Soviet tyrannies. It's a long way from Scandanavian social democracy to these tyrannies, just as it is a long way from the Republican Party to libertarianism.

Lots of geologists, engineers, and even a few scientists in my company ... and they constantly argue. The geologists see the engineers as drudges, while the engineers say of the geologists, "there's one under every rock". Interestingly it was late 18th & early 19th century geologists who taught the physicists about the age of the earth & solar system. As late as 1865 Lord Kelvin (the famous physicist & thermodynamicist) was arguing in defense of the proposition that the earth was just thousands of years old instead of billions as even then the geologists were beginning to understand.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Blaming Jews for the problems of German society most certainly was a Conservative, right-wing trait in Germany at the time. If you did even a tiny bit of research on this you would see that it is abundantly clear.

You should be at least able to keep straight the fact that there is a difference between Conservative actions, and the political philosophy of modern Conservatism. But you don't seem to even realize the distinction exists.
Cycloptichorn

Not abundantly clear at all. See my above post. And by the way, I cannot help it if a crow was labeled an eagle in Germany 75 years ago. That does not compel me to consider a crow an eagle now, nor should I if I wish to be correct. Nor should you.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Blaming Jews for the problems of German society most certainly was a Conservative, right-wing trait in Germany at the time. If you did even a tiny bit of research on this you would see that it is abundantly clear.

You should be at least able to keep straight the fact that there is a difference between Conservative actions, and the political philosophy of modern Conservatism. But you don't seem to even realize the distinction exists.
Cycloptichorn

Not abundantly clear at all. See my above post. And by the way, I cannot help it if a crow was labeled an eagle in Germany 75 years ago. That does not compel me to consider a crow an eagle now, nor should I if I wish to be correct. Nor should you.

See George's post above for an example of someone actually having a little knowledge about the situation. You are 100% wrong. Your attempt to use modern terms and definitions to explain away actions taken 75 years ago is foolish and unsupportable.

You know, this wouldn't be so bad, if you didn't then turn around and use these conclusions to attack modern Leftists. That's exactly why you got on this hobby-horse in the first place, remember? It's idiotic.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You should really get off the Hitler's 25 points bit okie. You are stuck in a fruitless and pointless effort to measure how far right or left a perfectly vertial line goes.

I don't really need the 25 points to argue what should be obvious anyway, george. As I told cyclops, all we need to know to identify Nazism as left or right is to read the following as I posted it above:

okie wrote:

Here is all you need to know to identify Nazism as a form of leftist ideology, cyclops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
"To rescue Germany from the effects of the Great Depression, Nazism promoted an economic Third Position; a managed economy that was neither capitalist nor communist.[15][16] The Nazis accused communism and capitalism of being associated with Jewish influences and interests. They declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation."

georgeob1 wrote:

The Nazis were first and last authoritarians, and dedicated to absolute control in the pursuit of their anti libertarian aims. They happily used the rhetoric and cant of both the right and the left in their ceaseless internal propaganda. Hitler eagerly colluded with the major capitalist industrialists of Germany in his ascent to power and afterwards, while, at the same time, endorsing all the socialist goals of the German Social Democrat party, which he bitterly opposed, and many of whose members he imprisioned - along with the communists. He mandated most of the workforce goals of the German labor unions and then abolished them entirely, substituting an all-Germany labor "union" ruled exclusively by the Nazi Party. In short, he happily used the propaganda of both left and right while he shut down all their independent political and social organizations, making everyone and everything subsurvient to the Nazi state.

Socialist systems tend to be more authoritarian than purely capitalist ones. However, that doesn't necessarily make them undemocratic or equivalent to the Nazi or Soviet tyrannies. It's a long way from Scandanavian social democracy to these tyrannies, just as it is a long way from the Republican Party to libertarianism.

I have not much problem with what you say, and none of it contradicts Hitler being a leftist by virtue of what he believed and tried to do. Being an authoritarian certainly does not run counter to leftists. In fact, you observe that socialists tend to be more authoritarian.

Quote:

Lots of geologists, engineers, and even a few scientists in my company ... and they constantly argue. The geologists see the engineers as drudges, while the engineers say of the geologists, "there's one under every rock". Interestingly it was late 18th & early 19th century geologists who taught the physicists about the age of the earth & solar system. As late as 1865 Lord Kelvin (the famous physicist & thermodynamicist) was arguing in defense of the proposition that the earth was just thousands of years old instead of billions as even then the geologists were beginning to understand.

Good points, and in a sense I am one of those simple geologists that saw the forest instead of the trees, as engineers tend to do. The forest or big picture is that Hitler was a leftist. If it sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Sounds simple, but most of the time the simplest answers can be the most correct. This is not rocket science, and I see no need to make it into something complicated. I believe more people are seeing the correct perception as I have seen it, and the reason for that is history is not the sole property of leftist history professors and authors.

1 Reply

@okie,

See how it just kind of ricochets off his head, George?

Okie, George is - patiently and again - trying to explain to you that Nazi-ism contained significant elements of both what we today 'Right' and 'Left.' Please, I implore you to listen to what he's saying and think about it in depth, and respond again.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It ricochets because I have never accepted the idea of agreeing just to go along with the crowd. If I am convinced something is right, it is worth sticking to principle.
Second point you bring up, and a great one, Cyclops, I have never claimed Nazism did not incorporate Right and Left. In fact, it has been me that has consistently pointed out that Fascism, of which Nazism was a form of, incorporated both right and left into a "Third Way" type of system. It is important to note however that any right leaning activity, such as capitalism, was only allowed to be practiced as directed by and for the State, all for the purpose of creating a nationalistic form of socialism. The ultimate result therefore is a leftist system. Nazis condemned "profiteering," and declared that all income should arise from work that benefitted the State and the "Common Good."

Are you going to repeatedly and continually ignore the above points, as you habitually have done ever since this debate started?

3 Replies

@okie,

I would like to interject a point here, as I think it relates to this business of how much power can and should the State exert upon business? I believe this is a good question for george as well. It relates to Obama and what his political desires and policies he prefers. We just talked about Fascism and how it incorporates both left and right leaning political philosophies. Before going any further, please understand that I am not at all comparing Obama to a Hitler or Mussolini in terms of their personality or ruthlessness.

Now to the point, it has not been unusual for Obama to refer to his desire to eliminate "boom and bust cycles." To do that, I believe it is obvious that he advocates greater involvement of the State into capitalistic institutions in America, and over the markets in this country. Health care is but one example, also banking, etc. This can be done in a number of ways, besides very different or radical regulation to outright confiscation of companies, perhaps through bailouts, or nationalization of industries. To support what I just said about Obama, here is an Obama quote from the recent G20:
http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/06/27/full-text-of-obama-g20-speech-us-wont-borrow-and-buy-the-way-to-prosperity/
"In Pittsburgh we went further—moving beyond the old economic cycles of boom and bust by committing our nations to a new framework for growth that is balanced and sustained, as well as specific financial reforms."

Our bold action succeeded. In the United States, we are committed – above all – to leading by example. Because of the steps that we’ve taken to get our economy moving, we are growing again, and this growth is beginning to translate into job creation. And we are now also poised to pass the toughest financial reform since the aftermath of a Great Depression."

So my question of george is - what do you think of this, and does this have any resemblance to you at all regarding a tinge of fascism, by bringing in more State control of industries and business, to supposedly eliminate the "boom and bust" cycles? Please understand here that I am not calling Obama a committed Fascist, but I am asking if maybe his policies are unwittingly placing him into that category to a slight extent at this point, by virtue of his actions so far. I don't know if he is smart enough to actually equate his policies to that or not. I think it is rather a case of a guy that is sort of stumbling around and experimenting with some ideas in his head, perhaps obtained from others, etc. Also understand that I am hopeful that much of the damage done to our system can be reversed or mitigated. We also have a Congress that has something to say about what he is able to do from now on.

0 Replies

@okie,

There is no virtue to "sticking to principle" when the "principle" in question is a very simplistic categorization of a political system based on a carefully selected and relatively small subset of its characteristics. The Nazis were all Germans, but that doesn't mean that all Germans were or are Nazis. There were some elements associated with socialism in the Nazi rhetoric and (to a far lesser degree) in their economic policies: however that doesn't mean they were socialists or even left wing.

There were also equally significant elements in their rhetoric and policy associated with rather raw capitalism and what may generally be regarded as conservative values. Many were insincere rhetorical devices (as was much of their "socialist" rhetoric). In fact their behavior very strongly suggests they had no consistent economic or political views at all ...other than the exclusive exercise of absolute power and the expansion of the German state under their absolute rule. Nazi governance was in fact more like gangster rule than any political system, left or right. There were intense rivalries among those surrounding Hitler and each of the principal figures ruled his domain as a personal fiefdom often involving intense competition with the others. After 1941 Hitler spent his time running the war, and very little in governing any Nazi political or economic system.

The very fact that, though Sweden has embraced as much or more of the "socialist" rhetoric as you claim came from Hitler, no one would say that it was like the Nazi state, tells us that there are profound differences between the two that are not accounted for in the very small subset of characteristics on which you are making such a sweeping categorical judgment. If this rhetorical commonality doesn't make Sweden Nazi, then it also doesn't make Nazi Germany socialistic.

You credit your self with rising above detail and maintaining the ability to not lose sight of the forrest for all the trees. However in this case you are categorizing a continent based on some weeds you found in a meadow.

1 Reply

The Ku Klux Klan is, and always has been, a politically conservative movement. (No, I'm not a liberal, guys. Smile

)

1 Reply

@wmwcjr,

Quote:

The Ku Klux Klan is, and always has been, a politically conservative movement. (No, I'm not a liberal, guys. )

Except, when it was extreme left wing liberal. It started out of the Democratic Party, then Strom Thurmond took it across the hump to righty land shortly after he started the Dixicrat Party in about 1950-1. Oh, and I'm not NeoCon Wink

KKK'ers were still moving from left to extreme rightism in the '70's. I knew a few that still said they were Democrat in the '90's. These guys were obviously not too bright.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

george, I would like to understand your position on this better. Do you dismiss the Nazi 25 points then as meaningless? Do you believe one of the central points of the Nazi 25 points was "Common Good," or do you believe that is not necessarily a left wing principle? Do you dismiss the fact that Hitler and the Nazis condemned "profiteering" and the capitalism of Jews, also was it insignificant that they confiscated property and businesses for the good of the State, and declared that legitimate income needed to arise from work that would benefit the State or Common Good? Do you dismiss those things as meaningless or insignificant? Do you also dismiss the fact that the Nazis wanted to run the schools, had State run social programs for children and young people, to take care of the poor, the elderly, and the sick, much like liberals wish to do today? It was socialism, and what was capitalistic was only allowed by permission and for the benefit of the State, not the individual. Free market capitalism in a politically free country or democracy is at the other end of the spectrum from Fascism and Nazism.

It is commonly claimed that Hitler and Fascism is at the extreme right, but this does not make sense. It should be common sense that at the extreme right is ultra conservatism to the point of Libertarian, and if that is taken to the real ultimate extreme, it becomes anarchy. If you are going to continue to maintain that Hitler was an ultra rightee, I think we will just have to both admit that the measuring device or spectrum being used has changed dramatically.

I confess that I do not understand how you can make Hitler a rightee with how we understand it today? I understand how he could have been viewed that way by many, in context with the existing politics of Germany and Europe, while the influences of communism were bearing down on the region, but I do not see how that can be considered legitimate now. I suppose if you compare a pear to an apple, it does not appear to be red, but if you compare it to an orange, it is an entirely different comparison. In other words, I am saying a pear is more like an apple than it is an orange, or that Nazism is closer to the ultra left than it is to the ultra right. I hope you get the analogy I am trying to use here.

2 Replies

@BillW,

You forget that Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery and was the father of modern Republicanism, and that he was no liberal. You also forget that blacks voted mostly Republican until Democrats figured out how to bribe them with social programs onto their plantation by the 1960's. You also might have forgotten that one of the great conservatives of our time, Dwight D. Eisenhower, federalized the National Guard in Arkansas to make sure the schools were integrated down there, in spite of the liberal socialist Democrat Governor Faubus. You may not be aware also that there is evidence that Martin Luther King was a Republican.

It is sad that the context of history, the facts of history have been so skewed and twisted by the educational system and the mainstream media that so few people actually understand what has happened, and what is conservative versus liberal. I always recommend this website, the National Association of Black Republicans.
http://www.nbra.info/
This is an example of some things you could learn there:

0 Replies

Actually, being the evil, politically apathetic person that I am Sad

, I really shouldn't be posting in this topic. So, bye. Have fun, guys. Smile

0 Replies

@okie,

Okie, You are demanding it be a 2 dimensional line to define left/right. It is more like this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png/558px-European-political-spectrum.png

1 Reply

@parados,

I see it more as circular, as a clock. Nine o'clock is left, 3 o'clock is right, 6 o'clock is centrist/moderate and 12 o'clock is extremist left and right. This shows why it is so easy for the extremist (such as KKK, NeoFascists, SocialistDemocrats, Teabaggers) to go back and forth fairly easily depending on who is in power. They are also the gun toters and mosts like to instill violence. It is also the political philosophy of Trotsky. This is such a reprehensible factor in that it illustrates these despicable element as the "swing" vote, <sigh>.

0 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

Quote:
The Ku Klux Klan is, and always has been, a politically conservative movement. (No, I'm not a liberal, guys. )

Except, when it was extreme left wing liberal.

No it wasn't! It was Conservative democrats. You didn't see many KKK socialists.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

See post above yours.

1 Reply

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

See post above yours.

Yah, I understand that this element of society has swung back and forth from party to party through the years, with the only real unifying factor being their disdain for mixing of the races - but I think that this has been primarily a CONSERVATIVE movement the entire time. Check out the Know Nothings of the 1840-50's and the later American party - they could be the Tea Partiers of today, sometimes word for word.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know