62 replies to this topic

[chris w]

Yeah, your obvious total ignorance of the economic and military situation make that not worth replying to. I dare say it is because economics in general are a mystery to you.
Here's a hint: socialism fails.

And here's a little hint for you -

Armies are not twins to their countries' economic and social systems. I'll quote yourself here from your blog :
"Stop Calling the German Military 'Nazi'. Are all American soldiers Democrats because Obama is in power?"

a) A succesfull total war can only be waged by a state with controlled economy ( as probably the more versed libertarians would explain to you with joy as an argument in itself against the state )

b) The waring Third Reich aimed to have a controlled economy to a large extent ( altough still nothing like the Soviet Union,) and had a VERY disciplined and fanatical ( Waffen SS ) army with many comandants who gained formidable war experience before there even was a Nazi Party.

so

c) Third Reich had a chance at wining, the fact that they didn't is owned to strategic occurencies and a couple misfortunes, not systemic problems of their order which wouldn't even have the time to become relevant in the run needed to win the war, had the Axis played their cards better.

You're saying pretty much "Socialism is equal to genocidal totalitarism, but even then, they suck at destroying, because socialism sucks at everything"

As for nazis as ideological "leftists" :

Industries and trusts were not nationalised, with the exception of private rail lines (nationalised in the late 1930s to meet military contingencies). The only private holdings that were expropriated were those belonging to Jews. These holdings were then sold or awarded to businessmen who supported the Nazis and satisifed their ethnic and racial policies. Military production and even film production remained in the hands of private industries whilst serving the Nazi government, and many private companies flourished during the Nazi period. The Nazis never interfered with the profits made by such large German firms as Krupp, Siemens AG, and IG Farben. Efforts were made to coordinate business's actions with the needs of the state, particularly with regard to rearmament, and the Nazis established some state owned concerns such as Volkswagen. But these were functions of the new German expansionism rather than an implementation of socialist measures. Germany had moved to a war economy, and similar measures occurred in the western democracies during the First World War, and again once the Second World War had begun.

In power, the Nazis jettisoned practically all of the socialistic aspects of their program, and worked with big business, frequently at the expense of both small business and the working classes. Gregor Strasser was murdered, as was Ernst Röhm while Otto Strasser was purged from the party. Independent trade unions were outlawed, as were strikes.

Nazi leaders made statements describing their views as socialist, while at the same time opposing the idea of class conflict espoused by the Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD). Established socialist movements did not view the Nazis as socialists and argued that the Nazis were thinly disguised reactionaries. Historians such as Ian Kershaw also note the links between the Nazis and the German political and economic establishment and the significance of the Night of the Long Knives in which Hitler purged what were at the time seen as "leftist" elements in the Nazi Party and how this was done at the urging of the military and conservatives

In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote 'the suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists... We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims. '

The whole original post could have been just said in one sentence - "I hate commies", that would totally suffice. Take off your magical glassess once in a while, that might clear up some misteries for you.

Edited by chris w, 17 October 2010 - 01:12 PM.

[rwac]

Nazi leaders made statements describing their views as socialist, while at the same time opposing the idea of class conflict espoused by the Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD). Established socialist movements did not view the Nazis as socialists and argued that the Nazis were thinly disguised reactionaries. Historians such as Ian Kershaw also note the links between the Nazis and the German political and economic establishment and the significance of the Night of the Long Knives in which Hitler purged what were at the time seen as "leftist" elements in the Nazi Party and how this was done at the urging of the military and conservatives

Fratricide is in not uncommon among leftists. What did Stalin do after rising to power ? Purge the Trotskyites and other competition of course. Does that make him not leftist now ? Just because some socialist movements were jealous of the Nazis, doesn't make them right about the Nazis not being leftist.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote 'the suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists... We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims. '

The Nazis were obviously not Marxists, not with Marx's emphasis on international action. I imagine that may not have been obvious at the beginning of the Nazis' rise to power.

Edited by rwac, 17 October 2010 - 02:07 PM.

[chris w]

Yes, but the ideological dealmaker/breaker in the end should always be "what was believed", not "what was actually done", as the latter is obviously prone to compromises with objective reality and can rarely be as clear cut as stated ideology can be.

What makes Left is essentially the view that people are in principle equally deserving and what makes the anti - Left is saying that some are superior and some are inferior. Obvious where Nazis would reside. The Nazi Party's statist methods were a vehicle, not a goal in itself ( I think that's what gets mixed often in this issue ) - if they wanted to conquer the world, they had no other choice to do that than through the use of German State's army and structures. Today the dominant flavor of many Neo Nazi wackos is exactly anti-statism ( as they think Libertarianism is more "white", "germanic" etc ) , but that doesn't make them any less Nazi in their ideology, yes ?.

Another thing is the concept of "Nature" ( as in "nature of reality"). The Communists essentially believed that basically entire reality is malleable ( Stalin with one of his court scientists - Trofim Lysenko, argued that the science of genetics is "reactionary" as it follows from it, that traits are unmalleable to our will ). Nazis thought that "Aryans" are *methapisically* different from non - Aryans, Jews especially. Being of a certain class is changeable, of a certain ethnicity - no.

And Nazism was not materialistic like Communism, but in fact quite spiritually inclined ( for example Himmler was very much concerned with esoteric matters, he even thought of himself as a literal reincarnation of a medieval German king ), and they were into all sorts of paganist bullshit.

The methods of Third Reich and Soviet Union were similar ( but not to the same extent,as Nazis left some space for private ownership, esecially before the war ), but that doesn't prove that the ideologies have much in common - at cores, they had much in opposite.

Communism - a prospective ( "it will be good" ), inclusive utopia
Nazism - a retrograde ( "it was good in the past" ), exclusive utopia


Oh yeah, and so that no one gets the wrong impression, altough I may defend Marx here and there, I'm not a Commie by a long shot, but a boring Scandinavian style Social Democrat, though I realise Libertarians may see that diference as negligible.

Edited by chris w, 17 October 2010 - 04:09 PM.

[rwac]

What makes Left is essentially the view that people are in principle equally deserving

This is the problem. That's what you think makes Left, the leaders have a different view and agenda. This "principle" you're talking about is merely a means to an end, which is power. Another vehicle for them is the Environmentalists/AGW movement, since who could possibly be against saving the world ...
This is why the Leftist masses are doomed to being disappointed by the leaders of the Left, who always, always have a different agenda.

What actually makes the Left is the principle that the "elite" know how to do things better than the people, and that people who disagree are obviously wrong.

In the extreme, this leads to things like the Command Economy, Prohibition, The Drug War, Anti-Homosexual laws, etc.
Yes, I'm including the so called Social Conservatives in the definition of leftists.

Edited by rwac, 17 October 2010 - 04:21 PM.

[niner]

What actually makes the Left is the principle that the "elite" know how to do things better than the people, and that people who disagree are obviously wrong.

This sounds suspiciously like something that Right Wing propagandists would tell us in order to make us hate the Left. If you take away the loaded terms "elite" and "people", and substitute "people with knowledge" and "ignorant people", it has a distinctly different tone.

In the extreme, this leads to things like the Command Economy, Prohibition, The Drug War, Anti-Homosexual laws, etc.
Yes, I'm including the so called Social Conservatives in the definition of leftists.

Hmm, this is getting confusing. So Republicans are Leftists, and Clinton, who balanced the budget, is a Conservative. Ok, I think I get it now.

[rwac]

This sounds suspiciously like something that Right Wing propagandists would tell us in order to make us hate the Left. If you take away the loaded terms "elite" and "people", and substitute "people with knowledge" and "ignorant people", it has a distinctly different tone.

Sure, it's a loaded sentence let's replace it.

"What actually makes the Left is the principle that the people with "knowledge" know how to do things better than the people, and that the many "ignorant" people who disagree are obviously wrong."

The point still remains. The people with "knowledge", brilliant they may be, cannot possibly consider all the knowledge that is distributed among the "ignorant" people. It is next to impossible to actually predict all the consequences of a particular law meant to do a particular thing. Especially how it interacts with other equally well meaning laws.

Hmm, this is getting confusing. So Republicans are Leftists, and Clinton, who balanced the budget, is a Conservative. Ok, I think I get it now.

Well, it was actually the Republican Congress that balanced the budget.
The GOP is Leftist on social issues, and the Dems are Leftist on economic issues.
The GOP has also grown soft on economic issues recently though, and needs to brought back into line.

Edited by rwac, 18 October 2010 - 03:47 AM.

[niner]

Well, it was actually the Republican Congress that balanced the budget.

How many Congressional Republicans voted to increase taxes? I'm sure it was easy to get them to go along with cutting back on Welfare, but without Clinton wanting to balance the budget, there's no way it would have happened. The GOP didn't grow soft on economic issues recently, they've been in deficit constantly since the days of Reagan. It did get worse under Bush. I don't think that the GOP is capable of balancing a budget, because they won't raise taxes and they won't cut popular programs enough to make a difference.

[eternaltraveler]

The GOP has also grown soft on economic issues recently though, and needs to brought back into line.

the GOP is so far left the only hope to slow down governmental expansion is divided government, where the red team and the blue team, though each promoting similar policies, don't play well with each other, therefore, they both disagree with the other team for the sake of it (this is positive insofar as it slows down the accumulation of negatives).

[eternaltraveler]

Well, it was actually the Republican Congress that balanced the budget.

How many Congressional Republicans voted to increase taxes? I'm sure it was easy to get them to go along with cutting back on Welfare, but without Clinton wanting to balance the budget, there's no way it would have happened. The GOP didn't grow soft on economic issues recently, they've been in deficit constantly since the days of Reagan. It did get worse under Bush. I don't think that the GOP is capable of balancing a budget, because they won't raise taxes and they won't cut popular programs enough to make a difference.

Both Clinton and congress produced the balanced budget. That's how our system of government works. It might be fun to give 100% of credit to one because you don't like the other, but it doesn't fly. Its partially due to the fact that divided government is worse at thinking of things to spend money on.

Presently, a balanced budget isn't even a twinkle in Obama's or the current Congress's eye.

[niner]

Presently, a balanced budget isn't even a twinkle in Obama's or the current Congress's eye.

Nor should it be. In the current economic situation, balancing the budget would be suicidal. We should be looking to return to surplus some number of years down the road. By the looks of things, probably 3-5, but that could change in either direction, with longer being more likely, I'm afraid.

[cathological]

Nor should it be.  In the current economic situation, balancing the budget would be suicidal.  We should be looking to return to surplus some number of years down the road.  By the looks of things, probably 3-5, but that could change in either direction, with longer being more likely, I'm afraid.

Deficit spending is suicidal.

Edited by cathological, 18 October 2010 - 05:15 AM.

[niner]

Nor should it be.  In the current economic situation, balancing the budget would be suicidal.  We should be looking to return to surplus some number of years down the road.  By the looks of things, probably 3-5, but that could change in either direction, with longer being more likely, I'm afraid.

Deficit spending is suicidal.

That's black and white thinking. There's a time for deficit spending, and a time to build up surpluses. Of course, if you are incapable of building up a surplus, then you shouldn't go deep into deficit. Our path is unsustainable over the longer term, and it must be changed. At this moment the recovery is still too fragile for draconian budget cuts.

[maxwatt]

Divided government? We are on the road to chaos while the Chinese eat our lunch.

"We must hang together or we shall all hang separately." --Ben Franklin

Left and right are archaic shoe-box political designations, the terms originated after the French Revolution, where the more radical opponents of the old social order sat on the left side of the National Convention, and the more traditional-minded anti-monarchists sat on the right side (among them Tom Paine co-author with Thomas Jefferson of The Federalist Papers.) Even so, I think the terms are being turned upside-down in this discussion. I think by "Left" you guys mean "authoritarian" (telling others what to do.) Traditionally leftists were anti-authoritarian. So is much of the right in the US, except when it comes to abortion rights, and gay marriage. The authoritarian left, or the liberalism of the fifties and sixties, seems to me long dead.

[rwac]

Even so, I think the terms are being turned upside-down in this discussion. I think by "Left" you guys mean "authoritarian" (telling others what to do.) Traditionally leftists were anti-authoritarian. So is much of the right in the US, except when it comes to abortion rights, and gay marriage. The authoritarian left, or the liberalism of the fifties and sixties, seems to me long dead.

The current left is indeed authoritarian on economic issues.

[maxwatt]

The current left is indeed authoritarian on economic issues.

Such as?

[rwac]

Such as?

Obama from the primaries:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent. But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not.

So Obama wants to raise taxes, hurt the economy/stock market, reduce revenues for "purposes of fairness".
If this is not authoritarian thinking, I don't know what is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8

Edited by rwac, 18 October 2010 - 05:16 PM.

[maxwatt]

Equating taxation with authoritarianism is a guileless oversimplification.

GIBSON: "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up."

They didn't.

[chris w]

Which brings me to my favourite question: If we need states, how come states live in anarchy in relation to one another? Why don't we have/need that "global cop" to resolve disputes between countries?

What do you mean "we don't have a global cop" ? I can think of one certainly..

As for minor scales - there's the African Union sending pretty unable troops here and there, and looks like China is aiming to be the cop for South East Asia.
So I definitely see that there is a tendency, the "need" part is a different question.

Which one can you think of? The UN? The United States? Those are not third-party arbitrators of country-level disputes.

Yeah, I was thinking about US, but I hanged on that "cop" part and didn't really register the last words you wrote.

Still, I'm not sure to what extent the international situaton fits the definition of "anarchy". First - there are hegemons able to call the shots for their less powerful neighbours, and the crucial part obviously is that a country cannot move someplace else like a person who doesn't like his bossy employer.
I'm not just talking about military power, it's enough for country A to reside over the upper sector of a massive river flowing also through B, for A to have formidable ( yet unjustified anyhow objectively ) influence.

Another thing is that some players gain enough importance to be virtually untouchable whatever they do, otherwise Russia and China should have been sanctioned a long time ago already, but their respective assets make it that no one's interested in doing this.

If anything, I'd call the situation a form of silent feudalism, at least in certain parts of the globe.




I too am tired of demonizing Nazis. Nihilists are waay worse, just ask Walter Sobchak :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J41iFYO0NQA&feature=related

Edited by chris w, 18 October 2010 - 08:37 PM.

[chris w]

What makes Left is essentially the view that people are in principle equally deserving

This is the problem. That's what you think makes Left, the leaders have a different view and agenda. This "principle" you're talking about is merely a means to an end, which is power. Another vehicle for them is the Environmentalists/AGW movement, since who could possibly be against saving the world ...
This is why the Leftist masses are doomed to being disappointed by the leaders of the Left, who always, always have a different agenda.

Well, I can't be responsible for what goes down in backdoor rooms, I merely talked about ideas, how they get twisted is another matter. The same I could say about Libertarian ideology being used by corporate moguls to get to the cooky jar while waving Freedom Flag with the other hand.

What actually makes the Left is the principle that the "elite" know how to do things better than the people, and that people who disagree are obviously wrong.
In the extreme, this leads to things like the Command Economy, Prohibition, The Drug War, Anti-Homosexual laws, etc.
Yes, I'm including the so called Social Conservatives in the definition of leftists.

So who are Anarcho - Communists then ?

It looks like simply a group getting in power and doing something detrimental makes it a left wing group, whatever they think of themselves actually. So that modern Leftists share some blame with just about any dictator in history that way.

Edited by chris w, 18 October 2010 - 09:20 PM.

[rwac]

Well, I can't be responsible for what goes down in backdoor rooms, I merely talked about ideas, how they get twisted is another matter. The same I could say about Libertarian ideology being used by corporate moguls to get to the cooky jar while waving Freedom Flag with the other hand.

Nah, corporate moguls want regulation, because it hurts smaller competitors disproportionately, and ensures that noone can duplicate what they did.

If we tried to start Home Depot today, under the kind of onerous regulatory controls that you have advocated, it's a stone cold certainty that our business would never get off the ground, much less thrive. Rules against providing stock options would have prevented us from incentivizing worthy employees in the start-up phase—never mind the incredibly high cost of regulatory compliance overall and mandatory health insurance. Still worse are the ever-rapacious trial lawyers.

From http://online.wsj.co..._MoreIn_Opinion

So who are Anarcho - Communists then ?

It looks like simply a group getting in power and doing something detrimental makes it a left wing group, whatever they think of themselves actually. So that modern Leftists share some blame with just about any dictator in history that way.

Anarcho Communism might exist, but the Anarchy is merely a ruse, a stepping stone to Communism. Presumably it's meant to attract hot-blooded youngsters to the leftist cause.

Most dictators have been at least nominally leftist.
(For instance, Saddam Hussein's Baath party had the motto of "Unity, Liberty, Socialism")

[rwac]

Equating taxation with authoritarianism is a guileless oversimplification.

GIBSON: "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up."

They didn't.

Touche.

[maxwatt]

...

So who are Anarcho - Communists then ?

It looks like simply a group getting in power and doing something detrimental makes it a left wing group, whatever they think of themselves actually. So that modern Leftists share some blame with just about any dictator in history that way.

I think we should study political theory starting with Hobbes' Leviathan.

The leftist version of anarcho-capitalism is anarcho-syndicalism. Those who claimed to divine Marx's meaning say it was the ultimate goal of Communism: first the dictatorship of the proletariat, the the withering away of the state. No government or authoritarian state, just man in a state of nature.

But Hobbes' Leviathan posits that life without government would lead to a "war of all against all", and thus lives that are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Sounds sort of like the anarcho-capitalist dystopia that is the great goal of so many libertarians.

Edited by maxwatt, 19 October 2010 - 12:33 AM.

[chris w]

Anarcho Communism might exist, but the Anarchy is merely a ruse, a stepping stone to Communism. Presumably it's meant to attract hot-blooded youngsters to the leftist cause.

C'mon, now you're just saying conspiracy things. FWIW I've known some of these people, and they are serious about their anti - statism and alternative social devices. Plus a lot of drumming, pot and free love, hardly a tool in any greater evil scheme. The hot-blooded youngsters seem to turn into hot-blooded oldsters after a while without a change in their outlooks .... and never ever start to punch bus tickets and serve the Mighty Babilon !

Most dictators have been at least nominally leftist.
(For instance, Saddam Hussein's Baath party had the motto of "Unity, Liberty, Socialism")

See ? He was a Libertarian as well ! ( Joking )

Well, most dictators in history were monarchs. But I could agree to some extent about the times closer to our own.

There is an explainable reason for the nominal Leftism - they had to have something to attract the massess, and that's not going to happen when you promise them toil and insecurity instead of leasure and safety.

On the other hand you have a bunch of strictly anti - Left dictators like Franco and Salazar, and a whole plethora of them in South America, with Pinochet as a very neat example of an anti - Communist and a pro - Capitalist, lending his ear to Chicago Boys. You can't make a secret commie out of him, can ya ?


The way I see it :

1 Authoritarian Left ( USSR ) ------- 4 Authoritarian Right ( 3rd Reich )

2 Democratic Left ( Dems ) ------- 5 Democratic Right ( Reps )

3 Anarchic Left ( An-Coms ) ------- 6 Anarchic Right ( An-Caps )

No need to reinvent the wheel here. Aside of the historical accident why the Left is "left" and Right is "right", I think the traditional division is ussually sufficient for classifing ideologies. If I'm reading you correctly Rwac, you say that all numbers except 6 should be termed "Left", which would lead us to the troubling conclusion that Flower Power communes, Hitlerites and Republicans share some subtle ideological thread. And I dare say they don't .

[rwac]

The way I see it :

1 Authoritarian Left ( USSR ) ------- 4 Authoritarian Right ( 3rd Reich )

2 Democratic Left ( Dems ) ------- 5 Democratic Right ( Reps )

3 Anarchic Left ( An-Coms ) ------- 6 Anarchic Right ( An-Caps )

No need to reinvent the wheel here. Aside of the historical accident why the Left is "left" and Right is "right", I think the traditional division is ussually sufficient for classifing ideologies. If I'm reading you correctly Rwac, you say that all numbers except 6 should be termed "Left", which would lead us to the troubling conclusion that Flower Power communes, Hitlerites and Republicans share some subtle ideological thread. And I dare say they don't .

Socialist principles can work on smaller scales, so communes do work for a while.
Find some policy similarities between Hitler and the GOP, and we can discuss.

I argue that he has more in common with FDR, who established his own concentration camps.

All of them have leftist tendencies except 6. The dems are on the right side of some social issues, and the reps are on the wrong side. It's a matter of degree.

[Rational Madman]

I always wondered if the Axis won the war, how technological progress would have been affected. I mean, to have a society with zero moral constraints on genetic human testing etc.

The political correctness and lack of coherent economic or capital system in Germany would have made it pretty much useless. Germany was bankrupting itself, the idea that they could have conquered the world is militarily and economically retarded.

This is golden, those NSDAP people - bleeding hearts, right ? Where do you get such fun facts from ?

Actually,

1)If Japanese hadn't made the mistake of Pearl Harbor,

2)Hitler had been smarter/less pain killers addicted/whatever and not stopped the onslaught in Russia just kilometers before Moscow and just before the weather change,

3) Lindbergh types had had more sway in US

The Germans would have had a decent shot at it ( not the actual whole world, because they'd have to share with their allies obviously, plus probably would have left US alone ). As long as Wehrmacht kept going, they didn't need a coherent capital system back home, just like a thief doesn't need to have a bussiness plan as long as he's good at stealing. You make it sound like war time Keynesian politics made the German army use stones and sticks. Caucasus, Iran and Iraq would give them all the oil they needed to fight in Russia plus the slave labor plus occasional anti soviet allies like Cossacs, driving Ruskies all the way out to Siberia.

Not to mention they were close to getting the nuke and their rocketry was getting from shitty to more and more developed but I guess that's physcially impossible if Ludvig von Mises says so.

PS you have some citations to back this - "In fact, after the Nazi victory, most of the NSDAP's rank and file were recruited from the Communist, Marxist and Social Democratic parties"





BTW one mo fo cool SS robot that is in the picture

I don't think there's any evidence that the Nazis were anywhere close to developing a workable atomic weapon, since too much of their research and development spending was devoted to other vehicles like rocket weaponry. If pressed, they might've been able to throw together some dirty bombs, but such wouldn't have been anywhere close to the destructive capacity of the nuclear weapons deployed by the United States at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Indeed, due to a lack of research progress, an executive decision was made to shift significant resources from the program, and consequentially, the initiative was almost completely surrendered to the Allies. I think Hitler's fixation on rockets and the Allied sabotage of a heavy water facility in Norway was critical in contributing to this shift in focus---not to mention a realization that the best minds in nuclear research were elsewhere.

As for the prospect of a German triumph over the Soviet Union, I don't think it was very likely due to the vast differences in manpower, resources, and mechanized forces. There might have been a small window of opportunity between 1940-41 when the Soviet Union was still vulnerable from the purges and susceptible to efforts aimed at dividing and conquering dissenters, but I doubt that the Russian nationalist sentiment would've relinquished---even in the event of an implausible sacking of Moscow. Assuming that the Germans were both pragmatic and prescient, an unlikely combination of the following would've needed to occur: a mass mobilization of labor towards war-making production, a benevolent treatment of the Russian population, the restraint of Mussolini, a neutralization of all antagonists on the Western front, a concentrated blitz towards Moscow (rather than a three pronged assault), an emphasis on the complete mechanization of the Wehrmacht, sufficient preparations for the contingency of winter warfare, and the securing of the requisite oil reserves to sustain a war effort on the Eastern front. You see, the fortuitous constant about megalomaniacal fanatics is that they create conditions for a death from self-inflicted wounds.

Edited by Rol82, 20 October 2010 - 10:12 AM.

[JLL]

The way I see it :

1 Authoritarian Left ( USSR ) ------- 4 Authoritarian Right ( 3rd Reich )

2 Democratic Left ( Dems ) ------- 5 Democratic Right ( Reps )

3 Anarchic Left ( An-Coms ) ------- 6 Anarchic Right ( An-Caps )

No need to reinvent the wheel here. Aside of the historical accident why the Left is "left" and Right is "right", I think the traditional division is ussually sufficient for classifing ideologies. If I'm reading you correctly Rwac, you say that all numbers except 6 should be termed "Left", which would lead us to the troubling conclusion that Flower Power communes, Hitlerites and Republicans share some subtle ideological thread. And I dare say they don't .

Your classification is not a bad one, but there *is* something in common between those three -- the fact that they all hold some values above private property.

[maxwatt]

The way I see it :

1 Authoritarian Left ( USSR ) ------- 4 Authoritarian Right ( 3rd Reich )

2 Democratic Left ( Dems ) ------- 5 Democratic Right ( Reps )

3 Anarchic Left ( An-Coms ) ------- 6 Anarchic Right ( An-Caps )

No need to reinvent the wheel here. Aside of the historical accident why the Left is "left" and Right is "right", I think the traditional division is ussually sufficient for classifing ideologies. If I'm reading you correctly Rwac, you say that all numbers except 6 should be termed "Left", which would lead us to the troubling conclusion that Flower Power communes, Hitlerites and Republicans share some subtle ideological thread. And I dare say they don't .

Your classification is not a bad one, but there *is* something in common between those three -- the fact that they all hold some values above private property.

NB: In Canada, the Democrats would be considered on the right.

[Rational Madman]

Nor should it be. In the current economic situation, balancing the budget would be suicidal. We should be looking to return to surplus some number of years down the road. By the looks of things, probably 3-5, but that could change in either direction, with longer being more likely, I'm afraid.

Deficit spending is suicidal.

In inflationary conditions, indeed. But do you bother to look at price indexes?

[Rational Madman]

I could go on about this for days, but I'll take a simple example to make my point with; and if you can look for yourself you will find it more or less replicates itself everywhere in any discussion where Nazis are even tangentially brought up.
It is often decried by leftists that American companies did business with 'the third reich'. When examined closely, when it is actually true, it mostly amounts to nothing more than that some Americans did business with some Germans - many of whom they had been doing business with for decades before there was an NSDAP. On some occasions these companies did business with the German NS government - just as they did with the American and, for that matter, the Soviet governments. In some very rare cases Americans actually gave money to the NSDAP or NSDAP-related organizations. Well, so what? Probably many more Americans gave money or some other support to the German Communist parties (often called Social Democrats). Now, as far as I can tell the only thing worse about the Nazis in Germany as compared to the Commies is that the Nazis won and the Commies didn't. In fact, after the Nazi victory, most of the NSDAP's rank and file were recruited from the Communist, Marxist and Social Democratic parties. And if you give me a choice between living in Bolshevik Russia and Nazi Germany - well, let's say it doesn't require much detailed examination of the actual history to decide I'd take Germany any day.

This Progressive American Hegemonic selective history irritates me in all its forms, but especially the Nazi thing; since to most Americans history began with World War 2. Hitler was insane, or demonaical, or some bizarre reason has to be conjured up for his behavior. How about this: people are ignorant herd animals and socialism sucks. The 'problem' of Nazism solved. Someone give me a Nobel Prize now.

So much, ahh, wrong with logic, cranial pressure becoming overwhelming, ahh! Head beginning to explode!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA

Edited by Rol82, 27 October 2010 - 05:15 AM.

[Rational Madman]

The way I see it :

1 Authoritarian Left ( USSR ) ------- 4 Authoritarian Right ( 3rd Reich )

2 Democratic Left ( Dems ) ------- 5 Democratic Right ( Reps )

3 Anarchic Left ( An-Coms ) ------- 6 Anarchic Right ( An-Caps )

No need to reinvent the wheel here. Aside of the historical accident why the Left is "left" and Right is "right", I think the traditional division is ussually sufficient for classifing ideologies. If I'm reading you correctly Rwac, you say that all numbers except 6 should be termed "Left", which would lead us to the troubling conclusion that Flower Power communes, Hitlerites and Republicans share some subtle ideological thread. And I dare say they don't .

Socialist principles can work on smaller scales, so communes do work for a while.
Find some policy similarities between Hitler and the GOP, and we can discuss.

I argue that he has more in common with FDR, who established his own concentration camps.

All of them have leftist tendencies except 6. The dems are on the right side of some social issues, and the reps are on the wrong side. It's a matter of degree.

Concentration camps? You're technically correct, but I'd be careful with the connotation. Try detention centers instead. Unless you're deliberately trying to suggest the conditions were comparable, which would be pretty pathetic.

Edited by Rol82, 27 October 2010 - 05:28 AM.