Tom :
Hopefully you will join the conversation more regularly in the future. Your 
 comments
were very informative. And reading words of someone who has seen Spain  
under
Fascist rule has value all of its own.
 
The issues of the political past never die, when you think about it,  
because one set of
meanings educate those who follow and who make old causes into new ones  
since
at least some of the issues carry over into another era. But as an  
historian you would
suppose I would say something like this, so it is necessary to admit to a  
certain amount
of self interest.
 
How to define political causes has its own fascination and I have worked on 
 that 
subject now and then for a number of years.  But you are correct,  no-one 
likes
to admit that their own political cause can possibly devolve into something 
 which
is seriously bad or extreme. Yet it must be done for the sake of honesty  
and as a
necessary caution against hubris. 
 
There are other extremes that could have been mentioned but I was trying  to
keep things simple. The KKK is a rightist extreme,  after all,   and in our 
era
leftist extremes include a variety of causes that cannot pass muster  among
thinking people, like what may be called "Africanism," that form of  
Afro-Centrism
which derives from Fanon and which ascribes all human invention and  
discovery
to events and great people from Africa. While there is no political  
movement of 
consequence which has come of this form of fantasy history,  its ideas  can 
be seen in
parts of the "Black Left." For that matter, also in parts of the Black  
Right.
 
There is also the phenomenon of borrowing so much from one's political  
opposite
that parties become mirror images of what they once were. Most  
anti-Semitism
these days is on the Left, not the Right, and the strong free trade views  
of the
Democrats of yore are now found among Republicans.
 
Much more to discuss. I will send you some material , off list, in case  
some
additional ideas might be of interest to you.
 
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.
 
Billy R.
 
===================================================
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
message dated 1/15/2011 5:36:56 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[email protected] writes:
 
     
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]_ 
(http://us.mc306.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[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]_ 
(http://us.mc306.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[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_ 
(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]_ 
(http://us.mc306.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]) 
>
Google  Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ 
(http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) 
Radical  Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ 
(http://radicalcentrism.org/) 




--  
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist  Community 
_<[email protected]>_ 
(http://us.mc306.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]) 
Google  Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ 
(http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) 
Radical  Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ 
(http://radicalcentrism.org/) 

--  
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist  Community 
_<[email protected]>_ 
(http://us.mc306.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]) 
Google  Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ 
(http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) 
Radical  Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ 
(http://radicalcentrism.org/) 


--  
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community  
_<[email protected]>_ 
(http://us.mc306.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]) 
Google  Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ 
(http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) 
Radical  Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ 
(http://radicalcentrism.org/) 


-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical  Centrist Community  
<[email protected]>
Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ 
(http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) 
Radical  Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ 
(http://radicalcentrism.org/) 



-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist  Community 
<[email protected]>
Google  Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ 
(http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) 
Radical  Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ 
(http://radicalcentrism.org/) 




-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community  
<[email protected]>
Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ 
(http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) 
Radical  Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ 
(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

Reply via email to