The 'far right' only exists in the minds of paranoid progressives (Liberals, not conservatives, are the true heirs of European fascism)

[BeaverFever]

On 8/25/2023 at 1:40 AM, CdnFox said:

No argument against it i see.    well there you go,

To quote Hitchens, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.". Therefore no argument against your dubious claim was required 

On 8/25/2023 at 1:40 AM, CdnFox said:

Pay attention - they were market socialists and they absolutely were.  They were against socialists who believed in controlling the means of production. They believed in having a market. But - they believed in a VERY VERY HIGHLY regulated market and society and they believed firmly that the market and industry and society should be forced by law to serve the interests of the state.  Which at the time was expansion.

No market socialists also believe in public ownership of means of production but with supply and demand market signals instead of central planning  The Nazis believed in very much in private ownership. And of course true Nazi eugenics program was about the burden on the welfare state 

They were strongly capitalist. The Nazis placed great emphasis on private property and free competition. It’s true that they intervened in the free market, but it was also a time of a systemic failure of capitalism on a global scale. Almost all states intervened in the market at the time, and they did so to save the capitalist system from itself. This has nothing to do with socialist sentiment: it was pro-capitalist. In a way, there’s a parallel there with the way big banks were bailed out by governments after the 2008 financial crisis broke out. That, of course, did not reflect socialist intentions in any way, either. It was merely an attempt to stabilize the system a little bit…State interventions at that time took place in agreement with industry. The capitalists even demanded it, because free-market policies are not always in the best interest of capitalists. They sometimes need the state to succor the free market. So, interventions were not simply imposed on the economy by the fascists — it was a consensual development reflecting requirements by many important sections of industry. The goal was essentially to steer the system in favor of big business….That someone like Hitler could become the “leader” of a major industrial nation was, after all, the culmination of certain widely held views about economics and about the due limits of popular, political agency. Hitler’s policies met the wishes of many industrialists — which made him so attractive to large sections of the bourgeoisie and the educated classes. The National Socialists were seen as liberating the economy from unnecessary burdens of political and humanistic sensitivity.

https://jacobin.com/2022/08/nazi-germany-national-socialism-hypercaptialism-social-darwinism-liberalism

 

 

On 8/25/2023 at 1:40 AM, CdnFox said:

And in fact at the time most of the 'socalist' political types felt he was an excellent example till the war started. It wasn't till after the war that they started to say he was 'right'.

That’s not true at all. In fact it’s the opposite of Truth. The “socialist political types” across the western world organized volunteers from all over Europe and North America to fight Hitler and his fascist buddy Franco in the Spanish Civil War while the “right” praised Hitler’s business acumen.   The founder of the “America First Committee, an isolationist pro-Nazi, antisemitic organization opposed to us involvement in WW2 (prior to pearl harbor attack), was the Republican hereditary heir to the Quaker Oats company whom RonalReagan later made a US ambassador. The organization chairman and many of its prominent members were active in the Republican Party. Some self-proclaimed socialists were pacifists and so opposed the war and some were even initially affiliated with America First on that basis but none admired Hitler. 
 

On 8/25/2023 at 1:40 AM, CdnFox said:

Ahhh - so  you'll redefine it for me until it matches your echo chamber How very leftist of you. 

How about those of us on the right decide what right wing means?  And generally right wing in 2023 means more freedoms, smaller gov't, freeer markets and less regulation.

Hitler was less freedom, strict regulation, controlled markets and massive gov't.

Not conservative  BUT - definitely left wing or market socialist.

Uh nope that’s not how it works, those terms have actual meaning, you don’t get to make it up and change them whenever it’s convenient. The political definition of “right wing” doesn’t mean “freedom”.
 

Libertarians can be left wing or right wing, the free love hippies of the 60s and 70s for example were left wing and libertarian. George Carlin is another great example. It has not even been 20 years or so that true libertarians began to identify with the conservative/right wing, most considered themselves independent or third party prior to that. There is literally nothing in NAZI ideology or philosophy that is “left wing” or “market socialist”. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

To quote Hitchens, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.". Therefore no argument against your dubious claim was required 
 

M0rons tend to think that way.  IF that were true - Einstein's theories would have been ignored.

You offer a pathetic excuse for your weak mind and inability to think 'Err .... umm.... some guy said i don't HAVE to think... DERP! "

Quote

No market socialists also believe in public ownership of means of production but with supply and demand market signals instead of central planning  The Nazis believed in very much in private ownership. And of course true Nazi eugenics program was about the burden on the welfare state 

Nope, not really.  There are many flavors. :

Market socialism is a type of economic system involving social ownership of the means of production within the framework of a market economy. Various models for such a system exist, usually involving some mix of public, cooperative, and privately owned enterprises.^[

So - you fail right off the bat.  And as i noted  this is also simililar to 'democratic socialism' and mixed economy models.

Sorry kiddo - it's socialist. It is a STRICT control of the means of production and there was a great deal of 'state' ownership in that most major companies were forced to let the nazi's buy in and have one of their people on or control the board on top of extensive regulation.

The nazi's controlled the means of production (along with the economy and society) by means of strict regulation of private enterprise with the express intent of having them serve the state, and they said so frequently.

 

and your source is a joke. Here's some more useful and factual information.

 

It’s complicated. The Nazis didn’t call their ideology “national socialism” because they thought it sounded good. They were fervently opposed to capitalism. The Nazi Party’s chief propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, even once remarked that he’d sooner live under Bolshevism than capitalism. The Nazis instituted major public works projects such as the Autobahn, promised full employment, and dramatically increased government spending.

On the other hand, the Nazis were virulently anti-communist. That sentiment, along with German nationalism and anti-Semitism, was one of the main pillars of Nazism outlined by Hitler in Mein Kampf. Once in power, the Nazis supported and were supported by big business, and they even privatized a few government-operated services—all things that would make Karl Marx roll in his grave

The Nazi government did not own the means of production in Germany, but they certainly controlled them. They set up control boards, cartels, and state-sponsored monopolies and konzerns, which they then carefully planned and regulated. Democratic socialists don’t believe in total government ownership of the means of production, nor do they wish to technocratically manage the economy.

 Industrial leaders hardly objected. In surrendering control of their enterprises to the state, they insulated themselves from market forces, ensuring they’d remain at the top of their respective industries.

As the early utopian socialists, Marx, and the Nazis show, socialism is constantly being redefined, and its various incarnations can be radically different from each other. This trend continues today with the resurgence of democratic socialism and politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Sanders and AOC point to their version of socialism as providing individuals with “economic rights,” with the government providing health care, college tuition, and various other services.

https://fee.org/articles/were-the-nazis-really-socialists-it-depends-on-how-you-define-socialism/

 

By any reasonable definition the nazis' were socialist.  Call them mixed market socialists or market socialists or democratic socialists - they were socialists.  And todays socialists strongly reflect those very same ideals -  strong control and severe regulation of the market and business for the benefit of the state and it's objectives.

 

Guess maybe you should learn to think  a litlte more before you dismiss things. You sure as hell ain't einstein  

[Moonlight Graham]

Clearly Pierre Poillievre wants to murder all the Jews in Canada, kick out all of the immigrants, and imprison all non-whites into slave labour camps and create a fascist dictatorship with him as Supreme Ruler, and then conquer Europe.  So yes he is far-right.

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Clearly Pierre Poillievre wants to murder all the Jews in Canada, kick out all of the immigrants, and imprison all non-whites into slave labour camps and create a fascist dictatorship with him as Supreme Ruler, and then conquer Europe.  So yes he is far-right.

Don't be silly.  He's not going to try to conquer Europe.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Clearly Pierre Poillievre wants to murder all the Jews in Canada, kick out all of the immigrants, and imprison all non-whites into slave labour camps and create a fascist dictatorship with him as Supreme Ruler, and then conquer Europe.  So yes he is far-right.

Maybe not but this stuff still happens.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/jacksonville-gunman-used-rifle-swastikas-214756582.html

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe not but this stuff still happens.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/jacksonville-gunman-used-rifle-swastikas-214756582.html

 

Sure - that's probably Polievre's fault too right? That's why you're bringing it up?

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure - that's probably Polievre's fault too right? That's why you're bringing it up?

As per my comment, "not".  The OP though seems to be challenged by the events of late.

[Moonlight Graham]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe not but this stuff still happens.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/jacksonville-gunman-used-rifle-swastikas-214756582.html

 

That person is definitely far-right.

[Moonlight Graham]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

As per my comment, "not".  The OP though seems to be challenged by the events of late.

Agree.  So then what is the definition of "far-right"?  Nazi support is obviously one.  Is being racist enough to be declared "far right".  That would mean a large % of the population is closet far-right.  It would mean the US at its foundation was far-right?  So I think the definition is beyond racism or ethnic/racial nationalism.  I don't think Quebec is far-right, they aren't fascist.  Maybe extreme nationalism is part of it, or extreme racism (murdering people based on race).

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

As per my comment, "not".  The OP though seems to be challenged by the events of late.

As per your comment 'maybe'

If not then why bring it up at all?

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. So I think the definition is beyond racism or ethnic/racial nationalism. 

2. I don't think Quebec is far-right, they aren't fascist.  Maybe extreme nationalism is part of it, or extreme racism (murdering people based on race).

1. 2. That sounds accurate.  Maybe espousing theories of superiority based on ethnic/gender/creed and favouring systematic oppression of freedoms based on such theories ?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 2. That sounds accurate.  Maybe espousing theories of superiority based on ethnic/gender/creed and favouring systematic oppression of freedoms based on such theories ?

None of that is accurate.  Racism and ethnic superiority appear on both the left and the right spectrums. Would you say Mao was a 'far right' politician?  Stalin had several ethnic cleansing incidents - right wing fanatic was he?

The fact is that the political spectrum isn't a line, it's a horseshoe.  the "Far" ends tend to be driven by extreme authoritarianism.  "far right" and "far left" tend to look very very similar.  The farther you go to what most people perceive as the extremes the more left and right are the same.

So if there were such a thing as 'far right' it would be more like extreme libertarianism - NO gov't, NO restrictions, people can buy guns and booze at the drive through and use them before they get home.  That kind of thing.

You guys need to learn a thing or two about politics outside your echo chambers

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by CdnFox

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1.  Racism and ethnic superiority appear on both the left and the right spectrums. 

 

 

1. I didn't say "racism" which is broad, I said " ... espousing theories of superiority based on ethnic/gender/creed and favouring systematic oppression of freedoms based on such theories ?"

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I didn't say "racism" which is broad, I said " ... espousing theories of superiority based on ethnic/gender/creed and favouring systematic oppression of freedoms based on such theories ?"

Call it what you like - it's the same on the left and the right. We've seen it many times with gov'ts that are supposedly left and ones that are supposedly right.  I noted stalin's version of the pogrom  and  holodomor.   as to china - how bout them Uyghurs? Just one example.

There is nothing 'right wing' about any of that. It's just humanity.  It has often been noted that more people have been killed at the hands of communists than nazis or capitalists.

It's not a measure of right or left.

[impartialobserver]

On 8/25/2023 at 9:55 PM, eyeball said:

I can't help but feel for the way so many old right wingers around here get left behind and relegated to the left at the drop of a hat these days.  Amused more than sympathetic mind you, sorry guys ?

But it really does underscore how the right wing has become less of a place and more of a direction.

this is not a new phenomenon. As folks age, they get left behind. The world changes and some of the old ways/ideas/values get left behind. it is simply human nature. 

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

this is not a new phenomenon. As folks age, they get left behind. The world changes and some of the old ways/ideas/values get left behind. it is simply human nature

Human nature has been turned on its head then because people usually get left behind as they become more conservative when they age.

[impartialobserver]

Just now, eyeball said:

Human nature has been turned on its head then because people usually get left behind as they become more conservative when they age.

It boils down to how humans adapt habits and expectations as they live. They survived and got what they wanted doing it a certain way at age 35.. so why reinvent the wheel at age 60? Why should they have to change when they lived an entire life doing it one way? That is the mindset and perfectly natural. And not to say that they are all this way but you do lose your mental faculties as you age and the newer ways/item are generally more complex and so it is difficult for some to wrap their mind around these things. My grandparents were realistic enough to know that they did not want the new ways and so deliberately stayed in a sheltered place where the old ways were embraced. 

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Why should they have to change when they lived an entire life doing it one way?

They don't have to change if they can put off the reality of something like climate change.

Maybe it's just harder to do that when you have grandkids.

[impartialobserver]

Just now, eyeball said:

They don't have to change if they can put off the reality of something like climate change.

Maybe it's just harder to do that when you have grandkids.

With any idea such as climate change, comes a whole array of assumptions.. the data is good, the data is sufficient (quantity of data), everyone is well intentioned, etc. It is simple human nature to be skeptical of an  idea and the changes that come of it if it  is introduced later in one's lifespan. 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

With any idea such as climate change, comes a whole array of assumptions.. the data is good, the data is sufficient (quantity of data), everyone is well intentioned, etc. It is simple human nature to be skeptical of an  idea and the changes that come of it if it  is introduced later in one's lifespan. 

Anthropogenic climate change has been a known and well understood fact of life for half a century now. Old timers who were first 'introduced' to the 'idea' are dead.

The data is solid and deniers have had a lifetime to get over their skepticism.

 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Anthropogenic climate change has been a known and well understood fact of life for half a century now. Old timers who were first 'introduced' to the 'idea' are dead.

The data is solid and deniers have had a lifetime to get over their skepticism.

 

It is known but it is NOT well understood at all, even today.  That's part of the problem.  They don't have a universal model, and the data keeps changing.

That's one of the things that creates doubt in many people's minds. The world will end in 10 years! No - 40! Wait - 34.2 at the most! Or will it?  We passed the point of no return 3 years ago! or in 2 years!  Or maybe it's never too late!?!?

How many times have we seen conflicting models or a headline like "New data says things even worse than thought!" 

If it was well understood, if the science was solid, then everyone would agree and be able to show their work and it would be better. Unfortunately there's no shrodinger's equation for climate change. And that creates opportunity for doubt.

I believe in anthropogenic climate change - i don't now how MUCH of an effect we have but i'm sure we have some, possibly a lot.

But - until it really is a solid science or at least till the powers that be get serious about not pretending it is, we're going to have naysayers.