# liberal pacifism?



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Here is a story about a cameraman assaulted, and caught on tape, after talking to a democrat politician.

http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvator...-assaulted-after-democratic-senators-presser/

There are some other moments of liberal pacifism linked in the article.


----------



## Steve (Jan 2, 2011)

What's liberal pacifism?  Is that different from conservative pacifism?


----------



## WC_lun (Jan 3, 2011)

Pacifist and liberal are not the same thing.  Being a liberal does not mean being a pacifist and being a pacifist does not mean being a liberal.  The title of your post seems to try and link them.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 3, 2011)

To be fair, it seems like those ven diagrams overlap a little more often than those of conservatives and pacifists. But I agree...the guy doing that thumping isn't a hypocrite just because he's a liberal.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2011)

This thread is an excellent example of how our political language has been changed 1984 style.  Liberal used to mean classical liberal, as in believer in liberty, supporter of gun rights, self defense, AND they were pacifists.  Liberals believed that you had no right to use force against another person and that you must voluntarily commit to all contracts.

Now a liberal is someone supports big government, wants the state to take care of you from cradle to grave, would like to limit your ability to defend yourself, would like to limit your ability to own firearms and would like to force you by the point of the governments weapons into agreements and contracts that fit their agenda.

A pacifist is no better.  Now, a pacifist is equated to a liberal, except that they will lay down and not resist if force is used against them.  Whether it's the government's tanks or a robber with a knife, it makes no difference, they will not resist the use of force against them.  I think that the common thread between these two words is a denial of the right to live.  One denies the individual the right to live *as *they want and the other denies the right to live *if *they want.

I reject both of these neo-definitions.  I believe that the core of liberty is pacifism and that self defense is the only reasonable response to a threat on your life if you *want *to live.  Not initiating force and defending against the use of force are two very different things.  So, I'll happily call myself a liberal pacifist, I'm taking it back.

About the link, it's righty screed pointing out the hypocrisy of the lefties.  To an extent I agree, because as much as a lefty drones on about peace, they love to use guns to make people do what they want.  The missing piece here is that the right is just as hypocritical because they claim to be supporters of liberty which should mean that one really is committed to peace.  However, they love to use guns to make people do what they want as well, even MORE so then the lefties.  

In the end, it's a bunch of dishonest ********.  Politics as usual.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 4, 2011)

I think you're also lumping terms together, my friend.

What you've described as "liberal" is a fair -if obviously from a Republican point of view - description of the leanings of our friends the _Democrats_.

Liberalism simply means being tolerant, even supportive of, change from the status quo. Conservativism means supporting the status quo and resisting change.

For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, political dialog has turned Democrat and Liberal into synonyms. Same for Republican and Conservative.

They're not the same thing any more than liberal and pacifist are.

Just the two cents of your friendly neighborhood "Liberal Republican."


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

What about the Quakers or Society of Friends? They are pacifists and some of the best people on this planet. They truly believe in being non violent and will not enlist or be conscipted into an armed force. During both world wars they however acted as medics often bravely saving lives at great risk to their own. They stand up for what they believe in and before you start chucking around epithets at pacifists do have a look at what true pacifists are.


----------



## billc (Jan 4, 2011)

I know what true pacifists are, and I disagree with the belief, but that is why I coupled that with this video.   Much of the political violence today comes almost exlusively from the left.  At least in this country.   Thuggish behavior, commited by liberals, a term picked because the older term, progressive had been used up, so they re-adopted liberal, against their opponents is happening more and more.  This act was caught on tape, the riots at the various meetings of the various countries, the Gladney beating by S.E.I.U., the beating of Bobbie Jindals aide and her fiance, the black panther voter intimidation and so on.  Then everyone implies that the tea party members are on the verge of violent actions, as they stroll around with baby strollers and go out of their way to pick up their trash.  It is pretty funny.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I know what true pacifists are, and I disagree with the belief, but that is why I coupled that with this video. Much of the political violence today comes almost exlusively from the left. At least in this country. Thuggish behavior, commited by liberals, a term picked because the older term, progressive had been used up, so they re-adopted liberal, against their opponents is happening more and more. This act was caught on tape, the riots at the various meetings of the various countries, the Gladney beating by S.E.I.U., the beating of Bobbie Jindals aide and her fiance, the black panther voter intimidation and so on. Then everyone implies that the tea party members are on the verge of violent actions, as they stroll around with baby strollers and go out of their way to pick up their trash. It is pretty funny.


 

Are you on the right in politics by any chance, it's hard to tell.


----------



## billc (Jan 4, 2011)

I am a conservative who votes for republican candidate, having once been a democrat who voted for Bill Clinton.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

The Right wing dream

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(United_Kingdom)

http://www.bnp.org.uk/

Associated with them and employed by them for 'security' reasons are Combat 18. A really nice bunch of right wing guys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_18


----------



## billc (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez, those guys are actually lefties.  They have nothing in common with American Conservatism.  We believe in individual liberty for all people regardless of race, religion, national origin.  We believe in the rights of the individual over the group.  Got to go. I'll finish later.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Tez, those guys are actually lefties. They have nothing in common with American Conservatism. We believe in individual liberty for all people regardless of race, religion, national origin. We believe in the rights of the individual over the group. Got to go. I'll finish later.


 

No, trust me they are right wing, they bear no resemblance to left wingers, in fact they beat them up every chance they get.

Look at the Wiki site, it says they are FAR RIGHT as is their French counterpart.

The Nazi party were (and in some places still are) Right Wing. The far right wing are fascists.

This is the extreme Right, the use of the word socialist is a misnomer, it's not socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism


This is Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

The far left are the communists, the left are the socialists.


----------



## billc (Jan 4, 2011)

Again, National socialists are socialists. they believe in a big central government to get done the things they want done, American Conservatives believe in individual liberty, a color blind society, the founding documents of the United States, including the belief in all men( and to be inclusive) women are created equal with certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. We believe the government should be small, and hemmed in by checks and balances to keep it from becoming too powerful. The nazis, and neo-nazis don't believe those things. Check my other posts, the Red in the Nazi flag is the socialist red. Hang on, I will cut and paste. Be back.

This is from another post, it is Andrew Klavan addressing what you are saying, but in a funny way:





 
From Chapter 4, Left Right Dichotomy, Thomas Sowell, in his book "Intellectuals and Society": "...there is remarkably little difference between Communists and Fascists, except for rhetoric, and there is far more in common between fascists and even the moderate left than between them and the traditional conservatives in the American sense."

From Chapter 4, Left and Right Dichotomy, in Thomas Sowell's book, "intellectuals and society":

"What distinguished Fascist movements in general from Communist movements was that the Communists were officially committed to governmental ownership of the means of production,while fascists permitted private ownership of the means of production, so long as government directed the private owner's decisions and limited what profit rates they could recieve. Both were totalitarian dictatorships but Communists were officially internationalist while Fascists were officially nationalist. However, Stalin's proclaimed policy of "Socialism in one country" was not very different from the Fascists' proclaimed policy of national socialism"

"WHEN IT CAME TO PRACTICE, THERE WAS EVEN LESS DIFFERENCE, SINCE THE COMMUNIST INTERNAITONAL SERVED THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE SOVIET UNION, DESPITE WHATEVER INTERNATIONALIST RHETORIC IT USED." 


​ 
"Communism is socialism with an international focus and totalitarian methods. Benito Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, defined fascism as national socialism in a state that was totalitarian, a term that he also coined. The same idea was echoed in the name of the National Socialist German Worker's Party in Germany, Hitler's party, now almost always abbreviated as Nazis, thereby burying its socialist component. Viewed in retrospect, the most prominent feature of the Nazis-racism in general and anti-jewish racism in particular-was not inherent in the fascist vision, but was an obsession of Hitler's party, not shared by the fascist government of Mussolini in Italy or that of Franco in Spain." 

From Chapter 4, Left and Right dichotomay, from Thomas Sowell's book, "intellectuals and Society":

"In short, the notion that Communists and Fascists were at polar opposite poles ideologically WAS NOT TRUE, even in theory, much less in practice. As for similarities and differences between these two totalitarian movements and liberalism on the one hand, or conservatism(American) on the other, there was far more similarity between these totalitarian's agendas and those ot the left than with the agendas of most conservatives. FOR EXAMPLE, AMONG THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDAS OF THE FASCISTS IN ITALY AND/OR THE NAZIS IN GERMANY WERE:

1-GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF WAGES AND HOURS OF WORK
2-HIGHER TAXES ON THE WEALTHY
3-GOVERNMENT-SET LIMITS ON PROFITS
4-GOVERNMENT CARE FOR THE ELDERLY
5-A DECREASED EMPHASIS ON THE ROLE OF RELIGION AND THE FAMILY IN PERSONAL OR SOCIAL DECISIONS
6GOVERNMENT TAKING ON THE ROLE OF CHANGING THE NATURE OF PEOPLE, USUALLY BEGINNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD....
THESE ARE OF COURSE THINGS OPPOSED BY MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED "CONSERVATIVES" IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THEY ARE THINGS MUCH MORE CONGENIAL TO THE GENERAL APPROACH OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED "LIBERALS" IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CONTEXT. 





​


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

Shakes head in disbelief.

Only in America  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics




http://www.responsiblecitizen.co.uk/left-wing-right-wing-and-the-centre.html
*Left Wing*

_"Anyone or any party who is said to be left wing or left of centre can be broadly thought to be liberal. However, left wing goes much further than this. The main aim of left wing parties and individuals can be said to be social equality for all. This is why at the far left, parties such as Communists can be found. _

_Communism, very broadly speaking, is a political ideal where all are equal and there are no leaders. It has been tried many times in the past and there are a handful of countries which claim to practise true Communism but in reality, it is very difficult to achieve this Utopian society. _
_George Orwells Animal Farm is a fictional exploration of Communism, based on the Russian revolution of the early 20th century and shows how power almost always corrupts the ideal._
_Less extreme left wing views include the UKs Labour party and the USAs Democrats. The NHS system was set up in pursuit of left wing ideals  free healthcare for all is a prime example of social equality in action. Modern left wing parties are more geared towards achieving a diverse society with inclusion for all."_



*Right Wing*

_Right wing parties and individuals are, as you would expect, the polar opposite of left wing. Right wing parties are often thought of as capitalists. They are also traditionalists in their outlook and the way they like things to be done. _

_This can obviously pose problems for modern right wing groups, such as in terms of equal opportunities for all, regardless of gender or race and so most modern and progressive right wing parties hold centrist or even slightly left of centre views on these issues. _
_As the main aim of right wing parties, the rights of the individual are held in high esteem. These come first, over and above the rights of society as a whole, which is clearly at odds with left wing politics._

_Just like left wing though, right wing politics can be taken to extremes and for most people, especially in Europe, the terms used to describe very far right parties hold a sinister and very dark connotation. It must be stressed that these parties and individuals are on the extreme right, far removed from most right wing parties. _
_On the extreme right is fascism, that political ideal which can be partially blamed for the Second World War. The term is generally no longer used to describe political ideals but basically means a society where the state rules all, and the society is bound together by a common ideal, often, but not always, based on race. These days, being described as a fascist is usually an insult."_


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

Fascism is built on anti Semitism ( it's added hatred of Islam now), it wasn't just Hitler's brand btw. As for how Mussolini decribed things I don't think he's a very good source in all honesty, he was hardly a scholar and certainly no gentleman though he did say fascism is the complete opposite of Marxist communism.

The books you cite are only ones you've read because they confirm your views or they have formed your vies, I don't know which. I think you need to gt out of this 'big government' thing and actually look at what the various parties believe. The National Front here and in Europe is Far Right, very far right but still on the right, they are fascist organisations. The communist parties of which there are many types are on the far left. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

_"The ideologies usually associated with the far right include __fascism__, __Nazism__ and other __ultra-nationalist__, __religiously extreme__ or __reactionary__ ideologies"_


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...The-far-right-march-rise-Fascism-Austria.html

_"This is a neo-Nazi gathering and in the crowd are some of Austrias most hard-faced fascists. Among them is Gottfried Kussel, a notorious thug who was the showman of Austrias* far-right movement* in the Eighties and Nineties until he was imprisoned for eight years for promoting Nazi ideology. "
_
_http://www.tellmehowto.net/howto/tell_left_wing_from_right_wing_888_


http://www.fact-index.com/r/ri/right_wing_politics.html

http://www.fact-index.com/l/le/left_right_politics.html
_ 



_


----------



## granfire (Jan 5, 2011)

are we again at it trying to explain why left and right is not the same?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

granfire said:


> are we again at it trying to explain why left and right is not the same?


 
Yep, Bill thinks the Fascists, Nazis, National Front etc are  left wing. I and most others think they are the far right wing. 

we are talking at totally cross purposes lol!


----------



## granfire (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Yep, Bill thinks the Fascists, Nazis, National Front etc are  left wing. I and most others think they are the far right wing.
> 
> we are talking at totally cross purposes lol!




I suppose he has them aligned on something like a color wheel: Eventually everything comes full circle... :lfao:

but wait for the rebuttle: Stossle said they are all the same and Beck agreed!


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

Well he did say they all have red flags.........!


----------



## granfire (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Well he did say they all have red flags.........!



There you go!


----------



## WC_lun (Jan 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I know what true pacifists are, and I disagree with the belief, but that is why I coupled that with this video. Much of the political violence today comes almost exlusively from the left. At least in this country. Thuggish behavior, commited by liberals, a term picked because the older term, progressive had been used up, so they re-adopted liberal, against their opponents is happening more and more. This act was caught on tape, the riots at the various meetings of the various countries, the Gladney beating by S.E.I.U., the beating of Bobbie Jindals aide and her fiance, the black panther voter intimidation and so on. Then everyone implies that the tea party members are on the verge of violent actions, as they stroll around with baby strollers and go out of their way to pick up their trash. It is pretty funny.


 
ROFL  I love how you want to paint the left as violent so far as to use the NEW Black Panther Party as an example.  You do realize that thier membership numbers something like 16 people?  Look, there are idiots on the left.  No denying that.  However, your statement, _"Much of the political violence today comes almost exlusively from the left."_ is just a bunch of horse manure.  

I love how you post an article equating liberals with pacifist, not kindly I might add.  Then you post this nonsense saying that the left is resposible for most of the political violence today.  Something doesn't make sense here.  Your post are contradicting themselves.  Hard to argue against a position that is everywhere.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Yep, Bill thinks the Fascists, Nazis, National Front etc are left wing. I and most others think they are the far right wing.
> 
> we are talking at totally cross purposes lol!


 
They are all far right wing, unless those years and thousands of dollars spent on a degree in political science were all for nothing...

But the theory isn't for them to be on a long linear line, its more accurate to have them on a semi circle/horseshow, with the far right and the far left coming around towards each other, but never shall the two touch.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> They are all far right wing, unless those years and thousands of dollars spent on a degree in political science were all for nothing...
> 
> But the theory isn't for them to be on a long linear line, its more accurate to have them on a semi circle/horseshow, with the far right and the far left coming around towards each other, but never shall the two touch.


 
A good description Ken. We need to know though in general where each political group lies or else the discussion is meaningless.


----------



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

Mussolini, a socialist of what he described as Fascism, did not hate jews.  In fact, that was one of the disagreements he had with the socialists in Germany.  Look at the programs of the fascists in italy the nazis in germany and the communists in Russia, they are all the same, government in control of business, welfare, every aspect of life.  The american right is for small government restrained in its power by checks and balances, the rights of the individual and the rule of law as well as free markets.  Socialist do not believe in those things.


----------



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

"Communism is socialism with an international focus and totalitarian methods. Benito Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, defined fascism as national socialism in a state that was totalitarian, a term that he also coined. The same idea was echoed in the name of the National Socialist German Worker's Party in Germany, Hitler's party, now almost always abbreviated as Nazis, thereby burying its socialist component. Viewed in retrospect, the most prominent feature of the Nazis-racism in general and anti-jewish racism in particular-was not inherent in the fascist vision, but was an obsession of Hitler's party, not shared by the fascist government of Mussolini in Italy or that of Franco in Spain." 

From Chapter 4, Left and Right dichotomay, from Thomas Sowell's book, "intellectuals and Society":

"In short, the notion that Communists and Fascists were at polar opposite poles ideologically WAS NOT TRUE, even in theory, much less in practice. As for similarities and differences between these two totalitarian movements and liberalism on the one hand, or conservatism(American) on the other, there was far more similarity between these totalitarian's agendas and those ot the left than with the agendas of most conservatives. FOR EXAMPLE, AMONG THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDAS OF THE FASCISTS IN ITALY AND/OR THE NAZIS IN GERMANY WERE:

1-GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF WAGES AND HOURS OF WORK
2-HIGHER TAXES ON THE WEALTHY
3-GOVERNMENT-SET LIMITS ON PROFITS
4-GOVERNMENT CARE FOR THE ELDERLY
5-A DECREASED EMPHASIS ON THE ROLE OF RELIGION AND THE FAMILY IN PERSONAL OR SOCIAL DECISIONS
6GOVERNMENT TAKING ON THE ROLE OF CHANGING THE NATURE OF PEOPLE, USUALLY BEGINNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD....
THESE ARE OF COURSE THINGS OPPOSED BY MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED "CONSERVATIVES" IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THEY ARE THINGS MUCH MORE CONGENIAL TO THE GENERAL APPROACH OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED "LIBERALS" IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CONTEXT.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Mussolini, a socialist of what he described as Fascism, did not hate jews. In fact, that was one of the disagreements he had with the socialists in Germany. Look at the programs of the fascists in italy the nazis in germany and the communists in Russia, they are all the same, government in control of business, welfare, every aspect of life. The american right is for small government restrained in its power by checks and balances, the rights of the individual and the rule of law as well as free markets. Socialist do not believe in those things.


 

Mussolini was such a nice man wasn't he? he was a rascist no doubt at all and of course he refused to kill the Jews didn't he, oh that's right he didn't. In Albania he set up concentration camps.
http://isurvived.org/Frameset4References-3/-Italy_Fascist.html

_"From 1902 onwards, he picked up socialist ideas, particularly the syndicalism of Sorel. After 1904, he became a famous socialist agitator and journalist. His literary and speaking ability made him the editor of a socialist newspaper, Avanti. It is important to note that Mussolini was never a convinced socialist. The views expressed in his newspaper were not consistent. When anarchism was popular among the Italian workers, Mussolini advocated anarchist ideas in his newspaper. This seemed to indicate that he was an opportunist, very interested in winning followers and power for himself." _



*"The Meaning Of Fascism *

_The word Fascism has a dual origin. It comes in part from the word 'fasces', a bundle of rods round an axe carried by the magistrates in ancient Rome as a symbol of power and authority. It comes also from the Italian word, fascio, meaning band or group. The basic concept of Fascism, as elaborated by Mussolini, was that the State was absolute before which individuals and groups were all relative. _
_Politically, to the Fascists, parliamentary democracy could only lead to inefficiency and corrupt government; and so the whole parliamentary system must be discarded. In the words of Mussolini, national strength was conceived qualitatively and not quantitatively. For the strength of the nation, it should be ruled by a well-disciplined party elite, which, under the guidance of an inspired and unquestioned leader, would restore order and stability for the nation and lead it forward to greatness. _
_Economically, Mussolini preferred state control to laissez faire. Labour and capital must work together under the direction of the state. _
_Socially, Mussolini condemned Marxism for dividing the nation into classes and causing class war which would sap the strength of a nation. Thus he demanded that the people should subject themselves to the absolute authority of the state. People could find their own worth only when they were serving the state. As a result, freedom of assembly and thinking were wiped out in Italy. _
_In foreign policy, since Fascism promised national glory, it was natural for Mussolini to adopt an expansionist foreign policy from the beginning of his rule. Mussolini's ultimate goal was to revive the glories of the old Roman Empire. _
_In short, a Fascist state was a totalitarian state, controlling all the political, economic and social activities of its people. Mussolini always proclaimed, "Everything within the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state." The masses should only "believe, obey and fight." _
_N.B. It must be emphasized that Fascism was an opportunistic philosophy. In its early days 'action' was the only watch-word. Mussolini could always adjust his philosophy to appeal to all discontented groups."_
*The regimes in those countries are the same only in that they are virtual dictatorships, the political systems themselves and the idealogy are very different."*


Italy invaded Albania and set up concentration camps there. 
http://www.edwardvictor.com/Holocaust/Albania.htm


----------



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

What above distinguishes Facism as being anything other than socialism.  Stalin and hitler were both opportunists as well.   So far, nothing disproves the self proclamations of socialism on the part of hitler or Mussolini.


----------



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

The term radical right refers to sections of the far right that promote views which are very conservative in traditional left-right terms, but which aim to break with prevailing institutions and practices.[10] The radical right does not have a clear straightforward structure, but rather consists of overlapping subcultures with diverse styles of rhetoric, dress and symbolism whose cohesion comes from the use of alternative system of communications.  ---Form wikipedia link from Tez.

The definition here breaks down "Does not have a clear straight forward structure..." because they are trying to define something that is left wing as something else.  The socialists, all believe in a powerful central state, that controls the means of production, either completely or through control of businesses through private hands, that are under the complete control of the state.  Every aspect of life is under the control and discretion of the state.  You find this in all three types of socialism.  they try to make better people, once again, in all three types of socialism.  They also tend to dislike  Jewish people, ala Marx, Stalin and hitler.  Communists were murdering Jews in Russia at the same time Hitler was doing it in Germany.  

The definition above is weak because you need to say Socialism, then it all makes sense.  You can talk about looking to the past, National socialism, or to the future, international socialism.  In the end they are socialists.


----------



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

THe funny thing about the article on the new socialist(facists) in Austria, is that they mention the racial hatred, but they never discuss their political positions.  If they did They would not be talking about free markets and capitalism.  The one section where the guy blames the Jews on Wall Street.  Hmmm?  Sounds anti-capitalist with a hint of anti-semitism.  I bet if you look at their views on welfare, corporations, taxes and any of the other issues socialists love, these guys will be on the left side, except they will exclude racial minorities and foreigners.  Otherwise they are still socialists.

You know, why deny that the nazis are socialists.  Here is an equation.

                             International Socialism
                           - National Socialism
                             ---------------------
                             Socialism has still killed more people


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

Look, you can't just make up your own definitions of what's left and what's right.

It's accepted by most reputable historians, social and political commentators that the Fascists, Nazis, National Front etc are on the far right as it's accepted that communism, Marxism and those of that ilk are far left. As Ken said it's not quite as clear cut as that but it's the starting point that people agree on.

Here the Conservative party are centre right, the Labour Party are centre left and the Lib Dems in the middle. I've been told that in America there's only the right and the far right. It certainly seems like it at the moment.

To change what the rest of the world accepts just because you have a thing about 'big and little ' governments is absurd. Perhaps you'll believe your own government?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3165.htm

_Austrias *rightist *Freedom Party (FPO) has seen its popularity grow in a series of national and state elections since 2006. In the 2008 elections, the FPO earned 18% of the vote, up from 11% in 2006. The late Joerg Haider, the charismatic former leader of the FPO, split from the party in 2005 to form the Alliance-Future-Austria (BZO). While the BZO barely managed to enter parliament in 2006 with 4.1% of the vote, Haider led his new party to a surprising 10.7% in national elections in 2008. Shortly afterwards Haider died in a car crash, and the BZO subsequently saw some of its deputies migrate back to the FPO as the partys political fortunes declined again_


_BZO_
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_the_Future_of_Austria_

They call themselves 'right wing' not left wing.

Freedom Party of Austria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Party_of_Austria


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jörg_Haider


However I'm going to leave you with this good read.
http://www.botstiber.org/pdf.files/freylecture.pdf

"Let me now turn to Europe. When right-wing parties
made headlines over the past decades, they were generally
seen as the unrepentant heirs to fascism and National
Socialism. There is some truth to that viewpoint. *The*
*Austrian Freedom Party, for example, has its roots in the*
*pan-German movement that was neither Catholic nor*
*Socialist and that turned to Hitler as early as the 1920s*.
After 1945, the party became a haven for former Nazi
officials and saw its vote count surge once these people
regained their electoral rights. The partys best known
leader, the late Jörg Haider, came from a Nazi family and
repeatedly expressed his sympathy with former Wehrmacht​soldiers and SS officers."

*"Most of the right-wing parties in Western Europe*​
*tend to be pro-free market and pro-business*,"


"So what unites and what separates right-wing populism
on the two continents? Xenophobia is the tie that binds
together all European and most American right-wingers.
The social and religious issues that are so important in the
US, however, play a very small role in Europe.
But on both sides of the Atlantic, these movements
appeal to voters of low or moderate education who face​
economic and social uncertainties and are looking for easy
answers to their problems. Their leaders therefore play on
anti-elitist resentments, focus on the negatives, demonize
their enemies and constantly look for scapegoats to put
the blame on. They excel in pithy soundbites, not in sound
analysis or responsible government.
These leaders receive support from parts of the media.
In Austria, it is the Kronen Zeitung, a tabloid paper that
is read by more than 40 pc of the adult population every
day. In the US, right-wing populism is fed by Fox News​
and talk radio."


If you can't discuss politics within accepted parameters, there can't be a discussion.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Mussolini, a socialist of what he described as Fascism, did not hate jews.  In fact, that was one of the disagreements he had with the socialists in Germany.  Look at the programs of the fascists in italy the nazis in germany and the communists in Russia, they are all the same, government in control of business, welfare, every aspect of life.  The american right is for small government restrained in its power by checks and balances, the rights of the individual and the rule of law as well as free markets.  Socialist do not believe in those things.



Mussolini began as a leftist in a socialist party, but he later broke with them, one of the beliefs they had that he didnt agree with was italy's neutrality in world war one. But mussolini did not remain a socialist.



billcihak said:


> What above distinguishes Facism as being anything other than socialism.  Stalin and hitler were both opportunists as well.   So far, nothing disproves the self proclamations of socialism on the part of hitler or Mussolini.



As much as the USSR may have come to resemble the Nazis in lots of ways, communism/socialism and nazism/facism especially in theory is not the same thing.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Mussolini began as a leftist in a socialist party, but he later broke with them, one of the beliefs they had that he didnt agree with was italy's neutrality in world war one. But mussolini did not remain a socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rayban (Jan 5, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> This thread is an excellent example of how our political language has been changed 1984 style.  Liberal used to mean classical liberal, as in believer in liberty, supporter of gun rights, self defense, AND they were pacifists.  Liberals believed that you had no right to use force against another person and that you must voluntarily commit to all contracts.
> 
> Now a liberal is someone supports big government, wants the state to take care of you from cradle to grave, would like to limit your ability to defend yourself, would like to limit your ability to own firearms and would like to force you by the point of the governments weapons into agreements and contracts that fit their agenda.





billcihak said:


> Mussolini, a socialist of what he described as  Fascism, did not hate jews.  In fact, that was one of the disagreements  he had with the socialists in Germany.  Look at the programs of the  fascists in italy the nazis in germany and the communists in Russia,  they are all the same, government in control of business, welfare, every  aspect of life.  The american right is for small government restrained  in its power by checks and balances, the rights of the individual and  the rule of law as well as free markets.  Socialist do not believe in  those things.



Left and right is too black and white.  Hey that rhymes!  This is why there are a lot of different terms wedged in the middle but are usually forgotten or dragged off to one of the two main sides.

Libertarianism is one of my favourites.  Maximum freedom.
Minarchism is another good one. Small government.


----------



## Rayban (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Blade96 said:
> 
> 
> > Mussolini began as a leftist in a socialist party, but he later broke with them, one of the beliefs they had that he didnt agree with was italy's neutrality in world war one. But mussolini did not remain a socialist.
> ...


----------



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

the reason they are not called the same thing is because Hitler and Mussolini represented the new left, the communist parties in their countries represented the old left.  that is why the communists in germany either became national socialists or were purged.  Mussolini chose facism as a name to distinguish what he was doing from the communists.  His facism was still socialism, but under his name.  He and hitler both stated they were national socialists as opposed to international socialists.  they wanted socialism but just for italians and germans.  they didn't care about other people around the world.


----------



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

From chapter 4, "intellectuals and society", left and right dichotomy:

"The similarity in underlying assumptions between the various totalitarian movements and the democratic left was openly recognized by leaders of the left themselves in democratic countries during the 1920's, when Mussolini was widely lionized by intellectuals in the Western Democracies, and even Hitler had his admirers among prominent intellectuals on the left. It wass only as the 1930's unfolded that Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia and Hitler's violent Anti-semitism at home and military aggression abroad made these totalitarian systems international pariahs that they were repudiated by the left-AND WERE THEREAFTER DEPICTED AS BEING ON "THE RIGHT"


----------



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

Fans of the early Nazis and facists:
H.G. Wells" urged students aat Oxford to be "liberal Facists" and "enlightened Nazis"
Historian Charles Beard"was among Mussolinis apoligists in the western democracies as was the "New Republic" magazine.  
W.E.B. Du Bois was so intrigued by the Nazi movement in the 1920's that he put swastikas on the covers of a magazine he edited, despite protests from Jews.  Even though Du Bois was conflicted by the Nazi's anti-semitism, he said in the late 1930's that creation of the Nazi dictatorship had been "absolutely necassary to get the state in order" in Germany, and in Harlem in 1937 he declared that "there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past. MORE REVEALING, DUBOIS SAW THE NAZIS AS PART OF THE POLITICAL LEFT.  IN 1936, HE SAID," GERMANY TODAY IS, NEXT TO RUSSIA, THE GREATEST EXEMPLAR OF MARXIAN SOCIALISM IN THE WORLD"


----------



## granfire (Jan 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Fans of the early Nazis and facists:
> H.G. Wells" urged students aat Oxford to be "liberal Facists" and "enlightened Nazis"
> Historian Charles Beard"was among Mussolinis apoligists in the western democracies as was the "New Republic" magazine.
> *W.E.B. Du Bois was so intrigued by the Nazi movement in the 1920's that he put swastikas on the covers of a magazine he edited, despite protests from Jews.*  Even though Du Bois was conflicted by the Nazi's anti-semitism, he said in the late 1930's that creation of the Nazi dictatorship had been "absolutely necassary to get the state in order" in Germany, and in Harlem in 1937 he declared that "there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past. MORE REVEALING, DUBOIS SAW THE NAZIS AS PART OF THE POLITICAL LEFT.  IN 1936, HE SAID," GERMANY TODAY IS, NEXT TO RUSSIA, THE GREATEST EXEMPLAR OF MARXIAN SOCIALISM IN THE WORLD"




Good, then this is Bogus!
The Swastica is an ancient symbol of indo-gemanic origin for - drumroll please - sun and good fortune.

You will find them on many buildings from the 1920s and 30s, nearby here is a church where they found during renovations the altar area tiled in Swastica, as well as a courthouse that has a few on the facade...


----------



## Rayban (Jan 5, 2011)

Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were the three great tyrants of modern times.  No matter what they called their respective systems (each of which was different) they all had the same goal. "Be the top of the pyramid in their respective empires".

They all used socialism as a front to make it look like they were looking out for their own people but classes still existed.  This is where the differences between Hitler and Mussolini's fascism and Stalin's "Disconnected Socialism" comes from.

There were actually three classes in Soviet Russia.
- The proletariat (Commoner)
- Soldiers
- Parliament

That is where communism falls down.  Everything for party members and nothing for the proletariat. the "paradise for the proletariat" was a myth but beyond the iron curtain that is how it was portrayed.

Hitler and Mussolini made no secret of the differences in their own systems classes. Even though they called them socialism, there was nothing socialist about them.  They were more like a capitalist system (nowhere near like that of the USA) but ruled oppressively and basically criminally.

Well that's what I've learned over the years anyway.


----------



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

From "Liberal Facism" by Jonah Goldberg:

Even after Hitler had siezed power and became more receptive to pleas from businessmen-the demands of his war machine required no less-party propaganda still aimed relentlessly at workers.  Hitler always emphasized (and grossly exaggerated) his status as an " ex-worker."  He would regularly appear in shirtsleeves and spoke informally to blue-collar Germans: "I was a worker in my youth like you, slowly working my way upward by industry, by study, and I think I can say as well by hunger."

The nazis were brilliant at arguing for a one-nation politics in which a farmer and a businessman were all valued equally.  At nazi rallies, organizers never allowed an aristocrat to speak unless he was paired with a humble farmer from the sticks" 

What distinguished Nazism from other brands of socialism and communism was not so much that it included more aspects from the political right(though there were some).  What distinguished nazism was that it forthrightly included a worldview we now associate  almost completely with the political left: identity politics.  this was what distinguished Nazism from doctrinaire communism, and it seems hard to argue that the marriage of one leftist vision to another can somehow produce right-wing progeny.


----------



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

From Thomas Sowell though, Du Bois wasn't putting them on his magazine because they represented the Hindu religion but because they represented National Socialsim.


----------



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

Actually Rayban, they had everything in common with socialism.  The state controlled the means of production, just like the communists.  The degree and how hands on the control was differed but the state was in control.  In the book "Property and Freedom,"  I don't recall the authors name, the author points out that in Hitlers germany, you might own your business, but at any time the state could take direct control of it.  That isn't capitalism.  The socialists in Germany and Italy also controlled the lives of their people completely, just like in the socialism of russia.


----------



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

Rayban, you might not have heard my analogy to ice cream.  Chocolate, Vanilla and strawberry are different flavors but they are all ice cream.  The same with facism, nazism, and communism.

I need some deeper differences than you have given me to show that they aren't socialists.


----------



## granfire (Jan 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Rayban, you might not have heard my analogy to ice cream.  Chocolate, Vanilla and strawberry are different flavors but they are all ice cream.  The same with facism, nazism, and communism.
> 
> I need some deeper differences than you have given me to show that they aren't socialists.



Yes, we heard it before. and it still does not make a fascist a socialist or a communist.
I mean, how much deeper do you want to get, really?!


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2011)

granfire said:


> Yes, we heard it before. and it still does not make a fascist a socialist or a communist.
> I mean, how much deeper do you want to get, really?!


 

I think really he's got he's own ideas and will drag anything he can into proving he's right. If he choses to disagree with what the rest of the world agrees is a broad description of how we see things there's little point in continuing the discussion to be honest. We can't even get into discussing the finer issues of what politics is if he's not going to agree with the accepted descriptions of whats right and left, if we can't get beyond Hitler and the fascists were socialist and on the left argument there's no point in us posting anything at all.

I think actually he doesn't want to face the possiblity that as a right winger he has anything in common with these others on the right wing. Can't say I blame him for that, I wouldn't want the same politics as Hitler either but to argue Hitler and Mussolini were left wing is farcical and a discussion killer.

Bill, I will leave you to your fantasy, enjoy.


Oh and by the way 'ice cream' is a misnomer there is very often no cream in it.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 6, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Actually Rayban, they had everything in common with socialism.  The state controlled the means of production, just like the communists.  The degree and how hands on the control was differed but the state was in control.  In the book "Property and Freedom,"  I don't recall the authors name, the author points out that in Hitlers germany, you might own your business, but at any time the state could take direct control of it.  That isn't capitalism.  The socialists in Germany and Italy also controlled the lives of their people completely, just like in the socialism of russia.



Hence why I said "no matter how much nazi germany and the ussr came to resemble each other in many ways....."


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2011)

It's like MMA. In that we have two umbrella labels ...stand up and ground work, the two are very different, one can't be the other. Within those labels we have others, stand up can be boxing, karate, Muay Thai, TKD etc etc and in the ground work it can be Judo, wrestling, BJJ, JJ etc. We have to understand what we are talking about otherwise we will never get any where. Judo can't be karate and vice versa yet it's all 'fighting'. We also have things like Aikido in the mix so the edges are blurred but people know what we are talking about when we use the general labels.

Think of standup as left wing and ground work as right then you will see what I mean,, though I'm not holding my breath here.


----------

