Myth: Hilter was a Leftist
History
| March 26, 2004
| Tim
Was Hitler a rightist or leftist? Let's look at a leftist argument being offered about Hitler's political categorization and see how well it stands up.
Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist."
Yes, uh, that would be one large tip-off regarding how he marketed his party to the German folk.
Definition of Socialism
The author relies upon his own private definition of socialism to make his point. Miriam-Webster defines socialism as:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Instead, according to this author:
In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism.
Well, that certainly makes it easy to prove the Nazis weren't socialists! Because we know nobody has ever been one!
I think we can see what kind of logic we can expect here, folks.
While Hitler and the Nazis didn't directly own each factory or business, as would be required in the strictest reading of the dictionary definition, they did certainly control every business in the nation:
What matters is to emphasize the fundamental idea in my party's economic program clearly -- the idea of authority. I want the authority; I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the priniciple: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state.
As John Ray pithily comments, this is not too different that many other socialist states:
It might be noted that even in the post-war Communist bloc there was never total nationalization of industry. In fact, in Poland, most agriculture always remained in private hands.... This policy is broadly similar to the once much acclaimed Swedish model of socialism in more recent times, so it is amusing that it has often been this policy which has underpinned the common claim that Hitler was Rightist. What is Leftist in Sweden was apparently Rightist in Hitler!
Indeed!
The author goes on, at great length, to say that no authoritarian government can possibly be socialist. Of course, that's absurd: classic socialism requires the individual give up all ownership. If an individual doesn't own anything, then the collective, called "the state" owns everything. Unless everyone gets to vote on every single action anyone takes, it means there must be a group of people who will exert that control, purportely on behalf of "the people." A totalitarian state.
One might argue no perfect socialist state has ever existed. I'd agree, and add no perfect capitalist state has either, nor any perfect democracy. But so what? There's a vast gulf between being mostly X and being perfectly X.
So yes, we can prove Hitler wasn't a socialist if we use an odd, narrow definition demanded by the author. But that's a long way from the kind of governmental control most leftists advocate; Hitler's policies conform nicely to other examples of that sort.
Next, the author offers a number of arguments based on his assessments of Hitler's political traits, and compares them with his own ideas about what constitutes a conservative, rather than the accepted definition...
Individualism over Collectivism
The author begins by disputing the idea that Hitler's notorious collectivism has anything to do the same demands from leftists:
The first error is in assuming that this is exclusively a liberal trait. Actually, U.S. conservatives take considerable pride in being patriotic Americans, and they deeply honor those who have sacrificed their lives for their country.
That's called "patriotism", not "collectivism".
The Marine Corps is a classic example: as every Marine knows, all sense of individuality is obliterated in the Marines Corps, and one is subject first, foremost and always to the group.
Look, conservatives aren't opposed to living or working in groups; that's an absurd definition. Conservatives are pro-family, often support organized religion, are pro-corporate, and more for states rights than federal ones. These are all collective entities.
The question here regards a philosophy of government, not whether an individual can be function in a group or be a team player. A person might be very religious, but not believe the state should have an official church. A person might be privately very charitable but not believe the state should be socialist.
The author apparently cannot distinguish between the two.
People want power, there's no denying it. Leftists desire the power of the state in order to control others, rightists want to limit the state's power because it usurps their own (which they feel they'll use better).
Decide for yourself which motivation better fit Hitler.
Racism, Eugenics over Racial Tolerance
In this section, the author simply quotes Hitler's statements to show he was a racist, with the unspoken implication that rightists are racists, and racists are primarily rightists. Of course the implication must remain unspoken, because the evidence shows otherwise...
In Hitler's time, eugenics was indeed a major tenant of leftism. Karl Marx, for example, was a notorious anti-semite. The Democratic Party, under avowed racists such as Woodrow Wilson, worked to propagate the Ku Klux Klan. Planned Parenthood -- a leftist organization if ever there was one -- was founded to support and extend eugenic policies. In the 60s, the prime opposition the Civil Rights Act came from -- (guess who?) -- Democrats! And even today, most conservatives oppose affirmative action on the grounds it is simply another form of racism, and point out it implies the inferiority of people of color and argue it stacks the deck against its supposed beneficiaries.
No, Hitler's racism was very much in line with the standard leftist policies of his time.
Militarism over Pacifism
Here, as with so many of his arguments, the author yet again relies on another unspoken assumption: Leftists must be pacifists. Of course, that's absurd: the kind of state control mandated by Marxism, internally, requires a police state to enforce. (I mean, what if some poor widow doesn't want to give up her property or land?)
Red China, the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, and other socialist states have had been highly militaristic.
Oh, wait, I forgot, we're using a different definition of socialism: a system of government which has never even been tried. Well, those states weren't laissez-faire capitalists, that's for sure.
Further, contrary to the author's line of argument, even Karl Marx himself wasn't a pacifist, opposed to all violence:
After the March Revolution, Marx went to Cologne and founded there the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, ... the only paper which represented the standpoint of the proletariat within the democratic movement of the time, as shown in its unreserved championship of the Paris June insurgents of 1848... When the Prussian coup d'etat took place in November 1848, the Neue Rheinische Zeitung called upon the people, at the head of each issue, to refuse to pay taxes and to meet violence with violence.
Further, just like Adolf Hitler, Marx and Engels advocated war when it suited their political purposes:
The Neue Rheinische Zeitung, relying upon the experience of the French Revolution, advocated the following tactics: War with Russia, it seemed, was the only means of saving the Revolution in western Europe. The defeat of the Paris proletariat was the first blow at the Revolution. The history of the Great French Revolution showed that it had been the attack of the Coalition upon France that supplied the impulse for the strengthening of the revolutionary movement. The moderate parties had been thrown aside. The leadership had been taken over by those parties which were able to repel most energetically the external attack. As a result of the attack by the Coalition, France had been declared a republic on August 10, 1792. Marx and Engels expected that a war of the reactionaries against the new Revolution would lead to similar results. That is why they kept on criticising Russia in the columns of their paper. Russia was constantly being pointed out as the power behind Austrian and German reaction. Each editorial tried to prove that war with Russia was the sole means of saving the Revolution. The democratic elements were being prepared for this war as for the only way out. Marx and Engels maintained that war with Russia would give the needed jolt to awaken all the revolutionary passions of the German people. Guided by this view, Marx and Engels defended every oppositional, every revolutionary tendency against the established order.
Not only did Marx advocate warfare, but he also advocated terrorism (my emphasis added):
The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism.
So much for socialism being inherantly pacifistic! Or will we now attempt to claim that even Marx and Engels weren't really socialists?
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy
Next, the author shows Hitler was opposed to democracy and favored an authoritarian government, with quotes like:
There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man.
For some reason, this is supposed to show Hitler was a political conservative, neglecting, of course, that political conservatism, by it's very definition, is nothing if not distrust of the enlargment and expansion of governmental power.
Of, and we must also, of course, accept the absurd idea conservatives simply hate democracy.
Think about it today: Which party wants to put the government in charge of more areas of life? Which party constantly argues against the "tyranny of the majority"? Which party is trying to get their goals implemented by "wise" activist judges, bypassing the democratic process entirely?
Why, then, would we imagine Hitler was the opposite of that?
Capitalism over Marxism
Another set of quotes is produced to show Hitler opposed Germany's Marxist Communists. All quite true, but he never shows why this would make Hitler an advocate of free markets! Is the author unaware that most modern leftists also disavow the label "Marxist"?
Again, we need an unspoken assumption to make this work:
Anyone opposed to a group of lefitsts must be a rightist.
Of course, that's stupid, also. Being opposed to a group of leftists doesn't make you a rightist. If so, the Menshevik Communists must have been right-wingers because they opposed the Bolsheviks! That's like arguing Protestants were actually atheists because they opposed Catholicism.
No, Hitler wasn't trying to be a free-market capitalist. His party name designated what he was trying to do quite clearly: He wanted to create a patriotic form of socialism which avoided some of the inefficiencies of Marxism. As Goebbels confirms:
The author of the article stated that the two symbols which are to-day opposed to one another, namely that of Bolshevism and National Socialism, stand for regimes which "in essential structure are similar and in many of their laws-their buttresses-are identical. The similarity is moreover increasing".
And, as if that didn't nail it, here's Hitler's views on capitalism:
We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.
Yeah, sure Hitler was a huge fan of capitalism.
Realism over Idealism
Here, the author is apparently arguing that Hitler must have been a conservative because Hitler was a "realist", not an idealist!
Of course, this is silly, Hitler was quite the idealist. Yes, he was often pragmatic in running the government -- except for that little war-on-two-fronts thing -- but he was also quite the idealist. Complete world domination? A thousand years of rule? Absolute racial purity? The birth of a new superman-race of mythical purity?
This is one of the more bizarre argument I've ever heard. It's as if the author wants to claim that only rightists could compentantly manage the day-to-day workings of a government. It's a fine complement, but gee, I'm not sure he really wants to stretch his case that far in order to include Hitler among the right...
Vegetarianism
The author characterises Hitler's beliefs as "Meat-eating over vegetarianism", despite admitting Hitler was a vegetarian! How duplicitous!
The author then attempts to dispense with Hitler's vegetarianism by saying it was of a "different sort" that of liberals, who practice it over concern of ethical treatment of animals. The author omits evidence which shows Hitler's concern for the ethical treatment of animals, and does not mention that Hitler banned animal experimentation.
Instead, to prove his point (err, to rather to disprove it, I'd say) the author cites Hitler, after his girlfriend's death, asserting that eating the meat of an animal is the same as eating the meat of a person!
Curiously, shortly after her death, Hitler looked with disdain on a piece of ham being served during breakfast and refused to eat it, saying it was like eating a corpse.
From this, the author concludes his vegetarism was a "phobia", and thus not based in an equivalence between animals and people!
Shows the similarity between PETA and Hitler remarkbly well, I'd say.
It also shows you something about the lengths this author will go to deny the obvious.
Gun Control
The author sets up a straw man in order to knock it down, quoting:
They did not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been carefully recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as evidence.
Who said they went door to door? Who alleges the Nazis "rode to power" by confiscating guns?
Instead gun control and registration was an important tool for protecting power, once established, not gaining it. While not prohibitionary, the law gave the authorities the information and discretion they needed to deal with minority groups.
Here's an actual conservative argument about such, in The National Review:
Significantly, the Weimar law required the registration of most lawfully owned firearms, as do the laws of some American states. In Germany, the Weimar registration program law provided the information which the Nazis needed to disarm the Jews and others considered untrustworthy...
On November 9, 1938, the Nazis launched the Kristallnacht, pogrom, and unarmed Jews all over Germany were attacked by government-sponsored mobs. In conjunction with Kristallnacht, the government used the administrative authority of the 1938 Weapons Law to require immediate Jewish surrender of all firearms and edged weapons, and to mandate a sentence of death or 20 years in a concentration camp for any violation.
Even after 1938, the German gun laws were not prohibitory. They simply gave the government enough information and enough discretion to ensure that victims inside Germany would not be able to fight back.
As the author asserts, the Nazi gun registration program was similar, and in some cases, less restrictive than some in the US. And some conservatives cite this example to show the potential dangers in those.
If we had to decide whether Hitler was closer to Gun Control, Inc. or the NRA regarding gun registration, where would you place him?
Religion
Supposedly, Hitler's use of religion makes him a rightist. Yet the author admits otherwise in his introduction:
Hitler's views on religion were complex. Although ostensibly an atheist, he considered himself a cultural Catholic, and frequently evoked God, the Creator and Providence in his writings.
And how is this different than the Democratic Party of today, which is largely staffed by those hostile to traditional Judeo/Christian beliefs, but are currently trying to speak the language of faith?
The author goes on to show that Hitler admired the church's ability to control people, and exploited the Catholic church of his day. Points all granted, well and good.
But how does this make him a rightist?
China, an atheistic state, has a number of established state churches used to control believers. Are they rightists? The National Council of Churches is led by long-time liberal Democrat Robert Edgar, gives exclusively to leftist causes, supports Castro and other leftist dictatorships, pushes a theologically "liberal" form of Christianity, and has many mainstream Protestant denominations as members. Are they then "rightists" because they use these churches to their politican ends?
No, neither speaking the language of faith nor manipulating religious organizations makes one a rightist.
To the contrary, Hitler's antagonism to traditional (i.e. "conservative") Christianity is well documented; and, while it's totally reasonable to complain that the Catholic church conspired with Hitler, this doesn't prove anything in particular about Hitler's own religious beliefs or motivations.
Further, it seems dishonest that the author omits important Hitler quotes like the following in order to make his case:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.
And:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.
There are plenty more like those here.
Whether one would agree with the characterization of Hitler's own beliefs as a naturalistic form of paganism (which is how they seem to me), or not, one thing is clear: Hitler spoke publicly in vague terms about faith, enlisted and manipulated religious organizations, but was personally atheistic and hostile to traditional Jewish and Christian beliefs.
Again, how is this so different than many leftists today?
Miscellaneous Other Arguments
The author makes a number of other strange arguments, many of which simply boil down to a series of leftists slams against conservatives: Hitler was "anti-intellectual" -- and so are those dumb conservatives! Hitler was an exclusivist, just like those racist conservatives!
In this, he relies more upon a number of specious ad homen argument rather than the genuine definition of a conservative: Someone who tends to distrust the power of the state, and wants to make changes in small, measure steps rather than through revolution. Hitler was quite the opposite of this.
Conclusion
While the article in question does include a number of quotes from Hitler, it usually either fails to show why a given quote supports the author's contention (e.g. Hitler's opposition to Marxism doesn't show he believed in capitalism), or fails to explain why the cited attribute would make Hitler more a rightist than a leftist (e.g. German patriotism).
Intead, the author uses ad homen arguments (rightist are anti-intellectual racists), omitted data (such as Hitler's ban on animal experimentation and omitted quotes about Christianity), private definitions (socialism has never been tried), straw man arguments (conservatives claim Hitler rose to power using gun control), contradicting evidence (Hitler's vegetarianism cited to show he believed in "meat eating") and flawed reasoning (only conservatives can be opposed to Marxists!).
Amazingly bad reasoning, but what else can you do when the evidence is so heavily stacked against you?
I guess one could just change one's mind. :-)
You are truly deceived and would have done well in Hilter's Germany.
-- You are truly deceived and would have done well in Hilter's Germany.
Nice argument. Where are your facts and dates? Where is your logical argument? Oh right.. you're an idiot who can't muster anything other than insults.
Whwn right wing extremists can't make a logical argument, they just redefine words. It makes no difference that Hitler was defined as a right wing extremist for the past 8o years...in fact, was the very embodiment of right wing thought...modern inheritors of his extremist philosophies have given up on giving credit to their philosophical founder and attempted to label him a 'leftist'.
His ego aside, Hitler would have heartily approved of such a propaganda tactic.
Whwn right wing extremists can't make a logical argument...
I'm not making a logical argument? Looks like I make all kinds of them above. You simply pretend they're not there and don't answer them, or propose a counter-argument. So this bit about "can't make a logical argument" appears to simply be projection.
... they just redefine words.
So which words am I supposedly redefining here, Bill? Am I wrong for saying Hitler was a "socialist"? If so, then which of my arguments above, to that effect, is in error?
Or am I guilty of redefining "right wing" to mean a political group characterised by a distrust of large, powerful government? Hmmm... then aren't "progressives" guilty of the same thing, since they also use that term for any opponent they view as anti-government?
Or are we supposed to believe that belief in socialism itself is was a "right wing" phenomenon? Talk about needing to win arguments by redefining words!
Do be specific, Bill.
It makes no difference that Hitler was defined as a right wing extremist for the past 8o years...
Oh, I disagree: it makes quite a LOT of difference. When people are taught something which is untrue -- particularly for a long period of time -- they will fail to learn the lessons history has to offer.
I think I understand your problem here: Just like me, you were always told that Hitler was a "right winger". I DO acknowledge that: I was taught the same thing, and would love to know where the idea came from.
But then again, we were taught a LOT of things which are now widely understood to be untrue: I was taught that the sexes were basicly the same, that socialism worked, that the Soviets meant well, and that the KKK was more closely aligned with Republicans than Democrats, and that JFK and Jackie were the very model of a happy family.
None of these things turned out to be true.
But to question a long-held, common belief is NOT to "redefine" a term, Bill. All kinds of long-held beliefs can be questioned, and even turn out to be false.
But apparently it never dawned on you to question when the "right wing" was ever in favor of socialism (when was that, again?), and you were never exposed to evidence that the political left was historically racist. (Again, let's remember that the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, was the political arm of the KKK.) Nor any of the other evidence presented above.
So you're shocked by all this, and, rather than engage the debate, you simply say I'm "redefining terms" by undermining a cherished belief of yours. In your lexicon, apparently the definition of "Nazi" is supposed to have been "political conservative", not "Nationalist Socialist" and all that actually historically entailed.
So it is you, Bill, who are trying to redefine terms to make it so, implying your long-held belief is true "by definition" (it is not), thus insulating your beliefs from logical argument or historical counter-evidence.
And no, it is not the right wing who attempts to re-define each and every term when it becomes inconvenient: We saw the same kind of re-definition of terms happen after the fall of the Soviet Union: Suddenly, the press (who mostly lean left) were calling Communists "right wing"! Hilarious! If it weren't for the blogophere and other alternative media, our children might have grown up thinking that Communism, too, was more closely aligned with the political left than conservatives!
Being a leftist means never having to say you're sorry. Just blame your opponents for your last set of mistakes. (Heh, and claim their successes: When Reagan died I heard newcasters trying to argue he was really a "liberal"! Hilarious!)
... modern inheritors of his extremist philosophies have given up on giving credit to their philosophical founder and attempted to label him a 'leftist'.
Really? What American "right wing" philosophies originate from Hitler, Bill? Cradle-to-grave welfare? (Oh wait, what's on the left.) Support for unions? (Oh wait, that's on the left today, too!) Claims that the Jews are undermining world peace? (Oh wait, that's a leftist belief too!) Belief that blacks are inherantly inferior and can't compete on a level playing field? (Oh wait, that's on the left also!) Claims that a "secret organization" controled by banking and global trade is running the world? (Oops! Another leftist belief!) Environmentalism? (Yet another!) Banning animal experimentation? (Oh-oh! Another Nazi doctrine which is on the 'left', not the 'right')
So I can see why you decline to name those "right wing" ideas which originated with Hitler: that would mean thinking and learning about Nazi beliefs, which might be a bit too uncomfortable for a person who, it turns out, shares quite a few of them.
The left got most of it's ideas from Karl Marx. And, as Hitler noted, so did he:
"I have learnt a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit," Hitler went on. "I don't mean their tiresome social doctrine or the materialist conception of history, or their absurd 'marginal utility' theories and so on. But I have learnt from their methods. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it. Look at the workers' sports clubs, the industrial cells, the mass demonstrations, the propaganda leaflets written specially for the comprehension of masses; all these new methods of political struggle are essentially Marxist in origin. All that I had to do was take over these methods and adapt them to our purpose. I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realise its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order. ... there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will." (Hitler Speaks [1])
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." [2]
Isn't it amazing what the historical facts show, yet leftist continue to deny the truth. Is it that they merely can't handle the truth, or is it something much deeper? Your analysis of this issue is spot on. Hitler had a deeply held belief that capitalism was unfair and exploited the worker.
Take for a moment the attitude he had towards Jewish people. He thought they were rich, greedy, and horded the wealth so that German workers would suffer. He went so far as to extract gold fillings from the teeth of Concentration Camp victims to redistribute to the "underprivileged German Worker". Keep up the good work, maybe some day the truth will be taught in our schools.
Randy
Redefining words? That's funny. After reading this it is obvious that the writer did research and actively used his research in presenting his point and refuting the point of the author of the book.
I had a Comp I teacher that was nearly impossible to please and I'd think this article would get a good grade.
So, to those who think this is hogwash, I dare you to refute what was said here, point by point, by doing research and presenting such research throughout said article.
So far, those who think this is hogwash haven' offered anything that holds a candle to it.
Except that monarchists are rightists, which contradicts your definition of conservatives as people opposed to the concentration of power.
You do realize all of Hitler's behavior is why they have the world "totalitarian".
Left wingers are people who want to abolish existing hierarchies and create a more equitable distribution.
Right wingers wish for a return to a glorious past and are fine with inequality- in fact it is the basis for their beliefs.
Hitler wanted to return the Aryan race to its former glory and eliminate the Ubermensch.
lets see where that fits.
Samuel - I'm not sure I agree with all of your definitions.
Except that monarchists are rightists, which contradicts your definition of conservatives as people opposed to the concentration of power.
Left wingers are people who want to abolish existing hierarchies and create a more equitable distribution.
Monarchists were rightists in the French revolution, quite true. But that fact misleads a lot of people about what the term means. "Rightists" are generally those who advocate values associated with the bible (including atheists who advocate such values). Leftists tend to be those who advocate salvation/paradise via non-religious means. Communists, for instance, claimed to be pursuing "more equality" but the result of their actions was concentration of power. Similarly, the French revolutionaries wanted "liberty, egalitarianism and brotherhood" but got the committee for public safety and Napoleon.
However most conservatives consider democracy as further to the "right" than monarchy and there's a lot of biblical evidence to affirm that democracy is valued above monarchy (though monarchy, especially constitutional monarchy which enforced the law, was considered an acceptable form of government by many conservatives worthy of obedience.)
It's worth noting that men like John Bramhall (an archbishop) were among the chief opponents of Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan."
Right wingers wish for a return to a glorious past and are fine with inequality- in fact it is the basis for their beliefs.
Hm? Religious values and not 'a return to the past' is the basis for right wing beliefs. There are plenty of things which existed in the past which Right Wingers are opposed to.
and are fine with inequality- in fact it is the basis for their beliefs.
Could you please explain what you mean by "the basis for their beliefs?"
I'm sorry- did you hear that? It is the 4 billion people who aren't Christians- and a large number of them aren't rightests. In fact a good many Hindus and Muslims are in their ranks and they don't like being told they are stealing values from the bible. ESPECIALLY the Hindu's.
Not to mention that this ignores everyone before Christianity. Yeah- you had right wing Romans and left wing Romans. Same thing in Greece. Oligarchy vs mob rule.
Rightest seek a return to the past, inequality, emphasize "moral values" and obedience and look down on deviants of any kind.
Leftists vary from the utopian to the authoritarian at their extreme.
Monarchy has ALWAYS been further to the right than democracy- I don't know where you are getting your "monarchy is liberal compared to democracy". If you look at history in Europe, the liberals were those advocating for a gradual transition to a republic, the Leftist (known, ironically enough as Repuvlicans) wanted to establish a classesless society and the conservatives wanted to keep the monarchy.
Don't confuse conservative and liberal with right and left wing. The second two usually refer to the less sane sections of the groups.
The reason the bishop was against Leviathin were because the book was entirely secular- no mention of good in the traditional provence of "divine right of kings". Not all atheists are leftists- Hobbes was an authoritarian. Of course, he lived through the English civil war, so it is understandable.
In the United States the basis for almost all right wing beliefs is a return to a glorious past. Conservativism is slightly, but not much, differant. They wish to overturn Roe v Wade, gut everything the liberals have made since the New Deal, eliminate social security, ban gay marriage, etc.
Sure. Inequality is the basis for alot of their beliefs. Don't misconstrue me- race isn't necesarily a requirement. They simply believe that, unlike leftist who view inequality as something bad, right wngers view it as something good. They are extremely antiwomen's rights and want as little a safety net as possible.
Of course, conservatives are differant, but in the US conservatives don't control the Republican party. Conservatives tend to be fiscal and social conservatives who don't like social change and want as little spending as possible. In fact, they tend to be like progressives- for example, Otto von Bismark (conservative through and through) started the worlds first social security program in order to deprive the socialist party of strngth. Conservatives are basically people who like things to remain nice, stable, the same and quiet. Progressives are the left wing equivalent.
Here- I'll list the differances between left and right wing totalitarianism:
Dictator
maybe-always
Property
state owned- corporateship style
Secret police
yes-yes
Women's rights
Equality-traditional roles
Abortion
Usually-never
Church and religion
antitheistic or secular-nationalistic
Goals
Mankind-limited
Race
Equal-racist
Elections
Yes-no
Prisoners
Brainwashing-slave labor or execution
Enemies
Capitalists-communists
Favorite target
feudalists-communists
Dominant feture
Nurture-nature
Slavery is
illegal-institutionalized
Bread lines
yes-no
trains run on time
yes-yes (except Italy- the trains NEVER run on time)
parlimentary
maybe-no
dissidents are
mentally ill-sent to firing squad
forces people to
confess-dig their own graves
dreams of
conquering/liberating the world-mass genocide
Not to mention that this ignores everyone before Christianity. Yeah- you had right wing Romans and left wing Romans. Same thing in Greece. Oligarchy vs mob rule.
The term "right wing" and "left wing" comes from the French revolution, and was used for the first time, then, in a specifically Christian context. The Romans never used it of themselves. It may be applied to them retroactively.
I don't know where you are getting your "monarchy is liberal compared to democracy".
From the previous comment where I defined "rightist" as deriving from biblically based values. That definition derives from the French revolution.
There may have been more rightist monarchists during the French revolution. I'm not sure how lines were drawn during the American revolution. But that's why I think the origin of the term tends to confuse people. I tried to be explicit about this.
The left tends to have some very peculiar definitions for 'leftists' and 'rightist' so I understand we may be using words that mean different things to each other. I've tried to cite the origin of the word and the reasons for its origin as best I could. Could you do the same? Where do you get your definitions from? I'm not saying this as criticism. Just that where standards come from help to establish or deny their validity.
Of course, one biblical value that Hitler did have was killing homosexuals. That holds for communists as well. In that sense, they were further to the right than America was.
In the United States the basis for almost all right wing beliefs is a return to a glorious past.
But not simply because it was the past. Many conservatives don't say that they want to bring back slavery. They're selective, and their selectivity is based on biblical values.
I don't know where you are getting your "monarchy is liberal compared to democracy"
p.s. What I said, specifically, was that Monarchy was to the left of Democracy. The phrase 'liberal' is an entirely different kettle of fish, and the meaning of the word seems to be currently in the process of being redefined from an older meaning, closer to "libertarian" to a newer meaning closer to "socialist-progressive."
I didn't want to go through the process of providing support for more terms than I had to, so I tried to limit the number that I used.
Samuel: You've written a long laundry list of things "right wing" totalitarians allegedly do. Based on what evidence? (For example, forcing people to "dig their own graves" -- please give a specific example.) Will you refer to Hitler? If so, you're simply engaged in circular reasoning, citing Hitler to show what rightists allegedly do, in order to (you think) refute an argument that Hitler wasn't on the right at all.
Until you can list what you think of as "right wing" totalitarians, your list can't be evaluated. (Or perhaps you'd prefer it that way?)
I agree with Ryan, that monarchy is to the "left" of your typical right-winger. Look at North Korea: The father conquerers, and hands the regime down to the son. How is that not a typical monarchy? The same is going on Cuba: Nobody elected Raul Castro; he's simply the closest blood relative. Are these now "right wing" regimes?
Many socialists argue that the "Communist" regimes weren't "true" communist regimes. Well, if they weren't truly Communist, then what were they? There's a reasonable argument to be made that many of them were, or ultimately became (China, for example) what we'd now term "Fascist". The state didn't own all business outright, but was free to completely control it at will. (Even in the Communist Eastern Europe, they allowed private farms, for example -- but the state could always commandeer.) Only one political party was allowed. Often this also includes a form of religion controlled by the state, rather than outright suppression.
Yet who is or was enamored with these regimes? It's certainly not the "right wing." Oliver Stone waxes on and on about how Castro is "a father" to his people, and the expression and protector of all things Cuban. How is that different than monarchy, again? Stone is not a rightist. It was college leftists who marched in the 1970s "carrying pictures of Chairman Mao" and revering him a kind of almost-divine ruler.
It's always odd to see someone argue "Well, this is right wing" and then list goals or modes of operation that the "right wing" is (and always has been) completely opposed to -- or things which are found far more on the left than the right.
In fact a good many Hindus and Muslims are in their ranks and they don't like being told they are stealing values from the bible. ESPECIALLY the Hindu's.
What are you hallucinating about here? Are you arguing that people are saying that polytheistic, polygynous Hindu society had Christian values? Who is making that argument? Seems to me, I'm only seeing it from you.
Monarchy has ALWAYS been further to the right than democracy
Then why are most right wingers opposed to king-like powers? (And even the few who think fondly of some particular monarch are only talking about symbolic leaders like Denmark's or England's royal family -- not rulers with the actual king-like powers we find in history.) And why do right wingers revere the Constitution, which was used to eliminate monarchic influence? The closest thing the US has had to a king was FDR -- and the closest to a royal dynasty was the Kennedy clan. Ask a group of right-wingers how they feel about each of those.
Your arguments seem unsustainable when facts and evidence are brought in.
[The right wing] wishes to overturn Roe v Wade, gut everything the liberals have made since the New Deal, eliminate social security, ban gay marriage, etc.
Not because these things are new, but because they're unconstitutional. If I lived in Russia, I wouldn't want to return to the "good old days" of Communism. If I were Greek, I wouldn't long for the "good old days" when men were encouraged to have recreational sex with just about everyone but their wives. Right wingers cherish small government, individual freedom, and a select number of traditions that "work" (such as the sexually faithful man/woman-based family) -- they're not simply those who blindly wish for the past, whatever it might have contained.
Regarding inequality: the left has always used "inequality" as a basis for appeal to be given more political power. Hitler exploited racial differences, the Communist tried to get people angry about "class" differences, the modern American left focuses on income inequality, etc. In each case, the appeal is: "Just put me in power and I'll eliminate these racial/class/social/economic differences which are the source of all your problems!"
The left is often mad at the right for not focusing on inequality, and claims, falsely, the right "believes in" inequality of whatever kind (meaning only that we tolerate it). In truth, we simply recognize inequality is a fact of life, and that it's not something we can engineer our way out of, whatever Obama may promise. ;-). Our answers to these inequalities are private, and voluntary, and often (disappointingly, for the left) do not entail government coercion.
Also: The left also focuses on equal results -- everyone being the same at the end -- whether the same income, or same genetic appearance (Russia had a good bit of that, too). The right wing focuses on equality of rules (same laws or entrance criteria should apply to all) and is fine with letting private citizens decide how to react to the outcome.
The opposite of "being fine" with inequality is a vigorous campaign claiming to eliminate it -- which necessarily means gaining control of every aspect of society. (Which is precisely why the left likes this focus!)
Right wingers wish for a return to a glorious past and are fine with inequality- in fact it is the basis for their beliefs.
Regarding the "glorious past": Rousseau thought primitive man lived in an idyllic "state of nature" and that we should return to -- that didn't make him a right winger. Margaret Mead fabricated her anthropological studies of primitive peoples to promote the same vision -- and she was a "progressive" of the left, not a conservative from the right. The "greens" today promote the same vision.
The US Founding Fathers wanted to throw off most government interference -- something without much historical precedent! Are their ideas therefore "left wing"?
Right wingers do generally revere helpful things from the past, but (speaking as one) we don't think of the past as unexceptionally "glorious". And the question is which past one wants to return to, or (more accurately) which parts of the past one wants to preserve. Many US "right wingers", for example, want to preserve our Constitution (the written one, that is), but also would prefer (for example) educational vouchers -- a completely new policy.
And, again, you're probably circularly thinking of Hitler in this case, who was a socialist. The right wing does X because Hitler was on the right. Now you follow up with: Hitler was on the right because he did X. This is fallacious reasoning, Samuel:
Hitler wanted to return the Aryan race to its former glory and eliminate the Ubermensch. lets see where that fits.
Do you bother to look any of this up before spouting? Clearly not.
"Ubermensch" is a concept created by Nietzche, a man who Hitler hugely admired. Nietzch argued that God was dead, and the superior man (Superman, Ubermensch) needed to throw off Judeo-Christian-based moral values and achieve power through force of will -- e.g. Hitler's constant talk of "will to power."
Hitler wasn't trying to eliminate the Ubermenschen, he was trying, as he understood it, to create them.
The implication that racism wasn't a typical element of leftism has already been refuted above. Please read it and respond, or drop the allegation. (This is not a suggestion.)
I'm using it retroactively.
The definitions are from wiki, here, here,
here
The definition I'm using applies throughout history and not just to Christians post 1700.
Monarchy is definately not to the left of democracy- the only governments in the bible are monarchies, sanctioned by God.
The death squads on the Eastern Front- the Einsatzgruppen. They often took people to the woods and forced them to dig their own graves.
The following are right wing totalitarians: Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochi, Nazi puppet states and (maybe) Imperial Japan.
I don't know- in North Korea they do claim divine right. Many other Left wing dictatorships were party affairs though.
It is called a cult of personality. It is a characteristic of totalitarianism.
Your definition of right winger is conservative. The two are differant Tim. And "glorious past" doesn't have to have any true basis in history.
Right wingers believe that inequality is good and justified- that the foreigners are subhuman and should be conquered. That they are supermen.
Leftism is concered with doing just that. Please don't assume liberals are the same as that- they aren't.
Also, for "equal rules" see corporate welfare. Not everyone plays by the same rules.
The founding Fahters wished to establish a Republic and a strong central government. They wished to do so to prevent problems like the Shays rebellion, protect trade, end strife between colonies and increase the nations stature. They werent Leftists or rightists.
Actually, Neitche didn't want to eliminate the Ubermenschen- he held it up as the opposite future to the Superman. Of course, he was vague and confusing as always which is why Hitler could use the term.
Racism is not a required feature of Leftism. It is reuired for right wing ideologies. There have been left wing racism, but it is usually the more "seperate culture and values tripe".
View others as subhuman and judging them on their ancestry is firmly right wing. Leftist regimes are noted for forced equality- remember?
Looked at racism section. Couple things.
Marx was Jewish. He was antisemetic for the same reason Martin Luther and the prophet were.
Planned Parenthood were progressives.
You forgot to mention that the segregationists were arguing aginst the use of government power... and that they switched to the Republicans in the 60s.
Affirmive action is based on the idea the deck is currently stacked by society and that you need to unstate it o give equal footing to those equally talented. There- I just made it sound like a conservative equal footing statement. Or how about "the government doesn't interfere with how colleges run themselves"
Antisemitism has been a major feature of the far left and right. See Huey long, France, Father Coughlin, the protocals of Zion and others for right wing verions.
Monarchy is definately not to the left of democracy- the only governments in the bible are monarchies, sanctioned by God.
Have you read the whole bible, so that you can say what all the governments were?
When the Israelites demand a king from God, God says that that's evidence that they've forsaken him, but he gives them one. A constitutional monarchy (Even David was bound by the laws, to the point that he couldn't have a sexual rival killed directly. He had to send him off to battle instead.)
But the bible clearly expresses that a monarchy is not required.
link
link
The following are right wing totalitarians: Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochi, Nazi puppet states and (maybe) Imperial Japan.
Tim noted that it would be circular logic to say "Hitler was right wing" and then to use that as evidence for what right wing governments do. It fails to address whether Hitler was really right wing or not. Do you see what's going on there?
The founding Fahters wished to establish a Republic and a strong central government.
Hm? Samuel, the founding fathers established a weak central government. That was the whole point of reserving numerous powers to the states and people, separation of powers and so forth. The federal government has grown in power since that time.
Marx was Jewish.
He may have been culturally Jewish, and of Jewish ancestry. But he was not a practicing Jew.
If you want to use a racial definition of Judiasm, what you're saying is true. But Marx strictly opposed Jewish values and thought the Jewish religion and its values were an impediment to the Jewish people.
You forgot to mention that the segregationists were arguing aginst the use of government power
They were all for "states rights." They didn't want equal treatment before the law for individuals. so they were certainly for government power. Tim can address the political history more efficiently than I can, since he's written some articles on the topic.
You still haven't addressed Tim's arguments though. Are people on the left, for instance, more "conservative" because they idealize tribal culture. You seem to be familiar with this idealization yourself; tribes were supposedly "more egalitarian," supposedly monogamous, peaceful etc. But dig a little deeper and the evidence doesn't necessarily support this idealized view. Many leftists think genetic engineering is evil and 'want to return to a glorious earlier time.' Does that make them "right wing?"
Are people who think that increased CO2 is horribly bad and any environmental change is destructive, whether it hurts people or not, "conservatives" because they want to return the environment to an idealized earlier age?
Currently these groups are associated with the "left."
First, praise where due:
Looked at racism section.
Good, and thank you. That's a small improvement, anyway. Of course, you should have looked at it and thought about it (not to mention the surrounding text) before commenting the first time.
Monarchy is definately not to the left of democracy- the only governments in the bible are monarchies, sanctioned by God.
If so, you know nothing about the bible. All [correction: almost all; see comment below] governments in the world, until very recently, have been monarchies. Many still are, in effect if not in name. (Look at any "left wing" protest today, and you will see large numbers of people sympathetic to those governments.)
Second, no, the bible hated the idea of monarchy. What Ryan says is correct: The government God gave Israel in the bible was smaller than the smallest of governments seen today -- not quite anarchy, but smaller and less powerful than even most libertarians would advocate today.
Later, wanting to emulate other nations, the people of Israel asked for a monarchy, and God attempts to talk them out of it, using all the same arguments "right wingers" use today. This argument is so well known that American Revolutionary Thomas Paine (a deist) even quoted the bible's condemnation of monarchy in his famous tract Common Sense.
And Ryan makes an excellent point about Israel, even after that change, still being a kind of "Constitutional monarchy" bound by rules, unlike many other monarchs who could typically do anything they wished. (Great insight!)
Later: The founding Fahters wished to establish a Republic and a strong central government.
No, the Founding Fathers wished to establish a weak central government. That's why the Federal gov't was so tiny until rather recently; that's why we have a divided Federal government; that's why the Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on Federal power. That's why income tax was initially unconstitutional. That's why the US, until the 20th century, always had a problem raising and funding a sizable military.
Your ignorance here is stunning.
Your last two comments (quoted above) make me sad, though not because of you. (Not your fault.) Your statements indicate (a) you've never been given even a rough outline of the biblical history of Israel, (b) that you have never been taught about some of the most basic and important ideas which animated the American Revolutionaries, and (c) you apparently have no idea how our Federal government was initially structured, and how drastically it was limited in response to the Colonies' worries about centralized power.
Its sad to witness, firsthand, how terribly shallow our schools have become.
Ryan is also right in stating your arguments are still circular: You're still citing Hitler to show what non-leftist regimes do without substantially addressing (much less refuting) the substance of the article above.
You do the same thing again with your "supermen" argument here, failing to engage my point that the idea comes out of an explicit appeal to throw off JudeoChristian values. History also shows us it that the creation of "supermen" has been a consistent characteristic of left wing governments: from Cuba's/USSR's "New Soviet Man", the Cambodian attempt to bring man back into union with nature, etc.
Again, regarding inequality: Again, Hitler did not think of inequality as good. Please attempt to recall that he was trying to stamp out every trace of racial variance. Again, in this, he was not a trace different than attempts to stamp out class differences (Communism), income differences (Socialism), cultural differences (Cambodia), etc. Hitler was also a socialist, believing in crade-to-grave healthcare, etc.
Actually, Neitche didn't want to eliminate the Ubermenschen- he held it up as the opposite future to the Superman.
Samuel: Please pay attention. "Ubermensch" is simply the German word for "Superman." They are synonyms, not opposites as you keep assuming. Do at least little reading, please, on a topic before you start speaking 'authoritatively' on it, okay? Otherwise, you end up looking foolish, since everyone else understands what's going on.
You forgot to mention that the segregationists were arguing aginst the use of government power... and that they switched to the Republicans in the 60s.
I didn't "forget to mention" that -- it's simply not true. As I pointed out above, during the 1960s, it was the Democrats who filibustered and voted against the Civil Rights act. That indicates that during the 1960s, it was the Democrats, not Republicans, who were most opposed to civil liberties for blacks. You can go look this up yourself, should you decide to stop appearing lazy.
You have to back up your assertions with historical facts, Samuel. Simply stating your wishes isn't a form of evidence. I know the schools have been letting you get away with this, but that just doesn't cut it out here in the real world.
Your definition of right winger is conservative.
Again, I simply use the words as they'll be understood by readers. I am a conservative, and I am called "right wing" -- as is every conservative today. Neither term would describe someone (nor a set of beliefs) found on the left.
The topic of discussion here, again, is whether Hitler was on the left. If his beliefs are the opposite of those found on the right (how-ever you'd prefer to label it) then it indicates it's inappropriate to lump him there. Even moreso if his programs and views are demonstrated (see above) to be in every way typical of leftism at the time.
Also, for "equal rules" see corporate welfare.
Because they are politicians, elected Republicans and Democrats both tend to hand out a lot of corporate welfare. (See the Democrat's most recent attempt to bail out Countrywide, for example.)
Conversely, the base of both parties oppose corporate welfare: Democrats because they're generally anti-corporate, and conservatives because we favor competition. If you look at the people supporting the "Porkbusters" project, most of their constituents are from "the right", though there are a small number of principled Democrats involved. (Frankly, I wish there were more.)
So you're incorrect in implying that those towards the right tend to favor corporate welfare. We most certainly don't.
Regarding antisemitism: Yes, Marx had some Jewish ancestry. So, I have been told, did Hitler. Is that supposed to prove they were incapable of antisemitism??? To detect antisemitism, shouldn't you look at their actual words and beliefs?
Marx and Engels were virulently antisemitic. They were eagerly anticipating a "race war" which would engulf Europe, and came up with the idea that "solution" was needed for what to do about the Jews.
It's true there were some right-wing racists, antisemites, etc. It was sadly rather common. But the left built entire doctrines (and even predictions of future history) around race; favoring the eugenic ideal of using the power of government to weed out bad genes. (An ideal we see resurfacing again on the left today.)
Affirmive action is based on the idea the deck is currently stacked by society and that you need to unstate it o give equal footing to those equally talented.
No, "affirmative action" is NOT based on lessening government power. Not in the slightest. Those seeking affirmative action are not just hoping the State will use racial quotas & differing standards -- but are also actively seeking to see them imposed on private businesses and colleges, whether they like them or not.
There- I just made it sound like a conservative equal footing statement.
Samuel: When you think you've produced a clever argument proving that black is white, or that left is right, that should be a "red flag" indicating you've made a mistake.
Today, you apparently think you've convinced yourself, by a clever turn of phrase, that it is "conservatives" who should most tend to favor affirmative action policies (which have their roots in contemporary neoMarxism), despite obvious evidence, all around you, to the contrary. If so: Congratulations! You're adept at self-delusion! Too bad it only makes you look foolish to others.
"Conservatives" have repeatedly heard that argument, and throughly reject it. Your theory that they should like it is again dashed on the hard rocks of a reality which does not change itself to stay in synch with your arguments.
Or how about "the government doesn't interfere with how colleges run themselves"
You're so funny! Here you are again, thinking if you can simply rephrase Affirmative Action, you can somehow convert it into a "ring wing" policy. No, Samuel, reality doesn't work like that. You have to make YOUR WORDS match REALITY, not expect things to work the other way around.
The argument that some person or organization should make their own decisions doesn't automatically lead us to agree with every policy they might embrace. I think corporations should be free to burn stacks of money, but that doesn't imply doing so must be a wise policy, or one I'd agree with.
Sadly, you've also described the situation incorrectly: colleges, even private ones, are largely subsidized by federal tax money. Further, it is state schools who tend to be the biggest advocates of AA, and where current legal battles are being fought. (U of Michigan, U of California, etc.) So the debate tends not to be about whether "colleges" should be able to do what they want, but about whether government should be actively subsidizing institutions who violate Federal civil liberties laws.
But yes, conservatives also think affirmative action is a bad set of polices per se, even when adopted privately and voluntarily. See Thomas Sowell's writings for a long list of problems and negative effects which result from these kinds of preferential policies.
Antisemitism has been a major feature of the far left and right. See Huey long, France, Father Coughlin, the protocals of Zion and others for right wing verions.
France? I wasn't aware France was predominantly right wing. Any student of history, noting France as the home of the "equality" revolutions, a long history of intrusive state-run social and economic programs, and frequent alliances with Communism, long reign of their Communist (Jacques Chirac's party) and Socialist (Mitterand) parties -- would undoubtedly come to the opposite impression.
Huey Long was a Democrat who believed in inheritance taxes, limits on personal income, universal health care, and having the government redistribute wealth from rich to poor. His political masterpiece was even called "Share Our Wealth". (Please read it.) I suppose, in your own private alternative reality, those are now thus "right wing" policies? ;-)
(Do you have ANY sense of embarrassment, Samuel? I just marvel to watch you. You can be wrong time after time, saying things that to me sound as stupid as "rain is dry!" "water is not liquid!" -- and yet never seem to learn how to do some research before doing the same thing again.)
Father Coughlin was opposed to Communism (because it was atheistic, not because of its collectivism) but was nonetheless a hard-left socialist. His paper was called "Social Justice", and he supported all the policies favored by "liberals" today:
Coughlin believed the best way of combating the appeal of these ideologies was the introduction of reforms that would make America a more equal society. This included industrialists paying their workers a "just and living wage" and "providing old age compensation insurance." He also denounced the greed and corruption of America's industrialists and warned about the dangers of the "concentration of wealth in the hands of the few."
Coughlin was also a huge supporter of labor unions (he even established the Automotive Industrial Workers Association), demanded that the government should take over all banks, and supported Huey Long's programs (see above). He was also a strong pacifist.
Again, how is that any different than the leftmost part of the Democratic party today? That men like Coughlin and Huey Long, who were ardent socialists, could be called, without laughing, "right wing" shows you how easy it is to brainwash certain people today -- people who uncritically repeat whatever they're told.
I'm not your enemy, Samuel. Instead, I suggest to you that whoever lied to you about these things is. Me, I hate being lied to and deceived. Don't you? Then think about who misled you here.
Hint: It wasn't Ryan or I.
Samuel - Perhaps this will clarify things a bit. The purpose of words should be to help us think more clearly and put similar things into similar groups. You can probably find people who say that "Hindu conservatives" and "Christian Conservatives" are both "Conservatives."
However using language in that way will confuse and muddle a person's thinking. A Hindu conservative is trying to "conserve" a very different set of values than an "Islamic conservative" or an "Old Soviet Conservative" or a "Christian conservative" or what have you.
If you try and use the same term, "conservative," to apply to both Christians and Hindus then that will muddle your thinking, because it applies the same word to very different things. It's important to say "Christian Conservative" or "Hindi Conservative" when speaking outside the context of American politics and culture.
This is why it's significant that the terms "Right" and "Left" originally correlated strongly with loyalty to or opposition to the Church (Which, in France, was bound up with the state, unfortunately.) If we try to apply these terms to other situations we need to be explicit about what values or religion a person is trying to conserve (right wing) or oppose (left wing.)
So think of the issue this way;
Was Hitler a "Christian Conservative" or was he trying to conserve some other set of non-Christian values?
Tim - All governments in the world, until very recently, have been monarchies.
Maybe you should qualify that? Granted, Greek democracies could be fairly exclusive and Rome was more like a republic, but they weren't all ruled by a single person. You did have oligarchies as well. The Athenians, I've heard, selected representatives by lottery.
Sakai, Japan, for instance, seems to have been some kind of anarchy or plutocracy.
Maybe you should qualify that? Granted, Greek democracies could be fairly exclusive and Rome was more like a republic...
Yes, you're quite right. There have been a few rare cases of other forms developing from time to time. So, yes, I should qualify that and only say that monarchy was by far the dominant model. Thanks!
Also, a good point about the misleading use of "conservative."
Yes, it has happened again. Internet explor died on me. I need to type faster.
So, this will be brief.
Isreal and kings
Sorry, forgot about Judges.
Hitler in list
Hitler is not being used to furnish examples.
Strong central government
Over wrote the articles of confederation
Recognized as such- branches and federalism were designed to prevent abuse of power.
Bill of rights are amendments- added as a political deal
The first true income tax was in 1798. The constitution doesn't ban that- it bans direct taxes that aren't appropriated according to representation. So income taxes aren't constitutional- but taxing arbitrarily is.
It is worth noting these rules all got tossed out the window with our first real war- the Civil War.
Now that we have a permanently mobilized army the changes are permanent.
Marx's antisemitism
Antisemeitism is hostility towards Jews as a group.
He didn't have that- he was opposed to Judaism as a religion.
Conservatives and use of federal power
Most discrimination was carried out by private individuals. For example, busing, restaurants, bathrooms, fountains. Are you telling me that the government has the power to force private individuals to stop that or not?
That was what the affirmitve action point was about- when you have to choose between government power and equality of opportunity, which do you choose?
God and monarchy
Are keep forgetting... you do believe in God right? All seeing, all knowing, all powerful? Who loses arguments to a bunch of tribesman? I'll give you that point if you agree it makes no sense what so ever.
Superman
The New Soviet Man is the opposite of superman- collectivist, learned, moral and dedicated to spreading the revolution.
Inequality amoung aryans was bad- amoung everyone else, good. Instituting slave labor and the like was the first step- Hitlers eventual plan was to unite the Aryans and crush the Slavs, driving them off the steppes. Resettled German veterans would than be granted land and guard the borders. Its all in the book!
Sorry about the misuse- I meant the word that means "underhuman".
Dixiecrats
Lets take a look at the party loyalties... wait- the South suddenly shifts from democrat to Republican in the 60s! I'd LOVE to hear your explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election#Results
Terminology
Sorry- it is confusing. My bad.
Corporate Wealthfare
It is an obcession amoung left wingers- amoung the right, it is more "the Jews" and "the bankers". These are the extremes- mainliners don't act this way.
Hitler's ancestry
Probably not. This rumor comes from the fact that his grandmother worked for a Jew and got pregnant while unmarried. Of course, if that is true that would definately be cause for hate. However, it seems unlikely. Hitler covered up his ancestry because alot of his relatives were... less than sane.
Marx and race war
Link? That is so unMarx like it sounds made up. Marx is more along the lines of "I have forseen it coming", not "soon my plans will be complete!".
Left and eugenics
They tend to be opposed to any idea that heredity has an effect- see political correctness. We are talking about people who adopted lamarkianism, the science equivalent of sympathetic magic.
France had Vichy, some of the earliest instances of facism, the Drefus affair... why do you think Stalin okayed cooperation between the communists and the socialist? To form popular fronts with France being a good example of it working. Heck, the previous election had the president in a runoff was the far right winger Jean-Marie Le Pen. He got 18% of the vote. By the way he calls for a return to Vichy and distributed a monarchist newspaper as a teen. He declares his party above policial distinctions and the establishment- they are the France party. He has made antisemetic remarks, is a xenophobe... just see the wiki page.
He certainly sounds like a facist and he has 18% of the vote.
Wiki sure makes everything easier.
If Heuy Long was such a leftist, why wasn't he a member of the communist party? He was a member of the American Party... representing the people and offering to protect them from the evil companies and he will look out for them, the little guys... just folks like them. He had his own private army, was elected into power... he is a facist.
He had all the traits
-private army
-little guy
-non-intellectual
-end social disharmony (by redistibution or cracked heads)
-elected
-above politics (when someone says they are above politics, they are full of... todays Sesame Street is brought to you by the letterS!)
Appearently Coughlin spent some of his time defending Hitler (but more critical for this program) Mussolini. The last time a socialsit defended facism was... err- never?
Lets look at the current left wing. They are paranoid conspiracy theorists who believe the government is behind everything. It is all the big faceless corporations! What is the differance? Well, they don't think militism is good. They don't care for heredity, only nurture. They believe in bottom up change and protests, not subverting the government.
In fact the only thing they have in common is they want to use government power in a certain way- in some cases they don't even want to increase it.
Hitler was a nonorthodox Christian. By that I mean he wasn't a normal believer- he believed that Christianity was created by St Paul and (everyone together now!) THE JEWS! Yes, he was crazy. However, he insisted Christ wasn't Jewish and God was on his side.
Personal view? Hitler was one of those mushy wushy Christians who believed that God was on his side. He fits the minimum criteria- to believe Christ is God's final prophet or that he is the son of God (this is because of the Mormons).
Unlike some other people, I don't think Christianity caused his antisemitism. Christianity started virulent antisemitism in Europe, but this is more the work of a nut finding confirming evidence. And, of course, convincing people he was a good leader because he is a good and faithful person, unlike those evil atheistic commies. I mean, this is a man who, when drunk attempt to take down the government and when imprisoned wrote out what his plan was for taking over Europe, before following it to the letter. This is a man who sent out researchers to find the holy grail and believed that Aryans where descended from ice giants.
So I don't blame Christians for Hitler or atheists for Stalin- I do blame Christians for the blood libel.
As for governments... tribes tend to be direct democracy, slowly morphing into chiefdoms and then kings. Exceptions occur with city states (which go all over the place). Rome sort of counts as a city state... not sure if this covers everyone adequately.
Getting off now before computer boots me off.
You said most recently Hitler in list
Hitler is not being used to furnish examples.
However you also said in your comment just previous tot that one;
The death squads on the Eastern Front- the Einsatzgruppen. They often took people to the woods and forced them to dig their own graves.
That seems like using Hitler to furnish examples, no?
For example, busing, restaurants, bathrooms, fountains. Are you telling me that the government has the power to force private individuals to stop that or not?
Busing, bathrooms and fountains were and are typically publicly supported amenities. The Montgomery Bus Boycott protested a city-enforced policy, for instance. While you could probably give some support for your point, the examples that you do give tend to contradict it.
Are keep forgetting... you do believe in God right? All seeing, all knowing, all powerful? Who loses arguments to a bunch of tribesman? I'll give you that point if you agree it makes no sense what so ever.
Jews and Christians don't believe in a God who forces people to do what he wants.
I get the feeling that the God that you don't believe in is a different than the one that Jews and Christians do believe in.
Corporate Wealthfare
It is an obcession amoung left wingers- amoung the right, it is more "the Jews" and "the bankers".
Tim gave some evidence that "right wingers" have been more effective at actually reducing corporate welfare. There's a difference between what a group wants and what they're capable of accomplishing. For instance, many businesses want money. But it's worth asking "which techniques are most effective at making money." It's not enough to simply assert that the left is opposed corporate welfare. The Right is too, and Tim has given some evidence tha the Left has problems actually preventing corporate welfare even in the candidates they vote for.
Also, evidence for placing "anti-banker" sentiment on the right? I think we're still talking past each other because we have different
definitions for what "the Right" is. I'm not asking for examples of regiemes you consider "rightist."
To rephrase the question; if a person is 'rightist' in America (or Europe) where do you think that those values come from?
It's worth considering that the supposedly leftist portions of the French revolution ended up establishing a dictatorship.
The Communist experiment did something similar. Same with Mao. So centralization of power seems to be a common result of leftism, whether or not that is the intention of leftism.
He has made antisemetic remarks, is a xenophobe... just see the wiki page.
You seem to be operating under the implicit assumption that antisemitism and racism is a characteristic of "the Right."
I tried to give a good explanation of what the term "The Right" and "The Left" meant. It seemed pretty simple. I'm fine if you disagree and give reasons why, but you said you didn't understand. What part didn't you understand?
Heuy Long ... he is a facist.
This still begs the question of whether Fascism was on the left or right. In other words, it still
assumes what it attempts to prove.
(leftists)... believe in bottom up change
It seems they're quite willing to enforce their beliefs and values via laws, given the chance. Is such enforcement the opposite of a 'bottom-up
change?'
he is a facist.
He had all the traits
-private army
-little guy
-non-intellectual
-end social disharmony (by redistibution or cracked heads)
-elected
-above politics (when someone says they are above politics, they are full of... todays Sesame Street is brought to you by the letterS!)
If those are 'all the traits' of fascism they seem to apply to Mao as well. The only one Mao doesn't fit is "elected."
Not sure what "above politics" is supposed to mean. It seems, as well as I understand it, to be a claim of many across the political spectrum.
If true, it wouldn't be useful for placing someone on the political spectrum.
Please define "non-intellectual." Hitler and various Soviet leaders both had their use for those scientists and academics who
weren't politically threatening.
They are paranoid conspiracy theorists who believe the government is behind everything.
Yes, but do you think they'd believe that if they themselves had more political power? Leftists are paranoid about
conservatives with power? Okay, well couldn't the exact same be said of Nazi Germany and their view of Jews and the Catholic Church?
The last time a socialsit defended facism was... err- never?
Mussolini ... became a Socialist in his teens and worked, often as a schoolmaster, to spread the party doctrine. The newspaper he founded, La Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle), won such recognition that in 1912 he was made editor of Avanti! (Forward!), the official Socialist daily published in Milan.
Add that to the fact that the Nazis explicitly called themselves "National Socialist" and that Stalin was so friendly towards Hitler initially.
Actually, Neitche didn't want to eliminate the Ubermenschen- he held it up as the opposite future to the Superman.
Sorry about the misuse- I meant the word that means "underhuman".
But there is no such concept in Nietzsche’s philosophy as “under-man” which could be interpreted as a non-person whereas only the overman could be interpreted as a person.
source
I've only skimmed parts of some of Nietzche's works, particularly "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." However Nietzche's contrast to the "uberman" or "superman" is simply "menchen" or Man. There is no "niedermenchen" or "undermenchen" (which would translate as "subhuman" in English) in Nietzche's writings that I'm aware of.
You asked for an example of a dictator forcing people to dig their own graves. I believe Hitler is the only one who did that. It really isn't a left or right wing action.
Restaurants are private businesses. Hotels were private businesses. The buses apparently belonged to the city. Stupid Southerners and their government. Hmm... however the Feds did have to force them to change. That would be strong federal government, no?
Let me be blunt- a God that can't win an argument when he is right is a God that is an idiot. The Greeks could probably pull it off- this isn't about power, it is about rhetorical ability and evidence. Not to mention God can see the future- or are you telling me the Jews were total morons?
Dictatorship is a common element of the extreme left and the extreme right. Unlike the right it isn't essential for leftism- China and the USSR where both oligarchies after their first dictator. And concentration of power is a constant component of totalitarianism.
The far left, at least in the US is obsessed with corporations- they think they are a little evil. The far right are obsessed with race, the far left and the country being invaded.
Antisemitism is a characteristic of European leftists and rightists. Racism is a characteristic of the far right though. The far left (communists) have always declared they are in favor of equality before the law- Robespierre for instance abolished slavery.
As for how I'm sure the man is a fascist? Working for the Vichy regime was a tip off. Of course, the rest of his life story also lends credence to the belief he is a fascist.
Fascism is to the right. I can say that without doubt and without hesitation. Why? Because fascism is a reaction against communism and socialism! Fascism exists because it claims to help save a country from the red menace! Just look at the countries
Italy- labor unrest
France- left and right animosity; popular front eventually runs country
Spain- Left wins election
Chile- Left wins election
Yugoslavia- Croatians become fascists to oppose Serbian commies
and of course, Germany
Nazis and communists two largest political parties, each with their own private armies.
Interestingly enough this means Japan isn't a fascist state.
Communists are central control. Most current leftists believe in bottom up change. It isn't a defining characteristic though. My mistake.
They don't apply to Mao.
- There were no "private armies" in China because there was no central government. Fascism can't occur in such a situation.
- Mao claimed to be working for "the people" and "the peasants". Guess he'd fit that- but his rhetoric is slightly different.
- Mao was a librarian. He did have the cultural revolution though.
- Fascists claim to end social disharmony by eliminating those who complain. Well, they tend to claim to unite behind national unity, but the secret police eliminate those who complain. Communists claim to do it by killing all the rich people. Big difference.
- most of the fascists where elected- it is almost a prerequisite. That or be a legitimate member of the military and you cover ALL of them.
-Above politics is simple. You claim you are above the squabbles of parliament and that you will end the government infighting and bring efficiency. To my knowledge that is a uniquely fascist claim.
By nonintellectual I mean people who actively disdain thought and critical thinking skills. It is a trait of fascism, although Pol Pot managed to show communists could do it to. The elevation of emotion over reason basically. Communists are more brainwashing and mindless obedience.
Leftists think the government is behind everything and it would be better if they were in charge. Rightists think the government is pure, but run by weaklings and that their enemies have supernatural powers (okay, maybe that one guy I know...).
Their paranoia does have commonalities- the government, the banks and companies, The Jews. Leftists tend to go for "the companies and banks have been causing wars and the CIA has mind control rays". Rightists go more for "the government has betrayed us".
Mussolini was initially a socialist. Then he changed sides. The man was flexible. By 1919 he was a fascist and had dumped socialism. He viewed it as weak... something in the war had changed him. It changed a lot of socialists- prior to the war they thought that the working people of Europe could unite- seeing them work together to kill each other essentially killed a large part of the socialist movements belief in humanity under one banner.
Good way to tell far left from far right
Right- patriotism.
Left- ideology and human kind.
Stalin and Hitler hated each other. I mean, Hitler did purge the country of Stalin's followers- the commies at that time all followed Moscow. And lets not forget that the Nazi's were dedicated to eliminating communism and the Slavic menace. Stalin trusted Hitler and made an alliance of convenience.
Really? I'm pretty sure he mentions as an alternate future to the superman was a person who was dumb and contented, who had lost the vital spark, so to speak.
Of course, this wasn't the usage the Nazis used- the only thing they took were the names and connotations.
Lets see if this works better.
Far left and far right
Universal vs Nationalistic
Outside the system vs inside the system
Note- communists can be nationalistic (Stalin, Mao). However, their dream is universal- they have parties in foreign countries that answer to them and their goal is to conquer the world. Fascists try to secure order and build an empire.
Quick minor clarification. Menchen is plural, literlally, "men." Mench would be "man."
Also minor/ major additions.
Hitler always viewed Stalin as an enemy. Stalin didn't view Hitler the same way.
You guys seem hung up on government control as the essential definition of left wing. It isn't.
Extreme government control is totalitarianism, no government control is anarchy... well, actually warlordism.
Both left wing and right wing wish to expand control in certain ways- for example, see the differances between libertarian and conservatives.
or are you telling me the Jews were total morons?
That's kindof the point, not intellectually but morally. And not just for the Jewish people.
(Though there's some indication of that, too, with the story of Jonah.
Jonah tells non-Jews to repent and they do so almost immediately. A big change from
his work with Jews.) God leads the Jewish people out of Israel and through the desert and what do they do?
Worship a Golden calf. etc. etc. There are piles of examples of such behavior.
A Buddist would say "people are delusional." A christian might call this "original sin."
Jews might refer to the yetzer rah - the innate evil impulse.
You can see the same thing in the New Testament. Even apostles who see and walk with Jesus have
all kinds of moral problems.
For instance, it should be obvious for example that sleeping around can cause a lot of problems. It can spread disease. It can create children who can't be cared for. People do it anyways and try to justify it. Drug use can destroy lives and cause harm. This should be obvious to people. It's not and addicts give all kinds of justifications for their habits. etc. etc.
The point here is that people are delusional. They are not clear. They want to do what they want to do
and then they lie to themselves to cover their tracks. They are not born good and do not become good easily or without structure, support and help.
Forget God for a moment. The more salient point is whether this is an accurate description of human nature. People do not easily or naturally follow what is Good, and they don't easily or naturally realize the harm done by their own actions. They ask for large, intrusive governments when they could have something much better. And so on.
Restaurants are private businesses. Hotels were private businesses.
Yes, but Jim Crow laws still required these places to be segregated.
That would be strong federal government, no?
Though I'll agree that civil rights
legislation represented a strengthening of the federal government (a long time after the founding
fathers created it, though.) I'll also agree that the effect seemed to have been positive, though
the use of the interstate commerce clause seems to have become a huge club weilded by the
feds for a variety of ends in recent times, drastically broadening federal power.
And concentration of power is a constant component of totalitarianism.
Yes! Exactly! So then we ask; which moral philosophies are most likely to lead to concentration
of power? Not "which desire it." The Marxists didn't desire it. But which produce it, despite or because of
their best intentions?
The far right are obsessed with race, the far left and the country being invaded.
Why do you say the far right is obsessed with race? Who is defined as 'far right' in your view.
Until we settle why a person gets put on the far right, we're not really addressing the issue.
The right is more concerned with culture and nationalism, perhaps. The left seems far far more interested in "race."
Fascism is to the right. I can say that without doubt and without hesitation.
Maybe a little doubt and hesitation would be helpful.
Why? Because fascism is a reaction against communism and socialism!
Fascism exists because it claims to help save a country from the red menace!
I agree, Fascism is to the right of communism. That's not in dispute at all. And the two often conflict.
Fascism is also opposed to Democracy. If we're just looking to opposition, that should argue that it's to the left of Democratic governments.
There were no "private armies" in China because there was no central government. Fascism can't occur in such a situation.
What was the Kuo Min Tang in your view?
You claim you are above the squabbles of parliament and that you will end the government infighting and bring efficiency. To my knowledge that is a uniquely fascist claim.
Sounds like Bush and Obama. They just didn't use force. If you're saying that Fascists justify centralization of power as being more efficient, I agree entirely. Communitsts also have tried to justify economic centralization of power as being more efficient.
By nonintellectual I mean people who actively disdain thought and critical thinking skills. It is a trait of fascism, although Pol Pot managed to show communists could do it to. The elevation of emotion over reason basically. Communists are more brainwashing and mindless obedience.
Disdaining critical thinking skills sounds very similar to "Brainwashing."
Rightists go more for "the government has betrayed us".
People on the left do not think that the government has betrayed them?
Good way to tell far left from far right
Right- patriotism.
Left- ideology and human kind.
Okay, here we have a claim about underlying values of various regiems. We're finally on the right track!
First, there's no disagreement between anyone that fascism is to the "right" of communism. However you need to argue that
Fascism is to the right of both liberalism and conservative Christianity if you want to disprove Tim's argument.
Who is the most trusting of government when they're in power? I'm talking not about political leaders, here, but of the political 'base' that supports them.
Communists and fascist supporters seem, by necessity, to be the most trusting relatively speaking. Liberals are less trusting of government. But I
had friends who participated in protests when Clinton was in power. They didn't make the news. Bush gets into office,
then the protests make the news. It's subtle, but using a common standard there was less criticsm of government power by Clinton supporters when Clinton was in office compared
to criticism of Bush when he was in office. Similarly, Jesse Jackson didn't start protesting the bombing tests on Vieques Island in Puerto Rico
until a Republican was in power. American conservatives are highly distrustful of government even when
they, themselves, are in power.
Patriotism seems like a Red Herring. You can have patriotic individuals anywhere on the political spectrum if the person's view matches those of their government.
The issue here should be trust of government, not love.
Could I say again, Sam, that a different set of standards, the original set of standards, arguably,
for evaluating where governments fall on the political spectrum would help make a much tidier and more importantly more predictive specturm?
Stalin and Hitler hated each other. ...Stalin trusted Hitler and made an alliance of convenience.
Yes, the political bases were very much opposed to one another. I agree. Hitler was also opposed to liberalism for that matter. But Hitler and Stalin seemed to understand one another well enough to ally with each other to attack western democracy.
In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol dividing the independent countries of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania into Nazi and Soviet spheres of influence, anticipating "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries' territories. All were subsequently invaded, occupied, or forced to cede territory by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or both. Only Finland was able defend herself against the (Soviet) invasion and remained an independent Western democracy.
Many on the political left were outraged that the Soviet Union would make such a treaty with Nazi Germany, the revolutionary system which most threatened communism. Many Communists in Western parties repudiated this action and resigned their party membership in protest. Likewise, a number of Nazis were outraged by this treaty, and some party members went so far as to throw their party badges into the courtyard of the Brown House.
So sure, Nazis and Communists hated each other. But Hitler and Stalin seemed willing to at least pretend
to work with one another to expand their own power.
re: Communists and the rule of law;
The first person who comes to my mind is Félix d'Hérelle, who brought phage to the Soviet Union and was executed because he became a sexual rival with a soviet official. That is not the rule of law in practice even if the sentiment exists on paper.
Really? I'm pretty sure he mentions as an alternate future to the superman was a person who was dumb and contented, who had lost the vital spark, so to speak.
That could be. But he doesn't directly call such people subhuman. Depending on the interpretation of
'lost the vital spark' I suppose that could argue for some esoteric meaning. I should drop this, since I don't have a good enough knowledge of Nietzche to argue the point.
You guys seem hung up on government control as the essential definition of left wing. It isn't.
You've made an assertion here. Any support? How do you know it isn't? I've supported the origin of the terms I've used.
Let me put it as simply as possible; You should be able to say "Conservatives are X." People with very high values of X are fascists. People with slightly lower values of X are liberals. People with very low values of X are communists.
If you cannot do that, you should consider that you may not be using the best basis for placing governments on the political spectrum. Because this is what a spectrum is, right?
"The Right" in America conserves Judeo-Christian values. The left is composed of various groups that oppose those values. Many groups on "the left" do actually oppose one another. You could also use a two dimensional axis. Or a three dimensional axis. Or whaever.
The point about government power is that we've provided good evidence that conservatives are opposed to centralization of government power and want to limit such power. Fascists and Communists are willing to use centralization of power for their ends. That alone should be a tip off that they belong close together, not far apart.
Far left and far right
Universal vs Nationalistic
You could certainly draw that spectrum. And yes, It would fit Hitler on one end and may possibly fit the USSR on the other.
But Nazis and Communists still share enough commonalities, as outlined previously, that it's worth asking whether "universalism vs. nationalism" is the best criterion for a political spectrum. Both systems demanded what amounted to subservience of the individual to the government, for instance.
Or you might keep the 'universalist vs. nationalist' spectrum and say "what is needed is a mix of universalism and nationalism." But many ideologies attempt that (the Hindi faith is one example), and have not produced democracy and rule of law.
Which argues that a universalist vs nationalist spectrum does not address whatever ingredient is crucial for democracy.
Good way to tell far left from far right
Right- patriotism.
Left- ideology and human kind
|
You are truly deceived and would have done well in Hilter's Germany.
Posted by: The Truth on July 17, 2005 04:59 PM