LGP Political Discussion Thread

[HomerPenguin]

National Socialism—the Nazi party platform—was a close cousin of socialism and fascism and carries most of the same beliefs. They all have essentially the same policies and beliefs, but differ in terms of the unifying focus. In socialism, the central focus is class and the struggle of the working class against the aristocrats and bourgeoisie; “Workers of the world unite!” and all that. In Fascism (specifically the Italian version) the focus was the state, not class.

That's a huge difference, no? The idealized end result in communism is a classless, stateless, international society of equals. The idealized end result of National Socialism was an absolutist state overseeing a society with well-defined class structures in which only those of the master race were permitted to obtain citizenship and hold property. Not much common ground there from what I can gather.

All three movements are fundamentally socialist in terms of belief however. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program and read the 25-point platform of the National Socialist German Workers (Nazi) Party. If you look past the overt racism—the focus is the Volk, remember

So, provided you look past the principle underlying everything they're doing, what they're doing looks like something some other totalitarian regimes have done. OK, I guess.

—you will note such demands as (i) nationalization of all industries, (ii) expansion of old age welfare, (iii) seizure of private property for distribution by the state, (iv) seizure and redistribution of businesses, (v) mandatory schooling for children by the state, (vi) equal rights and obligations for all citizens, and (vi) “that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.” Do those sound like right-wing principles?

I guess not, but, absent any context, demands like "Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented," "The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity," "abolition of taxes on land," "The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically," and "legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands" sure sound right wing to me.

The Nazis were also against child labor and one of their 25 points reads "All citizens must have equal rights and obligations," which I guess makes me a Nazi because I agree with those things.

[Guinness]

Every argument doesn't boil down to how it relates to Libertarianism, there is a big world outside of the Libertarian bubble.

Frankly - yes it does.

As to the rest of your post, it's been addressed elsewhere.

[HomerPenguin]

Our society deems that teaching Christianity is not allowed in schools. I single out Christianity because I remember being taught about the origins of almost every major religion EXCEPT Christianity during my high school history studies.

Then your argument is with your high school history teachers, although I suspect you're remembering things the way you want to remember them. Your high school history classes never talked about Constantine? Never mentioned the early Christian movement in the Roman Empire at all? And what did they teach regarding the "origins" of Judaism?

[PensFanInDC]

although I suspect you're remembering things the way you want to remember them.

Wow....what a nasty remark.

[bhaw]

I never once said YOU werent taught something. I said I wasn't. And to say other religions are not recognized is just as "ridiculous". Schools in MD get Yom Kippur and Roshashanna (sp?) off. Hannukka isn't even a high holiday to the Jews.

Furthermore I never ever said anything about holidays, you are the one that brought it up.

I think you saying that all other religions but Christianity are represented in school is ridiculous.

I would like to see where I said that.

Our society deems that teaching Christianity is not allowed in schools. I single out Christianity because I remember being taught about the origins of almost every major religion EXCEPT Christianity during my high school history studies.

Is what I said. Do not put words in my mouth. Key words: "I" "almost" and "major". I never said Christianity was the only one left out.

I didn't say anything was under-represented. Truth is most people are Christians, so that's why we get Xmas, Easter, etc off. I have never seen a public school holiday for any Jewish holidays, though I know if I really didn't want to come in, I could say that's why and the school would have had to abide by it. If schools are getting those days off now, it's clearly a change.

Some of my thoughts probably blended together but I didn't mean to come of assuming of anything. But saying that you weren't taught it and implying it's because it was prophesied in the bible makes it sound like it's some grand conspiracy to undermine Christianity. That's how your words come off.

The main point was that no one should be taught as the savior. I have no problem with a religious studies that says "Christians believe Jesus is the savior." But as soon as they start saying that he should be taught as the savior the same way Obama was presented to your niece, it's wrong. That's what you said... you would want Jesus to be taught to students as the savior in public schools. It's just as wrong as what your niece's teacher did.

[HomerPenguin]

although I suspect you're remembering things the way you want to remember them.

Wow....what a nasty remark.

Since everybody remembers things they way they want to remember them, I'm not sure where the offense lies. I'm particularly not sure how it's more offensive than your suggestion that your high school history teachers deliberately failed to teach their students properly because they were all anti-Christian zealots, but to each his own I guess.

[MWB]

The main point was that no one should be taught as the savior. I have no problem with a religious studies that says "Christians believe Jesus is the savior." But as soon as they start saying that he should be taught as the savior the same way Obama was presented to your niece, it's wrong. That's what you said... you would want Jesus to be taught to students as the savior in public schools. It's just as wrong as what your niece's teacher did.

I agree completely with this. Savior is a very strong.

[Bob McKenzie]

[Shyster]

That's a huge difference, no? The idealized end result in communism is a classless, stateless, international society of equals. The idealized end result of National Socialism was an absolutist state overseeing a society with well-defined class structures in which only those of the master race were permitted to obtain citizenship and hold property. Not much common ground there from what I can gather..

In my opinion? No. Communists want a classless, socialist, equal society made up of (theoretically) everyone. Fascists wanted a classless, socialist, equal society made up of Italians. Nazis wanted a classless, socialist, equal society made up of pure-blood Aryans. Not much difference in practice. And speaking of practice, the communists didn’t exactly welcome everyone into the fold with welcome arms, did they? What about the aristocrats, clergy, landowners, and industrialists? Wikipedia just introduced me to a new term: lishenets. Such people included the members of the foregoing groups, among others. Under the Soviet constitution, they were forbidden to vote, and were classified as “enemies of the working people.” Not only that, but lishenets status applied to all members of a family whose head was a lishenets, so the son of an “enemy” was also an “enemy.” Huh, excluding people from the benefits of the state based on blood. Not like Nazism at all, nope. Of course, many people never made lishenets status because they were stopped short by a bullet to the head or a one-way trip to the gulag.

The Nazis were also against child labor and one of their 25 points reads "All citizens must have equal rights and obligations," which I guess makes me a Nazi because I agree with those things.

Of course not, but it does mean you believe in one of the central tenets of the Nazi party. I'm sure I probably believe in some position or other held by the Klan or another fringe group. It doesn't make me a member.

[doublem]

Actually I do, yes.

Now, that being said, Christians are also taught to respect and pray for our leaders (whether they are Christian or not). We are also told to respect the laws of the societies we live in and that order is an important part of living peacefully.

We also have to remember that God will NEVER force himself on anyone. That is one of the evidences of His immense love for us. Just because God knows what you are going to do before you do it, does that make it any less your choice to do it?

Our society deems that teaching Christianity is not allowed in schools. I single out Christianity because I remember being taught about the origins of almost every major religion EXCEPT Christianity during my high school history studies. That's just the way it is. I may not like it, but I also recognize it as a sign prophesied in The Bible.

Basically you just want your lord to be worshiped? Is that right? Doesn't that kind of go against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

[shafnutz05]

Basically you just want your lord to be worshiped? Is that right? Doesn't that kind of go against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

I don't think that's what he was saying at all....in the first paragraph he emphasized the "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" aspect of things. I think the point he is making (and it's most definitely a valid one) is that educators go to great pains to teach kids to be sennnnnnsitive about Islam, Hinduism, atheism, homosexuality, agonosticism, Buddhism, Kwanzaaism, Wiccan, etc...and Christianity is forgotten.

[doublem]

Basically you just want your lord to be worshiped? Is that right? Doesn't that kind of go against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

I don't think that's what he was saying at all....in the first paragraph he emphasized the "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" aspect of things. I think the point he is making (and it's most definitely a valid one) is that educators go to great pains to teach kids to be sennnnnnsitive about Islam, Hinduism, atheism, homosexuality, agonosticism, Buddhism, Kwanzaaism, Wiccan, etc...and Christianity is forgotten.

I don't know about that? I don't know where most people went to school, but I wasn't taught to be sensitive to any of that. Religious history wasn't even a topic in my school. I don't think any school should have anything to say on who the savior is.

[HomerPenguin]

In my opinion? No. Communists want a classless, socialist, equal society made up of (theoretically) everyone. Fascists wanted a classless, socialist, equal society made up of Italians. Nazis wanted a classless, socialist, equal society made up of pure-blood Aryans.

Classless? One of the 25 tenets you cited was a demand for the formation of a strong middle class. Equal? A society that singles out one racial group as superior is not practicing any sort of equality I can fathom. Sure, they may have believed that all members of that race were somehow equal, but by that route we can effectively say that every tyrannical regime in history believed in "equality" of some sort, racial, familial, or otherwise (which I suspect is the point of this whole exercise on some level).

Not much difference in practice. And speaking of practice, the communists didn’t exactly welcome everyone into the fold with welcome arms, did they? What about the aristocrats, clergy, landowners, and industrialists? Wikipedia just introduced me to a new term: lishenets. Such people included the members of the foregoing groups, among others. Under the Soviet constitution, they were forbidden to vote, and were classified as “enemies of the working people.”

Yes, after the "workers revolution" the "enemies of the workers" were disenfranchised, the principle being that they had to be removed from the system so that they could no longer oppress the workers. Marx talked about the steps a society would have to go through to get from capitalist to workers paradise. It was never intended to be like flipping a light switch.

Not only that, but lishenets status applied to all members of a family whose head was a lishenets, so the son of an “enemy” was also an “enemy.” Huh, excluding people from the benefits of the state based on blood. Not like Nazism at all, nope.

Actually not, unless you're suggesting that the lishenets lists were compiled ethnically rather than socio-economically. The practical may be all you're interested in, but it's at the theoretical level where these systems have to be differentiated. Otherwise, yes, all totalitarianisms are the same and it makes no more sense to call them "socialist" or "left" than it does to call them "right" or "fascist" or "Tijuana." If we're not interested in what distinguishes these things from one another, why are we so interested in labeling them as belonging to one side of the political spectrum or the other?

Of course, many people never made lishenets status because they were stopped short by a bullet to the head or a one-way trip to the gulag.

Yes, Marxism-Leninism sucks. People get killed. Does the execution of problem social groups now define one as Nazi too?

The Nazis were also against child labor and one of their 25 points reads "All citizens must have equal rights and obligations," which I guess makes me a Nazi because I agree with those things.

Of course not, but it does mean you believe in one of the central tenets of the Nazi party. I'm sure I probably believe in some position or other held by the Klan or another fringe group. It doesn't make me a member.

It might, if we're ignoring all the other things that define you as not being a member of that group.

[HomerPenguin]

I don't think that's what he was saying at all....in the first paragraph he emphasized the "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" aspect of things. I think the point he is making (and it's most definitely a valid one) is that educators go to great pains to teach kids to be sennnnnnsitive about Islam, Hinduism, atheism, homosexuality, agonosticism, Buddhism, Kwanzaaism, Wiccan, etc...and Christianity is forgotten.

I think if you test the average HS graduate he or she is going to know a heck of a lot more about Christianity than Wicca, or Kwanzaa, or the history of atheism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Islam, and if they're actually pushing sensitivity training in American public schools with respect to Islam, then they're doing a pretty lousy job of it.

Perhaps the idea that this is going on is based on the fact that the vast majority of American HS students are not Muslim, not Hindu, not atheist, not gay, not agnostic, not Buddhist, don't observe Kwanzaa, and aren't Wiccan and so, if they come into contact with these things in their studies the newness of it makes it feel like special attention is being paid to them. When high schools can't even put together a decent HS World History course that isn't European History repackaged, how can anyone seriously contend that students are exposed more to Hinduism than Christianity?

[Shyster]

Classless? One of the 25 tenets you cited was a demand for the formation of a strong middle class. Equal? A society that singles out one racial group as superior is not practicing any sort of equality I can fathom.
[snip]
Yes, after the "workers revolution" the "enemies of the workers" were disenfranchised, the principle being that they had to be removed from the system so that they could no longer oppress the workers. Marx talked about the steps a society would have to go through to get from capitalist to workers paradise. It was never intended to be like flipping a light switch.

Sure it’s practicing equality. You just described the method of “equality” practiced by both groups: once you remove all the unwanted elements, everyone else is equal. Problem solved! Compare “Once the Jews are all gone, we will be equal Aryans in our socialist paradise!” with “Once the enemies of the proletariat are gone, we will all be equal workers in our communist paradise!” The greatest difference between the two systems is how they choose which undesirables to shoot in the head. That is not, to me, sufficient practical difference to place them on entirely opposite ends of the political spectrum—as many do.

Actually not, unless you're suggesting that the lishenets lists were compiled ethnically rather than socio-economically.

Looks like. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population ... viet_Union

It might, if we're ignoring all the other things that define you as not being a member of that group.

If I am gauging correctly, you seem to be bristling at any comparison of your beliefs with those of the Nazis. Welcome to the world of the conservative. For many people (and I’m not saying this is true of you, Homer), Nazis = right-wing and Communism = left-wing. But Nazism is basically Communism lite + vicious racism. The assumption from that is that vicious racism is not only a characteristic of the political right, it is so right-wing that it takes Nazism to the complete opposite end of the political spectrum from its fraternal twin Communism. Well, the movements on the right are no more inherently racist than the ones on the left, and I for one am sick of racism automatically being categorized as right-wing. The Nazis were lefties who were also racists. That doesn’t make them righties. It makes them racist lefties!

[Corvidae]

Obama's a commie nazi!!! Get im' Wolfcastle!!!

[doublem]

If I am gauging correctly, you seem to be bristling at any comparison of your beliefs with those of the Nazis. Welcome to the world of the conservative. For many people (and I’m not saying this is true of you, Homer), Nazis = right-wing and Communism = left-wing. But Nazism is basically Communism lite + vicious racism. The assumption from that is that vicious racism is not only a characteristic of the political right, it is so right-wing that it takes Nazism to the complete opposite end of the political spectrum from its fraternal twin Communism. Well, the movements on the right are no more inherently racist than the ones on the left, and I for one am sick of racism automatically being categorized as right-wing. The Nazis were lefties who were also racists. That doesn’t make them righties. It makes them racist lefties!

Haven't right wing guys been calling Obama a Nazi? Nazism takes on right wing ideology becasue it is largely fascist. They had extreme views of nationalism, militarism, corporatism, and had a strong hatred of communism. Communism wanted to create a classless society, but the fascists wanted to have different classes. Marxists advocate solidarity between members of the working class (regardless of nation) and believe that conflict between different classes is a positive force. Fascism and Nazism hold the reverse view; they advocate solidarity between members of the same nation (regardless of class), and believe that conflict between different nations is a positive force. from wiki.

If Nazism and Communism are both on the left, who is on the right?

[HomerPenguin]

Classless? One of the 25 tenets you cited was a demand for the formation of a strong middle class. Equal? A society that singles out one racial group as superior is not practicing any sort of equality I can fathom.
[snip]
Yes, after the "workers revolution" the "enemies of the workers" were disenfranchised, the principle being that they had to be removed from the system so that they could no longer oppress the workers. Marx talked about the steps a society would have to go through to get from capitalist to workers paradise. It was never intended to be like flipping a light switch.

Sure it’s practicing equality. You just described the method of “equality” practiced by both groups: once you remove all the unwanted elements, everyone else is equal. Problem solved!

Of course, in the communist ideal, those families are returned to equal status in the workers paradise after they've lost the trappings of being proletarian. I don't think the Nazis would have allowed the same for the Jews.

Compare “Once the Jews are all gone, we will be equal Aryans in our socialist paradise!” with “Once the enemies of the proletariat are gone, we will all be equal workers in our communist paradise!” The greatest difference between the two systems is how they choose which undesirables to shoot in the head. That is not, to me, sufficient practical difference to place them on entirely opposite ends of the political spectrum—as many do.

Great. All totalitarianisms are entirely the same. They all execute political opponents en masse. What sense does it make to talk about "left" or "right" at this point?

Actually not, unless you're suggesting that the lishenets lists were compiled ethnically rather than socio-economically.

Looks like. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population ... viet_Union

Ethnic cleansing started under Stalin. You're not going to find many academics who would argue that what Stalin was doing was what Marx or Lenin intended.

If I am gauging correctly, you seem to be bristling at any comparison of your beliefs with those of the Nazis. Welcome to the world of the conservative. For many people (and I’m not saying this is true of you, Homer), Nazis = right-wing and Communism = left-wing. But Nazism is basically Communism lite + vicious racism. The assumption from that is that vicious racism is not only a characteristic of the political right, it is so right-wing that it takes Nazism to the complete opposite end of the political spectrum from its fraternal twin Communism. Well, the movements on the right are no more inherently racist than the ones on the left, and I for one am sick of racism automatically being categorized as right-wing. The Nazis were lefties who were also racists. That doesn’t make them righties. It makes them racist lefties!

This is beautiful. In short:

"The simplistic and harmful labeling of Nazis as right-wing ignores any sort of nuance and is ultimately boneheaded. We can't cheapen what Nazism was by giving it a crude label like 'right-wing.'

"Besides, everybody knows they were all lefties."

Pot, meet kettle. You two have a lot to talk about.

[Guinness]

Haven't right wing guys been calling Obama a Nazi? Nazism takes on right wing ideology becasue it is largely fascist. They had extreme views of nationalism, militarism, corporatism, and had a strong hatred of communism. Communism wanted to create a classless society, but the fascists wanted to have different classes. Marxists advocate solidarity between members of the working class (regardless of nation) and believe that conflict between different classes is a positive force. Fascism and Nazism hold the reverse view; they advocate solidarity between members of the same nation (regardless of class), and believe that conflict between different nations is a positive force. from wiki.

This line of the debate left the station a page and a half ago...

If Nazism and Communism are both on the left, who is on the right?

Very simple. National Socialists/Fascists and Communists are leftists/statists, and libertarians/anarchists are rightists.

Kind of sucks that you're stuck with the fascists, doesn't it?

[HomerPenguin]

Very simple. National Socialists/Fascists and Communists are leftists/statists, and libertarians/anarchists are rightists.

You might as well say "bad people are on the left and good people are on the right." When you get to define your own terms it's not that hard to win whatever argument you're having.

[Guinness]

Great. All totalitarianisms are entirely the same. They all execute political opponents en masse. What sense does it make to talk about "left" or "right" at this point?

If you acknowledge that the individual exists, it makes perfect sense. Totalitarianism, i.e., statism, is the polar opposite of liberty.

[HomerPenguin]

Great. All totalitarianisms are entirely the same. They all execute political opponents en masse. What sense does it make to talk about "left" or "right" at this point?

If you acknowledge that the individual exists, it makes perfect sense. Totalitarianism, i.e., statism, is the polar opposite of liberty.

Except that the definition of "left" as statist and "right" as libertarian is not the commonly accepted use of those terms. Again, you're free to apply whatever definition to whatever words you like, but it's not a good starting point for a discussion.

[Idoit40fans]

Question: How many times have each of you repeated the exact same ideas in this thread?

[Guinness]

Very simple. National Socialists/Fascists and Communists are leftists/statists, and libertarians/anarchists are rightists.

You might as well say "bad people are on the left and good people are on the right." When you get to define your own terms it's not that hard to win whatever argument you're having.

Again if you define the "left" as absolute governmental hegemony over society and the "right" as absolute individual liberty, these nuances between fascist and socialist are insignificant. I ask you - what is the point of differentiating between one manifestation of absolutist government and another? Because one is more corporatist and the other is more collectivist doesn't appreciably change the impact on the individual - in each case he/she is subjugated. Or, in other words, neither system acknowledges his/her right to exist, which is contradictory to imperical evidence.

[Guinness]

Great. All totalitarianisms are entirely the same. They all execute political opponents en masse. What sense does it make to talk about "left" or "right" at this point?

If you acknowledge that the individual exists, it makes perfect sense. Totalitarianism, i.e., statism, is the polar opposite of liberty.

Except that the definition of "left" as statist and "right" as libertarian is not the commonly accepted use of those terms. Again, you're free to apply whatever definition to whatever words you like, but it's not a good starting point for a discussion.

And yet again I ask: why adhere to an inaccurate dogma just because it's "the way it's always been"? I'm fine with however you want to define the terms - you want to call libertarians radical centrists... whatever. Socialists are leftists and Fascists are rightists? Okay. I see this as pretty inaccruate, in that it assumes that individual liberty somehow lies between two statist extremes, where in actuality, it is the polar opposite of both modes of authoritarianism. It doesn't essentially change the debate -- it more accurately defines it, but it doesn't essentially change it.