At 4:37 AM -0700 5/9/09, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>On Sep 5, 2009, at 4:03 AM, Jared ''Danger'' Earle wrote:
>
>> On 5 Sep 2009, at 11:38, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>>> They could use the same dictionary to prove their point
>>
>> Not really. National Socialism is not Socialism, any more than the
>> Black Panthers were actually cats.
>
>The National Socialists were anti-capitalist, advocated state
>ownership of industry, and considered themselves to be socialist. I'd
>be interested to hear why you think they were mistaken.
Well, because they were authoritarian, socially conservative,
nationalist, cultural conservatives (in intent, though there program
was in fact radical), and strong believers in social order and social
hierarchy, all things strongly associated with the right.
The idea that capitalist economics is central to right wing
ideolog is a more recent, and less central, idea than linking the
right wing with social conservatism. The original Right Wing (in the
French assembly) were monarchists and feudalists.
So, the Nazis, who above all believed in a strong state that
maintained social order and cultural conservatism, are a classic
example of a right wing party, even though they believed in state
control over industry.
It is also notable that the Nazis saw themselves as strongly
and intrinsically anti-communist, and banned unions, and in general
shared virtually nothing with socialism except the idea of state
intervention in the economy.
In general, socialism believs in state control over the
economy because they believe the state has a duty to its citizens (to
reduce inequality and create social welfare), and the state will do a
better job at directing resources towards the welfare of its citizens
than capitalism will, the Nazis believe in state control over the
economy because they believed the citizens had a duty to the state,
and the state is in a better position to direct resources towards the
goals of the state.
> >
>> No-one could argue Fascism was left-wing in smart company. You have to
>> resort to cheating to try and anyone even remotely awake will pull you
>> up on it.
>
>In the very broad sense left wing can mean radical and right wing can
>mean reactionary. Fascism was certainly a radical philosophy intent on
>transforming society.
Radical isn't the opposite of reactionary. Progressive is the
opposite of reactionary. Radical refers to the desired speed and
extent of political change, rather than its goal. You can have both
the right and left wing radicals. So the fact that the fascists were
radicals is irrelevant, radical here refers to the intended speed of
political change, not its direction.
In a very broad sense, radical means left and right wing
means conservative in US political discourse because the US has a
prevailing political discourse that is far to the right. In Russian
political discourse, Right means Communist (because the Communists
believe in state control, and conservatism).
>
>Please correct me if I'm wrong but all I'm able to understand of your
>position is:
>Fascist = bad guy
>Socialist = good guy
That is because you are looking at politics only through the
issue of economics, whereas liberty of individuals is the core issue.
The idea of Right and Left is intrinsically limiting. You
need to think at least in two dimensions to get anywhere, and in more
than that to really understand it. The domination of systems like the
US, UK, and Australia by two party systems tends to make it seem as
if there are two sides, but it never actually leads to a very
satisfying explanation.
One way to look at is the 'political compass' idea, as shown
on the eponymous common web quiz, in which you have one axis for
economics, and one for authoritarian vs libertarian.
Another way to look at is the way Friedrich Hayek did (just
to show that is not just lefties that think think this left/right
thing is an oversimplification)- that there is really a triangle, the
three corners of which are socialism, conservatism and liberalism,
which we would most commonly ascribe to the left, right, and centre
respectively, but really are three major different strains of thought
- in which liberalism can ally with socialism to get social
democracy, with conservatism to get US style corporatism. In this
conception, the Nazis are a rare example of a fundamentally
conservative ideology that reaches out towards socialism rather than
liberalism, but still remains fundamentally conservative rather than
sharing any of the non-economic goals of socialism.
Cheers
David
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
