On Sep 7, 2009, at 2:40 AM, David Cake wrote: > 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.
Except that they weren't socially or culturally conservative in any respect except that homophobia and antisemitism were part of their official ideology. They clearly were a proletarian leveler movement out to overthrow the social order and eliminate the elites. More recent forms of fascism have dropped the homophobia and antisemitism. > 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. There you go again. Your only evidence that they valued maintaining the social order is that the right wing of the French assembly did and both movements are called 'right wing.' > 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. And the idea of a proletarian revolution against the elite. Nazism didn't quarrel with the stated goals of Communism. They saw Communism as a ruse to co-opt the proletarian revolution and maintain the privileged position of the Jews. > > 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 thread that is about dictionary definitions, it is not legitimate to try to redefine words even if the redefinition is arguably useful. > 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). No it doesn't. Communists are the "left" in Russian history and the Bolsheviks are "left" of the Mensheviks. > > >> >> 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 dictionary in question defines "socialist" in economic terms. You want to redefine it solely to avoid the obvious conclusion that "National Socialism" is a type of "Socialism" > > 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. This is a weak version of the point that I was trying to make. Mailer's observation that the dynamics of conflict tend to reduce the myriad opinions that people hold down to two sides is clearly correct. For historical reasons we tend to call one of these sides the "right" and the other the "left". We could as easily use 'heads' and 'tails' or 'up' and 'down'. The mistake is to assume there must be some commonality between all the movements labeled 'right' or 'left'. This leads to errors like ascribing characteristics of the French Monarchists to the Nazis merely because both were parties of the 'right'. > > 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. You have conceded that their program was radical and yet you somehow argue that they are "fundamentally conservative". I'm simply at a loss to understand how you are not contradicting yourself. -- And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, philosopher (1844-1900) _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
