I usually just read what is on this site and don't comment but..well Billy,
credit where credit is due. This is one of the finest, brief descriptions of
this very varied political system that I have ever read. However you will
receive much criticism from many both on the American right and others who are
closer to center right. I have seen that already. In part this is because we
have the luxury of isolation among other things, which allows us to redefine
world political to our own specifications and conveniences. I suppose this is
why when we speak of liberal and conservative to peoples of other countries we
more often than not run in to a kind of communication breakdown.
Much of the confusion IMO results from the fact that the Right (especially
here in the US) does not want to be associated with the terms Fascism, NAZI and
above all we do not want to be associated with the name Hitler, in any way
shape or form. That unfortunately is impossible, just as it is for those on the
left to make any effort to disassociate themselves from Communism and despots
like Stalin or the other Eastern European and Asian leftest leaders who
destroyed their own societies for power and personal gain .
I lived under Francisco Franco's regime for its last seven years and so
experienced Spanish Fascism directly. The term itself is difficult to define
because the "big four" regimes we classify as Fascist, while having some
things in common were all quite different. One point they all shared in common
was some form or another of corporatism. In none of the four was private
industry discouraged. The founder of Fascism, Benito Mussolini, several times
rued the fact that he had called his system Fascism and complained that he
should have called it what it really was; corporatism. He was seen by big
business all over the world in a very positive light until he joined Hitler's
Germany in a failed alliance. Had he refused Hitler's entreaties he might be
looked upon today as a hero rather than a villain. Though we may not like to
say it, Benito Mussolini was a quite intelligent man. Unfortunately he was a
poor judge of character and didn't seem to know how to
make friends that would benefit him.
But before we throw corporatism to the dogs as a form of Fascism we must say
that that system has done well by and for the USA until it spun out of control
and became multi-nationalist corporatism. While this happened or at least
became evident under the administration lead by George W Bush we should be
careful (and I am no friend, politically speaking, of GWB, not to blame his
administration totally because this was happening long before he became the
head of state. It simply has become more evident to the public during the past
ten years
In truth, Hitler's National Socialist Germany was about as socialist as
communist East Germany's, German Democratic Republic as democratic. Certainly
there were elements of socialism in all four of those regimes; Hitler's Third
Reich, Mussolini's Fascist Italy, Franco's Falangist Spain and Japan's pre-war
and wartime government controlled by the industrialist of Japan commonly
referred to as the Zaibatsu. But then again we certainly have plenty of
socialist elements in our government and those, long before Obama took over.
We really have just touched on this subject which I see will go deeper as
comments come in. But I'll stop here for the moment. Again I thank you, Billy
for your concise and fine outline of the subject.
Tom Sorensen
--- On Thu, 1/13/11, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [RC] [ RC ] When is a "Socialist" actually a Socialist ?
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011, 2:35 AM
Words and Politics :
When is a "Socialist" actually a Socialist ?
When is a "democracy" actually a democracy ?
Here we go again. If you --anyone-- has Marx in mind then there is no such
animal
as a Nationalist who is also a Socialist. Marxism, by definition , and
repeated ad nauseum
in all kinds of Communist writings, is avowedly and vehemently Internationalist.
That's point # 1.
Point # 2 is that what a group calls itself, or a state, may have just about
nothing to do
with reality. I seriously doubt that when you think back to the Cold War that
you regard
all the "people's democracies" of eastern Europe as democracies at all.
Point # 3 is that the structural / fundamental difference between R and L
concerns
property. Either L or R can be authoritarian OR democratic. Maybe you are not
exactly keen about Sweden or Norway but Socialist or not, they were always
democratic.
And while you think well of Capitalism you've got to admit that there can be
dictatorships
which feature private enterprise --just about every country in Latin America
at one
time or another in the past, for instance.
But the Left always is public property centered, and the right is always
private property
centered. Always, 100% of the time.
Krupp was never taken over by the Nazi state , nor was any other corporation.
Quite the
opposite, at least while it lasted, German corporations did quite well in the
Third Reich.
Labor Unions, on the contrary , were sham unions, basically house unions, or
neutered unions. That is typical of the Right, not the Left, although this is
not quite as clear cut as the issue of property.
On the Left there is such a thing as "streets and sewers socialism," the modus
operandi
of the Wisconsin wing of the SPUSA for a long time , in the past. Call it
public works
socialism if you prefer, that is, putting public property at the center of
their politics.
That sort of emphasis was also typical of the USSR, albeit under a dictator.
One thing to admit, the Berlin wing of the Nazi Party was, for a while,
pro-labor
and at least semi-Socialist. But that was never true in Vienna in Hitler's crowd
and the Beliners did not prevail. Goebbels, a Berliner, was seduced by Hitler
and
became his perfect sycophant and the Strassers didn't do too well, one brother
killed
and the other escaping into exile in Canada. That ended any vestige of Leftism
among Nazis except for their retention of the word "Socialist."
By the theory of absolute meaning of words, BTW, mind telling me why
hard core fundamentalists refuse to consider Mormons as Christians ?
After all, they use the word of themselves. Or is it the fact that
words may mask reality or mislead people ?
There are, to put it this way, con artists in politics not only in sales.
The Nazis were as far Right as it is possible to get, just as the Soviet
Communists
under Stalin or the Chinese communists under Mao were as far Left as possible.
Which brings up point # 4. There are extremes to all political systems.
An extremist of the Libertarian persuasion is an Anarchist.
An extremist of the democratic persuasion is a tyrant who uses mob rule to
govern.
And so on and so forth for all systems.
We are all susceptible to the dangers of the extremes of any political
philosophy we favor.
This will remain true as long as "original sin" remains true. Which we need to
always
be wary of, to escape another sin, identified by Aristotle as hubris.
My humble opinion for today
Billy
============================================================
message dated 1/12/2011 9:15:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Hitler to me is a confirmation, not a contradiction of him being on the left.
National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP, Nazi for short) doesn't sound
that conservative or "right" to me.
Unless you want to tell me that ALL Socialist Workers Parties are on the right.
:-)
David
"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible
education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people
get out and vote."--P. J. O'Rourke
On 1/12/2011 9:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
How can anyone figure out that guy ? He is a lunatic. To say the least, he is
inconsistent
in what / who he admires. Atlas Shrugs ran a series of short articles that
claim he is
a Lefty. After all, Marx is one of his idols. Trouble is, so is Hitler.
You can find Libertarian ideas also, but just as easily you can find
authoritarian ideas.
Sounds to me like -just a wild guess-- Ernie lives in California. My sister
also lives
in the Peoples Republic. When she was visiting a month ago she said a few choice
things about the Tea Party consisting of folks with guns, the idea being that
the
movement is a militia in everything but name. Wonder where she got that idea.
I'm 100% certain that it has nothing at all to do with the fact that all the
media she
has access to is located in the Bay Area and that her friends in San Francisco
are, like the city, 3/4ths Leftist Democrats
Anyway, now I know, from direct experience, what was clear enough to me many
months ago, that the Tea Party consists of little old ladies with attitude,
older gentlemen
tired of being pushed around by elitists, and an assortment of various and many
others
who are best described as the kind of folks who you would meet in a local
neighborhood
corner cafe almost anywhere in the USA except big cities and university
enclaves.
Average people but with a fire lit under their chairs who are motivated to do
something real in their communities.
For their troubles the Left demonizes them as a " threat."
One word that comes to mind which is far more accurate, is that they are
"populists."
OK, to be technical, maybe "neo-Populists" might be more clinically descriptive,
we are long past the era of farmers with pitchforks, but that is the tradition.
Which is OK with me. No-one can accuse them of apathy.
Billy
========================================================
message dated 1/12/2011 7:26:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
No one has any evidence of that at all. In fact, he had previously met the
congresswoman back in 2007 and had a file in his house on her.
He didn't need to be incited, he was doing a good enough job of "inciting" all
by himself.
David
"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible
education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people
get out and vote."--P. J. O'Rourke
On 1/12/2011 8:52 AM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
Has anyone found *any* evidence that he was at all aware of and/or influenced
by Tea Party rhetoric?
I assume not, but nobody on either side seems to have even asked that
question...
-- Ernie P.
On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:55 PM, David R. Block wrote:
http://www.investors.com/image/RAMclr-011211-murdereribd-f.jpg.cms
<moz-screenshot.png>
--
"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible
education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people
get out and vote."--P. J. O'Rourke
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
