Bush,conservatives, and Fascism

[TVoffBrainOn]

No you didn't. You listed a few things, but were unable to differentiate between the reality of germany and the reality of the soviet union. Further, you made the claim that nazism was right of center economically while being unable to describe any actual difference between the economies of germany and the soviet union.

"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative" - Hitler

I made reference to the fact that Hitler's economic policies were Keynsian, a blend of State and Private sector. That is a BIG difference from Soviet Socialism in which State OWNs the means of production. Soviet economic planners decided what goods and services were to be produced, how they were to be produced, in what quantities, and at what prices they were to be sold.

In Nazi Germany nationalised industries would frequently be combined with Keynsian economics and incomes policies to try and guide the whole economy. Many economists consider these Keynesian economies were capitalist. It is at it's core a supply and demand philosphy.

Of course Im not arguing that the Nazi gov't didn't have the power to regulate the use of private property for "the good of the nation".

I have no interest in writing a paper for you, i got my degree. This continued debate only serves to prove my point that the simplistic straight line/left-right political spectrum that you subscribe to is insufficient in separating the real differences in social and economic political philosphies.

Liberalism, Fascism, and Socialism all differ greatly and your simplistic spectrum can't show the differences.

 

[top gun]

"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative" - Hitler

I made reference to the fact that Hitler's economic policies were Keynsian, a blend of State and Private sector. That is a BIG difference from Soviet Socialism in which State OWNs the means of production. Soviet economic planners decided what goods and services were to be produced, how they were to be produced, in what quantities, and at what prices they were to be sold.

In Nazi Germany nationalised industries would frequently be combined with Keynsian economics and incomes policies to try and guide the whole economy. Many economists consider these Keynesian economies were capitalist. It is at it's core a supply and demand philosphy.

Of course Im not arguing that the Nazi gov't didn't have the power to regulate the use of private property for "the good of the nation".

I have no interest in writing a paper for you, i got my degree. This continued debate only serves to prove my point that the simplistic straight line/left-right political spectrum that you subscribe to is insufficient in separating the real differences in social and economic political philosphies.

Liberalism, Fascism, and Socialism all differ greatly and your simplistic spectrum can't show the differences.

High quality post my friend.

There are those who want to pigeon hole everything for the purposes of their argument. However the whole truth is there can be a wide array of combinations and there can even be some similarities between types... and that still doesn't make them the same.

The bottom line is one cannot no matter how hard one tries make a completely voluntary socialist commune the exact same thing as Hitler's Nazi Germany. It is just not the same. (and I'm sure they know that)

 

[palerider]

"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative" - Hitler

"Our socialism reaches much deeper. It does not change the external order of things, it orders solely the relationship of man to the state...Then what does property and income count for? Why should we need to socialize the banks and the factories? We are socializing the people." - Hitler

I made reference to the fact that Hitler's economic policies were Keynsian, a blend of State and Private sector. That is a BIG difference from Soviet Socialism in which State OWNs the means of production. Soviet economic planners decided what goods and services were to be produced, how they were to be produced, in what quantities, and at what prices they were to be sold.

You made an inaccurate reference to hitler's "keynsian" policies. There is nothing keynsian about requiring a business owner to be a devoted party man in order to retain ownership of his property. There is nothing keynsian about telling a busines owner exactly what his property will be used for. There is nothing keynsian about reserving the right to confiscate property from a business owner based on his political views or political cooperation and installing a new owner who will remain in line. And there is nothing keynsian about installing government bureaucrats in a business to oversee its management.

The difference between germany and the soviet union is no more than semantics. I asked for a substantial difference and you have failed to provide one.

In Nazi Germany nationalised industries would frequently be combined with Keynsian economics and incomes policies to try and guide the whole economy. Many economists consider these Keynesian economies were capitalist. It is at it's core a supply and demand philosphy.

Didn't happen. See above.

Of course Im not arguing that the Nazi gov't didn't have the power to regulate the use of private property for "the good of the nation".

Just like the soviets. They both achieved exactly the same ends, they just described their process with different nomenclature. Hitler said that he retained private ownership of property with his tongue firmly in his cheek.

I have no interest in writing a paper for you, i got my degree. This continued debate only serves to prove my point that the simplistic straight line/left-right political spectrum that you subscribe to is insufficient in separating the real differences in social and economic political philosphies.

I am impressed. I have two degrees. Are you more impressed? Personally, if I were losing a debate as badly as you are losing this one, I wouldn't fall back on a degree.

I am waiting for a substantial difference between fascism and socialism that would make one right and the other left.

Liberalism, Fascism, and Socialism all differ greatly and your simplistic spectrum can't show the differences.

Strangely enough, your flawed spectrum can't show the differences either. Do you know why? Because they are the same.

 

[palerider]

High quality post my friend.

Again, you back the wrong horse. He is losing this debate badly and you think is posts are high quality. You are laughable.

 

[Coyote]

I am waiting for a substantial difference between fascism and socialism that would make one right and the other left.

Economic policies are not the sole indicator of "right" and "left". Also, what defines "right" and "left" have changed through history and mean different things in different countries at different times. When you are speaking of 1930s and 40's Europe, there is little consensus on what is meant by Right beyond an opposition to Bolshevism and left a support of Bolshevism and that certainly made Fascism a rightwing ideology.

Historically - in practice - rightwing ideologies are associated with the following:

• Strong role and support for religion/church in social policy.
  
• An interventionist foreign policy or one of isolationism and/or unilateralism as opposed to coordinating with other countries (which is generally associated with the left).
  
• Party politics emphasizing relations between particular states or ideologies (pro or con) - for example anti-communism or pro-American vs. pro-Soviet (or today, pro-Islamic Terrorist). Us versus Them exclusive as a unifying factor rather then Us all together inclusive as a unifying factor.
  
• Militancy (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression) as opposed to pacifism (political views should not be imposed by violent force)
  
• Economic policies: capitalism (right) vs. collectivism (left) or globalization (left) vs. the nation striving for economic independence; or free trade (right) vs. fair trade (left)
  
• Nationalism (right) vs. multiculturalism.
  
• Unilateralism (states have a strong, even unconditional, right to make their own decisions) vs. multilateralism (states should cooperate and compromise)

If you look at these where does Fascism fall? I think it falls primarily on the right.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

You made an inaccurate reference to hitler's "keynsian" policies. There is nothing keynsian about requiring a business owner to be a devoted party man in order to retain ownership of his property. There is nothing keynsian about telling a busines owner exactly what his property will be used for. There is nothing keynsian about reserving the right to confiscate property from a business owner based on his political views or political cooperation and installing a new owner who will remain in line. And there is nothing keynsian about installing government bureaucrats in a business to oversee its management.

This is about the only "horse" you ahve in this "race". The problem with your argument is that the majority of business, especially in industry, in nazi germany WERE party men. Nazism was a popular national movement. It's core purpose was to rally a nation's people behind the state.

You lost this debate. It was over 5 pages ago.

I am impressed. I have two degrees. Are you more impressed? Personally, if I were losing a debate as badly as you are losing this one, I wouldn't fall back on a degree.

Don't be impressed, it's from a ****ty school.

It must be pretty easy to win debates when you all you have to do is make the claim that you've won. Unfortunately, no one else is making the claim for you.

 

[palerider]

This is about the only "horse" you ahve in this "race". The problem with your argument is that the majority of business, especially in industry, in nazi germany WERE party men. Nazism was a popular national movement. It's core purpose was to rally a nation's people behind the state.

You only need one horse if it is a winner. And you have not characterized my argument correctly at all. I never said a word about the "majority" of businesses. If you were not a party man, you did not own a business. You would dissappear and a party man would replace you.

You lost this debate. It was over 5 pages ago.

Unsurprisingly, untrue. You have yet to describe a substantial difference between hitler's germany and stalin's russia. Beyond some small, and inconsequential word games, they were the same. But feel free to offer up something substantial if you can.

 

[palerider]

Economic policies are not the sole indicator of "right" and "left". Also, what defines "right" and "left" have changed through history and mean different things in different countries at different times. When you are speaking of 1930s and 40's Europe, there is little consensus on what is meant by Right beyond an opposition to Bolshevism and left a support of Bolshevism and that certainly made Fascism a rightwing ideology.

Historically - in practice - rightwing ideologies are associated with the following:

• Strong role and support for religion/church in social policy.
  
• An interventionist foreign policy or one of isolationism and/or unilateralism as opposed to coordinating with other countries (which is generally associated with the left).
  
• Party politics emphasizing relations between particular states or ideologies (pro or con) - for example anti-communism or pro-American vs. pro-Soviet (or today, pro-Islamic Terrorist). Us versus Them exclusive as a unifying factor rather then Us all together inclusive as a unifying factor.
  
• Militancy (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression) as opposed to pacifism (political views should not be imposed by violent force)
  
• Economic policies: capitalism (right) vs. collectivism (left) or globalization (left) vs. the nation striving for economic independence; or free trade (right) vs. fair trade (left)
  
• Nationalism (right) vs. multiculturalism.
  
• Unilateralism (states have a strong, even unconditional, right to make their own decisions) vs. multilateralism (states should cooperate and compromise)

If you look at these where does Fascism fall? I think it falls primarily on the right.

You are still caught up in definitions written primarily by academics who, for one reason or another, wish to distance themselves from nazism. The evidence lies in the reality, not in the theory. I am still waiting for someone to describe something that would make hitler right and stalin left.

 

[Coyote]

You are still caught up in definitions written primarily by academics who, for one reason or another, wish to distance themselves from nazism. The evidence lies in the reality, not in the theory. I am still waiting for someone to describe something that would make hitler right and stalin left.

You say that - but you don't show me any examples how what I say isn't true or is only written up by "academics". I pulled information from historical sources as well. Look at most rightwing dictatorships today. You seem to think that the only marker that counts is a socialized economy. It isn't.

 

[Coyote]

You only need one horse if it is a winner. And you have not characterized my argument correctly at all. I never said a word about the "majority" of businesses. If you were not a party man, you did not own a business. You would dissappear and a party man would replace you.



Unsurprisingly, untrue. You have yet to describe a substantial difference between hitler's germany and stalin's russia. Beyond some small, and inconsequential word games, they were the same. But feel free to offer up something substantial if you can.

Word games? Their main similarity was that both were an authoritarian dictatorship.

Hitler and Stalin were both dictators but they had very different principles. Hitler's principle was the cultural and biological superiority of the Arian peoples. This was the promise that fueled his rise to power in a downtrodden post-WW1 Germany, and this is what fueled his policy of expansion and genocide. This is also a characteristic of Fascism and I don't believe any of the leftwing ideologies base themselves on racial or ethnic superiority - they are more oriented towards class differences and the superiority of the working class or peasant.

Stalin's primary principle was Marxist communism. They started with very different first principles, but actually wound up running very similar totalitarian states. Why? You say because they are "liberal" or "leftwing" - the same argument could be made that they are rightwing.

In practice - they may have differed in principle only but principles are what makes it an ideology, whether liberal or rightwing. Both were totalitarian states, both used censorship and secret police to kill members of different political parties and rid themselves of undesirables.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

In practice - they may have differed in principle only but principles are what makes it an ideology, whether liberal or rightwing. Both were totalitarian states, both used censorship and secret police to kill members of different political parties and rid themselves of undesirables.

well said

 

[palerider]

You say that - but you don't show me any examples how what I say isn't true or is only written up by "academics". I pulled information from historical sources as well. Look at most rightwing dictatorships today. You seem to think that the only marker that counts is a socialized economy. It isn't.

OKI. Lets examine your list.

Strong role and support for religion/church in social policy.

The left has a church. For want of a better name, call it irreligion. It is the faith practiced by the left and adherents to its tennets are demanded and enforced by the state. In fact, irreligion is enforced today in the US to a far greater degree than any religious practice ever has.

The bottom line is that the left enforces their religion upon the masses with an iron fist.

An interventionist foreign policy or one of isolationism and/or unilateralism as opposed to coordinating with other countries (which is generally associated with the left).

So they are interventionists or isolationists? What else is there? Tell me, exactly who did the soviet union consult before aquiring new territory? Your case for making hitler right and stalin left isn't looking very good so far.

Party politics emphasizing relations between particular states or ideologies (pro or con) - for example anti-communism or pro-American vs. pro-Soviet (or today, pro-Islamic Terrorist). Us versus Them exclusive as a unifying factor rather then Us all together inclusive as a unifying factor.

And are you arguing that the decidedly left stalin, mao, pol pot, etc did not engage in this sort of politics? All socialist states have had an us vs them mentality.

Militancy (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression) as opposed to pacifism (political views should not be imposed by violent force)

stalin was a pacifist? mao was a pacifist? pol pot was a pacifist? Your case for separating facism from socialism is looking worse all the time.

Economic policies: capitalism (right) vs. collectivism (left) or globalization (left) vs. the nation striving for economic independence; or free trade (right) vs. fair trade (left)

We have already established that the differences between the economic policies of fascist states and socialist states are at best semantics. There was no substantial difference between them.

Nationalism (right) vs. multiculturalism.

The soviet union was a multiculturist society? China is multiculturist? Huge military parades, long processions of military hardware and goose stepping soldiers physically expressing the superiority of their way of life.

Unilateralism (states have a strong, even unconditional, right to make their own decisions) vs. multilateralism (states should cooperate and compromise)

And were was the spirit of compromize in the soviet union, or china, or cambodia, or any other socialist tyrany? Name it please.

Your list of differences aren't differences at all coyote, the differences are in reality the similarities. I am surprised that you were unable to look at your list of properties of "right" governments and see that they, in fact, apply to all of the socialist dictatorships.

In order to make your argument stick, you are going to have to make the case that socialism is right wing because there is no substantial difference between fascism and socialism.

 

[top gun]

Economic policies are not the sole indicator of "right" and "left". Also, what defines "right" and "left" have changed through history and mean different things in different countries at different times. When you are speaking of 1930s and 40's Europe, there is little consensus on what is meant by Right beyond an opposition to Bolshevism and left a support of Bolshevism and that certainly made Fascism a rightwing ideology.

Historically - in practice - rightwing ideologies are associated with the following:

• Strong role and support for religion/church in social policy.
  
• An interventionist foreign policy or one of isolationism and/or unilateralism as opposed to coordinating with other countries (which is generally associated with the left).
  
• Party politics emphasizing relations between particular states or ideologies (pro or con) - for example anti-communism or pro-American vs. pro-Soviet (or today, pro-Islamic Terrorist). Us versus Them exclusive as a unifying factor rather then Us all together inclusive as a unifying factor.
  
• Militancy (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression) as opposed to pacifism (political views should not be imposed by violent force)
  
• Economic policies: capitalism (right) vs. collectivism (left) or globalization (left) vs. the nation striving for economic independence; or free trade (right) vs. fair trade (left)
  
• Nationalism (right) vs. multiculturalism.
  
• Unilateralism (states have a strong, even unconditional, right to make their own decisions) vs. multilateralism (states should cooperate and compromise)

If you look at these where does Fascism fall? I think it falls primarily on the right.

BAM!!!

Nice job! And look at the response. It's those damn academics!

What's wrong with you Coyote using academics and intellectuals in your arguments. Go find some homeless street person for your information... LoL!

 

[9sublime]

Irreligon. The most hilarious thing I've heard all day.

What is this religion that the whole of the left apparently enforces upon the population? Last time I checked, it wasn't mandatory to be left wing and atheist, and right wing and religious.

What are these tennents? Who inforces them with this iron fist? Can you show how this church of irreligion can be compared to the Christian church?

 

[palerider]

Hitler and Stalin were both dictators but they had very different principles. Hitler's principle was the cultural and biological superiority of the Arian peoples. This was the promise that fueled his rise to power in a downtrodden post-WW1 Germany, and this is what fueled his policy of expansion and genocide. This is also a characteristic of Fascism and I don't believe any of the leftwing ideologies base themselves on racial or ethnic superiority - they are more oriented towards class differences and the superiority of the working class or peasant.

Maybe some historical research on your part is in order. The soviet union was quite anti semetic. Refer to the anti semetic propoganda of the 1930's, and the show trials of the 1930's and 40's. By the 60's the soviet had learned to disguise its blatant anti semetism as anti zionism. As late as the 80's jews who requested to leave and live in israel found a home in the gulag.

Hitler killed about 6 million jews and gypsies. Stalin killed about 20 million, mostly of the same two groups. Do you think that it was accidental that his millions just happend to be of the same two groups that hitler targeted?

Stalin said that their deaths were for the good of the country. Didn't hitler say the same thing?

Stalin's primary principle was Marxist communism. They started with very different first principles, but actually wound up running very similar totalitarian states. Why? You say because they are "liberal" or "leftwing" - the same argument could be made that they are rightwing.

Well, no. Such an argument couldn't be made because the philosophy of the right works toward increasingly smaller and smaller government. No big government can ever rightly be called right.

In practice - they may have differed in principle only but principles are what makes it an ideology, whether liberal or rightwing. Both were totalitarian states, both used censorship and secret police to kill members of different political parties and rid themselves of undesirables.

Both were leftist totalitarian states. Simple as that and so far, you have not provided any substantial difference between the two. Sorry guy, you just aren't going to be able to make socialist into right wing.