WWI

[August1991]

Christ on a stick what a pile of crap.

So, if this true, why was it that political representatives of wealthy German industrialists cross the floor to give Hitler the majority he needed to rise to power? Leftists? Like I said, Christ on a stick what a pile of crap.

In the 1920s and 1930s, many people viewed Hitler and his National Socialists as progressive, modern. Hitler offered a new, original way to do politics.

[Moonbox]

In the 1920s and 1930s, many people viewed Hitler and his National Socialists as progressive, modern. Hitler offered a new, original way to do politics.

I'm not sure what planet that was on. While fascism appealed to many people as a 'new' way of doing things, at its roots it was just hardcore nationalism and authoritarianism, which weren't new or progressive concepts at all. A large part of its support comprised of hardcore anti-communists. They exploited the old bogey-man tactic of "only we can stop them" and whipped up as much fear as possible. Nothing about it was progressive.

[TimG]

at its roots it was just hardcore nationalism and authoritarianism

Nationalism and authoritarianism are not on the economic left-right axis so it is wrong to claim that Hitler was "right wing" or "pro-business" just because he was an authoritarian. If anything, nationalism often goes hand in hand with policies supported by the economic left (protection of domestic industries, government support for industries, kensyian spending et. al.). In later years Hitler railed against "Jewish Bankers" would make him a darling of the occupy wall street crowd today. Edited August 10, 2014 by TimG

[Bob Macadoo]

Nationalism and authoritarianism are not on the economic left-right axis so it is wrong to claim that Hitler was "right wing" or "pro-business" just because he was an authoritarian. If anything, nationalism often goes hand in hand with policies supported by the economic left (protection of domestic industries, government support for industries, kensyian spending et. al.). In later years Hitler railed against "Jewish Bankers" would make him a darling of the occupy wall street crowd today.

Not only did you invent what MB said, you then did the mental gymnastics to then contradict your own statement......Authoritarianism is not an socioeconomic structure. Well done.

[PIK]

Possibly but the heavy penalties Versailles put on Germany plus the myth that the army hadn't really lost the war but was sabotaged by the civil population, particularly the Jews were major factors in the unrest and Hitlers ability to manipulate public opinion.

Great post.

[eyeball]

Nationalism and authoritarianism are not on the economic left-right axis so it is wrong to claim that Hitler was "right wing" or "pro-business" just because he was an authoritarian.

It would be more correct to say that wealth favors sphincters like Hitler and given right-wingers adore wealthy people...

[Moonbox]

and the far left adore people like Stalin and Mao, both of whom eclipsed Hitler in the scale of their crimes.

[eyeball]

No doubt they had a handful of sycophants and cronies who loved them but nowhere near the far broader base of unquestioning support that wealth and power commands today, especially from conservative and illiberal people.

Whatever else one can say about differences between left and right people today it's is very clear that way more right-wingers prefer that our society live under the protective thumbs of their governments and leaders than left-wingers. One look at the issue of government surveillance for example indicates at which end of the political spectrum support is strongest - hands down.

[TimG]

Whatever else one can say about differences between left and right people today it's is very clear that way more right-wingers prefer that our society live under the protective thumbs of their governments

Do you really believe this nonsense? Every leftist politician in existence wants to see government power expanded and personal freedoms restricted in the name of "political correctness" and the "government knows best" mantra. For every right wing advocate who wants surveillance to stop terrorism there is a left wing person that wants government surveillance to ensure that people don't throw away tin cans, use guns or who wants someone to be prohibited from for saying things that offend them.

There is an element of social conservative views among the right but they are generally restricted to minor social issues and don't take than much away from the vast majority who believe that government should just leave people alone. People who call themselves libertarians generally favor the right.

In the end, the tendency for authoritianism is not a left-right issue but given the current political environment the dangers come mainly from the people who also advocate left wing policies.

Edited August 12, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Do you really believe this nonsense? Every leftist politician in existence wants to see government power expanded and personal freedoms restricted in the name of "political correctness" and the "government knows best" mantra. For every right wing advocate who wants surveillance to stop terrorism there is a left wing person that wants government surveillance to ensure that people don't throw away tin cans, use guns or who wants someone to be prohibited from for saying things that offend them.

Except only one of the people in your little hypothetical actually exists (hint: it's not the lefty).

There is an element of social conservative views among the right but they are generally restricted to minor social issues and don't take than much away from the vast majority who believe that government should just leave people alone.

Minor social issues like national security, crime and punishment, things like that?

People who call themselves libertarians generally favor the right.

People who call themselves libertarians do so to distinguish themselves from people, left and right, who favour big government intervention in society.

In the end, the tendency for authoritianism is not a left-right issue but given the current political environment the dangers come mainly from the people who also advocate left wing policies.

Like the socialists at the CIA/NSA you mean?

Edited August 12, 2014 by Black Dog

[TimG]

Like the socialists at the CIA/NSA you mean?

Why are they dangerous? The real harm to society comes from the zealots that want to prevent people from accessing affordable energy or various other schemes designed to make people poorer while lining the pockets of well connected insiders. Edited August 12, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Why are they dangerous?

You...you don't understand why virtually unchecked state surveillance is dangerous? And you're complaining about authoritarianism?

The real harm to society comes from the zealots that want to prevent people from accessing affordable energy or various other schemes designed to make people poorer while lining the pockets of well connected insiders.

So capitalism, in other words?

[TimG]

You...you don't understand why virtually unchecked state surveillance is dangerous?

Where did I say that there was no danger from such things? I just feel the bigger danger comes from elsewhere.

So capitalism, in other words?

Crony capitalism where the government picks and chooses the winners according to the "wisdom" of government officials.

This is what many on the left wants.

Edited August 12, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Where did I say that there was no danger from such things? I just feel the bigger danger comes from elsewhere.

Yeah: like high electrical bills.

"First they came for my electricity and I said nothing...."

Crony capitalism where the government picks and chooses the winners according to the "wisdom" of government officials.

This is what many on the left wants.

Cite?

Edited August 12, 2014 by Black Dog

[TimG]

Yeah: like high electrical bills.

Do you really have no idea how critical energy is to our society? Do you really believe that ideological zealots can mess with the energy system without causing great harm? I guess the trouble for you is the harm shows up as a slow destruction of industry and it is much easier to blame things other than stupid government policies.

Cite?

Any politician talking about diverting money into uneconomic energy sources simply because some bureaucrat has decided that they are "better".

[Black Dog]

Do you really have no idea how critical energy is to our society? Do you really believe that ideological zealots can mess with the energy system without causing great harm? I guess the trouble for you is the harm shows up as a slow destruction of industry and it is much easier to blame things other than stupid government policies.

I have really no idea what specific policy you're talking about at this point or how it relates to the right/left/authoritarian/libertarian matrix.

Any politician talking about diverting money into uneconomic energy sources simply because some bureaucrat has decided that they are "better".

So that ipso facto makes them "of the left?" What about right-wing crony capitalists? Or do those not exist?

[Boges]

AGENDA 21!

[August1991]

I'm not sure what planet that was on. While fascism appealed to many people as a 'new' way of doing things, at its roots it was just hardcore nationalism and authoritarianism, which weren't new or progressive concepts at all.

Moonbox, you use modern understanding (post 1945) to draw your conclusion.

In the 1930s, Hitler and the Nazis were one variant of progressives. Mussolini also was a "progressive": someone who would change the world for the better. In addition, both Hitler and Mussolini were charismatic leaders. Stalin was a progressive - for those who questioned charisma.

=====

I am a conservative/Conservative because I question people who claim "new ways of doing things". I fear charismatic leaders. I suspect bubbles and panics are not accurate valuations.

Edited August 14, 2014 by August1991

[eyeball]

Do you really believe this nonsense? Every leftist politician in existence wants to see government power expanded and personal freedoms restricted in the name of "political correctness" and the "government knows best" mantra.

Most ordinary people that I know want corporate freedoms to be constrained by corporate responsibility.

In the meantime, every politician wants more power and as I see it right wingers are all too happy to give them all they want because they make statements like this.

In the end, the tendency for authoritianism is not a left-right issue but given the current political environment the dangers come mainly from the people who also advocate left wing policies.

Sycophancy to authoritarianism is not a left-right issue either, it's a dangerous psychological condition and the people suffering the most from it are right-wingers. Terror and abject fear is probably the most obvious symptom, irrational thinking is a direct result of that.

[eyeball]

Do you really have no idea how critical energy is to our society? Do you really believe that ideological zealots can mess with the energy system without causing great harm?

Do you really have no idea how critical our environment is to our society? Do you really believe that big authoritarian governments and big capitalistic corporations can mess with an ecosystem without causing great harm?

[On Guard for Thee]

Do you really have no idea how critical our environment is to our society? Do you really believe that big authoritarian governments and big capitalistic corporations can mess with an ecosystem without causing great harm?

Sounds like "somebody" here might just be heavily invested in Exxon Mobil.

[TimG]

Do you really have no idea how critical our environment is to our society?

Lovely platitude if it was not nonsensical. The human population today only exists because they have wiped out the the native environment in order to create a new environment suitable for cities and farms. IOW - humans changing the environment is necessary for our survival.

The same is true for energy. We need it and it must be available at a reasonable cost. If it is not then society will collapse.

Edited August 14, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

Tim, you're insane. Get help.

[Black Dog]

Lovely platitude if it was not nonsensical. The human population today only exists because they have wiped out the the native environment in order to create a new environment suitable for cities and farms. IOW - humans changing the environment is necessary for our survival.

For most of human history, human impact on the environment was relatively insignificant. It's only in the last couple of hundred years that widespread environmental degradation as a result of human industrial activity has occurred. So no, environmental destruction of the industrial scale is not necessary for survival of the species, only for the current standard of living, which is not likely to be sustainable long term if environemntal degredation reaches the tipping point.

The same is true for energy. We need it and it must be available at a reasonable cost. If it is not then society will collapse.

Complete nonsense.

[Moonbox]

Moonbox, you use modern understanding (post 1945) to draw your conclusion.

We're having a post 1945 discussion, so that's the understanding we should be using.

In the 1930s, Hitler and the Nazis were one variant of progressives.

Again, no. Fascism in the WW1-WW2 era was deeply rooted in conservatism and essentially contrary to everything that 'progressive' stands for, whether you're using a post-1945 understanding of the term or a renaissance one. Progressivism is a very broad term but in essence it's the improvement of civilization and the human condition. The expansion of collective knowledge, the rule of reason, equality and the paramount value of human life are all pillars of the philosophical concept of progressive thinking. The fascists and communists of the time were the exact polar opposite of progressives, and any statement to the opposite is just misusing or usurping the term.

I am a conservative/Conservative because I question people who claim "new ways of doing things". I fear charismatic leaders. I suspect bubbles and panics are not accurate valuations.

Progress =/ Change

That's an important thing to understand in discussion using the terms progressive or conservative. Unfortunately, when it comes to politics, words like progressive, conservative, liberal, radical, freedom etc.. get tossed around so often and so arbitrarily that in the media and in casual discussion they're usually hijacked into near uselessness.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Moonbox