patrick.net

What's there to prove: they self-identified as such.

Iranian_Oil_Burse says

What's there to prove: they self-identified as such.

I think the confusion is that leftists think of fascism and socialism as opposites, when they are kissing cousins that fail for the same reason.

Fascism necessitates socialism, and both necessitate totalitarianism.

Free markets and sovereign individuals, aka liberalism, is the opposite of both fascism and socialism.

WaltertheoFlanders says

Exactly, and socialism is government owning corporate power. As Mises points out, the private owners of industry in nazi Germany were appointed by the party and every important decision was dictated by govt fiat.

Fascism = socialism = totalitarianism. Nazis were all 3.

WaltertheoFlanders says

America = capitalism + socialism.

Accurate. USA would indeed be better defined as fascist.

Trump is reversing this course. http://patrick.net/post/1327159/2019-09-11-trump-admin-unveils-plan-to-end-government-control-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-which-back-half-of-the-nation-s-mortgages?0#comment-1615365

Its a word but you need to add the modifier to it. Yes of course they were socialist but National Socialists. The definition is they were nationalists as in Germany First and using the government to control the economy and of course the people. MGGA

WaltertheoFlanders says

Iranian_Oil_Burse says

What's there to prove: they self-identified as such.

So then you must agree that North Korea is a democracy because they self-identify as such? Or that people who self-identify as non-binary are just that because they self-identify as such.

This is bogus argument for a very simple reason: when Nazis adopted their self-identification as socialists they were participating in elections so clear identification and statement of their ideas was necessary. North Korea is a regime installed by Soviet military force therefore any naming they self-adopt doesn't have to have any connection to what they really are.

rdm says

Its a word but you need to add the modifier to it. Yes of course they were socialist but National Socialists. The definition is they were nationalists as in Germany First and using the government to control the economy and of course the people. MGGA

So this is why they call Trump a fascist? Because he’s a Nationalist? Is that a great sin to put one’s own country ahead of others? Do explain why.

Repeat after me: Nationalism isn't Fascism. A Nation-state is the apex of human development. Nation states usually bring people of similar linguistic, ethnic, and often religious grounds together around common ideas and geography.

Liberalism - in the traditional state - emerged hand-in-glove with Nationalism in the 1600s; the two are inseparable. Both enshrine liberties of individuals as a cornerstone of the nation whose job it is to guard them.

In contrast, Anti-Enlightenment Romanticism and Socialism grew hand-in-glove in the 1800s; both share contempt for enterprise, individual freedom; everything must be second to the State/Folk (usually conflated). From Werner Sombart to Chamberlain to Wagner to Marx, all had a contempt of capitalism, traders, industrialists and a worship of a romanticized rural/urban working classes while hating their "low culture."

A Liberal Nationalist state - which basically describes the USA from 1865-1995 is not a Fascist State.

Quigley says

Is that a great sin to put one’s own country ahead of others?

Nope, any leader should. But like everything its degree and execution. Take the Nazis/ Hitler. After the terms of the deal ending WW1 were implemented there was legitimate reaction toward nationalism. But included in that and pushed as part of it was that Jews and others were not really Germans. That Germany needed more room. That the aryan " race" was the superior race and so forth.All these were done in whole or in part due to German nationalism. But America is different....

:
Why do you try so hard to argue that Hitler wasn't right wing ? Of course you can have totalitarianism on the right or the left.

But no intelligent people believe that Nazis were not FAR RIGHT wing !

I guess you can keep on asserting whatever you want. But it's not going to make it any more true.

rdm says

But America is different....

I’m glad you recognize the obvious. So many lefties can’t see the forest for the trees.

WaltertheoFlanders says

stemming from the use of executive orders. We see this even more so from Trump than Obama. Prove me wrong.

It's not a terrible, bi-partisan critique. Limiting centralized power, now you're thinking like a libertarian.

rdm says

But America is different....

"Make America White again."

"Diversity is not actually a good thing, just sayin."

CBOEtrader says

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

Mises ? Really ?

Jordan Peterson would think you're an idiot, and totally stretching here. He routinely uses Hitler as an example of far right wing evil.

Dictatorship does not imply socialism. Fascism does not imply socialism.

The Nazi party infiltrated corporations and have influence there, and visa versa. That's why thinking of it as a "merger" as in meme makes sense. Corporations really did stay in private hands - not just in appearances.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

Nixon experiments with price controls during an inflationary period. Does that mean he was a socialist ?

marcus says

Jordan Peterson would think you're an idiot, and totally stretching here. He routinely uses Hitler as an example of far right wing evil.

Ty for bringing up valid points. Am I wrong, i think JP uses Hitler as an example of far right wing personality type. I've never heard JP suggest their political system isnt socialist. Nor is socialist necessarily right or left wing. I do not have time to research, if you have the relevant quotes please share

rdm says

Its a word but you need to add the modifier to it. Yes of course they were socialist but National Socialists. The definition is they were nationalists as in Germany First and using the government to control the economy and of course the people.

Soviet Union also became nationalist after Stalin (and his faction for "Socialism in One Country) kicked out Trotsky (and his faction for rapid exportation of socialist revolution all over the world). Except for the first few years of its existence when the Soviet Union was too busy fighting a civil war to export revolution and needed all the help they could find from fellow socialists of other countries, the Soviet Union was in fact a nationalist and socialist regime.

As was China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. etc. not long after the establishment of their respective communist/socialist regimes. "International socialism" doesn't seem to work for ruling a country. Every communist/socialist country quickly resorted to nationalism and socialism in order to carry on their collectivist policies enslaving their domestic populations.

Socialism and Nazism are even closer to each other than kissing cousins: the conflict between the two is like the deadly competition between Trotsky and Stalin after the death of Lenin, like a pair of twin brothers fighting over the inheritance from their parents. Of course all (national) socialists have to have regular internal purges as the economic pie gets smaller under their central-planning mismanagement.

marcus says

Why do you try so hard to argue that Hitler wasn't right wing ? Of course you can have totalitarianism on the right or the left.

So, do you think Hitler was a libertarian or an anarchist?

You can try to redefine words all you want but national socialists was an authoritarian total control of the people kind of government a lot like the democratic socialists who want complete control over what you say, eat, and drive.

marcus says

Jordan Peterson

Jordan abhors socialism.

Onvacation says

Jordan abhors socialism.

Yes as well as right wing authoritarian regimes like Hitler's.

But you guys always get confused about it. Because social programs like social security and medicare and public schools and well paid police, are not the kind of socialism that lead to authoritarian evil.. Neither would medicare for all or free college be. (Not advocating - just saying).

Just like on the right in the U.S., being in favor of low taxes or conservative judges doesn't make you racist, homophobic, or a gun nut. These issues are somewhat independent of each other. Not that some of you don't buy the whole package.

marcus says

not the kind of socialism that lead to authoritarian evil

"National Socialism was a collectivist authoritarian movement run by “social justice warriors.” That this brand of “justice” benefited only some based on immutable characteristics perfectly aligns with the modern brand. The Nazi ideal embraced identity politics based on the primacy of the people or “volk” and invoked state-based solutions for every possible problem. It was nation-based socialism — the nation being especially important to those who bled in the Great War."


Do you have an argument for why you think nazism is on the low government libertarian end of the political spectrum rather than the big government state controlled and of the spectrum?

Or maybe you are looking at a completely different spectrum?

Please share.

Onvacation says

Do you have an argument for why you think nazism is on the low government libertarian end of the political spectrum rather than the big government state controlled and of the spectrum?

Defining a left right spectrum as being total government versus total freedom is a definition made by libertarians. That would be one spectrum, I guess, but not one that makes a lot of sense.

Another spectrum, which puts Nazis on the far right is one that has workers rights and protections for minority rights on the left, and protection of capital, wealth and power on the right, as well as populist appeals to nationalism and racial superiority on the right.

In the U.S. both sides end up supporting big government, i.e. big military, big corporate welfare, and placating the public as much as needed to still be somewhat of a democracy.

marcus says

Another spectrum,

Please show us the diagram.

WaltertheoFlanders says

If the USA is moving towards fascism it is because of the ever growing power of the president to be a dictator stemming from the use of executive orders.

Interesting, but there were some Presidents in past which were issuing many more executive orders than tRUMP. Out of relatively recent ones, Carter was the worst, far worse than Trump or Obama.
By this idea (of # of executive orders) FDR was the most dictatorial President. Trump is a little above recent averages, but the amount of noise about it is much louder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

Onvacation says

Wrong. Anarchism means no government at all, that would be to the ultimate right side of the spectrum. Communism/Socialism is the ultimate Left side, with government control and ownership of everything. NAZI/Fascism is also on the Left, as it has total government control, but not ownership, of everything. "Monarchy" does not even make sense here, as Monarchy can vary from figurehead to absolute despot. You left out Libertarian completely, which by believing in very limited government, would be on the Right.

Is this really the best the right can do? Make up garbage arguments claiming that Nazi's were left-wing? Is that what the right is all about today?
This is so intellectually weak and pathetic that it could only come from the right. This ranks up there with Bush Jr. calling Al Qaeda fascists.

Look, if the right is so wonderful and socialism is so evil, then stop using any social services. Stop paying your taxes. Stop supporting the military, the police, the fire department. Stop using your phones, tv's and computers (all devices invented with socialist funding). Stop getting any medical treatment that was not wholly funded by private enterprise.

Basically, crawl off into a cave and die a miserable, lonely death. Or are your principles just more crap?

6rdB says

Presidents in past which were issuing many more executive orders than tRUMP.

Perhaps not sure. But Trumps use of the emergency declaration to get funding for the border wall, after being denied funding.by Congress does take this to a new level. Some of this is Congress fault by giving the president powers that were by constitution delegated to Congress. In Trump we have a President more than willing to push presidential powers to the previous percieved limit and well beyond. And who is going to stop him? His presidency shows the weakness of a system which was supposedly predicated on having a fairly weak executive. Trump wants to have all the power and he is taking it when it is to his liking. He is setting the standards for future presidents, whether you like his agenda or hate it this should be of concern.

Expat01 says

Basically, crawl off into a cave and die a miserable, lonely death.

Is that your best argument?

Maybe you have a diagram that shows socialism and nazism on the political spectrum?

rdm says

He is setting the standards for future presidents,

Or maybe he's following the example of previous presidents?

"Why do you still hold out for a socialist utopia when every place that has tried communism has utterly destroyed their country? Millions and millions of people have been murdered and disappeared into the night never to be heard from again. Communism is responsible for more death and destruction than Hitler and Nazi Germany. I'm trying to keep an open mind here so tell me something to change my mind if you can."
Jordan Peterson

rdm says

Perhaps not sure. But Trumps use of the emergency declaration to get funding for the border wall, after being denied funding.by Congress does take this to a new level. Some of this is Congress fault by giving the president powers that were by constitution delegated to Congress. In Trump we have a President more than willing to push presidential powers to the previous percieved limit and well beyond. And who is going to stop him? His presidency shows the weakness of a system which was supposedly predicated on having a fairly weak executive. Trump wants to have all the power and he is taking it when it is to his liking. He is setting the standards for future presidents, whether you like his agenda or hate it this should be of concern.

FDR was issuing >300 EO's per year; Carter, about 80; Clinton, 45; tRUMP, 46. There is, of course, a touch of irony that Trump issues a little bit more EO's (per year) than Obama, after railing against Obama EO's. Other than that, I do not see how tRUMP stands out. The ideologically unhappy side always will complain about EO's.

rdm says

6rdB says

Presidents in past which were issuing many more executive orders than tRUMP.

Perhaps not sure. But Trumps use of the emergency declaration to get funding for the border wall, after being denied funding.by Congress does take this to a new level. Some of this is Congress fault by giving the president powers that were by constitution delegated to Congress. In Trump we have a President more than willing to push presidential powers to the previous percieved limit and well beyond. And who is going to stop him? His presidency shows the weakness of a system which was supposedly predicted on having a fairly weak executive. Trump wants to have all the power and he is taking it when it is to his liking. He is setting the standards for future presidents, whether you like his agenda or hate it this should be of concern.

I don't see a problem with the executive order for the border wall funding. Everyone - including the lamestream media - was harping for weeks/months on the emergency and crisis at the border, so this is totally appropriate directing of funds, not just some made up scenario. Since all the enforcement actions and the positive decisions from the SCOTUS wrt to enforcing immigration the number of illegal immigrants entering and apprehended has been reduced dramatically, and caravans have been discouraged from entering Mexico to pass through. Money well spent despite congress cock-blocking for no reason other than tds / "orange man baaad!".

Onvacation says

Please show us the diagram.

You can't read ?

marcus says

Another spectrum, which puts Nazis on the far right is one that has workers rights and protections for minority rights on the left, and protection of capital, wealth and power on the right, as well as populist appeals to nationalism and racial superiority on the right.

That last part is how the corporations and wealthy get the votes. It's pure manipulation. Bait and switch.

Now they're taking pollution protections away. Np problem, in fact the cult followers will find an excuse for loving it.

marcus says

Another spectrum, which puts Nazis on the far right is one that has workers rights and protections for minority rights on the left, and protection of capital, wealth and power on the right, as well as populist appeals to nationalism and racial superiority on the right.

So where do the Communists and libertarians fit in your spectrum?

And why are all the democrats so obsessed with race?

Onvacation says

This is only true today.

Left vs right means nothing