In this case, whether the Nazis were right wing or left wing should be obvious to anyone not completely detached from reality.
America is moving towards socialism only if you mean it's moving from a very capitalist mixed economy to a slightly less capitalist mixed economy. You're like chicken little arguing that the sky is falling. But aside from that, i object to you portraying conservatives as opponents of big government. They believe in big government... just in different ways than liberals do. They believe that government should dictate to individuals on social issues. They believe the government should have special police powers like warentless wiretaps, indefinetly detaining ppl without going thru the justice system, etc. And on economic issues, the Republicans aren't half as small government as they'd like you to think they are. Oh, they may piss and moan about government bailouts and nationalizing banks in order to motivate their conservative base. But if they were in power, they'd be doing the same thing (and quite possibly nationalizing far more banks than Obama has). It's a whole lot of grandstanding for their economically libertarian fringe.
The Nazis were jingoists who believed that the government should have expanded police powers. Whatever you think of liberals, they're cynics of government when it comes to police and military power and they're vehemently anti jingoist. If you want to find the closest thing ideologically to the fascists within modern America, look to the neoconservatives within your own conservative movement.
in no way did they recognize the ability of the people to think and that the people's efforts were to be for the good of government.
Ppl like you rely on a false dichotemy between extremely conservative democratic capitalism and communist absolutism.
Touchy little guy aren't you? So was Adolf. lol.
Understandably, you lefties would not want to be seen as anything resembling the Nazi Party. Nor would the right. But, as America's trek toward socialism marches on, observe, just as Nazis, the government presents itself as all things to all people. Socialist as Nazis require the people to be as sheep and the government will take care of everything.
Yes, it is obvious that they were socialist in that in no way did they recognize the ability of the people to think and that the people's efforts were to be for the good of government.
Of course you can't admit that as the author of your ideological text refuses to accept the reality that a strongman always becomes the master of any socialist effort.
1. I didn't claim that his chief purpose was necessarily the elimination of socialism from the Nazi ranks, though it undoubtedly played a larger role than you acknowledge. However, the purge did effectively eliminate the self-identified socialists that had been brought aboard due to the Nazis' temporary capture of the fervency of worker militancy.
2. This seems a mere inaccurate reference to the state capitalism of the USSR, and nothing more. For instance, it seems that you would be unable to address the nature of anarchism, termed the "no-government system of socialism" by Kropotkin.
3. It's not accurate to describe Nazism or similar fascism as "socialist" in nature. Fascism and socialism are rather distinct from each other, and in many cases, are outright conflicting ideologies. To consider the elements of fascist political and cultural ideology and economy, we might look at Umberto Eco's conception of "Eternal Fascism," or Zanden's Pareto and Fascism Reconsidered, for instance.
Firstly, as Zanden puts it, "[O]bedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along creative lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism." This is not consistent with the socialist principle of elimination of alienation as defined by Marx's The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Such elimination necessitates revolutionary class consciousness, which obviously conflicts with "obedience, discipline, faith, etc." Revolutionary class consciousness is also rather inconsistent with the "cult of tradition" identified by Eco as an integral tenet of Eternal Fascism. "[T]here can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."
From an insistence on revolutionary class consciousness comes opposition to class itself on the part of the socialist. This is egregiously contradictory to the elitism that constitutes a core tenet of fascism. As Eco writes, "[e]litism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism."
Fascism also has a necessarily anti-democratic nature. As Zanden notes, "the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions." Similarly, Eco writes that "the Leader, knowing his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler." This strongly conflicts with the participatory elements of socialism, as it necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. For instance, Noam Chomsky notes that libertarian socialism is "based on free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control and with limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all." Other forms of socialism are democratic at the very least.
1. OK. Whatever the goal and sub-goals were, the #1 goal was to eliminate Rohm and any possible threats.
2. I will agree that to Nazi's if you were not productive, there was no place for you. Thus, making you right.
Anarchism, has never been the "stated" goal of any government as it has no logical hope of succeeding. Human nature insures that.
In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state.
3. The only reason for the attempt at comparing Nazism, Fascism, and Socialism is to expose the presentation of governments to the people that the government is the answer to all issues. The follow up descriptions are appreciated but unnecessary. The three aforementioned options are in stark contrast to a capitalist driven government due to the dependance of government on the people, rather than on government confiscation of private endeavors to become all things to all people.
1. And the "threat" came through Rohm and Co.'s appeal to the working classes of Germany through the utilization of what they referred to as "socialism," despite the inaccuracy of that label.
2. What?
3. I hear the "human nature" mention often enough. It's amusing inasmuch as it's typically advanced by rightists who understand labor market as collections of various factors of production, and don't understand the folly in considering dynamic human interactions akin to exchange of basic goods. That said, the merits of anarchism can be supported merely through reference to its successful implementation during the social revolution that occurred during the Spanish Civil War. As put by Gaston Leval:
4. It's thus a reality that Murray Bookchin's observation about free marketers and not anarchists being the true "utopian dreamers" is accurate. Anarchism has at least enjoyed widespread inter-regional existence, whereas laissez-faire has never enjoyed successful implementation, least of all in an industrialized society.
5. Basic economic errors! We can first consider your misidentification of the state capitalism of the USSR and related states as "socialism." Since socialism necessitates collective ownership and management, and since a party dictatorship cannot constitute a legitimate establishment of either, it's therefore purely inaccurate to refer to the USSR or similarly state capitalist regimes as "socialist." You then fail to note that the government is an integral agent in the capitalist economy, as an agent of macroeconomic stabilization, as a means of securing public good provisions and thus maintaining the physical and psychological efficiency of the workforce, and as a means of protecting the private ownership of the means of production by the financial class through a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Socialism, by contrast, can survive without a direct government presence.
If you've been following Washington DC politics you'll have noticed that the "cough cough" conservatives are back. True for eight years we saw the real republican persona, borrow and spend with a large slice of fiscal irresponsibility. But now that the republicans are back in the minority, it's all about balanced budgets and fiscal propriety. They are also demanding transparency now even though the Cheney/Bush administration was so steeped in secrets that they hid Cheney in the crypt of the White House.
One could come to the conclusion that the republicans in the minority of today are running against the republicans when they were in the majority and in control. The very things they are running against now are the very things they ppracticed under Cheney/Bush.
Perhaps the most astounding instance of this reversal of political policies is found in the media that is silent on calling the republicans out for their two faced politics. Let me give you an example. The republicans demanded that "labor" renegotiate their contracts before those industries could be bailed out. But do the republicans demand the same from upper management of industries such as the financial industry? So on one hand the republicans prance around demanding the little people make sacrifices but when it comes to the CEOs that tanked their industries in the first place, well the republicans can't pay them enough. All this goes unnoticed by the media...
I wonder what kind of country we've become? A country that allows the mentally deranged run the country like they did under the Cheney/Bush administration. The two faced politics of the republicans is so patently blatant, overt and obvious that it is astounding that it isn't the front page news day in and day out.
[SIZE="5"]We saw who the republicans really are over the last eight years, so don't be fooled by their lying claims of conservatism now.[/SIZE]
As a West Aussie I find it strange how we here in Australia have become a little enclave here down under to The American Way.You people have had 8 Miserable years under Bush as we had 11 years under Howard, both miserable and Pompous ***s who cared not one iota about it,s People. We call our Countries the Land of the Free. But that is Bull****. Like us America is Greedy,Selfserving and like a spoilt child at a funeral.I hope Obama gets the Job done for you people,so we can get our lives back as well. The Republicans of George Bushes ilk are not Americans, there fundamentalist Capitalists who care not 1 wit about People its all MONEY.
8 miserable years? Unemployment was near it's lowest in that period. Now, it's near depression.
They are already mad at him as they thought he was going to " spread the wealth". Which he is doing, but not to the people.
He's doling out the big bucks to the big boyz so as to attain controlling interest in the corporations of the nation.
