4 ms·

I appreciate the difference between what people claim they'll do and what they actually do given the chance. However at least in the case of the Nazis I'd like

by waps 12y ago

I appreciate the difference between what people claim they'll do and what they actually do given the chance. However at least in the case of the Nazis I'd like to point out the war. During this time in history, Germany, the Soviets and America destroyed worker's rights. We all know why. Does this indicate how they were aligned ? A little, but there are many other things far more important. It keeps baffling me how offensive people find the idea that the far left was leaning towards racism and the far right was the more tolerant side of aisle during this period. Things change. Is this really so hard to imagine ? Everyone knows that the Vatican, for example, is very much for equality between races and has actually stood by this stance when politically inconvenient, just like they stand behind their (somewhat lunatic) anti-birth-control stand today. Given that, and the similar attitude of other religions, is it really so hard to believe that when public opinion turns racist (as I'm hoping people are still capable of realizing that it did), populist parties will turn with it, including leftist parties. Conservatives, as the name implies will be more constant, and will resist this change on both sides. Right now they're anti-immigration, because they're more so than the "big" left party, but not by much. That can change in a heartbeat, and if history is any guide, it will. You know those old movies where you see rich women react to black people as if they were smelly insects ? Those movies are quite realistic and, like today, rich women are rather unlikely to be conservatives. Those people were part of the left. There was a time, not that long ago, when that was the norm, the social and popular thing to do. I bet most black adults can enlighten you to these facts if you're confused. Everytime some range of immigrants starts lowering pay for a large group of workers, racism becomes popular, for obvious reasons. 1930 in Europe was like 2009, on the Mexican border, for people without a degree, only worse to the point where they actually feared starving to death on a regular basis (especially in Germany, where there were a few regions where there actually was starvation). Is it really so hard to comprehend that under those circumstances, sentiment will turn racist ? Doubly so given that the majority of taxes was going to foreignors ?

the_af 12y ago
People -- or rather, myself, since I can't speak for everyone -- do not find it offensive as much as nonsensical. The far right was never tolerant, by any definition of far right. Racism is also inherently not a trait of the far left. When we find a leftist government/organization enacting extreme racist policies such as mass imprisonment, deportation or execution, we know there's something deeply wrong with it, and we usually denounce it ("how can they call themselves leftists if they do this!"). But the same policies by a far right government would surprise no-one. I'm willing to concede many points, for example: - That some branches of the left can be "conservative" at times, if we define conservative to mean "staying with the satus quo". For example, if the status quo is a leftist society. Also, individual people may be conservative as a general attitude towards life, regardless of political ideologies. - That some groups historically called leftists were so in name only, or had right-wing traits at the same time. - That the more extremist left and right wing at times are cosmetically very similar, especially when their discourse is at its most strident. But the Nazis were far-right, paying only lip service to worker's rights. Most Western entrepreneurs were also anti worker's rights, which is why they initially saw Nazis in a very good light. They were definitely not "more tolerant" than the left. I do not consider the Vatican or the Church as right-wing organizations, by the way. More like conservatists, which I have already agreed is a more broad classification. There exist sub-groups within the Church which belong to the extreme right, of course.
- waps 12y ago
  > When we find a leftist government/organization enacting extreme racist policies such as mass imprisonment, deportation or execution, we know there's something deeply wrong with it, and we usually denounce it ("how can they call themselves leftists if they do this!"). Strange. I must have missed that when it came to 1) First and foremost, Che Guevara. Allow me to quote him "The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese. And the two ancient races have now begun a hard life together, fraught with bickering and squabbles. Discrimination and poverty unite them in the daily fight for survival but their different ways of approaching life separate them completely: The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations." Clearly being a racist murderous bastard does not preclude any leftist credentials. I would argue that if you checked the newspapers in the 1930's and 1950's-60's-70's you will find that similar reverence existed in the left for Hitler (up till July 1941, guess what happened at that moment), and Stalin, even when it was known that Soviets did the extermination camp thing. Other examples that come to mind 2) the Soviets (against Jews, homosexuals, tatars, ...) 3) The open racism of Egypts various socialist government parties (religious, sexist and ethnic). Most glaringly, the left's support for the arab spring even when it got taken over by the muslim brotherhood, who is not merely racist, but genocidally so. More generally, you'll see a lot of examples of this in the middle east. 4) The open racism in China, before (and even during) the latest pro-pseudo-capitalism era. And yes, this was while China was doing the Nepal thing. Again, not just China, but a lot of Asian countries enjoyed this leftist support. So forgive me for stating the obvious here : the left has a specific agenda, and is certainly willing to accept open racism in people it reveres, racist policies and even racist genocides to some extent, as long as they advance the cause. I am more of a European-style leftist (meaning I find the democrats nowhere near the centre of the political spectrum), but I have very few illusions on this. I have been a party member at one time (student days ...) and after a while I was forced to conclude that while, yes, it was far-fetched that these people would ever be given the chance for genocide, but 1) there was a (granted, small) group always talking about it. Mostly about Jews and/or Israel 2) after a while I started to believe them. 3) these people were not just tolerated, but actually had high status. Some were part of the "core" of the party. 4) obviously, most people in the party were very much opposed to actually implementing this. Unlike this loud group however, they were not willing to sacrifice anything for that.

by waps 12y ago

the_af 12y ago

People -- or rather, myself, since I can't speak for everyone -- do not find it offensive as much as nonsensical. The far right was never tolerant, by any definition of far right. Racism is also inherently not a trait of the far left. When we find a leftist government/organization enacting extreme racist policies such as mass imprisonment, deportation or execution, we know there's something deeply wrong with it, and we usually denounce it ("how can they call themselves leftists if they do this!"). But the same policies by a far right government would surprise no-one. I'm willing to concede many points, for example: - That some branches of the left can be "conservative" at times, if we define conservative to mean "staying with the satus quo". For example, if the status quo is a leftist society. Also, individual people may be conservative as a general attitude towards life, regardless of political ideologies. - That some groups historically called leftists were so in name only, or had right-wing traits at the same time. - That the more extremist left and right wing at times are cosmetically very similar, especially when their discourse is at its most strident. But the Nazis were far-right, paying only lip service to worker's rights. Most Western entrepreneurs were also anti worker's rights, which is why they initially saw Nazis in a very good light. They were definitely not "more tolerant" than the left. I do not consider the Vatican or the Church as right-wing organizations, by the way. More like conservatists, which I have already agreed is a more broad classification. There exist sub-groups within the Church which belong to the extreme right, of course.

waps 12y ago
> When we find a leftist government/organization enacting extreme racist policies such as mass imprisonment, deportation or execution, we know there's something deeply wrong with it, and we usually denounce it ("how can they call themselves leftists if they do this!"). Strange. I must have missed that when it came to 1) First and foremost, Che Guevara. Allow me to quote him "The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese. And the two ancient races have now begun a hard life together, fraught with bickering and squabbles. Discrimination and poverty unite them in the daily fight for survival but their different ways of approaching life separate them completely: The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations." Clearly being a racist murderous bastard does not preclude any leftist credentials. I would argue that if you checked the newspapers in the 1930's and 1950's-60's-70's you will find that similar reverence existed in the left for Hitler (up till July 1941, guess what happened at that moment), and Stalin, even when it was known that Soviets did the extermination camp thing. Other examples that come to mind 2) the Soviets (against Jews, homosexuals, tatars, ...) 3) The open racism of Egypts various socialist government parties (religious, sexist and ethnic). Most glaringly, the left's support for the arab spring even when it got taken over by the muslim brotherhood, who is not merely racist, but genocidally so. More generally, you'll see a lot of examples of this in the middle east. 4) The open racism in China, before (and even during) the latest pro-pseudo-capitalism era. And yes, this was while China was doing the Nepal thing. Again, not just China, but a lot of Asian countries enjoyed this leftist support. So forgive me for stating the obvious here : the left has a specific agenda, and is certainly willing to accept open racism in people it reveres, racist policies and even racist genocides to some extent, as long as they advance the cause. I am more of a European-style leftist (meaning I find the democrats nowhere near the centre of the political spectrum), but I have very few illusions on this. I have been a party member at one time (student days ...) and after a while I was forced to conclude that while, yes, it was far-fetched that these people would ever be given the chance for genocide, but 1) there was a (granted, small) group always talking about it. Mostly about Jews and/or Israel 2) after a while I started to believe them. 3) these people were not just tolerated, but actually had high status. Some were part of the "core" of the party. 4) obviously, most people in the party were very much opposed to actually implementing this. Unlike this loud group however, they were not willing to sacrifice anything for that.