Slashdot Mirror
Google Listed 'Nazism' as the Ideology of the California Republican Party (gizmodo.com)
Less than a week ago, if you searched for the California Republican Party on Google, you might have read that the political party's ideologies included conservatism, market liberalism, and nazism. The latter listing has since been removed, and Google is blaming the results on Wikipedia "vandalism." From a report: Vice first reported the inclusion of "Nazism" under ideologies in Google's knowledge panel -- the box that shows up to the right of search results. It's unclear how long the term had been there, but the tech giant removed it after being notified by the publication. "We regret that vandalism on Wikipedia briefly appeared on our search results," Google tweeted on Thursday in response to California congressman and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. "This was not the the result of a manual change by Google. We have systems in place that catch vandalism before it impacts search results, but occasionally errors get through, and that happened here."
There are real issues out there in the world. Distracting from them by name calling is not helpful
Google is making a lot of mistakes. They are slowly killing themselves. As is Facebook and a few others. I see regulation coming on them. they will continue down this path and slowly loose. You tube is another easy example to point to as a sequence of mistakes. They must remove themselves and just be an open and honest information provider. The moment they start "we know better then you" people will resist.
Some jerk edited the Wikipedia page. Google served the information without knowing the content. Once discovered, the page and Google presentation were corrected.
In other extremely important breaking news, it was discovered that a Facebook billboard had "penis" spray painted across it. Users are outraged that the company would display such language in their marketing material.
false, nazis were corporate fascists. hilarious the people that only believed what came out of Hitler's mouth compared to what he and the Nazis actually did. No, they were not socialists, if you believe their label you're as dumb as a typical american consumer.
This is just the "no true Socialism" thing again. Of course the Socialists acted as authoritarian fascists, they have to get the money from SOMEWHERE. If you're going to tell me "oh, they can just print it" then I'll invite you to Brazil or Zimbabwe.
Anyhow, the Nazis were all about taking the wealth of the 1%ers, they just happened to identify those as Jews as there were a lot of Jewish bankers, given that most gentiles didn't want anything to do with usury for a very long time.
Unfortunately, socialists have a problem remembering the past and force everyone else to repeat it.
Interesting that the vandalized version of the page only existed for about a minute, and Google somehow managed to run with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
If only Wikipedia had some kind of freely available edit history log, you could find out.
You don't know your history. Let's see what an economist says about the matter. I think most would agree that Thomas Sowell is smarter and better educated than most people who post on slashdot.
This was written back when 0bama was President.
https://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist-or-fascist-n742098
Pay special attention to the historical part:
"Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.
Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left."
FYI, W.E.B. Du Bois was the co-founder of the NAACP, hardly a right-winger.
https://www.jta.org/2018/05/06/news-opinion/neo-nazi-california-senate-candidate-barred-state-republican-party-convention
No. It's just the natural expansion of the observation that countries with "Democratic" in their name aren't any such thing.
You don't know your history. Let's see what an economist says about the matter.
Why not consult an astrologist or a haruspex?
I think most would agree that Thomas Sowell is smarter and better educated than most people who post on slashdot.
Nope. In fact, Thomas Sowell makes a case every week for being anti-intelligent and miseducated.
If he were actually intelligent, he'd probably realize that the whole left-right paradigm is a misconception, and he's only falling into the trap of self-deception by perpetuating it.
This was written back when 0bama was President.
https://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist-or-fascist-n742098
Oh? This was written back when Nixon was President:
This 14-page memo was written by Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America Harry Shlaudeman, who had been following the reporting on intelligence coordination in recent months and had several times solicited reports on the subject from regional ambassadors. He combines the information on Condor and other disturbing trends in a report addressed directly to Secretary of State Kissinger. Shlaudeman states that the Southern Cone governments see themselves as engaged in a Third World War against terrorism and that they "have established Operation Condor to find and kill terrorists in their own countries and in Europe." “ [T]hey are joining forces to eradicate ‘subversion’, a word which increasingly translates into non-violent dissent from the left and center left.” Their definition of subversion is so broad as to include "nearly anyone who opposes government policy."
The National Socialist German Workersâ(TM) Party, aka Nazi party had some leftist ideology, a lot of leftist rhetoric, but can't be accurately classified on the left-right spectrum at all. It was primarily nationalist.
The name, "Socialist German Workersâ(TM) Party" fairly accurately represents much of what they SAID; like all politicians what they said isn't what they did. There was a lot of anti-capitalism and especially anti-banker stuff, but Hitler directed that into very different actions. For several hundred years, due to Christian religious teaching and kings using loopholes, most banking concerns were run by Jewish people. Hitler used the anti-banker (essentially anti Wall Street) rhetoric and sentiment to go after the Jews, as most bankers were Jewish.
Leftists are known for identity politics - rich vs poor, gay vs straight, black vs white, etc. The Nazis very much focused on race. Leftists generally talk about race a lot, but not to the extent the Nazis did.
Leftists are socialist / communist, saying the factories and such should be owned by the people, and unlike the conservatives believe people should not be given a CHOICE buy stock in companies they choose, but instead must own all or most of the big companies, whether they want to be owners of an oil company or not. Because a million people can't individually vote or otherwise have a hand in running a company, the government must do that for them, the leftists say. So left says the workers ideally own the company, but in practice the government does, with the politicians in control. Nazis mentioned the government running everything on behalf of the people, but the emphasis was on the nation (government), not on the people. It was about making Germany strong as a nation, as opposed to focusing on individual success and happiness.
That ties into another aspect. Conservatives and US Republicans tend toward individualism, the left is about collectivism. Nazis were an extreme version of collectivism, to the point that individuals didn't matter at all. Germany, the German people mattered, not each German person.
Because it was Germany that mattered, not each person, the state's power was far more important than individual rights. Those on the left and those on the right argue about limited government. Naziism was unlimited government, the government was the nation, and only the nation mattered.
As heads of the only thing that mattered, the nation, politicians / rulers had essentially unlimited power. Particularly there was a cult of personality around Hitler himself.
So Naziism had these major characteristics:
Socialist, class-based rhetoric
Hatred of the bankers and capitalists
Identity politics based on race
Extreme collectivism
Extreme nationalism
Near-absolute power for leaders
Some of that is similar to the modern left, but it's also significantly different in some ways.
Is North Korea a Democratic Republic, or does the name someone adopts not always indicate what they are?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You do know that this kind of pervasive propaganda actually makes you the ... oh, never mind.
California’s 2018 U.S. Senate election attracted nationwide attention in April 2018, not long after the publication of a poll showing that little-known Republican and committed neo-Nazi Patrick Little had 18 percent of support among likely primary election voters, second to incumbent Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein with 39 percent.
In the SurveyUSA poll, Little — who describes himself as a “white nationalist” — had greater support than four other candidates in the state’s open primary, which candidates of any party (or none) can enter. These included outgoing California Senate President Kevin de Léon, a Democrat, and businessman Rocky de la Fuente, a Republican.
If those poll numbers were to hold, Feinstein and Little would advance from the primary as the two top candidates and contest the general election in November. The Republican party would be represented in a national race by a candidate who advocates a future United States “free from Jews” and has repeatedly and unreservedly expressed anti-semitic and white nationalist views during his campaign.
But this is not limited to California:
Little is the third Republican candidate for national office during the 2018 electoral cycle to have expressed openly anti-semitic and racist views.
In March, former American Nazi Party leader Arthur Jones ran unopposed in the GOP primary for Illinois’ Third U.S. Congressional District, and will represent the party in November’s general election.
In Wisconsin’s First U.S. Congressional District, one of the Republicans seeking to replace retiring House leader Paul Ryan in November is Paul Nehlen, who has described himself as “pro-white” and frequently expresses virulently anti-semitic sentiments on social media.
In February 2018, Nehlen was permanently banned from Twitter after posting a racist cartoon in reference to the actor Meghan Markle — whose mother is black — after her engagement to Prince Harry was announced.
You seem to think that sticking the term "corporate" something means that it is right wing; that is false. Both state corporatism and state capitalism are left wing ideologies; that is, the "corporation" is very much a tool of left wing ideologies, used to control free markets. Right wing ideologies are free market ideologies.
What the Nazis actually did is what leftists in general do: they tightly regulated businesses, highly taxed unearned income, controlled prices and wages, engaged in massive redistribution, massively expanded government welfare systems, provided free education, oppressed and controlled the churches, regulated news media to promote what they considered truth, categorized people into desirable/undesirable, implemented free healthcare and mandated fitness, stimulated the economy through government spending, promoted environmentalism an a return to nature, promoted sustainability, and oppressed their critics. That is, in most policies, European fascists were just like leftists. And until the horrific crimes of European fascists in the 20th century came to light, American leftists were quite laudatory of European fascists.
Nazis were indeed "not socialists", but they were most certainly leftists and ideologically very close to socialism and progressivism.
At least not all of them, and I hear there are some very fine people on both sides.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
hilarious the people that only believed what came out of Hitler's mouth compared to what he and the Nazis actually did. No, they were not socialists
The important thing is not whether or not the policies they implemented were actually socialist (which inevitably draws the not-true-socialism argument). The important thing is that they espoused socialism. It reinforces the trend, that political parties that espouse socialism tend to institute totalitarian dictatorships.
Capitalism works best (as in, markets work most efficiently in solving the basic economic problem) when market failures (monopolies, asymmetrical information, negative externalities, etc.) are corrected. This requires government.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
See, it's stupid bullshit repeated by crossburners like this that causes so many problems.
The word is not "national socialists". German language commonly merges words for new concepts. The word they used was "nationalsozialistische". All one word, which dumbasses who don't speak German well try to split apart in order to translate poorly. The word itself accurately translated would come closest to "national social order" or "national social control". The party rhetoric focused around ideas of racial purity ("völkische bewegung" and "volksgemeinschaft", e.g. "race movement" and "race community" from the german word "volk" referring to a specific ethnic group).
What they MEANT is the same thing that Repugnant Klan radio hosts and politicians like Michael Savage and Donald Trump mean when they shout "blood and soil", "borders language culture", and other racial supremacist jargon. They're a bunch of fucking nazis.
It's too bad that Robert "Sheets" Byrd (D) - the Patron Saint of Hillary! - is dead because he could have given them lessons on cross-burning, hood-making, and lynching. Like he did for the 150+ men he recruited into the KKK. And he could also teach them about hating Republicans, the sworn public enemy of the KKK (all throughout his tenure in the Senate, as well).
Much like the modern ANTIFA "anti-fascist" thugs are anything but anti-fascist.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Borders, language, and culture are all important for the survival of a political state. Borders define what is and isn't lawful, and what rights/protection those who live within those borders have. Language is critical to business, trade, political discourse, and official communications. You highlighted this yourself when you began to explore the difficulty of translation due to the confluence of language and culture. Culture is obviously critical for common identity and to reduce the potential of "othering" that often leads to tribal violence and exclusion. Ethno-nationalism is not what's being promoted by Donald Trump, despite how much you may wish to draw ties.
Bernie is far and away the most popular politician in the country. Clinton, by contrast, is basically the only person that could have managed to lose a general election to Trump.
Also, the demographics of the general election and the Dem primaries are very different. Plus, Clinton cheated.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
It depends on what "wealth transfers" you choose to count.
For example, if you counted the Federal state-tax income credit, then California jumps to the #1 beneficiary of Federal transfers, with New York #2 right behind them.
But nah, you choose to count only those tax credits and payments that produce the outcome you like.
Seems to be the party that's attracting them though. And no wonder why.
Did you know there are more or less objective sources where you can read about history, and look up actual facts, rather than believing whatever crap some activist
blogger spews at you?
Did you know that the United States in 2018 isn't historical Europe?
For a THOUSAND YEARS the Roman Catholic Church taught (and fought) that banking, loaning money at interest, was a sin, usury. Until the fourth century it was looked down upon by most Christians, by the fourth century the Church started making church laws against it in various ways. In the eighth century under Charlemagne, they declared usury to be a general criminal offence for you could be imprisoned.
During all this time, the European monarchies shared power with the church. If you were a king, a good way to end up mysteriously dead was to piss off the church. Yet they had wars and huge infrastructure projects to finance, and I between wars the monarchies sometimes had huge amounts of gold and other treasure they'd love to make interest on. Running a country requires banking, but banking is a crime for Christians. Islam similarly taught that interest was usury, sin, and prohibited. What to do? The solution was to enlist Jews as bankers.
The European monarchs didn't have the modern financial system to run up a trillion dollar national debt in times of trouble. In times of trouble, such as war, they had the bankers to go to in order to borrow money to rebuild and supply their armies. Jewish bankers, because Christian bankers would face criminal action. With two sides at war, both asking the banks to finance their armies, the bank was in the position to decide which army got fed and equipped and which army didn't. If you were a European monarch, being friendly with the bankers was a really good idea.
That's the history of why the oldest, largest, most powerful European banks are Jewish.
Dealing with nations, like loaning to monarchs, the bankers, notably the Rothschilds, also were early to expand internationally, with different family members running affiliated banks in different countries. At the time, most businesses were local. Being smart about establishing multinational business before almost anyone else enhanced their size and power, while reducing their dependence on the local monarch.
It's time for me to go do other things now, but if you spend a few minutes learning the facts about anything else you parroted, you'll find it's all just as contrary to fact.
The head of the Republican party says that there are "good people" among the Nazis. And his policies have emboldened the Nazis and similar extremist groups. Not all Republicans are Nazis, but certainly Nazis can now feel comfortable in the Republican party.
If political ideology were a street the Nazis, Communists, and the Liberals/Progressive would all live a few doors down from one another on the left side of town. He Democrats and the Republicans would be on opposite sides of main street within a block of each other. The Conservatives a bit farther out the right side of town and the Libertarians would be living in their non-code tiny houses outside of city limits.
The police would be the most brutal on the left side of town. On the right side they would only call the cops after they shot the criminals.
The libertarians would either invite you in for a pot brownie or blow your head off with a 50 cal sniper rifle the moment you stepped onto their property uninvited.
Meanwhile back in reality:
"Bannon, the former chief strategist in the Trump administration, has expressed his enthusiasm for the alt right, a loose network of individuals and groups that promote white identity and reject mainstream conservatism in favor of politics that embrace implicit or explicit racism, anti-Semitism and white supremacy. Alt right adherents oppose multiculturalism, immigration and often claim that there is a Jewish conspiracy to advocate for “white genocide.” These messages are often delivered via social media, using “ironic” memes and/or slogans.
Bannon “proudly” told a Mother Jones reporter at the 2016 Republican National Convention “we’re the platform for the alt right,” referring to Breitbart News, which he headed at the time. ...
When President Trump named Bannon as his chief strategist, numerous well-known white supremacists celebrated the appointment. David Duke called the selection of Bannon “excellent,” adding that Bannon was “basically creating the ideological aspects of where we’re going.” Peter Brimelow, who runs the racist site VDare, said that the Bannon hire was “amazing.”
Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent, and Rocky Suhayda of the American Nazi Party predicted that Bannon would help hold Trump to his campaign promises on immigration. ...
While still at the helm of Breitbart, Bannon made a number of comments about the West being at war with Islam. At a speech at the Vatican in 2014, he said, “We are in an outright war against jihadist Islamic fascism.” During 2015 and 2016 broadcasts of the Breitbart News Daily radio show, he called Islam “the most radical religion in the world” and alleged that “Islamist sympathizers had infiltrated the U.S. government and news media,” according to an article in USA Today."
https://www.adl.org/resources/...
I didn't "accuse others", I gave a long list of Nazi policies that coincide with leftist policies and the historical close connections between fascists and leftists. You are welcome to try to try to refute my points with facts. You will find that I am correct: fascism and socialism are both leftist ideologies and closely connected.
You do make an important observation, though: it is leftists that have been going around after WWII to make groundless accusations against others of being fascists and neo-Nazis. Every Republican president over the last couple of decades has been denounced as a "fascist", "Nazi", and/or "white supremacist" by the left. Every conservative commentator or intellectual has been denounced as such. It's not surprising that you quote Goebbels to point out a strategy that has been pursued for more than half a century by leftists.
Also, my family just barely survived the Nazis and then suffered under socialism, so I know first hand how utterly evil both ideologies are. It's also unclear why socialists are so afraid of having it pointed out how closely related they are to fascists; after all, socialists themselves are responsible for mass killings, genocides, racism, torture, war, and destruction that easily puts fascism to shame.
Russians and Nazis are mortal enemies. If you are going to slander someone with that sort of crap, you need to choose one. Your partisan nonsense should at least make sense to anyone with some knowledge of the world.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
In denial much? Here:
Ringing any bells? American "Progressives" adored Hitler in the 30-ies...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
you do realize the history of the KKK was drenched deeply in the Democrat party right? It was founded by southern democrats to prevent black people from voting. Its amazing how often the Republican party gets blamed for racism. The republicans have their list of flaws.. but KKK is definitely not one of them.
the civil war, a bunch of southern democrats, angry at the election of a republican president, seceded from the union to form a new nation, one were slavery was to remain legal.
Jim Crow laws, enacted by white-Democratic dominated state legeslatures in the 19th century to mandate racial segregation
civil rights act of 1964 - Goldwater was one of just six Senate Republicans to vote against the bill in 1964, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. It passed by an overall vote of 73-27. In the House, 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act, passing with an overall 290-130 vote. While most Democrats in both chambers voted for it, the bulk of the opposition still was from Democrats
maybe you should stop drinking the coolaid and realized that everything you've been told is a lie. There isnt one party worth this loyalty from you. They are all undeserving, they just have manipulated you into thinking all the world problems lay squarely on their competition. Its simply not mathematically possible for one side to do no right, and the other to do no wrong.
Seriously bringing up that bullshit about Hillary and Byrd? Give us a break... he clearly repudiated the entire philosophy of the KKK back in the early 50's, when Hillary was still in Kindergarten. Read your own link, troll.
I do not have a signature
I didn't "accuse others", I gave a long list of Nazi policies that coincide with leftist policies and the historical close connections between fascists and leftists.
You are exactly correct with your original post and the points you made there.
When Mussolini took power and turned Italy fascist, Lenin congratulated him. They are both at their core a Marxist/Leninist ideology, differing only that by either the state owning factories, railways, etc outright, or under fascism, the entities already in charge were simply placed under government control.
Those who disagree can compare for yourselves the Nazi's own 25 point declaration of their platform against any socialist regime's core principles you'd like. If you are being intellectually honest in the slightest one would have to recognize the obvious and glaring similarities in the majority of principles declared if one simply puts them all into contemporary terms, but yet people insist otherwise.
http://www.historyplace.com/wo...
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
See also: Southern Strategy. You cross burners always like to pretend the last century of history doesn't exist. Back to the trailer park with you.
Every time a liberal *genuinely* attempts to compare the republican party (or infact, anyone, including other liberals they don't agree with) as a nazi, they lose favour.
They look stupid, they look ridiculous, they look crazy. It's not a good look. The endless name calling and branding is mind boggling, how people can be just that dense.
Worst part is for the ex-lefties who are now centrists or perhaps still somewhat left. They don't want to vote right but they feel compelled to, because they can't bring themselves to associate with such wildly insane people.
Let's go punch a nazi and fire whitey from his job, privileged cracker has had it too good for too long!
The ADL is a racist (anti-white) and ideologically motivated organization with very little credibility.
At the time, the people who chose to use the label alt-right were mostly a bunch of young men who were tired of the hypocrisy of politicians, as well as tired of the identity politics game that leftists are playing (which is nothing but racism and sexism). If anything, the majority of the alt-right were true anti-racist. When in 2017 the alt-right radicalized itself, most of the people using the label alt-right chose to rename themselves as the alt-light since they didn't want to be associated with the group anymore.
But hey! It's not like the truth matters anymore.
The Wikipedia entry states "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics"
Hitler claimed to be neither left, nor right wing and criticised both, while using elements that were, at the time, both left and right.
Yes, Wikipedia isn't authoritative, but that quote has a couple of attestations. If you'd like to argue otherwise, I'd like to see a similar (or better) standard of evidence to support your claim. Your argument and list of traits you consider left is a mix of traints common with some politically left organisations and some authoritarian organisations (some of which are left). It ignores traditionally right elements of the Nazis (like nationalism and anti-liberalism). It's unbalanced and superficial.
The Nazis were fascist. Fascism is authoritarian.
That authoritarian governments arise from politically left parties is obvious (just as it is obvious that they also arise from politically right parties). That authoritarian governments share common traits should be obvious. Identifying authoritarian traits in politically left governments and comparing those to authoritarian traits in the nazis and declaring the nazis politically left is lazy, dishonest or ignorant.
Politically left fascism kind of exists, mostly as a criticism of the extreme left, but it's a new term and not well defined - mostly it seems to be used as an epithet.
Frankly, both ends of the political spectrum tend to look pretty similar when they get extreme enough and it would be charitable to think that this is where most people are getting confused.
TL:DR
Nazis are usually considered 'far right'. They claimed to be syncretism of left and right and criticised both while taking elements from both. They were fascist and authoratarian (redundant). Observing that the authoritarian 'far left' and nazis have something in common is obvious. Arguing that this makes nazis left is shallow.
You are exactly correct with your original post and the points you made there.
Except that he avoids traditionally 'right' elements of the Nazis, irgnores that the Nazis claimed to be neither left, nor right but a syncretism of both (and hence have elements that are both traditionally left and traditionally right), listed elements that are authoritarian and by the association with authoritarian-left claims the Nazis were left.
When Mussolini took power and turned Italy fascist, Lenin congratulated him.
And Hitler both criticised and praised Stalin. Because, you know, Nazis are hard to define on a single axis of left and right.
They are both at their core a Marxist/Leninist ideology
Sure, if you ignore what that means, ignore Hitler's criticism of same and the elements of Nazism that are traditionally right.
Those who disagree can compare for yourselves the Nazi's own 25 point declaration of their platform against any socialist regime's core principles
*sigh*. OK. I'll reference by number for brevity.
1. is right (nationalism)
2. is neither (world recognition, lifting of sanctions)
3. is neither or right (demand for land)
4-6. is far-right (citizenship tied to race)
7. is left-ish (state provided opportunity for livlihood - note this is a weaker left than traditional communist/socialist left where the state provides the livlihood, not just the opportunity.)
8. right-ish (limitations on immigration. Traditionally right, and linked to the far-right racism, above, but given the period and the context may not have been as right as it now looks. Certainly not traditionally left)
9. neither or weakly left (equality of citizens. Weakly left because of statement about obligations. Better seen as authoritarian IMHO)
10. far-left (citizens must be productive and have an obligation to the state)
11. left (breaking of unearned income and abolition of debt slavery. Again, I'm moderating this from 'far-left' because of the historical situation. Definately not right)
12. unknown/arguable (abolition of war profiteering. Left if you consider any interference in a free market left. Neither if you consider production through war is frequently nationalised even by capitalist/free-market countries, right if you consider the merging of state and corporation esp. in war production)
13-14. far-left and far-right (nationalisation of industry. Corporatism or communism arrive at the merging of state and corporation from different directions but the same outcome)
15. left (age welfare)
16. unique-right-ish (creation of middle class (right), seizing of assets (left) for loan to small business (right-ish))
17. left-ish (removing land speculation, and allowing for expropriation)
18. extremist (death to certain classes of criminal)
19. neither (rule of law)
20. left-ish (education)
21. left-ish (abolition of child labour, provision of health and sporting facilities)
22. right or neither (national army)
23. neither or far-right (citizenship and the press)
24. neither or far-right (freedom of religion and/or promotion of Christianity)
25. authoritarian (centralised power)
I make about 9-10 right, anything from weakly right through far right. I make about 11 left with similar caveats. Then there's a few that don't fit even within those fairly broad catch-alls. We can argue specifics and there are some I'll accept could go either way, but that's my point.
Nazis borrowed from both left and right, criticised both, were fascist and hence authoritarian. Calling them 'left' is true, but only partly so and is just as true to call them 'right, more true to call them 'far right' and better to add an extra axis and start adding an authoritarian adjective.
If you are being intellectually honest
About that ...
I want to mod down this whole article and topic.
Synopsis: The division is not left/right; that is the wrong way of approaching the situation. Instead it is individualism versus tribalism.
Here is the story:
Stand and face (let’s say) North. Put your hands together and extend them pointing towards N. Now, open them 90 degrees each until they cut 180-degree arc. Your hands just described the spectrum of regular, let us call it sane (enough) politics. Quadrant I (looking top down) is the right wing, quadrant II is the left wing. You might color them if you like. Let’s say the left is red and the right is blue. Now, what about quadrant III and IV? Those are populated with people who have taken either side to the extreme.
And here is an interesting fact – since we have numerous examples throughout the 20th century of both left and right going crazy (cross culture and cross race mind you!), we have very clear record of the tactics they applied. And they are largely the same! Labor camps – check, both the Nazis and the Commies did it. Group identity – check (superior race against everyone else in one case, the proletariat against everyone else in the other). Overreach of governmental meddling in people’s lives – check. Emphasis on “morality”, “patriotism”, “national pride” – check. Cult of personality – check. Stricter control of the populous, massive secret services and surveillance programs, emphasis on “reporting the undesirables” and “catching the enemy within” – check. Vilifying all who do not belong to said groups and do not sing endlessly the party line – check. So, the color of quadrants III and IV is mostly purple. Those people come from different quadrants but they end up in the same place (while hating each other viciously of course and completely not aware that they are the two sides of the same coin).
So, it seems to me that the actual division we must be aware of is not along the line North – South but East – West. At one end – North stands the sovereignty of the individual and the idea that all systems and ideologies are eventually oppressive so no ideology should be allowed to trump individual human rights and dignity. Equality in front of the law (or God if you will), maximum freedom for the individual to follow his/her ambitions, talents, capabilities, etc. and equality of opportunity are the hallmarks of that ideology. On the other side is the group identity and the toxic tribalism. The individual is but a cog in the great machine of the state. The party line is everything. Everyone else is an enemy. In the pursue of our goals anything goes (because we are right!). “The goals of the group and the greater ways are transcendent and (I am the one that defines them) to embrace them is to achieve enlightenment” – chairman Sheng-ij Yang.
And that is why, for instance, at the moment in the so-called intellectual dark web people as remote in their ideology as Richard Dawkins (fireproof atheist; top dog evolutionary biologists), Stephen Fry (gay; bleeding heart liberal and fireproof atheist who argues that the church is not a force for good; renaissance man), Ben Shapiro (conservative Jew who still thinks being gay is a sin) and Jordan Peterson (quite religious in his own way, fully aware of the dangers posed by people from quadrant III and IV) are allies and speak in one voice against the disappearance of freedom of speech, the cessation of a meaningful dialog between the left and right, the forceful and violent de-platform/shutting of/attacking stints by the extremists, the mainstream media fiasco and so on.I saw it with my own eyes and could hardly stop laughing – Shapiro for example was viciously attacked by both the alt-right and the commies who claimed he is one of the “others”. What can be more revealing than that?
Final note: we absolutely need both sides of the argument to go forward. Either extreme breeds destruction and suffering, but the
And thank you for a civil discussion on an often heated topic.
Fascism is authoritarian, and both the far right and far left end up as authoritarian, which makes them all share a lot of characteristics. Nazism was fascist, and had some traits that were more closely far right than far left (don't take my word for it, read the wikipedia article and follow the references). To that end, the elements I consider to be typical of the far right in the Nazis are also likely to be elements that are fascist. Elements that are far left are less likely to be classically fascist although they are just as authoritarian. I've tried to distinguish between authoritarian and things that are more definately right/left.
I don't think I've used a nazi=fascist=far-right=nazi loop, but that's the problem with unconscious bias; it's hard to see.
specifically;
4-6 are citizenship and race. The right is usually focused on its own citizens, uses nationalism and in the far right can become xenophobic. I think this is a pretty clear case for being classically 'right' and then exaggerated by the far right.
13-14 I acknowledge as being both far right and far left. It's a failure mode both can reach, although from different paths.
23 and 24 I acknowledge can be argued to be either neither or possibly far right. I think this is a case where traits that are present in the moderate right (citizens first, and the sort of conservatism that values national culture/religion) become exaggerated by the far right but I can see an argument that sees these points as being so far removed from the concerns of the moderate right that they are qualitatively different. ... and that's all I identified as 'far right'. One that's an exaggeration the nationalism to the point of xenophobia. One that's as much far right as far left and one that's arguable.
I'm genuinely curious, can you provide an example where you think I've used a circular definition?
---
You list a number of things that the right have endorsed, but you've omitted a number as well. The right is usually nationalistic, the left usually internationalisation. The right is usually (in the modern era) conservative culturally and socially as well as fiscally, the left is usually progressive and/or liberal. Personally, I'd add that the right advocates individual rights and responsibilities, the left focusses on collective rights and responsibilities.
Specifically the nationalism - which when distorted by extremism becomes the racism/xenophobia of the far-right and can give rise to militarism. I don't know. Maybe that's where I'm arguing circularly. The far left can be just as bloodthirsty, but it's usually classist, not racist, so I do think that racism is usually a far-right phenomenon.
Le pen is a far right party. FFS look up the "national front" they are a bunch of "immigrant go home" racist guy. That is the main base of her party, the main ideology of all FN guys : "foreigner go home". This is in no way shape or form a socialist party, they are a far right party.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I didn't list policies that were exclusive to the left, I listed policies that the left and fascism shared.
Yes, that was a policy of the progressive movement. In the US, this was the policy primarily of the Democratic party.
So? Catholics and protestants killed each other by the millions over minor differences in religion, yet both are Christians. Closely related ideologies often hate each other fiercely, for the simple reason that they are competing for the same pool of followers. Fascists and Marxists clearly hated each other, but at their core, they are very similar ideologies.
The evidence is crystal clear: fascism is a modification of socialism that replaces "class" by "nation" and adopts some ideas from the progressive movement. This is true both if you look at the history of the parties and at their political programs. Both fascism and socialism are totalitarian, anti-capitalist ideologies, and both in in practice lead to mass killings and economic ruin.
Why do wealthy industrialists in the US support the Democrats and even self-proclaimed socialists? Why did Patty Hearst join the
Symbionese Liberation Army? For the same reasons: the sex is good, or they actually believe in the ideology and don't mind sacrificing personal wealth, or they want to increase their power by joining the government, or they don't have a choice (after 1933, German industrialists didn't have a choice).
I know exactly what the Nazis did; my parents barely survived the Nazi regime.
We were comparing political ideologies and stated objectives of fascism and socialism. It's patently obvious that neither fascism nor socialism actually are capable of delivering on their promises.
If you want to compare what fascists and socialists actually do in practice, you'll find that they behave the same way too: economic ruin, control of the media and educational systems, mass starvation, death camps, the creation of an extremely wealthy ruling elite, and the oppression of everybody else.
That is, not only is fascist ideology closely related to socialist ideology, fascist regimes operate pretty much the same way socialist regimes do.
cross burner? yawn. ad hom attacks. but if you want facts - https://www.nytimes.com/2006/1...
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same