There you go!
liberal pacifism?
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
There you go!
WC_lun
Senior Master
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.
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #25
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #26
"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.
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.
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
OP
- Thread Starter
- #29
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.
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #30
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
You know, why deny that the nazis are socialists. Here is an equation.
International Socialism
- National Socialism
---------------------
Socialism has still killed more people
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
Austrias 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 partys 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
tend to be pro-free market and pro-business,"
economic and social uncertainties and are looking for easy
and talk radio."
If you can't discuss politics within accepted parameters, there can't be a discussion.
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
Austrias 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 partys 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 partys best known
leader, the late Jörg Haider, came from a Nazi family and
repeatedly expressed his sympathy with former Wehrmacht
soldiers and SS officers."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 partys best known
leader, the late Jörg Haider, came from a Nazi family and
repeatedly expressed his sympathy with former Wehrmacht
"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
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
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
Senior Master
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.
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.
Rayban
Green Belt
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
Green Belt
OP
- Thread Starter
- #36
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #37
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"
"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"
OP
- Thread Starter
- #38
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"
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
Green Belt
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.
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.
