Lilyhammer, right meets left?

[billc]

Jenna, the nazis were socialists and were really left wingers, as Tez points out, that is the truth. The national socialists differed from the international socialists in that they wanted their brand of socialism for Germans, and didn't care about socialism for other countries. These are not just my opinions, I have a lot of writings on this from knowlegeable people in various fields of study.

To me, an American, right wing conservative, right wing here in the states means the belief in a small, limited government, hedged in by checks and balances to control the governments power over individuals. A right wing conservative believes in the American Bill of Rights, and believes in individual freedom and rights.

The reason I believe that the Norway killer was a far "left" winger is that if you look at what he likely believed, he didn't believe in a small government, or the protection of the individual from the government.

I always ask why people call someone a "right winger," because most of the time the answer is what Tez says. They are because everyone knows they are. In your answer you mentioned "neo-nazi," the nazis were socialists and they were left wing, so if someone claims nazi beliefs, they are socialists and left wing. I have some articles I'll post on this, the regular readers have already seen them, but you might see that my claims are not just made up. There is scholarly research that supports it.

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/

Mussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.
Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him — see “What? Hitler Was Not Elected?”) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.
To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).

For emphasis:

But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).

Another favorite article by Friedrich hayek on national socialism...And it also points to why the socialists fought other socialists...

http://www.brookesnews.com/091910hayeknazis.html

The persecution of the Marxists, and
of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National
"Socialism" is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final
fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in
Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority
of the German intelligentsia first to "socialism of the chair" and later to
Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form.
One of the main reasons why the
socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized,
is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great
industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups
too, as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment, have, at least
partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly
because, and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany, many
capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have
not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience.

And there is this...

http://www.stephenhicks.org/2009/12...italism-section-8-of-nietzsche-and-the-nazis/

8. Economic socialism, not capitalism
The second theme of the Program is a stress upon socialism and a strong rejection of capitalism.
Numerically, socialism is the most emphasized theme in the Nazi Program, for over half of the Program’s twenty-five points—fourteen out of the twenty-five, to be exact—itemize economically socialist demands.
Point 11 calls for the abolition of all income gained by loaning money at interest.
Point 12 demands the confiscation of all profits earned by German businesses during World War I.
Point 13 demands the nationalization of all corporations.
Point 14 demands profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
Point 15 demands the generous development of state-run old-age insurance.
Point 16 calls for the immediate socialization of the huge department stores.
And so on.

These are just a small part of the works that I have that look at socialism, and facism and chronicle the fact that nazis were in fact national socialists, and therefore on the left wing of the political spectrum. I am not making this up, and I don't point it out for anything other than to show that trying to call nazis "right wing," is inaccurate.

 

[Sukerkin]

Historians note: The Nazi's were Right-Wing Fascists.

It takes some nifty re-knitting of terms and selective sampling of policies to come to a different conclusion. A few do and those are the ones that BillC, of course, elects as being the authority on the matter.
Even the dictionary does not agree with him or his sources but that will not stop attempts to re-cast the Nazi party, as the bogey-man of the last century, to be the brothers of political ideologies he does not agree with.

Thankfully, for the rest of us, it's not just up to one man what the historical truth is or how political movements are defined:

Fascism - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

If it were up to one man, then that would be, well, Fascist . That, of course is a joke.

Note that that bald definition is shorn of shades of Right or Left, because Fascism is a mode of philosophy in governance in it's own right rather than a demi-form of Conservatism or Socialism. The Nazi form of Fascism was Right Wing rather than Left, despite the crowd-pleasing phrasing of the propaganda used to promote it's policies. It was top-down, rather than bottom up and sought to secure and enforce the power of the ruling class rather than elevate the weak and disadvantaged.

In the end, I can't help but think that BillC's problem with this topic is one of perspective brought on by environment (both educational and social) steeped in Reds Under the Bed. That gives rise to a tendency to see anything that is not "Us" as "Them", a polarising of the political spectrum into a binary scale. That seeing every problem as a nail, so the only tool is a hammer, is what in turn gives rise to so much negativity when there could be productive discussion.

 

[Sukerkin]

Oh and finally:

 

[billc]

Well, since socialism is the intermediate step toward true communism, the step in which the government is in control of the means of production, you have your top down control. Which is what facism, which sprang from marxism, and nazism, which sprang from german socialism, and communism from the marxists. I have the writings of at least 4 or 5 PH.D's in economics, a Ph.D in Political science and several other Ph.D's who will show how national socialism is in fact socialism. German national socialism recruited from the ranks of the german communists who decided that the international brand wasn't to their liking. Italian facism also sprang from the marxists in Italy. Each developed according to the facts on the ground in their particular countries. Denying the left wing status of the national socialists is...well nonsensical given all the data that points to that fact.

Here is another Ph.D on the topic of German socialism...

http://knol.google.com/k/hitler-was-a-socialist#

John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)

"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their
property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation
is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in
contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest
of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour,
and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political
necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed
in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the
East?"


Have a look at the headline quote above and
say who wrote it. It is a typical Hitler rant, is it not? Give it to 100 people
who know Hitler's speeches and 100 would identify it as something said by Adolf.
The fierce German nationalism and territorial ambition is unmistakeable. And if
there is any doubt, have a look at another quote from the same author:

This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this
Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully
in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of
freedom.​

That settles it, doesn't it? Who does not know
of Hitler's glorification of military sacrifice and his aim to establish a
"thousand-year Reich"?

But neither quote is in fact from Hitler.
Both quotes were written by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's co-author (See here and
here).
So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a
socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by the standards of his day. Ideas
that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler's day perfectly normal ideas
among Leftists. And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do not know who
would be.

To emphasis the point...

So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a
socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by the standards of his day. Ideas
that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler's day perfectly normal ideas
among Leftists. And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do not know who
would be.

The entire article by John J. Ray goes into this area of socialism. In other articles he hits on the reason for the passionate need among some to say the national socialists and italian fascists were right, not left. That reason is that if they can't pin the "right" label on the national socialists and italian fascists, then the worst mass murderering governments from 1917 through the cold war were left wing sociolist governments. The nanny state socialists would have their extreme the nightmare of mass murder as the end result of their ideas.

 

[billc]

--Exchange race with class, and the germans also promised to exalt the working man and to equalize their society, but the communists were no friends of the jewish people either.
--exalts nation: "mother russia," the red chinese, all the socialists end up exalting their nations as a way to unify their populations.
--centralized, autocratic government, headed by a dictatorial leader: Lenin, Mao, Pol pot, Hitler, Mussolini, hmmm...seems the same
--severe economic and social regimentation, put a check here for russia, china, vietnam, cambodia, cuba...
--forcible suppression of the opposition: the cultural revolution, the liquidating of the kulaks, the killing fields of cambodia...


Each one of the points is the hallmark of the extreme left wing of socialism.

And to the issue of the persecution of the Jewish people...

But the most spectacular aspect of Nazism was surely its antisemitism. And that
had a grounding in Marx himself. The following
passage is from Marx but it could just as well have been from Hitler:

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew,
as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew
in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.
What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the
worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very
well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical,
real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in
Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an
element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect
the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high
level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the
emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".

Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry
("Judentum" in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the
title of Marx's essay in German was "Zur Judenfrage", which -- while not
necessarily derogatory in itself -- is nonetheless exactly the same expression
("Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase "Endloesung der
Judenfrage" ("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks
of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily "dissolve"
itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a close relative of
Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution"). So all the most condemned
features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the
language used. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in
emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals
of their times. Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler's ideas were also
to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the
quotations from Marx & Engels archived here.

Another
point:

"Everything must be different!" or "Alles muss anders sein!"
was a slogan of the Nazi Party. It is also the heart's desire of every Leftist
since Karl Marx. Nazism was a deeply revolutionary creed, a fact that is always
denied by the Left; but it's true. Hitler and his criminal gang hated the rich,
the capitalists, the Jews, the Christian Churches, and "the System". ​

For emphasis...

So all the most condemned
features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the
language used. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in
emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals
of their times. Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler's ideas were also
to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the
quotations from Marx & Engels archived here.

 

[billc]

From wikipedia on national socialism...

majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as being a far right form of politics.[SUP][27][/SUP] Far right themes exist in Nazism, including the goal of both Nazism as well fascism in general, to promote the right of superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements; and particularly in the case of Nazism, genocide of people deemed to be inferior.[SUP][28]
[/SUP]

[SUP]
this article tries to put the right wing title on the national socialists by pointing to the killing of people they believed to be inferior to them...however you find the same attitude in their cousins, the international socialists of the soviet union and Marx, who believed that peoples who were too far behind the historical curve could never catch up, and therefore had to simply be killed...

The point about killing inferior peoples by the marxists comes in at the 31 second mark on the following video...

And of course you had the killing fields of Cambodia and the other mass murders committed by the left around the world.


The killer in Norway, if not just insane, is part of the extreme left wing. He didn't want the government of Norway to be limited in power. He didn't want to protect the individual rights and freedoms of Norwegian citizens. He wanted the centralized power of the Norwegian government to be used against a group of people he didn't like, a hallmark of the extreme left.

And from the article, more on the anti-semitism of the left (which you can see currently on display at the OWS encampments)

And by Hitler's time, antisemitism in particular, as well as racism in general,
already had a long history on the Left. August Bebel was the founder of
Germany's Social Democratic party (mainstream Leftists) and his best-known
saying is that antisemitism is der Sozialismus des bloeden Mannes
(usually translated as "the socialism of fools") -- which implicitly recognized
the antisemitism then prevalent on the Left. And Lenin himself alluded to the
same phenomenon in saying that "it is not the Jews who are the enemies of the
working people" but "the capitalists of all countries." For more on the
socialist roots of antisemitism see Tyler Cowen's detailed survey here


It should be borne in mind, however, that antisemitism was pervasive in
Europe of the 19th and early 20th century. Many conservatives were antisemitic
too. Leftists were merely the most enthusistic practitioners of it. We have seen
how virulent it was in Marx. Antisemitism among conservatives, by contrast, was
usually not seen by them as a major concern. British Conservatives made the
outspokenly Jewish Benjamin Disraeli their Prime Minister in the 19th century
and the man who actually declared war on Hitler -- Neville Chamberlain --
himself had antisemitic views.

[/SUP]

 

[WC_lun]

Billi, I do not think "left wing" means what you think it means. When you post these links to articles mostly written by authors who have the goal not of historical accuracy, but instead distorting historical fact to make people of opposing political thought out as nazi-like, you become a caricature of what you intend. It is starting to become sad.

 

[Jenna]

Bill, I think I am in the wrong discussion maybe. I am not wanting to make the distinction between left-wing and right-wing - particularly as I am not well enough informed. I was only pointing out the difference to me between moderate, centre, rational thought and action either left or right which is perfectly fine in our kinds of democracies, and extreme thought and action on either side. I do not care to argue left and right as to me it is all adulterated by ego in the end. Extremism though is not a good thing, you would agree with this? Extreme right-wing espouses xenophobia and intolerance (in my limited understanding) which I think are only vaguely linked to moderate right-wing thinking. Likewise extreme left-wing espouses anarchistic anti-capitalism which is only vaguely based on anything resembling Marx. My point that I am not making well is not to argue with you or anyone about left and right only to differentiate moderate and extreme. My nanna left to come here to Britain during the war because of what happened where we are originally from, I would have no interest in debating the merits or lineage of Nazism left or right. I am happy that everyone is entitled to their opinion though, that is just mine

 

[Tez3]

However in the world according to Billcihak there are no valid views other than his. That's the problem. he flies in the face of the worlds experts with his views, he tells people from the former USSR what communism is and he tells Jews what their persescution is. Television shows, which as someone has already pointed out are fiction, confirm his views. A man who thinks the Muppets film is teaching children communism is not rational in his beliefs. This would be fine as Jenna has pointed out everyone can have their beliefs BUT and this is a big but when Bili and his ilk join together life starts getting dangerous for certain groups of people. This is why I will argue with him everytime, this is why Londoners came out at the battle of Cable Street, this is why the Second World was fought to stop right wing extremism like his harming the world. Silly? No, look at the McCarthy era where you had people with exactly the same views as Bili hunting down 'communists' in some cases driving them out of the country. Papers here have just been released about Charlie Chaplin who left the USA because he was accused of being a communist, the Americans asked the security services here to investigate him, they did though with scepticism, they were correct to do so, there wasn't anything communist in his background. DEspite that the FBI kept a file on him until 1977. Now he had the wealth to leave what about the ordinary Americans who didn't and had their lives ruined by this witch hunt? so Bili's talk still harmless? No I'm afraid it's not. It's extremism, it's right wing and when he and his kind gather together then it's dangerous for you if you don't think as he does, because they aren't going to respect your views they will destroy them...and you. Look at history, learn because it always repeats itself. Just his mumblings on the internet? As we are talking about Norway look at the killer of children and how he communicated with groups sympathetic to his right wing views.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rway-attacks-inside-the-mind-of-a-killer.html

 

[billc]

Tez, if any nation is is danger of repeating the tragedy of the 1930's you should look at Britain. The reliance on government, which increases every year, and the acceptance of this reliance leads to the worst places imaginable. On other threads we have spoken about speech, and how silencing some types of speech is okay, and on healthcare, if the taxpayers pay for it it is right for them to make demands of citizens. Right now, things will not be so bad. Years from now, you are walking your way down the path that leads to really bad places. Look at Greece. I don't want these bad things for the U.S. That is why putting as many limits on government as possible is a good thing. Centralized power never helps people, it only leads to them having less and less freedom and a reduced ability to fight off government based violence against its citizens. Socialism, wether the german, italian, russian or chinese versions of the 1930's thru the cold war or the modern gentle socialism, will never lead anywhere good. It erodes freedom and makes people less free and independent, more likely to look to the government for all of their needs, and then one day, the government will start making demands and start issuing more orders. Perhaps they will even make religious institutions provide healthcare that goes against their religious beliefs. Perhaps they will start searching children's lunch bags to ensure that the parents are providing government approved lunches. Perhaps it takes a while for all of these things to add up, but eventually they will, and then you have what is happening in Greece. Once all the money is gone, and the violence starts, then the government will crack down to "restore order." Then you are at the bad place, and bad things really start to happen. Keep that in mind.

 

[Tez3]

Tez, if any nation is is danger of repeating the tragedy of the 1930's you should look at Britain. The reliance on government, which increases every year, and the acceptance of this reliance leads to the worst places imaginable. On other threads we have spoken about speech, and how silencing some types of speech is okay, and on healthcare, if the taxpayers pay for it it is right for them to make demands of citizens. Right now, things will not be so bad. Years from now, you are walking your way down the path that leads to really bad places. Look at Greece. I don't want these bad things for the U.S. That is why putting as many limits on government as possible is a good thing. Centralized power never helps people, it only leads to them having less and less freedom and a reduced ability to fight off government based violence against its citizens. Socialism, wether the german, italian, russian or chinese versions of the 1930's thru the cold war or the modern gentle socialism, will never lead anywhere good. It erodes freedom and makes people less free and independent, more likely to look to the government for all of their needs, and then one day, the government will start making demands and start issuing more orders. Perhaps they will even make religious institutions provide healthcare that goes against their religious beliefs. Perhaps they will start searching children's lunch bags to ensure that the parents are providing government approved lunches. Perhaps it takes a while for all of these things to add up, but eventually they will, and then you have what is happening in Greece. Once all the money is gone, and the violence starts, then the government will crack down to "restore order." Then you are at the bad place, and bad things really start to happen. Keep that in mind.

You don't actually read anything anyone posts do you? You have the ideas in your mind and that's it. You have totally the wrong idea of what goes on here, how things work and just see what you want to see. Of course the UK to you is a bad place, it's not right wing America. Your fascist thinking is far more dangerous than anything that we could come up with here.

 

[billc]

You call me facsist, but I'm the one talking about free speech, limited government and the rights of the individual. How one gets to fascist from that is interesting, considering you support limits on free speech, the government's ability to tell citizens what to do as regards health care and so on...but you call me the fascist. Interesting.

 

[Tez3]

You do realise we have a Conservative Prime Minister as well as a mostly Conservative government don't you. The Socialists aren't in power here, they are in Opposition and you've just proved my point that you don't read what I post or at least you read into what you want to because you have it all **** about face. I find that when I try to explain how something works here you automatically assume I'm a supporter of it, how odd and how fascist.

In case you don't get the point, the giving of contraceptives to girls without parents knowledge and all the rest were enacted by your beloved conservatives not the Socialists.

 

[granfire]

Yo know, I was kind of laughing about billi's little escapades in this thread.

Then it kind of struck me:
his ilk is up and about.
The story about Chaplin - read the comments, it hardly takes 3 before somebody harps in about Obama. No, really?! I don't even think Chaplin was in the same country when the President was conceived....and long dead before the man ever started into politics.

It seems lately all subjects turn into 'bad Obama'

 

[Jenna]

No offence to anyone at all and but re-reading over this thread in its entirety again I think I remember why I used to avoid The Study.

 

[Tez3]

Definition of fascist
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascist

fascist [ˈfæʃɪst] (sometimes capital) n 1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an adherent or practitioner of fascism
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any person regarded as having right-wing authoritarian views

adj also fascistic [fəˈʃɪstɪk] (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) characteristic of or relating to fascism fascistically adv


The absolute insistance that one is correct, while no one else can be, to the extent of seeking only those who agree with them as citing one's correctness is laughable until the first detractors are persecuted. Then it becomes serious.

 

[elder999]

You call me facsist, but I'm the one talking about free speech, limited government and the rights of the individual. How one gets to fascist from that is interesting, considering you support limits on free speech, the government's ability to tell citizens what to do as regards health care and so on...but you call me the fascist. Interesting.

TO be fair, the show sounds like a funny "fish out of water" sitcom, sort of like My Blue Heaven, only with fenalår and gravlaks,instead of popovers.:lol:

To be really fair, though-I read some of the reviews that billi copypastas (look, Omar, I made a verb! :lol: ) and later see the movie or read the whatever and really have to wonder if they saw the same thing. It seems to me that if one is constantly looking at everything through a rightwing vs. leftwing lens, then they truly cannot see a goddam thing. The review he posted about Captain America is just one example that rolls out......

Gobbledygook.

Sylvio Dante
you all me a fascist
Mafia freedom
Norwegian nanny state
weak men
Heil Brietbart!

(Oh, and sleep with a Norwegian woman, then tell me that their men are weak....kegels in kinderegarten gym class, oh my God! )

 

[granfire]

(Oh, and sleep with a Norwegian woman, then tell me that their men are weak....kegels in kinderegarten gym class, oh my God! )

sooo many things to be said about that....

:lfao:

(you know billi and women don't seem to go into one sentence...)

 

[elder999]

No offence to anyone at all and but re-reading over this thread in its entirety again I think I remember why I used to avoid The Study.

Oh, please don't go, Jenna. What billi posts is puerile nonsense, made even more puerile by his constantly appearing to be blithely unaware of how offensive some of it is, because he insists that it's "right." (As though telling someone that they're "fat" could be anything but offensive, simply because it's "right." :lol: ) Once you wrap your head around that, his posts become somewhat amusing, as long as you don't think of their sources as voting. Or gathering in groups. Or being anywhere near children.......

.....or having children themselves....okay, I'll stop now-I threw up in my mouth a little there....:barf:

 

[granfire]

Oh, please don't go, Jenna. What billi posts is puerile nonsense, made even more puerile by his constantly appearing to be blithely unaware of how offensive some of it is, because he insists that it's "right." (As though telling someone that they're "fat" could be anything but offensive, simply because it's "right." :lol: ) Once you wrap your head around that, his posts become somewhat amusing, as long as you don't think of their sources as voting. Or gathering in groups. Or being anywhere near children.......

.....or having children themselves....okay, I'll stop now-I threw up in my mouth a little there....:barf:

Yes, that pretty much is the essence of it.