Don't like our policies
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
Squiggy
ThunderDick
Ards, I don't care what they 'called' it. In reality, Nazism is right wing. It may be to YOUR left, 
D) but its right wing.... Look at how many dictatorships we commonly call "communist". They aren't communist. If you want to put communism in its proper perspective, I will accept it as 'left'.
D) but its right wing.... Look at how many dictatorships we commonly call "communist". They aren't communist. If you want to put communism in its proper perspective, I will accept it as 'left'.
Ardsgaine
New Member
Squiggy said:Ards, I don't care what they 'called' it. In reality, Nazism is right wing. It may be to YOUR left,
Squiggy, I have two other threads going on this very subject in which I offer evidence that contradicts what you're saying. If you want to debate whether Naziism is socialist or capitalist, take a look at the thread "Name that Tune..." If you want to discuss whether Russia was really communist, take a look at the thread "Is Suppression a Rule of Communism."
Don't be stupid.
Ardsgaine
New Member
chcr said:
The difference is in the method of state control over the economy. Under communism, all industries are nationalized, and private ownership of the means of production is virtually eliminated, except for small, marginal enterprises that are under strict state control. Under fascism/nazism, key industries like the railroads might be nationalized, but the rest operate under a mass of state regulations. Another (non-essential) difference is that communism, in theory, is international in outlook, while fascism/nazism is nationalistic and often racist. In practice, though, communist regimes will use nationalism and racism to motivate people where it suits their purposes.
Both theories deny the right to property and condemn individualism, the key tenets of capitalism. How anyone can maintain that fascism/nazism is the same thing as capitalism is beyond me. The argument doesn't even get off the ground.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
deleted
Getting into the discussion of where to separate economic and social organizational ideologies is something I'd rather not get too deep into. See my post below for a brief synopsis of my thoughts, and I'll just leave it at that for now.
Getting into the discussion of where to separate economic and social organizational ideologies is something I'd rather not get too deep into. See my post below for a brief synopsis of my thoughts, and I'll just leave it at that for now.
Squiggy
ThunderDick
In my life I have seen us relinquish many more rights under republican administrations than under democrat administrations. So now you've all agreed that Hitler was a left, bleeding heart, liberal, and assigned Nazi to the left wing. And you want me to take anything serious. Go talk to yourselves and pat each other on the back...
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Part of the problem is that people use different measuring sticks for their definitions of "left" and "right." If your "right" is my "up" then how do we reach a common ground to discuss things?
I may not have the typical view of such things, but I don't see this as a "one straight line, two extremes" type of thing. More like three segments sharing a common central point. One one extreme is individualism... capitalism. On another extreme is facism, and on another is communism.
Say you start at the communist extreme, and move towards a more central position. You are moving towards facism and capitalism. At some point though (the central point), you have to make a decision. Continue towards the individualist capatilist extreme, or set your course to the socialist facist extreme.
Both facism and communism are socialist extremes (collectivist). Neither is truly individualistic, thus neither is right wing. It's almost as if liberals want to say "if you're not leaning towards communism, you're leaning towards facism" which is ridiculous. There is another option.
I've always felt the "left" and "right" labels were limiting, but I think that's because people inherently mix economic and social organization when applying such labels. You can put social organization on a straight line, with collectivist on the left and individualist on the right, but when you include the economic aspect it really complicates thing.
The big liberal fallacy, IMO, is that they believe facism begins on the right end of the social spectrum and diverges from a democratic capitalism on economic grounds. In reality, it starts on the left end of the social spectrum and diverges from communism on economic grounds.
IMO anyway. I don't tend to think of these things in the typical manner, so perhaps I'm just insane.
I may not have the typical view of such things, but I don't see this as a "one straight line, two extremes" type of thing. More like three segments sharing a common central point. One one extreme is individualism... capitalism. On another extreme is facism, and on another is communism.
Say you start at the communist extreme, and move towards a more central position. You are moving towards facism and capitalism. At some point though (the central point), you have to make a decision. Continue towards the individualist capatilist extreme, or set your course to the socialist facist extreme.
Both facism and communism are socialist extremes (collectivist). Neither is truly individualistic, thus neither is right wing. It's almost as if liberals want to say "if you're not leaning towards communism, you're leaning towards facism" which is ridiculous. There is another option.
I've always felt the "left" and "right" labels were limiting, but I think that's because people inherently mix economic and social organization when applying such labels. You can put social organization on a straight line, with collectivist on the left and individualist on the right, but when you include the economic aspect it really complicates thing.
The big liberal fallacy, IMO, is that they believe facism begins on the right end of the social spectrum and diverges from a democratic capitalism on economic grounds. In reality, it starts on the left end of the social spectrum and diverges from communism on economic grounds.
IMO anyway. I don't tend to think of these things in the typical manner, so perhaps I'm just insane.
chcr
Too cute for words
Ards, I wasn't clear. By functional differences, I meant how would they affect me as an average citizen of one of these regimes differently. I think it's pretty clear from a historical perspective that these differences are negligible. My problem with the far left and the far right in America, is that the vast majority is neither one, and yet both presume to tell the rest of us what to do for our own good. When someone presumes to tell me what's good for me, I get really defensive and start looking for his or her ulterior motive. Here's an idea, why don't we let the majority run the country?
Ardsgaine
New Member
Squiggy said:
Herein lies the problem. You're approaching this debate by using right-wing and Republican, and left-wing and Democrat, as interchangeable concepts. It's not a debate about Republicans vs Democrats. I am not taking a position on whether Republicans are fascists, or not. I'm not even taking a position on whether Democrats are fascists or not. I'm not saying that all leftists are fascists. What I am saying is that all fascists are leftists. Get it?
This is a debate about which ideas fall into which categories. I've offered evidence based on the similarities in principles between fascism and communism, and their differences with capitalism. I've also offered evidence based on the geneology of fascism and communism vs that of capitalism. You are studiously ignoring all of it.
Squiggy said:
Is this what you call a reductio ad absurdum? It's certainly absurd, but it's not a reduction of my argument. It is an attempt to caricature my argument.
Squiggy said:
Apparently, that's what I'm going to have to do, because regardless of the evidence and arguments I've offered, you refuse to address any of it. Your position seems to be that I can't put all the dictators in your camp, because it's just not fair. *pout*
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Squiggy said:Yeah..... right. So I was right when i said all that isn't Ards is left wing....
Well... partially. Ards defined himself as being as far right as the spectrum allows. Thus, no one is "right" of him. Subsequently, everyone that doesn't share his views is logically "left" of him.
I think there's a subtle difference though in equating "left of Ards" as being "left wing." Well, not so subtle... it is a pretty big and blatantly false generalization. There's plenty of room on the spectrum to be "left of Ards" and still be "right in general."
And remember, I don't see the labels of right and left as really working so well, since I see three extremes and only two labels. But again that's the result of mixing up the social and economic categorizations.
Put it this way... from a communists point of view, facism is pretty far away from them. Thus, facism is on the extreme right. From a capatilsts point of view, facism is pretty far away from them. Thus, facism is on the extreme left.
I don't see that as really being a contradiction, just a result of incorrectly using two labels to categorize three extremes. However, if you want to stick purely to the social organization and forget about the economic muddiness, then both facism and communism deny individual rights, and are collectivist in nature. Thus, they are both clearly socialist philosophies. On the purely political/social spectrum, they are both clearly left wing philosophies.
Squiggy
ThunderDick
No Ards...I don't fucking get it. You have proclaimed every fucking political view except your own as "leftist". If that were the case then a more accurate description would be everyone enclosed in a sphere except Ards. There would be no left or right. just us as a group and you out there by yourself.