9 ms·

... plus c'est la même chose. The funny thing is that many conservatives think National Socialism was "socialism", when in fact it was just their very own hard

... plus c'est la même chose. The funny thing is that many conservatives think National Socialism was "socialism", when in fact it was just their very own hard right conservatism. Tea Party and Republican candidates are where the Hitlers of the future will probably arise from. > Down with immigration! Up with capital! Be a real American! Welcome to the past. Edit: I see the fascists have discovered my comment. Down vote away. It doesn't change history.

anigbrowl 12y ago
I'm continually astonished at the ultraconservative meme that Hitler was left-wing (which seems to originate with a book called 'Liberal Fascism' by Jonah Goldberg, although it has doubtless been floating around for much longer). Point out that one of the very first things that Hitler did on attaining power was have all the trade unionists arrested, and you might as well be talking to the air.
- judk 12y ago
  It's almost as though "left" and "right" are meaningless terms that are just use to split the people into two camps for battle against each other.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I think they are good signifiers for significantly different economic/political beliefs. However, fanatacism in politics ends up looking pretty similar regardless of starting point.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      I think that they are actively hurtful, they shut down rational thinking. Ideas that actually make sense tend not to cluster well along left/right axis, but are scattered all over the spectrum.
  - fred_durst 12y ago
    It's amazing how one can take the parity achieved via competition and relay it unilaterally to the quality achieved via competition.
  - icelancer 12y ago
    As long as "authoritarian" is part of both sides, the state is generally pleased to have both debate meaningless things.
  - maxxxxx 12y ago
    It' not "almost as though" but they are meaningless terms (and harmful to political discussion in my view). American politics likes to force every issue into the "liberal" or "conservative" category but reality is much more subtle.
    - waps 12y ago
      On the other hand, here is the Nazi's public face : http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.... Read it, then tell me if you still don't understand why these people might get classified as left-wing. They implemented quite a few of these points too, by the way. You can say whatever you want about Nazi's but they are by far the most successful leftist party in history, and quite a few "left-wing" rights today were first implemented by Nazi Germany. Big example : pensions. Scholarships (of the for-the-needy kind, not for-the-really-smart kind). There's many examples. That said, it is beyond obvious that they are not comparable to today's left wing. As hard as it is to understand today, the left-wing was very much anti-immigrant in the 1930's. But it's just one of many historical facts that have changed. What I still find hard to believe, is that it's the democrats were the pro-slavery anti-black side of the aisle. Some choice cuts : (the first parts are anti-versailles, and some anti-immigration) 7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich. (8-9 are anti-immigrant) 10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all. 11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. 12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts. 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries. 15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions. ...
      - maxxxxx 12y ago
        Sure, they had some left-wing traits. And they had some right wing traits too: The belief that Germany is a special country is pretty similar to today's conservatives belief that the US is exceptional and blessed by God. My point was that by figuring out whether the Nazis were left or right wing nothing is learned. There are left wing and right wing democracies and there are left and right wing dictatorships. Left wing governments have killed a lot of people and so have right wing governments.
- waps 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Unio... Both the extreme left and the extreme right are very much opposed to unions. Ergo making a difference between them on that basis seems impossible. It worked on the other side of the fence as well : Nazi Germany restricted or outlawed trade and business organisation just as it did it unions. They went after the Church too. They restriced universities. They replaced or otherwise forced the management of large businesses to do their bidding too. Hell, they went after a number of soccer clubs. And the Soviets did the same. Slightly different order, with the emphasis placed slightly differently, but the same result. In general I'd say that extreme left and extreme right are both totalitarian ideologies and will not allow any form of authority or power to reside in any organisation other than their own. Left or right merely determines the order and the emphasis.
  - jahaja 12y ago
    What is the extreme left for you? Stalinism isn't extreme left, it's just an totalitarianism promoted as socialism to gain credit. Just as north korea ain't a democracy even though they call themselves that. What I usually associate with "extreme" or far left is the "autonomous left" or similar where trade unions are certainly a fundamental part of the organisational idea.
    - waps 12y ago
      This is the "but it was never implemented correctly" argument. To the rest of the world, I assure you that Soviet-style communism definitely qualifies as socialism.
      - mpyne 12y ago
        I think the "but it was never implemented correctly" socialists always seem to forget the strength of a state required to simply "implement" socialism, and then enforce it. Failing said state, it would require a very sizeable majority of the whole mass of people to simply switch over all at once, and again, somehow defend that new order from warlords and parasites.
- adamnemecek 12y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
eudox 12y ago
>Edit: I see the fascists have discovered my comment. Down vote away. It doesn't change history. I was about to upvote you when I read this. Please don't be so anally frustrated in the future.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
wdr1 12y ago
You're conflating several concepts with conservatism. Sure, there are branches of Conservative thoughts that intersect with National Socialism, but the very same thing can be said about social liberalism. In reality, however, neither side -- left or right -- in America is that close to the ideas of National Socialism. To suggest otherwise is either genuine ignorance or a weak attempt to score political points.
- confluence 12y ago
  > neither side -- left or right -- in America is that close to the ideas of National Socialism ... > False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. It would be the antonym of the mathematical concept of material equivalence. ... > A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence The party that attracts militias is probably not the same as the one that attracts pacifists.
philwelch 12y ago
There's one very important way in which Fascism was very anti-conservative, and that's in the sense that they literally believed in violent revolution to overthrow the existing order and install an ideologically-driven regime. That part is almost literally cribbed from communism, although the motivating ideologies behind the two are different. Modern American conservatism, especially lately, is almost exclusively the boring and literal type of conservatism--the type that talks about traditional values and the merits of the status quo and says "no" to all these new liberal initiatives, ranging from gay marriage to Obamacare. It doesn't have the desire to overthrow the existing order of things, nor the ideological fervor to know what to do if it did.
mcantelon 12y ago
How do you know the next Hitler will come from the right wing? Left wing leaders have also racked up big death tolls purging and reordering society under the guise of progressive ideals. Mao's leadership led to the death of 45 million: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/m... Stalin killed an estimated 20 million: http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789 http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kil... Pol Pot killed 1.4 million+: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
- confluence 12y ago
  In my original response I stated that National Socialism wasn't actually comprised of left wing socialists, but rather hard right fascists, and go on and on about how conservatives completely misrepresent this stuff all the time, and in the very next response to that comment, you do the exact same thing that I was lamenting? Ah yes the great "leftist" Mao, so "left" wing, he purged everyone who disagreed with him (McCarthy?). Ah yes Stalin, "left" wing extraordinaire with his extermination and enslavement of Russian minorities (The Conservative American South?). Pol Pot, such a "left" wing hippy he was a jack booted military thug (Brownshirts?).
  - pdonis 12y ago
    So you're saying that anyone who purges people who disagree, who exterminates and enslaves minorities, and who uses military thugs to achieve his ends, can't be left wing? Please enlighten us on your highly non-standard definition of "left wing".
    - confluence 12y ago
      > In left-right politics, left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics vs. > Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics Which one seems to be more favorable to enacting your statement: > exterminates and enslaves minorities The equality faction or the hierarchy faction? Here is an analogy: You can claim yourself to be a pacifist (left wing) all you want. But if your actions are aggressive and cause war (right wing), then you aren't a pacifist, even if you claim to be one.

anigbrowl 12y ago

I'm continually astonished at the ultraconservative meme that Hitler was left-wing (which seems to originate with a book called 'Liberal Fascism' by Jonah Goldberg, although it has doubtless been floating around for much longer). Point out that one of the very first things that Hitler did on attaining power was have all the trade unionists arrested, and you might as well be talking to the air.

judk 12y ago
It's almost as though "left" and "right" are meaningless terms that are just use to split the people into two camps for battle against each other.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I think they are good signifiers for significantly different economic/political beliefs. However, fanatacism in politics ends up looking pretty similar regardless of starting point.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    I think that they are actively hurtful, they shut down rational thinking. Ideas that actually make sense tend not to cluster well along left/right axis, but are scattered all over the spectrum.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  It's amazing how one can take the parity achieved via competition and relay it unilaterally to the quality achieved via competition.
- icelancer 12y ago
  As long as "authoritarian" is part of both sides, the state is generally pleased to have both debate meaningless things.
- maxxxxx 12y ago
  It' not "almost as though" but they are meaningless terms (and harmful to political discussion in my view). American politics likes to force every issue into the "liberal" or "conservative" category but reality is much more subtle.
  - waps 12y ago
    On the other hand, here is the Nazi's public face : http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.... Read it, then tell me if you still don't understand why these people might get classified as left-wing. They implemented quite a few of these points too, by the way. You can say whatever you want about Nazi's but they are by far the most successful leftist party in history, and quite a few "left-wing" rights today were first implemented by Nazi Germany. Big example : pensions. Scholarships (of the for-the-needy kind, not for-the-really-smart kind). There's many examples. That said, it is beyond obvious that they are not comparable to today's left wing. As hard as it is to understand today, the left-wing was very much anti-immigrant in the 1930's. But it's just one of many historical facts that have changed. What I still find hard to believe, is that it's the democrats were the pro-slavery anti-black side of the aisle. Some choice cuts : (the first parts are anti-versailles, and some anti-immigration) 7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich. (8-9 are anti-immigrant) 10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all. 11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. 12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts. 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries. 15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions. ...
    - maxxxxx 12y ago
      Sure, they had some left-wing traits. And they had some right wing traits too: The belief that Germany is a special country is pretty similar to today's conservatives belief that the US is exceptional and blessed by God. My point was that by figuring out whether the Nazis were left or right wing nothing is learned. There are left wing and right wing democracies and there are left and right wing dictatorships. Left wing governments have killed a lot of people and so have right wing governments.
waps 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Unio... Both the extreme left and the extreme right are very much opposed to unions. Ergo making a difference between them on that basis seems impossible. It worked on the other side of the fence as well : Nazi Germany restricted or outlawed trade and business organisation just as it did it unions. They went after the Church too. They restriced universities. They replaced or otherwise forced the management of large businesses to do their bidding too. Hell, they went after a number of soccer clubs. And the Soviets did the same. Slightly different order, with the emphasis placed slightly differently, but the same result. In general I'd say that extreme left and extreme right are both totalitarian ideologies and will not allow any form of authority or power to reside in any organisation other than their own. Left or right merely determines the order and the emphasis.
- jahaja 12y ago
  What is the extreme left for you? Stalinism isn't extreme left, it's just an totalitarianism promoted as socialism to gain credit. Just as north korea ain't a democracy even though they call themselves that. What I usually associate with "extreme" or far left is the "autonomous left" or similar where trade unions are certainly a fundamental part of the organisational idea.
  - waps 12y ago
    This is the "but it was never implemented correctly" argument. To the rest of the world, I assure you that Soviet-style communism definitely qualifies as socialism.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      I think the "but it was never implemented correctly" socialists always seem to forget the strength of a state required to simply "implement" socialism, and then enforce it. Failing said state, it would require a very sizeable majority of the whole mass of people to simply switch over all at once, and again, somehow defend that new order from warlords and parasites.
adamnemecek 12y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

eudox 12y ago

>Edit: I see the fascists have discovered my comment. Down vote away. It doesn't change history. I was about to upvote you when I read this. Please don't be so anally frustrated in the future.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

wdr1 12y ago

You're conflating several concepts with conservatism. Sure, there are branches of Conservative thoughts that intersect with National Socialism, but the very same thing can be said about social liberalism. In reality, however, neither side -- left or right -- in America is that close to the ideas of National Socialism. To suggest otherwise is either genuine ignorance or a weak attempt to score political points.

confluence 12y ago
> neither side -- left or right -- in America is that close to the ideas of National Socialism ... > False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. It would be the antonym of the mathematical concept of material equivalence. ... > A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence The party that attracts militias is probably not the same as the one that attracts pacifists.

philwelch 12y ago

There's one very important way in which Fascism was very anti-conservative, and that's in the sense that they literally believed in violent revolution to overthrow the existing order and install an ideologically-driven regime. That part is almost literally cribbed from communism, although the motivating ideologies behind the two are different. Modern American conservatism, especially lately, is almost exclusively the boring and literal type of conservatism--the type that talks about traditional values and the merits of the status quo and says "no" to all these new liberal initiatives, ranging from gay marriage to Obamacare. It doesn't have the desire to overthrow the existing order of things, nor the ideological fervor to know what to do if it did.

mcantelon 12y ago

How do you know the next Hitler will come from the right wing? Left wing leaders have also racked up big death tolls purging and reordering society under the guise of progressive ideals. Mao's leadership led to the death of 45 million: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/m... Stalin killed an estimated 20 million: http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789 http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kil... Pol Pot killed 1.4 million+: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

confluence 12y ago
In my original response I stated that National Socialism wasn't actually comprised of left wing socialists, but rather hard right fascists, and go on and on about how conservatives completely misrepresent this stuff all the time, and in the very next response to that comment, you do the exact same thing that I was lamenting? Ah yes the great "leftist" Mao, so "left" wing, he purged everyone who disagreed with him (McCarthy?). Ah yes Stalin, "left" wing extraordinaire with his extermination and enslavement of Russian minorities (The Conservative American South?). Pol Pot, such a "left" wing hippy he was a jack booted military thug (Brownshirts?).
- pdonis 12y ago
  So you're saying that anyone who purges people who disagree, who exterminates and enslaves minorities, and who uses military thugs to achieve his ends, can't be left wing? Please enlighten us on your highly non-standard definition of "left wing".
  - confluence 12y ago
    > In left-right politics, left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics vs. > Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics Which one seems to be more favorable to enacting your statement: > exterminates and enslaves minorities The equality faction or the hierarchy faction? Here is an analogy: You can claim yourself to be a pacifist (left wing) all you want. But if your actions are aggressive and cause war (right wing), then you aren't a pacifist, even if you claim to be one.