But, Aren't Nazis and Fascists Really Left-Wingers?

[NYcarbineer]

So the current Germany is still Nazi Germany...

...that, sadly, is the kind of unsurprising brilliance that the USMB right treats us to every single day.

Last time I checked, Jews and homosexuals weren't being sent to concentration camps. So no.

opeds that themselves offer nothing? Are you fucking kidding me? You guys live in a funny world. Maybe sniperfire can lolololol some more like a fucking loon... He thinks it constitutes a body of evidence

As opposed to what? Is there a supreme law in politics that mandates what is what? No, this is a debate.

I'm simply pointing out that our political spectrum makes sense while yours is broken. You didn't even attempt to fix it; just resorted to vulgarity and name calling.

As if that would make you appear more intelligent..

Ah, okay, so socialists are NOT Nazis. You stand corrected...

...by yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I wonder what they put in the water in USMB land that keeps some people from focusing on the topic, which is quite interesting actually, and offering intelligent insights, but rather substitute mischaracterizations, name calling and insults?

The rightwing mythology that the Nazis were liberals makes its rounds like clockwork on every political forum where painfully ignorant rightwingers post. In fact, you can find this threads like this one on this forum from months/years past.

 

[tooAlive]

Ah, okay, so socialists are NOT Nazis. You stand corrected...

...by yourself.

The Nazi regime was an oligarchy.

They had near complete control over the economy (socialism; government controls means of production) and mandated for all homosexuals, Jews and any other individuals deemed undesirable to be sent to concentration camps (dictatorship).

So yes, the Nazis were socialist, intolerant dictators.

 

[hazlnut]

So yes, the Nazis were socialist, intolerant dictators.

tooAlive says: Than you sir, may I have another?

Hazlnut says: Bend over, son, drop ya drawers, I shall spank you one more time. Maybe this time you'll learn your lesson.



Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler had objected to the party's previous leader's decision to use the word "Socialist" in its name as Hitler at the time instead preferred to use "Social Revolutionary". Upon taking over the leadership, Hitler kept the term but defined socialism as meaning a commitment of an individual to a community. Hitler did not want the ideology's socialism to be conflated with Marxian socialism, and claimed that true socialism does not repudiate private property unlike the claims of Marxism, and claimed that the "Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning" and said that "Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism." Nazism favoured private property, freedom of contract, and promoted the creation of national solidarity that would transcend class differences. The Nazis outlawed strikes by employees and lockouts by employers, because these were regarded a threat to national unity.

State socialism is generally described as an economic system with a limited number of socialist characteristics, including public ownership of major industries.



Be honest, tooAlive, have you ever felt so fucking stupid in your entire life...???

When I told you to get the fuck outta this thread, I was doing it as a favor. I was having mercy on you.

Have you now learned your lesson?

 

[DiamondDave]

Again.. you ignorant fuck

Fascism... Totalitarian control with the state as the central focus... with the state able to regulate and even control business, private property, production, and even the lives of the people in order to prop up the state over the rights of individuals within the state... that is the totalitarian left... PERIOD..

The Nazis did seize for the STATE, regulated FOR THE SATE, controlled production FOR THE STATE... the ILLUSION of private control was given to keep the producers in line, just as propaganda and symbolism was used to keep masses in line, just as violence and fear were used to keep unwanteds in line

The Nazis had NO interest in private ownership for the sake of private ownership... they gave and took as a state when it suited their goals... their 'private ownership' was in NAME ONLY

 

[DiamondDave]

Maybe hazlnutjob should read up on the roles of the Betriebsführer

 

[tooAlive]

When I told you to get the fuck outta this thread, I was doing it as a favor. I was having mercy on you.

Have you now learned your lesson?

Do you think using a huge font will give your arguments the validity they lack in reasoning?

Anyways, tell me how the citizens of Nazi Germany enjoyed their private property, and what industries were not seized by the state?I don't care if Adolf Hitler himself wasn't happy that his party was called the National Socialist German Workers' Party. His totalitarian reign, seizure of industries, and the use of private property for "the good of the state" is socialism to a tee.

I suggest you do a little homework before people keep seeing how utterly uninformed you are.

Hitler's views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system",[8] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[9] At a later time, Hitler said: "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."[10] In private, Hitler also said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".[11] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[12] Hitler clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."[13] While not espousing a specific economic philosophy, Hitler employed anti-semitic themes to attack economic systems in other countries, associating ethnic Jews with both communism ("Jewish Bolsheviks") and capitalism, both of which he opposed.

Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Foxfyre]

I suppose the part of the ends being "connected" is merely hypothetical, in regards to what would probably happen after.

Actually, no it is not hypothetical. My earlier post gave historical examples of one extreme giving way to the other. In practice, once you are at either extreme (Anarchy or Dictatorship) on the Spectrum you're referencing, the easiest path from there is always to wrap around to the other extreme.

In practice, a truly effective dictatorship is incredibly difficult to "rehabilitate". It happens, but dictatorships tend to be brought down by the mob or externally, also leading to mob rule in at least the short run. A VERY recent example would be Iraq, where Saddam Hussein ran a brutally effective dictatorship. Here effective refers to his ability to maintain control, and not his policies (which were inhumane, monstrous, and evil). Once the US toppled him, anarchy reigned for a fairly significant portion of time with the mobs exerting much more control over day to day life than anyone else.

I mentioned the Reign of Terror, but let's talk more about that. After Bastille day, the situation in France was essentially mob rule as the only existing form of government (Monarchy) was actively hunted down and killed. Eventually, the mob gives way to something else. In France, it was the Reign of Terror where folks were systematically and randomly accused and killed by committee, followed by Napolean, who was a classical military dictatorship.

The connection isn't just hypothetical.

I'd also say, you're a bit too quick to dismiss the two dimensional spectrum given here. You've purposely misunderstood how the x/y axis works. Can I explain further?

In the two dimensional version, the vertical Y axis represents the push pull between Libertarian-ism vs Authoritarianism. This means transition up and down vertically corresponds to government control.

Vertically, the Extreme Authoritarianism example is dictatorship. Without question. The extreme Libertarian stance is Mob rule.

The Horizontal X axis represents the push and pull between Cultural innovation (Liberalism) versus Cultural Traditionalism (Conservatism). Transition Left represents the willingness to innovate, sometimes just for innovation's sake, while transition Right represents how steeped in tradition the culture as a whole is.

Horizontally, the extreme Left is represented by the stereotypical vapid consumer. Think that tech geek that would say stuff like "iPhone? That's so 2008. I have an HTC Dream with Andriod Ice Cream Sandwich optimized..." In that case, it is innovation for innovation's sake resulting in a culture of disposable things (and often people). The extreme Right is the stereotypical Old Fart saying things like "In my day we went uphill both ways in the snow with no feet!" The past is romanticized and clung to with innovation being extremely distrusted.

How these interact is interesting. An Authoritarian/Conservative government would be an Authoritarian government deriving power from past tradition. A non-controversial example would be a dynastic monarchy. The right to rule absolutely is derived from past tradition, not embedded in even the qualities of the current genetic heir to power.

An example of a Liberal/Libertarian government would be a population that changes forms of government at a whim. Tossing aside one government for another as the Mob rule saw fit with no respect for past history or tradition. This is probably the closest you can get to a "true Democracy", which everyone fears as a form of government for a reason.

It is worth noting, that even here the extremes tend to meet. If you're familiar with the Reimann Mapping Theorem (you can map the 2 dimensional plane one to one onto a sphere) this makes sense. But the general idea is you can go off an edge and wrap back around to the other side when your system inevitably fails in the extreme.

An excellent post. I concur with your definitions of liberal/conservative or left/right as applicable in Europe and the near East for sure and sporadically elsewhere. Your definitions however do not apply so much in the USA in which the cultural understanding of the terms has greatly altered what they once were.

Your observations about dictatorships are spot on. Marxism at face value evolves from noble motives: to set the people free from all oppression of dictatorships, circumstances of birth or class, or any other human authority. Of course it did not think it all the way through to other predictable human traits, but it does offer interesting perspectives just the same. But unfortunately, to get to the true communist state, it is necessary to go through a period of ruthless totalitarianism. And no national leaders who ever got to that point were ever willing to relinquish the heady and self serving power they had achieved.

I think we see the same phenomenon in our own Congress too. Once they get there, whatever noble motives they might have had for seeking office, they are too often immersed in the heady and pleasant state of power, prestige, influence, and rapidly increasing personal fortunes. Such is not easily given away; thus they continue destructive policy and practices so as to keep themselves in their current situation. So long as they can fool enough people that they do if for them, nobody seriously challenges them.

Hitler's Third Reich was no different. It was just one more variation, an especially evil one, on the same lust for power that we have witnessed throughout history.

 

[hazlnut]

tooAlive:

Seriously, babe, I'm starting to feel like a bully, beating your ass silly over and over and over...

.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[SniperFire]

I wonder what they put in the water in USMB land that keeps some people from focusing on the topic, which is quite interesting actually, and offering intelligent insights, but rather substitute mischaracterizations, name calling and insults?

The rightwing mythology that the Nazis were liberals makes its rounds like clockwork on every political forum where painfully ignorant rightwingers post. In fact, you can find this threads like this one on this forum from months/years past.

 

[DiamondDave]

tooAlive:

Seriously, babe, I'm starting to feel like a bully, beating your ass silly over and over and over...

.
.
.
.
.
.

Again.. you ignorant fuck

Fascism... Totalitarian control with the state as the central focus... with the state able to regulate and even control business, private property, production, and even the lives of the people in order to prop up the state over the rights of individuals within the state... that is the totalitarian left... PERIOD..

The Nazis did seize for the STATE, regulated FOR THE SATE, controlled production FOR THE STATE... the ILLUSION of private control was given to keep the producers in line, just as propaganda and symbolism was used to keep masses in line, just as violence and fear were used to keep unwanteds in line

The Nazis had NO interest in private ownership for the sake of private ownership... they gave and took as a state when it suited their goals... their 'private ownership' was in NAME ONLY

Maybe you should read up on the roles of the Betriebsführer

 

[tooAlive]

I suppose the part of the ends being "connected" is merely hypothetical, in regards to what would probably happen after.

Actually, no it is not hypothetical. My earlier post gave historical examples of one extreme giving way to the other. In practice, once you are at either extreme (Anarchy or Dictatorship) on the Spectrum you're referencing, the easiest path from there is always to wrap around to the other extreme.

In practice, a truly effective dictatorship is incredibly difficult to "rehabilitate". It happens, but dictatorships tend to be brought down by the mob or externally, also leading to mob rule in at least the short run. A VERY recent example would be Iraq, where Saddam Hussein ran a brutally effective dictatorship. Here effective refers to his ability to maintain control, and not his policies (which were inhumane, monstrous, and evil). Once the US toppled him, anarchy reigned for a fairly significant portion of time with the mobs exerting much more control over day to day life than anyone else.

I mentioned the Reign of Terror, but let's talk more about that. After Bastille day, the situation in France was essentially mob rule as the only existing form of government (Monarchy) was actively hunted down and killed. Eventually, the mob gives way to something else. In France, it was the Reign of Terror where folks were systematically and randomly accused and killed by committee, followed by Napolean, who was a classical military dictatorship.

The connection isn't just hypothetical.

I'd also say, you're a bit too quick to dismiss the two dimensional spectrum given here. You've purposely misunderstood how the x/y axis works. Can I explain further?

In the two dimensional version, the vertical Y axis represents the push pull between Libertarian-ism vs Authoritarianism. This means transition up and down vertically corresponds to government control.

Vertically, the Extreme Authoritarianism example is dictatorship. Without question. The extreme Libertarian stance is Mob rule.

The Horizontal X axis represents the push and pull between Cultural innovation (Liberalism) versus Cultural Traditionalism (Conservatism). Transition Left represents the willingness to innovate, sometimes just for innovation's sake, while transition Right represents how steeped in tradition the culture as a whole is.

Horizontally, the extreme Left is represented by the stereotypical vapid consumer. Think that tech geek that would say stuff like "iPhone? That's so 2008. I have an HTC Dream with Andriod Ice Cream Sandwich optimized..." In that case, it is innovation for innovation's sake resulting in a culture of disposable things (and often people). The extreme Right is the stereotypical Old Fart saying things like "In my day we went uphill both ways in the snow with no feet!" The past is romanticized and clung to with innovation being extremely distrusted.

How these interact is interesting. An Authoritarian/Conservative government would be an Authoritarian government deriving power from past tradition. A non-controversial example would be a dynastic monarchy. The right to rule absolutely is derived from past tradition, not embedded in even the qualities of the current genetic heir to power.

An example of a Liberal/Libertarian government would be a population that changes forms of government at a whim. Tossing aside one government for another as the Mob rule saw fit with no respect for past history or tradition. This is probably the closest you can get to a "true Democracy", which everyone fears as a form of government for a reason.

It is worth noting, that even here the extremes tend to meet. If you're familiar with the Reimann Mapping Theorem (you can map the 2 dimensional plane one to one onto a sphere) this makes sense. But the general idea is you can go off an edge and wrap back around to the other side when your system inevitably fails in the extreme.

An excellent post. I concur with your definitions of liberal/conservative or left/right as applicable in Europe and the near East for sure and sporadically elsewhere. Your definitions however do not apply so much in the USA in which the cultural understanding of the terms has greatly altered what they once were.

Your observations about dictatorships are spot on. Marxism at face value evolves from noble motives: to set the people free from all oppression of dictatorships, circumstances of birth or class, or any other human authority. Of course it did not think it all the way through to other predictable human traits, but it does offer interesting perspectives just the same. But unfortunately, to get to the true communist state, it is necessary to go through a period of ruthless totalitarianism. And no national leaders who ever got to that point were ever willing to relinquish the heady and self serving power they had achieved.

I think we see the same phenomenon in our own Congress too. Once they get there, whatever noble motives they might have had for seeking office, they are too often immersed in the heady and pleasant state of power, prestige, influence, and rapidly increasing personal fortunes. Such is not easily given away; thus they continue destructive policy and practices so as to keep themselves in their current situation. So long as they can fool enough people that they do if for them, nobody seriously challenges them.

Hitler's Third Reich was no different. It was just one more variation, an especially evil one, on the same lust for power that we have witnessed throughout history.

Two excellent contributions to the thread.

Like I stated in the other thread, the only reason I'd go with a linear spectrum is because of the authoritarian/libertarian X axis; I simply see no need for it, as there really isn't a distinction between left and right libertarianism. The both ultimately believe in the same thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder what they put in the water in USMB land that keeps some people from focusing on the topic, which is quite interesting actually, and offering intelligent insights, but rather substitute mischaracterizations, name calling and insults?

The rightwing mythology that the Nazis were liberals makes its rounds like clockwork on every political forum where painfully ignorant rightwingers post. In fact, you can find this threads like this one on this forum from months/years past.

I have not defined the Nazis as liberals, and I don't form my opinions or arguments on substantive topics based on what others have posted in months, years, past. But let's review.

The Nazis drew up the rules as they wanted them to be. They were constrained by no such document as our Constitution.

Which group in the USA is more likely to see the U.S. Constitution as a living/fluid document subject to broad interpretation to fit modern wants/needs/preferences? Liberals or conservatives?​

The Nazis demonized and/or utilized extreme controls on those they deemed unacceptable and punished those who did not agree and go along with the government propaganda. All were expected to support government goals with their fidelity, allegiance, talents, and personal fortunes.

Which group in the USA is more likely to protest against or demonize certain groups or petition the government to enact laws requiring everybody to accept and pay for their personal agenda? Liberals or conservatives?​

The Nazis took control of the media and controlled the message

Which group in the USA is more likely to want government to effect more controls on Fox News and conservative talk radio, has no problem with a surrogate media serving government, and approves federal support of liberal television and radio stations? Liberal or conservatives?​

The Nazis took control of the corporations that were allowed to operate independently so long as they served the Third Reich as needed and as long as the owners/CEOs were loyal Nazi supporters. And the government dictated what wages would be paid.
Which group in the USA is more likely to want government to take more control of the Corporations, allow forced unionization, require more regulation and controls, mandate higher wages to some, put restrictions on executive salaries? Liberal or conservatives?

Yes, of course there are exceptions, but the trends are pretty easy to spot re left/right, liberal/conservative in the USA.

So if not exactly liberal, Hitler was definitely leftwing as that is defined in the USA. He was rightwing as that was defined in Europe at that time.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

An excellent post. I concur with your definitions of liberal/conservative or left/right as applicable in Europe and the near East for sure and sporadically elsewhere. Your definitions however do not apply so much in the USA in which the cultural understanding of the terms has greatly altered what they once were.

Your post as a whole was quite good, this part in particular I wanted to single out for agreement. Part of the HUGE problem of debating politics in the USA is that Left and Right don't mean the same thing in political theory as they do in the culture here. It makes this debate especially tricky to have in any meaningful sense.

I have seen some really excellent posts in here that understand that issue and have worked around it though. I'm always glad to see spirited well formed debate even if I don't always agree with the positions entirely.

i think a huge sticking point here is that Right wing in the USA is definitely not Libertarian. In fact, the American Right has done a lot to toss libertarians under the bus. So when someone stomps in and says Nazi's can't be right wing (in the American Sense) because they're not Libertarian, they're technically wrong. Once you define Right Wing as Mob Rule to Libertarian and Left Wing as Democratic to Totalitarian, calling the Nazi's leftists makes sense, it just doesn't apply to the American spectrum anymore.

 

[Newby]

The rightwing mythology that the Nazis were liberals makes its rounds like clockwork on every political forum where painfully ignorant rightwingers post. In fact, you can find this threads like this one on this forum from months/years past.

I have not defined the Nazis as liberals, and I don't form my opinions or arguments on substantive topics based on what others have posted in months, years, past. But let's review.

The Nazis drew up the rules as they wanted them to be. They were constrained by no such document as our Constitution.

Which group in the USA is more likely to see the U.S. Constitution as a living/fluid document subject to broad interpretation to fit modern wants/needs/preferences? Liberals or conservatives?​

The Nazis demonized and/or utilized extreme controls on those they deemed unacceptable and punished those who did not agree and go along with the government propaganda. All were expected to support government goals with their fidelity, allegiance, talents, and personal fortunes.

Which group in the USA is more likely to protest against or demonize certain groups or petition the government to enact laws requiring everybody to accept and pay for their personal agenda? Liberals or conservatives?​

The Nazis took control of the media and controlled the message

Which group in the USA is more likely to want government to effect more controls on Fox News and conservative talk radio, has no problem with a surrogate media serving government, and approves federal support of liberal television and radio stations? Liberal or conservatives?​

The Nazis took control of the corporations that were allowed to operate independently so long as they served the Third Reich as needed and as long as the owners/CEOs were loyal Nazi supporters. And the government dictated what wages would be paid.
Which group in the USA is more likely to want government to take more control of the Corporations, allow forced unionization, require more regulation and controls, mandate higher wages to some, put restrictions on executive salaries? Liberal or conservatives?

Yes, of course there are exceptions, but the trends are pretty easy to spot re left/right, liberal/conservative in the USA.

So if not exactly liberal, Hitler was definitely leftwing as that is defined in the USA. He was rightwing as that was defined in Europe at that time.

Excellent post, Fox..

 

[tooAlive]

I have not defined the Nazis as liberals, and I don't form my opinions or arguments on substantive topics based on what others have posted in months, years, past. But let's review.

The Nazis drew up the rules as they wanted them to be. They were constrained by no such document as our Constitution.

Which group in the USA is more likely to see the U.S. Constitution as a living/fluid document subject to broad interpretation to fit modern wants/needs/preferences? Liberals or conservatives?​

The Nazis demonized and/or utilized extreme controls on those they deemed unacceptable and punished those who did not agree and go along with the government propaganda. All were expected to support government goals with their fidelity, allegiance, talents, and personal fortunes.

Which group in the USA is more likely to protest against or demonize certain groups or petition the government to enact laws requiring everybody to accept and pay for their personal agenda? Liberals or conservatives?​

The Nazis took control of the media and controlled the message

Which group in the USA is more likely to want government to effect more controls on Fox News and conservative talk radio, has no problem with a surrogate media serving government, and approves federal support of liberal television and radio stations? Liberal or conservatives?​

The Nazis took control of the corporations that were allowed to operate independently so long as they served the Third Reich as needed and as long as the owners/CEOs were loyal Nazi supporters. And the government dictated what wages would be paid.
Which group in the USA is more likely to want government to take more control of the Corporations, allow forced unionization, require more regulation and controls, mandate higher wages to some, put restrictions on executive salaries? Liberal or conservatives?

Yes, of course there are exceptions, but the trends are pretty easy to spot re left/right, liberal/conservative in the USA.

So if not exactly liberal, Hitler was definitely leftwing as that is defined in the USA. He was rightwing as that was defined in Europe at that time.

Excellent post, Fox..

Absolutely. That pretty much sums up the discussion.

 

[Newby]

The Horizontal X axis represents the push and pull between Cultural innovation (Liberalism) versus Cultural Traditionalism (Conservatism). Transition Left represents the willingness to innovate, sometimes just for innovation's sake, while transition Right represents how steeped in tradition the culture as a whole is.

Dr. Traveler had this in one of his posts above trying to describe the x axis of the political spectrum. And while this may be a 'definition', I don't believe that 'the left' in the United States accurately fits into the definition of 'Liberalism' here as 'Culturally innovative'. They are in some aspects, but in a lot of others they are not. And what is considered 'traditional'? How long does something have to be around to be considered 'tradional' and who had to hold it as 'traditional'. There's the phrase 'nothing new under the sun', and I think it's very true. While we advance technologically, the human race has pretty much already tried everything thru generations and generations of cycles.

 

[tooAlive]

An excellent post. I concur with your definitions of liberal/conservative or left/right as applicable in Europe and the near East for sure and sporadically elsewhere. Your definitions however do not apply so much in the USA in which the cultural understanding of the terms has greatly altered what they once were.

Your post as a whole was quite good, this part in particular I wanted to single out for agreement. Part of the HUGE problem of debating politics in the USA is that Left and Right don't mean the same thing in political theory as they do in the culture here. It makes this debate especially tricky to have in any meaningful sense.

I have seen some really excellent posts in here that understand that issue and have worked around it though. I'm always glad to see spirited well formed debate even if I don't always agree with the positions entirely.

i think a huge sticking point here is that Right wing in the USA is definitely not Libertarian. In fact, the American Right has done a lot to toss libertarians under the bus. So when someone stomps in and says Nazi's can't be right wing (in the American Sense) because they're not Libertarian, they're technically wrong. Once you define Right Wing as Mob Rule to Libertarian and Left Wing as Democratic to Totalitarian, calling the Nazi's leftists makes sense, it just doesn't apply to the American spectrum anymore.

I think that's where a lot of the confusion and disagreements stem from.

Everybody seems to have a different perception of what right and left ideologies really stand for. If you asked me, I'd say our current Republican representatives in the US are doing a very poor job of representing true right ideas and values.

The Horizontal X axis represents the push and pull between Cultural innovation (Liberalism) versus Cultural Traditionalism (Conservatism). Transition Left represents the willingness to innovate, sometimes just for innovation's sake, while transition Right represents how steeped in tradition the culture as a whole is.

Dr. Traveler had this in one of his posts above trying to describe the x axis of the political spectrum. And while this may be a 'definition', I don't believe that 'the left' in the United States accurately fits into the definition of 'Liberalism' here as 'Culturally innovative'. They are in some aspects, but in a lot of others they are not. And what is considered 'traditional'? How long does something have to be around to be considered 'tradional' and who had to hold it as 'traditional'. There's the phrase 'nothing new under the sun', and I think it's very true. While we advance technologically, the human race has pretty much already tried everything thru generations and generations of cycles.

Nailed it.

 

[Newby]

An excellent post. I concur with your definitions of liberal/conservative or left/right as applicable in Europe and the near East for sure and sporadically elsewhere. Your definitions however do not apply so much in the USA in which the cultural understanding of the terms has greatly altered what they once were.

Your post as a whole was quite good, this part in particular I wanted to single out for agreement. Part of the HUGE problem of debating politics in the USA is that Left and Right don't mean the same thing in political theory as they do in the culture here. It makes this debate especially tricky to have in any meaningful sense.

I have seen some really excellent posts in here that understand that issue and have worked around it though. I'm always glad to see spirited well formed debate even if I don't always agree with the positions entirely.

i think a huge sticking point here is that Right wing in the USA is definitely not Libertarian. In fact, the American Right has done a lot to toss libertarians under the bus. So when someone stomps in and says Nazi's can't be right wing (in the American Sense) because they're not Libertarian, they're technically wrong. Once you define Right Wing as Mob Rule to Libertarian and Left Wing as Democratic to Totalitarian, calling the Nazi's leftists makes sense, it just doesn't apply to the American spectrum anymore.

I think that's where a lot of the confusion and disagreements stem from.

Everybody seems to have a different perception of what right and left ideologies really stand for. If you asked me, I'd say our current Republican representatives in the US are doing a very poor job of representing true right ideas and values.

Absolutely, I think both parties are left of center. I wish we had a true conservative movement in this country, I know that's where I would go.

 

[Foxfyre]

An excellent post. I concur with your definitions of liberal/conservative or left/right as applicable in Europe and the near East for sure and sporadically elsewhere. Your definitions however do not apply so much in the USA in which the cultural understanding of the terms has greatly altered what they once were.

Your post as a whole was quite good, this part in particular I wanted to single out for agreement. Part of the HUGE problem of debating politics in the USA is that Left and Right don't mean the same thing in political theory as they do in the culture here. It makes this debate especially tricky to have in any meaningful sense.

I have seen some really excellent posts in here that understand that issue and have worked around it though. I'm always glad to see spirited well formed debate even if I don't always agree with the positions entirely.

i think a huge sticking point here is that Right wing in the USA is definitely not Libertarian. In fact, the American Right has done a lot to toss libertarians under the bus. So when someone stomps in and says Nazi's can't be right wing (in the American Sense) because they're not Libertarian, they're technically wrong. Once you define Right Wing as Mob Rule to Libertarian and Left Wing as Democratic to Totalitarian, calling the Nazi's leftists makes sense, it just doesn't apply to the American spectrum anymore.

There was nothing libertarian in the Nazi theories or practices. Libertarians are rightwing in the USA because they are anti government control in all but very limited areas. So in that sense, Hitler was was left wing.

However, in early 20th Century Europe, libertarians would have been the purest of liberals and Hitler would be the most hard nosed conservative.

You have been correct though that libertarianism in its most extreme is anarchy, and our Founders rightfully recognized that anarchy protects or recognizes nobody's rights. Thus they promoted a central government that recognized and had the capability of defending the rights of the people, but would not otherwise interfere or dictate how they would live their lives. The people were as free as they chose to be or could organize the most oppressive governments they wanted to have in the states or colonies. The Founders trusted that the people would always eventually choose mostly freedom, however, and until the entitlement mentality became so entrenched in American culture, their trust proved to be well founded.

In its most basic definition in America, libertarianism is the freedom for people to organize whatever sort of society they wish to have with just enough laws in place to ensure that nobody can force others to accept a society they don't want. That is the purest essence of classical liberalism or modern day American conservatism.

You can't find any shred of libertarianism or classical liberalism in the Nazi motif.