Statement by Dieter Graumann, the former president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, on "Mein Kampf," which will become available for sale in Germany again after the copyright expires at the end of this year.
The new edition is packaged with annotations and commentary that make it "in fact an anti-Hitler text."
ADDED: From William L. Shirer, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" (p. 81):
Not every German who bought a copy of Mein Kampf necessarily read it. I have heard many a Nazi stalwart complain that it was hard going and not a few admit— in private— that they were never able to get through to the end of its 782 turgid pages. But it might be argued that had more non-Nazi Germans read it before 1933 and had the foreign statesmen of the world perused it carefully while there still was time, both Germany and the world might have been saved from catastrophe. For whatever other accusations can be made against Adolf Hitler, no one can accuse him of not putting down in writing exactly the kind of Germany he intended to make if he ever came to power and the kind of world he meant to create by armed German conquest. The blueprint of the Third Reich and, what is more, of the barbaric New Order which Hitler inflicted on conquered Europe in the triumphant years between 1939 and 1945 is set down in all its appalling crudity at great length and in detail between the covers of this revealing book.
पोस्ट्स
१३६ टिप्पण्या:
History is history. Ignoring it won't make it go away and will, instead, make it more appealing to an audience.
The book is terrible and the theories inside of it were asinine on their face. Trying to censor it isn't a solid course of action. Allow it to be published and it will fail miserably since it is a horrible slog (even Nazis didn't read it) and dumb as Hell.
Kenneth Burke said it was a useful study of scapegoating, with an eye to helping spot the trick elsewhere.
The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle." in The Philosophy of Literary Form. Written in the 30s.
[checks reference] yes.
"My hatred of censorship compels me to force you to shut up!"
Also... should be incitement against the Jewish people. It's an incitement of resentment or rage against the Jewish people. It's an incitement of neo-nazis to violence against the Jewish people.
Prepositions matter.
Schickelgruber was an amateur compared to Henry Ford. And lo and behold, Dearborn has become the Sharia Law Muslim center of the USA.
The problem is an occult spiritual power. The words written on paper are artifacts. Hitler's speeches and use of media were the real source of his power to control thoughts.
Someday the works of Ta-Nehisi Coates will draw the same reaction.
Propagandizing the Nazis as "right wing" is a more than disgusting work of irrational hatred toward conservatives that should be forbidden for evermore.
It seems a lot of people miss the point of what was wrong with Nazism. It wasn't that the Nazis (and their supporters) held noxious beliefs. The problem was that they had been given total power.
Let them print Mein Kampf in whatever form they want--I'm less disturbed by the idea that some people will read and agree with it than I am by the idea that any central authority--Nazi or otherwise--would decide what books people are allowed to publish, sell and read.
Dieter Graumann is missing his calling. Given his enthusiasm for suppressing the airing of "dangerous" ideas, he ought to be the president of an American university, or perhaps the editor of an American newspaper who decides whether to publish portrayals of Mohammed.
Dreams of Mein Führer.
I am Laslo.
Fascism is a left-wing ideology, people have to quit calling it right-wing (or extreme right-wing). Mussolini was a fascist, Hitler was not a fascist, he was evil incarnate. He was pushing his own agenda of hate and dreamed of world domination. Fascism is socialism light...Nazism is hell on earth..
I find it interesting that Nazism has become some sort of taboo in our society. Unmentionable in polite company. I am not sure if those who take this stance understand how much power accrues to things that are taboo. It certainly is going to extremes. Someone convinced Amazon to remove its ads for The Man in the High Castle from the subway cars here in NYC. It was one of those campaigns where they cover the exterior and interior of the care with plastic that has images over it. I would have thought it would have excited people to be able to put their butt down on symbols of Nazism.
I actually read a lot of it, but it was "my struggle" to read the whole thing (English version) online. My family has the 50th birthday edition that my mother smuggled out of Germany, as they were being burned after the war.
If I remember it started out by discussing the surrender in 1918, and then the French invasion of the Ruhr in 1923 to take their coal by force.
This was the setup as he began outlining his hatred of the leadership in Germany, and the reasons they did what they did.
"We coulda been a contender" was his line.
Anyway, it's just a book. People who read it won't be impressed. It is like a girly magazine. Once you see the naked girls you ask yourself "is that all there is?"
Polite society seems unwilling to take bad actors at their word, whether it is Hitler or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Instead, our governing class wants to insist that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam and that Iran doesn't really mean what it says...or does! It is the height of Western arrogance to refuse to take the stated words, principles, and actions of others at face value.
A discussion of Nazi Germany is not complete without referencing the menace of Bolshevism. They starved the Ukraine out, and were openly calling for the overthrow of all Governments.
Extremism breeds extremism. Hitler didn't pop up out of a vacuum.
I would think that a properly annotated critical edition of "Mein Kampf" would be very insightful. Its a difficult read, turgid, and barely coherent. But it would provide an insight into the mind of a monster who led a technically-advanced Western society to suicude. Any number of prominent historians would be up to task.
Calling Nazis "right-wing" is like calling Obama a uniter.
Alan Cranston famously published a pirate edition that highlighted the anti-Semitic portions of this book, specifically to undermine Hitler. He eventually lost his copyright case, but half a million copies had already been sold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf#Cranston_translation_and_controversy
"Mein Kampf" is obviously Anti-Semetic. Look at the quotes below:
And thou wilt find them [the Jews] the greediest of mankind....[Surah 11, v. 96]
Evil is that for which they sell their souls... For disbelievers is a terrible doom.[Surah II, v. 90]
Taste ye [Jews] the punishment of burning.[Surah III, v. 18 1]
Proclaim a woeful punishment to those that hoard up gold and silver.... Their treasures shall be heated in the dres of Hell, and their foreheads, sides and backs branded with them. . . . 'Taste then the punishment which is your due. [Surah IX, v. 35]
"They [the Jews] are the heirs of Hell.... They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is clear from what they say ... When evil befalls you they rejoice." Ibid. [Surah 111, v. 117-120]
Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment.[Surah IV, v. 56]
Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews.... And of their taking usury ... and of their devouring people's wealth by false pretenses. We have prepared for those of them who disbelieve a painful doom.[Surah IV, v. 160, 161]
Allah hath cursed them [the Jews] for their disbelief.[Surah IV, v. 46]
They [the Jews] will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is clear from what they say, but more violent is the hatred which their breasts conceal.[Surah III, v. 117-120]
And thou seest [Jews and Christians] vying one with another in sin and transgression and their devouring of illicit gain. Verily evil is what they do. Why do not the rabbis and the priests forbid their evilspeaking and their devouring of illicit gain? .... evil is their handiwork.[Surah V, v. 62, 63]
I see what I did there.
I am Laslo.
So we should have taken Hitler at his word, but not Iran? I can never keep this stuff straight anymore.
I'd worry how the book's title translates into Arabic languages: "My Jihad" by Adolf Hitler might resonate with the wrong sort in Germany.
traditionalguy said...
Schickelgruber was an amateur compared to Henry Ford.
Huh?
Have you ever read any of Henry Ford's books?
Bios of Henry Ford?
I'll be happy to send you PDF or Kindle formatted copies of "My Life and Work" (1923) (Best book ever written on lean manufacturing. Not just my opinion, Toyota's as well)or "Moving Forward" (1932)
Drop a note to johnfajardohenry@gmail.com
John Henry
You need meiin Kempf published just so people know what Hitler was all about. I recognize its offensive, but it's historic. Publishing it is not celebrating Hitler. It's showing what happened. That is more important.
Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. This would facilitate that.
"Propagandizing the Nazis as "right wing" is a more than disgusting work of irrational hatred toward conservatives that should be forbidden for evermore."
Though we use them all the time, terms like "left" and "right" don't tell us much. There was a time when "right wing" or "conservative" meant "pro-royalty" and "liberal" meant "democratic republic". Britain's "conservatives" once were the "pro-colonialism" party, while the Liberals were pro-free trade.
By any measure, the Nazis had more in common with today's statists who wish to give more power to the government and less to the individual, both to control the economy and control society in general. How could any sane person think a group like that is comparable to an ideology that today favors laissez faire economics and individual liberties?
One of the reasons for not promoting the reading of Mein Kampf is that it shows that National Socialism is socialism by any definition of the word. It is readily available for free online and everyone should read it. Rather a slog but worthwhile.
Fascism is a word that gets bandied about mainly because Stalin, after his falling out with Hitler, needed a word to replace national socialism. As Orwell noted 60+ years ago, it "has come to mean 'something I don't like'". In actuality, it is a specific socialist political philosophy developed by Mussolini and implemented with the Fascist Party (note the caps) in Italy.
Anyone interested should read Mussolini's 1938 book "The Doctrine of Fascism" which explains it, what it is, how it works and its goals. About as turgid as Mein Kampf but there is less of it. About 100 pages, I think. Readily available online in PDF format or buy it for the Kindle(using Ann's portal) for about $2.99.
John Henry
We should also bear in mind that the only difference between National Socialism, Fascism and US progressivism, particularly as practiced by the LaFollettes, is spelling.
And, the fact that Americans have a strong enough political system to resist the worst excesses of the ideology.
John Henry
Re progressivism:
Hilary is going around saying that she "is a progressive who gets things done."
I fully expect her to say at some point that she will make the trains run on time. Or, being the 21st century, make the planes fly on time.
John Henry
Shirer wrote in long convoluted sentences.
Or, being the 21st century, make the planes fly on time.
No, I think she'd brag about trains. It's always rail lines with those people.
@ John Henry...No one says Henry Ford wasn't a tough minded mechanic that wanted things done his way or else. He was real genius on manufacturing machines.
But one big goal in Ford's life was destroying the International Jew conspiracy. He spent lots of money on publishing propaganda to get them first before they got him, poor deluded fool. And Hitler honored Ford by calling him his favorite author on his favorite subject in which they shared a goal.
"Anyone interested should read Mussolini's 1938 book "The Doctrine of Fascism" which explains it, what it is, how it works and its goals."
Yet fascists never let theory get in the way of whatever thuggery served their purposes. And Mussolini's "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" seems a reasonably good summary of fascist theory, such as it was.
Arguably one of the distinguishing characteristics between fascism and communism (other than the national/international stuff) is the heavy load of intellectualism and theory in communism, and its lack in fascism. Today Naziism has an almost cartoonish, comic-book evil-eye image while communism (but perhaps not Stalin) remains at least somewhat intellectually reputable.
"I fully expect her to say at some point that she will make the trains run on time. Or, being the 21st century, make the planes fly on time."
Make the high-speed rail speed higher.
For those interested, Mein Kampf is available at the Internet Archive in a variety of formats. https://archive.org/details/meinkampf035176mbp
Doctrine of Fascism can be found here http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
Read and learn.
Or don't read and stay ignorant.
John Henry
Angela Merkel is doing what she can to make him popular in Germany and Austria again.
I checked both Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto out of the library in high school. I don't recall how much I read or what insights I gained. This summer will be my 50th reunion.
Interesting theory postulated by Evan Sayet in his "The KindrGarden of Eden" . He claims that modern liberalism began when people rejected The Enlightenment when it reached its soulless extremes manifested in the Holocaust - The enlightenment philosophy disqualified itself as the philosophy that might finally bring peace and universal prosperity. He claims they threw out God and reason and replaced it with Utopia.Anyone interested in how the modern liberal thinks should read the book.
Propagandizing the Nazis as "right wing" is a more than disgusting work of irrational hatred toward conservatives that should be forbidden for evermore.
Indeed. The conservatives in Germany were monarchists, which Hitler assuredly was not. Conservatives today would, at the most extreme possible, lead to anarchy, which Hitler opposed. I had to read it for a class on the rise of European fascism and, geez, that was brutal. He could belabor a point like few others in recorded history.
He was a Socialist but had no love for Moscow. Therefore he was a National Socialist and not an International one.
Let them print Mein Kampf in whatever form they want--I'm less disturbed by the idea that some people will read and agree with it than I am by the idea that any central authority--Nazi or otherwise--would decide what books people are allowed to publish, sell and read.
Indeed. I find the Protocols of the Elders of Zion deplorable. Banning it makes it infinitely worse. If the only way to counter idiotic and terrible ideas is by silencing them, then you don't have any actual counters to them. Which is a sad, sad defeat.
Fascism is a left-wing ideology, people have to quit calling it right-wing (or extreme right-wing). Mussolini was a fascist,
Mussolini was an ardent Socialist. He became a "Fascist" because Italy was the ONLY European country whose Socialist party opposed World War I. In Germany, he'd have been to the left of Rosa Luxemborg.
We should also bear in mind that the only difference between National Socialism, Fascism and US progressivism, particularly as practiced by the LaFollettes, is spelling.
Progressives had very few problems with Mussolini until the whole Ethiopia debacle. As has been pointed out, he was arguably the most intelligent and well-read of the leaders involved in World War II...further showing how useful higher education has a tendency to be.
Not surprising. Accurate history is evil, because it helps put things in context.
So if some neighborhood informant spots me reading a copy in Germany, this guy wants to send brownshirts of his own to arrest and prosecute me?
Scratch a liberal, you'll find a fascist.
Hitler, who was a veteran, said they could have won the war, but his own government was the reason they lost it.
When the French came in and took their coal, by holding the surrender document that gifted it to them, the die was cast. If not Hitler, it would have been someone else. They were going to be very sore losers.
The same quote is used by most Vietnam war vets. They think our government cut the legs off the military.
It's a sickness...
Graumann must have very strong feelings about the attractiveness and persuasive power of Mein Kampf since he obviously thinks that all the neo-Nazis need to do to fire up the ovens again is get people to read it.
Paul said...
Fascism is a left-wing ideology, people have to quit calling it right-wing (or extreme right-wing).
It's not that fascism is a left wing ideology, but that left and right mean something different in Europe than they do in the US. In Europe, left vs. right refers to international vs. national socialism, what those in the US would call left vs. left.
There is no European equivalent of the American right. It makes no sense to insist that Europeans stop calling the Nazis right-wingers, that label is appropriate under their system. It also makes no sense to insist that American left wingers stop calling the Nazis right wingers, but for a different reason. Asking an American liberal to use American political terminology is like asking a dog to dance better--they lack the intelligence and coordination to follow your directions.
Noting says "rightwing" like a "National Socialist Workers Party".
"Propagandizing the Nazis as "right wing" is a more than disgusting work of irrational hatred toward conservatives that should be forbidden for evermore."
But, of course, they were right wing. What you think this has to do with conservatives is beyond me. I suppose this is reveals the provincialism of your thinking.
Well, I've read Mein Kampf.
It's ranting, basically. An extended rant that just goes wherever, full of excruciating mixed metaphors (to those who are bothered by that sort of thing), pipe dreams, potted history and autobiographical half-truths.
It's not his Master Plan. It's not that clearly stated or consistent, and at the time he wrote it he was a political prisoner, head of a local fringe party, and no one imagined he'd ever be as prominent as he became in ten years and be able to put any sort of program into practice. So it's a lot of "we should do this" and "we could have done that". What does come through is that he blames Jews for pretty much everything.
It was convenient for him later that hardly anyone had read it, since he had to do the opposite of a lot of what he'd said in there.
Hitler, it must not be forgotten, was a bullshitter utterly unconcerned with the truth or falsity of anything he said, he only cared about its effect on his current audience. He could put on his Nazi uniform and whip up crowds with foam-flecked ranting about Jews, or put on a blue suit and calmly talk fiscal wonkery with bankers, and be equally at home.
Interesting that it is now being published in Germany. In 1964 when I started college I bought the book at the campus book store. I read it, don't really much about it. It was hard read I do remember. I read it because I was interested in WWII.
"Hitler, who was a veteran, said they could have won the war, but his own government was the reason they lost it.
"The same quote is used by most Vietnam war vets. They think our government cut the legs off the military."
One hears this refrain often, that "We're being too timid in our slaughter, we need to fight to win, etc., etc., ad nauseum." If he were alive today, Hitler would be a basement-dwelling internet troll or a respected member of the neo-conservatives, (a John Bolton, for example).
Or he would be a Planned Parenthood shooter.
"Peter said...
"Arguably one of the distinguishing characteristics between fascism and communism (other than the national/international stuff) is the heavy load of intellectualism and theory in communism, and its lack in fascism. Today Naziism has an almost cartoonish, comic-book evil-eye image while communism (but perhaps not Stalin) remains at least somewhat intellectually reputable.
12/2/15, 8:55 AM"
Meh.
The difference today is primarily because the Nazis were wiped out and the Communists were powerful for generations.
They were both replete with pseudo-intellectual posturing. You can't do good "intellectual" hand-in-hand with dogma and heresy purges. That way lies Lysenkoism.
"Noting says 'rightwing' like a 'National Socialist Workers Party.'"
Nothing says "dictatorship" like "Democratic People's Republic of Korea."
At this late date, when we've all been exposed hundreds of thousands of ads, when we're inundated daily with propaganda, lies, half-lies, half-truths, and so on, do you really think one can accept any label at face-value, as an truthful or accurate description of that which is labeled?
" I suppose this is reveals the provincialism of your thinking."
A nice example of the left trying to pretend it holds all wisdom.
Here's an interesting little known fact: Mussolini's autobiography was written by his mistress who was Jewish. I haven't read it, but I've heard it's quite readable. I feel certain that if Hitler had taken the trouble to find a Jewish ghostwriter, Mein Kampf would be a much better book.
" do you really think one can accept any label at face-value, as an truthful or accurate description of that which is labeled?"
I actually agree with Cookie once.
Robert, if he was alive today (unlikely given that he'd be over 116 yrs old and was in poor health thru most of WW II), he'd be a Leftie icon. He hated Jews vehemently and wanted the state to run everything. also hated smoking and loved organic cooking.
do you really think one can accept any label at face-value,
It's always amusing when the person asserting others are superficial utilizes hopelessly superficial arguments. Hitler was Socialist because he believed the proper institutional hierarchy was for government to direct business for the benefit of workers, not because the word Socialist appears in their label. Coincidentally this is just what other socialists believe.
Nothing says "dictatorship" than all of the intellectual leftist doctrines of the 20th century, whether they call themselves, Fascist, Communist, National Socialist, or whatever. Stalinists called Trotsky a "fascist".
It isn't an accident than the vast majority of dictatorships fancy themselves "Peoples Republics", which has always been formed by self-identified leftists achieving power.
Progressives remain merely authoritarian, somewhat of a resurgence of an aristocratic order, based on intellectualism and credentials, rather than bloodlines.
There's a theory that Kafka was hired to write Mein Kampf. Kafka needed the paycheck and wrote it as a clever parody of anti-semitism, but nobody got the joke. The irony was too subtle.
"Not every German who bought a copy of Mein Kampf necessarily read it. I have heard many a Nazi stalwart complain that it was hard going and not a few admit— in private— that they were never able to get through to the end of its 782 turgid pages."
If only more more folks had read Dreams Von Mienen Vater.
Did Hitler gave composite girlfriends??
RC3: Propagandizing the Nazis as "right wing" is a more than disgusting work of irrational hatred toward conservatives that should be forbidden for evermore.
Bingo. What part of "National Socialism" do people not understand?
It's fascinating to watch actual history about Nazi Germany, e.g. "The World at War," which shows newsreel propaganda touting Hitler's full-employment statistics, interviews with people describing "bread for the masses," etc. It's a very bizarre "right-wing" platform.
There is, of course, right-wing authoritarianism, cf. Pinochet's Chile. But Naziism isn't it.
I'm interested in who are the current copyright holders not only in Germany but elsewhere and who have been those holders since 1945, and how much they have earned in royalties since then. Hitler made quite a lot of money off the book when the German government purchased millions of copies in the thirties and forties.
I have a suspicion the book will become a bestseller in Germany again, at least among certain segments of the indigenous and imported German population. Heees Baaack!!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/oct/06/he-is-back-trailer-films-asks-what-happens-if-hitler-appears-in-2015-video
I have the 1939 fully annotated version from Houghton Miflin on my computer, in English. It has a lot of commentary that was added in 1941. The TOC is very helpful. The formatting takes a little bit to follow, but worthwhile.
I've read Mein Kampf in both German and English and I find it more readable in the latter.
Here it is: http://www.archive.org/stream/meinkampf035176mbp/meinkampf035176mbp_djvu.txt
I have occasion to refer to it when ahistorical Stalinists like Robert Cook drop in with their 'the Nazis were right-wing' bullshit. It is a nice tool to have because everytime I post quotes from it proving Hitler's socialism the commenters just disappear...
Nazi symbols are verboten in Germany, but I've seen swastika-tattooed men walk through a train station at commute times and no one said a word. I've been on buses where early morning drunks sitting in the back harangue those getting on about the need for a strong man like 'Onkel Adolf' to deal with the 'foreigner' problem. people on the bus looked disgusted...but I was the only one who spoke out against them.
I've always thought that the Germans made a mistake outlawing all Nazi-related stuff: symbols, books, etc. It always felt to me that they were sticking their heads beneath a blanket hoping that the bad stuff would just disappear.
"Here's an interesting little known fact: Mussolini's autobiography was written by his mistress who was Jewish."
For all of Mussolini's faults, he wasn't anti-Semitic. Jews were better represented in the Italian fascist party than in the general population, and even after he cravenly passed anti-Jewish ordinances under pressure from his Nazi allies, he kept Italian Jews from getting deported to the death camps while he remained in power. It wasn't until after he was overthrown and the Nazis invaded that Italian Jews started getting slaughtered.
Had it not been for Mussolini's alliance with Hitler, I don't see anything about Fascism that today's leftists would criticize him for. He was quite the collectivist and had a firm socialist background.
Robert Cook said...
But, of course, they were right wing. What you think this has to do with conservatives is beyond me. I suppose this is reveals the provincialism of your thinking.
I assume that by this you mean not socialist.
Could you explain on what you base this conclusion?
Have you read Mein Kampf? Books about how National Socialism worked?
One basic definition of socialism is "Control of the means of production by the state for the benefit of the people." Wasn't this what happened under German National Socialism?
Granted that it never works out this way in real life but that is how socialism is supposed to work.
I use "state" generically there. It may be called society, administration, government, community, the people or other names depending on the flavor of socialism under discussion or the person doing the discussion.
John Henry
The thing I hate most about the who-is-most-like-Hitler arguments, besides that they use the Holocaust for partisan point-scoring, is that the only reason anyone bothers is because they think that
he was evil incarnate
as an earlier commenter here said.
Hitler was NOT evil incarnate. He was a very, very ordinary man. He did not personally commit atrocities or persecute Jews or conquer other nations; those actions were performed by millions of ordinary human beings, the vast majority of whom we would think of as good people if we knew them, God-fearing, hard-working, family-loving men, women and children.
These normal, good people did atrocious things because they are people. All plains apes are capable of this sort of behavior. The line through good and evil runs through every human heart. Using Hitler and the Nazis as some kind of Satan-figure with which you score points in arguments is a way of forgetting that, and ensuring that Nazi atrocities happen again.
Because you're looking for these people with fangs and horns who just show up and start doing terrible things, when it's actually you and your neighbors who are going to be doing it, when it happens.
Do we remember Rwanda at all? Hutu and Tutsi are the same race, religion, ethnicity. The difference was primarily an ID card. And they had all intermarried. Yet they were perfectly capable of hacking up their brother-in-law, or the mother of their children, over such a trivial difference. Ordinary people are capable of this. Never forget.
ISIS is no different. But we pretend there is this "radicalization" process that must have turned these humans into monsters. No, they are human as they ever were, doing what humans have normally done through history. Never forget.
"If he were alive today, Hitler would be a basement-dwelling internet troll or a respected member of the neo-conservatives, (a John Bolton, for example)."
Hitler's impulse for war might align him with some of today's interventionists (including Hillary Clinton) if you equate all war as the same. But it's hard to compare Hitler's wars to gain "living space" and resources for his Reich with neoconservative ideals which (even if you think they're misguided) are more about spreading democracy and toppling dictatorships.
But aside from his foreign policy, what about Hitler would be so at odds with today's radical leftists? His willingness to silence those with the wrong viewpoints? His scapegoating the problems of society on unpopular minority groups? His insistence on simplistic solutions to modern problems he couldn't understand? His willingness to use the power of the state and usurp the rule of law to achieve his ends? His beliefs that "race matters", and determines one's life?
Sounds like he'd fit in well on campus. He might not have been too keen on some racial minorities, but then I suspect underneath many of these radicals have rather dismal views of other races as well.
maybe we can just gather all the books we don't like and burn them. That'll show everybody we're nothing like those Nazis!
Had it not been for Mussolini's alliance with Hitler, I don't see anything about Fascism that today's leftists would criticize him for.
I agree and, in fact, present day leftism is pretty close to Mussolini-style fascism. Read Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism and see how close the histories are.
Then read, Fred Siegel's Revolt Against the Masses to see the rest of the story. Reading those two books is the equivalent of reading The Looming Tower for the story of Islamism.
Those three books are, in my opinion, essential to understanding where we are and why.
"The politics of Nazism
The political right is popularly associated with the following principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist, it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right. These include:
Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism."
Link
The article elaborates on every point in the list above. The notion that the right is trying to push that Hitler was a leftist is simply laughable. You cannot rewrite history, sorry.
John Henry:
Cook has maintained that the Nazi's weren't socialist because Hitler 'outlawed trade unions'. When given proof that Hitler's abolishment ended up being one massive union that both employers and employees were made members of, the forced profit-sharing, the complete Nazi control over who makes what and for what price (part of the Gleichshaltung [coordination] initiative), the Joy Through Work programs like subsidized vacations, a pay raise, social programs etc. as well as Hitler's own words on the matter, Cook's response has been to disappear.
Brave Sir Robert!
"The thing I hate most about the who-is-most-like-Hitler arguments, besides that they use the Holocaust for partisan point-scoring"
First, the Holocaust should NOT be used for partisan point-scoring, not just because it's tasteless but because let's face it--nobody in the realm of normal conversation is going to be okay with genocide. Comparing someone to a group that did monstrous acts is laughable simply because it is so far beyond the pale.
But it is instructive to note the normal impulses among many of us that did lead to what the Nazis did and what the Germans allowed. Whenever we decide that we must "do something" about a crisis, without considering whether "something" is a good thing, and we let extreme crises lead us to extreme solutions, we fall into the same trap. Whenever we decide that "awful" ideas need to be silenced, or the power of the state should be used to "do good" (considering "good" is often subjective) we are giving in to a dangerous impulse. When we allow emotion to overcome reason, and suppose "enough force" is going to fix our problems, we go down that path.
Remember, the Nazis didn't start out in Germany promising to round up Jews and other undesirables and kill them all. They started gradually--how do we bring back German greatness? How do we solve the problem of communists striking in the streets? How do we handle the Great Depression? They gradually used state power to achieve their goals, whether it was putting Germans to work or cracking down on "security threats" and silencing undesirable opinions. It culminated in world war and Holocaust, but what enabled all of that was the collectivist and statist impulse people often give in to when faced with crises.
The reason it's worth pointing this out now is that we are not immune from this impulse, even today--look at how Americans react to wage stagnation, job loss, crippling debt and rising security threats. None of these crises rise to the level of what Germany faced in 1933, but we still see a lot of Americans giving in to anti-libertarian instincts.
Hitler was absolutely not ordinary - he had a personal magnetism that is perhaps difficult to appreciate in recordings, but it is well attested by most who had dealings with him. He also was a skilled demagogue and self taught psychologist. He didn't need focus groups or speechwriters. In current US terms the closest analogue is probably Donald Trump. In both cases the times make the man, and neither probably would be quite as effective in different times. And whatever Trump's faults, this is just a comment on his skill. I doubt very much that he has the personal ethics or psychological issues that Hitler did. Heck, Hitler probably would have been a fairly innocuous fellow had he been born with Trumps money.
Mein Kampf - don't want to write a book review, but I have to say its worth a read. There are several excellent English translations, some free. I read Murphy's, which is apparently expurgated, but its more than good enough to get the picture. Hitlers personal story is very interesting in an unreliable-narrator sort of way, and its also clear that the chain of events, personal and historical, had as much to do with Hitler the phenomenon as Hitler himself. The "origin story" of villains in superhero comics is often the most interesting episode, and this is just like that. This also includes the bits that the narrator seems to gloss over. A proper biographer would have been able to flesh out the thing, but by the time anyone was inclined to chase details down it was probably decades too late.
There are mysteries here indeed.
The thing starts getting choked with repetitive rhetoric and German political inside baseball after the first half, so there it is. Read the first half, its a mind-opener on the processes of history.
maybe we can just gather all the books we don't like and burn them. That'll show everybody we're nothing like those Nazis!
We can also blame all of the problems in the Middle East on the Jooos.
Because that's Progressive.
Would it be wrong to equate "safe space" and "living space"?
Hitler was absolutely not ordinary - he had a personal magnetism that is perhaps difficult to appreciate in recordings, but it is well attested by most who had dealings with him. He also was a skilled demagogue and self taught psychologist. He didn't need focus groups or speechwriters. In current US terms the closest analogue is probably Donald Trump. In both cases the times make the man, and neither probably would be quite as effective in different times. And whatever Trump's faults, this is just a comment on his skill. I doubt very much that he has the personal ethics or psychological issues that Hitler did. Heck, Hitler probably would have been a fairly innocuous fellow had he been born with Trumps money.
I'd argue that Hitler could read people better than almost anybody in the world (his deteriorating health and massive drugs he was taking eliminated that during Stalingrad). He took, honestly, suicidal "risks" in taking over Europe...but knew that France and Britain would do nothing, even though either could have stopped him exceptionally easily (which is why I can't fully subscribe to "leave ISIS in the ME and don't get involved") up until about 1938-9 --- and if he was stopped, his generals would've happily ousted him.
And having looked at his Last Will, his anti-Semitism wasn't an act. That man hated Jews something fierce.
Much of the Nazi program, such as extremes of antisemitism and lebensraum, only makes some sort of sense within the context of German history and contemporary public attitudes, controversies, economics and politics. As above, read Mein Kampf and you will get an idea where all this came from.
Many of our bitter controversies and conflicts, which can easily become violent, are not foreordained clashes of interests but the result of a long series of arguments that became intemperate and proceeded to symbolic tit-for-tat, which turned into tribal warfare.
"the Nazis didn't start out in Germany promising to round up Jews and other undesirables and kill them all. "
Hitler did intend to get rid of them, one way or another, back in 1925 (his program was pretty much all there in MK, more or less), and also to restore lost German territories such as much of Poland, and clear them to settle Germans to assuage the perceived land hunger.
The Nazis didn't promise all the above officially in their platforms in complete form, but their propaganda message was nearly always ... unrestrained.
Their ultimate policies seem to have been opportunistic, given that they had already convinced themselves of the goals. Mein Kampf is remarkably free of Christian ethics, which is a prerequisite of adopting such evil means.
One point often missed, is that the German military was not averse to frankly evil goals or means. The goals of the Eastern offensives including the invasion of Russia were acknowledged to be lebensraum and the pitiless attitudes to civilians and Soviet prisoners (being subhuman) was pre-approved by the OKW, the OKH, and down to the corps commanders. The lack of or perversion of ethics was all through those institutions.
Georgie, finding some revisionist source supporting your fever-induced comments is just laughable. You really had to scour the dregs of the internet to find that abysmal piece.
You are just as dumb as garage with a better vocabulary.
From her link: 'Many of the institutions that conservatives favor are really quite dictatorial: the military, the church, the patriarchal family, the business firm.'
That is how deep their argument reaches. Not enough to get the soles of your feet wet.
And that being pro-life is eugenics? Your shame knows no limits.
Georgie; just another fascist propagandist.
Right wing and left wing don't map well between European politics of the 1930's and those of the US today.
Heck, Italian Fascist politics of the the time didn't quite map to German Nazi politics either.
Calling anyone in modern US politics Nazi's is just a slur with little meaning.
"Cook has maintained that the Nazi's weren't socialist because Hitler 'outlawed trade unions.'"
I don't recall making such a specific statement, actually, not that it's not true. Hitler also imprisoned and executed communists and socialists. Many big Businesses, however, ( in Germany and internationally) approved of and supported Hitler.
The right's association of the Nazis with leftist ideology serves two-purposes: it adds to all the other evils of which they accuse the leftists, and serves to discredit leftism qua leftism, and, more importantly, it is an attempt to inoculate the right from any association with authoritarianism. That is to say, the "right" can only be an ideology of freedom, by definition, and therefore any dictatorship must and can only ever be seen as "leftist."
The reality is that any political philosophy can become authoritarian in nature and tyrannical in practice, where the purported political principles are betrayed and merely given lip service in order to justify the very actions that betray the claimed principles. Authoritarianism is an aspect of human nature, and human nature will always trump abstract principles in the real world. Look at the American political system for the last 45 years: it has moved further and further to the right, and we have become more and more authoritarian during this time, particularly post-9/11.
There isn't much purpose in long engaging with those who insist, a la Goldberg, that "leftism" = "fascism" and vice versa, any more than there is reason to engage seriously or at length with those who assert the literal truth of the Bible or that the earth is but 6000 years old, etc.
"But it might be argued that had more non-Nazi Germans read it before 1933 and had the foreign statesmen of the world perused it carefully while there still was time, both Germany and the world might have been saved from catastrophe."
Why would it be argued that "death to the Jews" would be taken more seriously in 1933 than "death to America" or "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth" is taken in 2015?
We have the benefit of hindsight and yet still find every way possible to disregard the threats we find to be beyond the pale.
" I don't see anything about Fascism that today's leftists would criticize him for."
They could and would. Gramsci, one of the saints of leftism, was martyred by the Fascists.
The Italian communists beef with the Fascists was the compromise with business and the Church, plus of course cutting them out.
The left wing factions hate each other viciously.
Individualism over collectivism
So Nazism was about individualism?
In the first months of his chancellorship, Hitler began a concerted policy of "synchronization," forcing organizations, political parties, and state governments into line with Nazi goals and placing them under Nazi leadership. Culture, the economy, education, and law came under greater Nazi control.
http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007669
http://www.wolfsonian.org/sites/default/files/library/XC1991.462.000.jpg
Meat-eating over vegetarianism
I don't know that anyones political position has anything to do with their eating habits, but just for the record, though vegetarians try to deny it, Hitler was a vegetarian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism
Gun ownership over gun control
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/NaziLawEnglish.htm
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction
Eugenics were a progressive idea. That's why such luminaries as H.G Wells, Herbert Hoover, Margaret Sanger, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, and Linus Pauling endorsed it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critics
Common sense over theory or science
Cause, eugenics was based on science don't you know
I could go on, but why bother.
I must admit, I am somewhat impressed with the brazenness of listing a bunch of things that you disapprove of and accuse the "right wing" of them without having bothered to acquire an iota of historical learning and then stating "You cannot rewrite history."
When George Orwell warned us about people like you, I think he had a better class of evil in mind.
Actually, Livermoron, the article Georgie links to is quite well-stated. That you simply do not like what it has to say does not make it "revisionist" and certainly not abysmal. (It is the notion that Naziism is leftist that is revisionist.)
"In current US terms the closest analogue is probably Donald Trump. In both cases the times make the man, and neither probably would be quite as effective in different times."
I tend to agree. I don't know what goes on in Trump's mind but he has captured a public rage that Hitler used to his advantage,
American are much more individualistic than Germans were in the 1920s but we are all very unhappy with our ruling class, except of course the leftist drones.
Trump could probably do a lot of damage but it would be a stretch to exceed the damage Obama has done.
Look at the American political system for the last 45 years: it has moved further and further to the right, and we have become more and more authoritarian during this time, particularly post-9/11.
If, by authoritarian, you mean that the people that run the country, what is sometimes called the political class, increasingly disregard what the electorate actually wants, and imposes its will on us, then I agree.
Cough, cough, Obamacare, cough cough, immigration, cough.
I point to the example of Napoleon. For more than a hundred years after his death, the left embraced him as one of their own--the French Revolution on horseback. It's only in the past few generations that the left has realized that he was a proto-Fascist......You really have to pay attention to keep track of those revisions. Lincoln, despite outward appearances, was really a Democrat and Wilson, despite the superficiality of party labels, was truly a member of the Trump wing of the Republican Party.
Robert Cook said...
The right's association of the Nazis with leftist ideology serves two-purposes: it adds to all the other evils of which they accuse the leftists, and serves to discredit leftism qua leftism, and, more importantly, it is an attempt to inoculate the right from any association with authoritarianism.
It's interesting to watch Cook imbue the motivation of leftists in pinning Naziism on the right in the first place to his opponents rather than recognizing it as central to himself and his fellow believers.
There isn't much purpose in long engaging with those who insist, a la Goldberg, that "leftism" = "fascism" and vice versa
Once again Cook shows he doesn't understand much of anything. Goldberg never claimed leftism and fascism were interchangeable concepts. But it does show his standard defense mechanism of running from topics that endanger his self-worth.
the article Georgie links to is quite well-stated
Actually it's quite pathetic. It's a left wing fever dream of what the right stands for in the first place and evaluates the left/right performance on each standard according to the left's hagiographic branding rather than reality in the second. It also inappropriately narrowly defines the definition of socialism to inoculate it.
Each item listed has to be evaluated on two points:
(1) Is it an accurate reflection of left / right?
(2) If (1) is correct where do Nazis fall on the scale?
Individualism over collectivism. T / Left
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance. F
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction. F
Merit over equality. T / Center to Slight Left
Competition over cooperation. F - should be competition or freedom over controlled planning. Once changed Nazi philosophy is Left
Power politics and militarism over pacifism. F
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy. F - should be stated as freedom or control, once restated = left
Capitalism over Marxism. T - Left
Realism over idealism. F
Nationalism over internationalism. T - Right
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness. F
Meat-eating over vegetarianism. F - who even writes something this ridiculous?
Gun ownership over gun control F - should be stated as freedom or control, once restated = left
Common sense over theory or science. F
Pragmatism over principle. F
Religion over secularism." T - Left
As you can see there isn't much putting Nazis on the right other than the left's desire for guilt by association.
I don't recall making such a specific statement, actually, not that it's not true. Hitler also imprisoned and executed communists and socialists.
You attack your own side first. Do you think the admins in college that activists bitch about are conservatives (to use a current example)?
Many big Businesses, however, ( in Germany and internationally) approved of and supported Hitler.
Not really. They hated him until he was on the verge of power than decided to join up because there wasn't an alternative. The "big business bankrolled Hitler" myth is very much only a myth.
The right's association of the Nazis with leftist ideology serves two-purposes: it adds to all the other evils of which they accuse the leftists, and serves to discredit leftism qua leftism, and, more importantly, it is an attempt to inoculate the right from any association with authoritarianism.
The modern right will lean towards anarchy. The classical right tended to monarchic. They had few problems with authoritarianism...they just didn't like the authoritarianism unleashed. They're like Progressives throughout history. FDR said a lot of his policies would be fascism is done by other people.
Look at the American political system for the last 45 years: it has moved further and further to the right,
...in what alternate universe? A horrible President losing tons of seats isn't evidence of a right shift. If it was evidence of it, there would be no President Obama.
There isn't much purpose in long engaging with those who insist, a la Goldberg, that "leftism" = "fascism" and vice versa, any more than there is reason to engage seriously or at length with those who assert the literal truth of the Bible or that the earth is but 6000 years old, etc.
You don't engage because you cannot. It is simple reality.
What you can safely ignore, however, are claims that Marxism doesn't lead to brutal tyranny. That is a universal constant.
The article elaborates on every point in the list above. The notion that the right is trying to push that Hitler was a leftist is simply laughable. You cannot rewrite history, sorry.
The article claims Hitler advocated freedom of religious belief. As long as the church didn't interfere with the state, he let them continue (which is an exceedingly off definition of freedom of belief). Also ignores his attacks on Catholic schools and youth groups.
It labels the family as "dictatorial".
The church is "dictatorial" (which is why no Catholic uses birth control, clearly). Claims that the Left is for equality over merit (which is a load of shit. The Left idolizes, for example, the Ivy League).
That the Left prefers democracy over self-rule, which is news to every Communist state in recorded history.
Confuses opposition to international Marxism as support for capitalism (he hated "high finance" too)
Claims idealism trumps realism to the Left (which explains Hillary Clinton's huge lead in the polls for the Dem nomination)
Claimed the Nazis didn't round up guns.
Claims the Left is all for principle and not so much for "pragmatism".
your article is an insult to idiots.
Actually Robert Cook, the article she stated is nonsense and only someone desperate for ego-gratification and self-bias confirmation would read it as anything other than the drivel it is.
There's a reason you always run away when I bring out the facts, I mean aside from you Stalininst world-view and your intellectual dishonesty. You run away from them because you lose.
That paper was written by a commercial fisherman who once did some s/w writing for inktomi in 1997.
You are full of shit.
Georgie, there's a lot wrong with your list if it is trying to compare the modern libertarian "right" with Nazism.
"Individualism over collectivism."
Where was the respect for individual rights in Nazism?
"Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance."
Today's rightists are accused of "racism" when in fact they call for colorblind policies. The concept of "disparate impact" comes from the Left, and race consciousness today is almost exclusively a leftist idea.
"Eugenics over freedom of reproduction."
Those two concepts are not polar opposites unless you are talking about eugenics as forced abortions. How on earth can you compare pro-lifers (who argue all lives must be protected) with eugenicists?
"Merit over equality."
These are not polar opposites--you can favor a merit-based system with equality of opportunity. I also don't recall the Nazism being a meritocracy.
"Competition over cooperation."
To the extent "cooperation" means "no competition" then we are talking about monopolies, of which the Nazis, not libertarians, are fond.
"Power politics and militarism over pacifism."
So the modern left does not use power politics? That's news to me. As for pacifism, there's a pacifist streak among some leftists and some libertarians (as well as the Pat Buchanan wing of the Right) but you can find plenty of warmongers on the Left. The Democrats are about to nominate one.
"One-person rule or self-rule over democracy."
I'm not aware of any modern western rightist who favors "one-person rule". And it seems everyone, left and right, loves democracy as long as their own ideas are popular. Otherwise, not so much.
"Capitalism over Marxism."
The Nazis favored state-controlled monopolies. Sounds a lot more like modern leftists and crony capitalists than libertarian rightists.
"Realism over idealism."
Left and Right are "realist" and "idealist" where they wish to be. Neither group has a claim on either "ism".
"Nationalism over internationalism."
So the side that has been anti-free trade is "internationalist"? Like I said, they decide to be what they want when it suits them.
"Exclusiveness over inclusiveness."
Meaningless terms when applied to today's right and left, and also meaningless in describing the Nazis.
"Meat-eating over vegetarianism."
Hitler was a staunch vegetarian, while FDR served hot dogs to the King and Queen. Perhaps you got these two backward?
"Gun ownership over gun control"
Ah yes, the Nazis were big on protecting the rights of individual gun owners! I must have missed that part in history.
"Common sense over theory or science."
Not sure what you mean by "common sense" but both Left and Right have rejected theory and science when it runs against their politics, just as the Nazis have. You've identified a universal trait.
"Pragmatism over principle."
Same as above. Everyone's principled when it suits them, pragmatic when it suits them, and the Nazis were both.
"Religion over secularism."
The Nazis were no friends to the religious.
All Georgie and Cook are doing is confirming Orwell's point.
Ron Winkelheimer, nice start on rebutting that nonsense.
Cook said:I don't recall making such a specific statement, actually, not that it's not true. Hitler also imprisoned and executed communists and socialists.
The Nazi's killed everyone who wasn't on their bandwagon. They put in place laws that forced businesses to cooperate or face nationalization.
Your idol Stalin killed a lot of socialists and communists too.
And you frequently disavow what you say when you get caught.
Reaaaaaaally weak sauce, cookie.
"Trump could probably do a lot of damage but it would be a stretch to exceed the damage Obama has done."
Oh, as bad as Obama has been, Trump could be considerably worse.
""If he were alive today, Hitler would be a basement-dwelling internet troll or a respected member of the neo-conservatives, (a John Bolton, for example)."
LOL. So neocons are now equivalent to nazis because they aren't as averse to fighting ISIS as a communist like Robert cook. Were those that fought against the nazis, also the equivalent of the nazis and/or the neocons?
Because both the neocons and fDR would be linked in that they both used war to fight an evil force that had spread its territory through violence.
Surely those that fight against the nazis are not the same as the nazis? is this a moral equivalency argument on your part?
I tried to help a homeless Hispanic man once by giving him food and shelter. After awhile I asked him how he got this way. I didn't want to pry too much too soon. He told me it was racism. I asked him if he had an education beyond high school; college or trade schooling. No! Why? Racism?
He told me that I could never understand him because white people invented racism to enslave black and brown people.
'It never existed until white people invented it?' 'Yes, that's right.' 'What about the slaves that the Mongols had.' 'White Man's History'
'What about the Romans enslaving Brits and Germans among other people?' 'White Man's History!!'
He ended up stealing some stuff from me. And no, he did not have a drug problem. He just lived his life based on the bullshit that the Left and La Raza had fed him.
Him I would trust with an historical opinion...or with my stuff more than I would Georgie or cookie.
It's impossible to actually read. It's probably the most-important least-read book in history. There's nothing to fear from it being available in Germany to Germans.
Coupe wrote:
Hitler, who was a veteran, said they could have won the war, but his own government was the reason they lost it.
When the French came in and took their coal, by holding the surrender document that gifted it to them, the die was cast. If not Hitler, it would have been someone else. They were going to be very sore losers.
The same quote is used by most Vietnam war vets. They think our government cut the legs off the military.
It's a sickness...
this is fallacious thinking. Just because hitler states something doesn't mean he's wrong, simply because he's Hitler. In fact he would have lost the war because he got into a protracted war with Russia in freezing territory and his army simply couldn't handle it long term. but, govts can in fact cut the legs off the military causing them to lose wars. That is true whether hitler says it or not. Those Vietnam vets were right.
Similarly, Mussolini said that they got the Travis. To run on time. If someone working at the railroad pushes greater efficiency, it doesn't mean efficiency is an evil simply because Mussolini also stressed it.
Having a train run on time is actually a good, and fascists are not the only ones who possess the virtue of efficiency.
Georgie,
Please come up with better links. That one is not cutting it.
"Hitler also imprisoned and executed communists and socialists."
As did Stalin. It is a matter of fact that an out and open communist was far safer and better off living in America during the height of McCarthyism than in Russia during the height of Stalinism. Remember, Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev--these guys weren't killed by right wingers. If you were the wrong kind of communist (or even the right kind, depending on the whims of the in-party) you were imprisoned or executed. In America, at worst you got blacklisted.
As to your point, it's true that Hitler decided the communists were his enemies, but why was this? Was it because he was such a strong believer in freedom, individual rights, free markets and religious liberty? Or was it because they were a threat to his own power? An honest answer to that question will settle this issue.
this is fallacious thinking. Just because hitler states something doesn't mean he's wrong, simply because he's Hitler. In fact he would have lost the war because he got into a protracted war with Russia in freezing territory and his army simply couldn't handle it long term. but, govts can in fact cut the legs off the military causing them to lose wars. That is true whether hitler says it or not. Those Vietnam vets were right.
Thing is, if he waited for Britain to fall (and if he attacked RAF fields and radar stations and not, say, London, it might have happened), he likely could've beaten the USSR. If he didn't have to delay the invasion 2 months, it could've changed the outcome.
...and if he allowed anybody to retreat, it might have been different.
But he was, honestly, a piss poor tactician.
As far as Vietnam, we were stuck defending an ally whose government didn't want to do anything. And we STILL would've won --- we, in fact, DID win --- if the Democrats didn't decide to ignore our treaty with S Vietnam requiring us to provide weaponry and assistance when N Vietnam attacked.
I am an American, but I couldn't recommend ANY country actually be an ally of ours.
Similarly, Mussolini said that they got the Travis. To run on time. If someone working at the railroad pushes greater efficiency, it doesn't mean efficiency is an evil simply because Mussolini also stressed it.
Having a train run on time is actually a good, and fascists are not the only ones who possess the virtue of efficiency.
The ironic part is that the trains didn't run on time for him, either.
As did Stalin. It is a matter of fact that an out and open communist was far safer and better off living in America during the height of McCarthyism than in Russia during the height of Stalinism. Remember, Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev--these guys weren't killed by right wingers. If you were the wrong kind of communist (or even the right kind, depending on the whims of the in-party) you were imprisoned or executed. In America, at worst you got blacklisted.
Hell, after WW II, when we handed Russian POW's back to the USSR, many were killed almost immediately. And the Soviet army lost so many millions of people due to Stalin killing A LOT of generals and military men for years leading up to the war. Hell, does anybody besides a Stalinist argue that Trostsky WASN'T a Communist and he had him killed?
As to your point, it's true that Hitler decided the communists were his enemies, but why was this? Was it because he was such a strong believer in freedom, individual rights, free markets and religious liberty? Or was it because they were a threat to his own power? An honest answer to that question will settle this issue.
Also...why did conservative parties vote with the Nazis (and ALSO be shut down months later)? Was it support for the Nazis or recognition that the Communists had a history with enemies that was abysmal and they thought --- incorrectly --- that Hitler might be a less bad option?
"Just because hitler states something doesn't mean he's wrong, simply because he's Hitler."
One reason I think the "appeasers" of the 1930s get a bad rap is that Hitler used a lot of their own arguments to support his case for giving Germany more land--the self-determination of German speakers, and the right of a nation to defend itself against enemies. They also came off one of the most destructive wars in history and were under a lot of pressure not to start the next one lightly. By what they knew at the time, it would have been outlandish to imagine the Nazis were going to do what they in fact ended up doing. It's why farsighted men like Churchill deserve credit for seeing what was coming--it's easy to see how many of us would have missed it had we been in Chamberlain's shoes.
And the lesson of the French post-WWI was if you are going to put your boot on someone's neck, you better hold them down or you'll be sorry.
Yah, hard to take a guy who thinks the Nazis were right-wing seriously.
Look at the American political system for the last 45 years: it has moved further and further to the right, and we have become more and more authoritarian during this time, particularly post-9/11.
I missed this before. Not only has America not moved right it's moved fairly far left. I'm so old I remember the good old days when racial equality was considered a near universal American value.
The common feature of all left-wing ideologies is the establishment of monopolies through authority or force. In fact, it is the destruction or marginalization of competing interests that prevents accountability in all left-wing regimes. In a normal society, there are the morally sane people who keep each other in check, and competing interests who prevent others from running amuck. All left-wing ideologies are designed to circumvent theses checks and balances in order to consolidate capital and control under a minority rule, which predisposes them to suffer from progressive morality and corruption.
Cookie loves Counterpunch. They share intellect, if any.
Cook wrote:
Actually, Livermoron, the article Georgie links to is quite well-stated. That you simply do not like what it has to say does not make it "revisionist" and certainly not abysmal. (It is the notion that Naziism is leftist that is revisionist.)
start with the premise that they were national socialists. And yes, the article is abysmal, and ahistorical. Just look at some of what they say are examples of left versus right wing and you see how they are in fact caricatures or simplistic stereotypes of right wing and left wing. And obviously the left wing has the positive virtues, and the right wing the negative virtues. According to the person making the list. That is not history. That is left wing PABLUM.
For example:
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
The nazis were racist, but so are black power types. So are modern dems who suggest everything is seen through the prism of race. It's not exactly right wing thought. But of course, to a liberal, they can't possibly be racist, and opposition to liberals views is racist.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction. Eugenics also involved aborting the less fit. And euthanize get the old. Who espouses those views? Population bomb, too many people in the world style stuff.
Merit over equality.
Are leftists not for merit? Judge people on the basis of their character not color of skin is fundamentally an argument of merit. And repubs are also for equality. They are for equality of opportunity, versus equality of outcomes. Only a liberal would argue that right wingers are opposed to equality. If liberals want to argue they are not for merit, be my guest.
Competition over cooperation. This is utter idiocy. As if left wing countries, orgs or movements do not compete. Please describe the relationship between Trotsky and Stalin. Was that based on COOPERATION? .the ice pick to trotsky's head would suggest otherwise. Communists have been competing with each other over who had the best communism since communism started. And the way they sorted it out was not through cooperation. They shipped each other off to Siberia. This is complete bullshit.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
Vietcong, communists, nazis, Khmer Rouge, fascists. Which ones were "pacifists" that is utter bollocks. Who are you using as examples of left wing pacifists?
I
"Was it because he was such a strong believer in freedom, individual rights, free markets and religious liberty?"
Who has ever said Hitler believed in freedom, individual rights, or religious liberty? (I leave out "free markets" as there is no such thing, and no one here really believes in them or wants them either, despite the lip service they give to them. What the capitalists really mean by "free markets" is markets free of government oversight and regulation. Capitalism always tends toward monopolies over time, and small business are mulched in the consolidation of economic power by the few{er and fewer}mega-corporations.)
Fascism is an authoritarian ideology. Do you assume all tyrannies are, by definition left-wing systems, and all right-wing systems are, by definition, paragons of freedom, individual rights, and religious liberty? If so, you display astonishing naivte, or that you have been successfully conned.
The reason Mein Kampf sold so many copies wasn't because people were clamoring to read it.
Rather, the special edition version was considered as essential to have on one's bookshelf as a photo of the Fuhrer was for one's wall -- and those special editions, given as "gifts" but financed through "mandatory contributions," were sold under license arrangements that put a big royalty directly in the author's secret bank accounts.
Sufficient opportunities for graft in that set-up, what?
@Brando and others
Exactly! Pointing out that Hitler killed communists and outlawed trade unions to refute that National Socialism was a socialist philosophy is risible.
How many communists did Lenin and Stalin kill? Mao?
As for outlawing trade unions.
Soviet trade unions were, in fact, actually governmental organizations whose chief aim was not to represent workers but to further the goals of management, government, and the CPSU. As such, they were partners of management in attempting to promote labor discipline, worker morale, and productivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union
I think the left insists that National Socialism is not of the left because of the National part. The left sees nationalism as a phenomena of the right. Also, Nazis did bad things and did not have good intentions. Good intentions go a long way towards excusing bad behavior on the left, or even converting it into good behavior. By (leftist) definition, progressivism is good. Therefore, anything done to further its aims is good.
Its sort of like fiction where you have a designated hero.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DesignatedHero
"Your idol Stalin killed a lot of socialists and communists too.
And you frequently disavow what you say when you get caught."
I don't disavow that Hitler killed trade unionists, I just don't recall ever making that specific point, as "trade unionists" is not a term I would normally ever think of, much less use.
I certainly do not "frequently disavow what (I) say when (I) get caught," as I have never "got caught," which is to say, while I may have stood corrected on a point of historical fact once or twice, (never more than that), I have never had anything I have argued here successfully refuted.
I have never in any context expressed approval of Stalin or of his governance or actions. I would say you might do yourself great favor by refraining from hysterical and sloppy rhetoric.
The leftist at this site are offended by some characterizing Hitler as a lefty and maybe it is a stretch. Funny they don't like their game being played on them. For decades the modern liberal has been trying to link Hitler with Christians and being far right without any proof because one of the tenets of the modern liberal is to reject God.It's a nasty game they have been playing over the last half century-Christians are anti-Semites, have caused wars( to them time is irrelevant), cause for slavey- for the last half century. It is repulsive to all living Christians.
Brando:
cookie knows very well that Stalin killed a lot of his brethren. He's been reminded of that many, many, times when he brings up the but-Hitler-killed-the-commies-so-the-Nazis-can't-be-socialists-half-truth.
He's also aware that the Nazis killed other Nazis as well (paging Julius Streicher!).
He continues to bring it up because he has no other refuge. Facts are his enemy. He knows his statements are illogical and not reflective of the truth. He doesn't care. And he'll go hide.
All of this, by the way, was to advise you not to expect an answer from cookie. Much less an honest one.
Regards
There goes cookie again...
He claims that the Nazis weren't socialists and bases it on the fact that the Nazis killed some socialists.
When the utter paucity of logic in his statement is revealed he resorts to misdirection.
Address the point, cookie, did the Soviets kill communists or not? What does that do to your argument?
An honest answer to those questions will settle this issue.
Robert Cook said...
I would say you might do yourself great favor by refraining from hysterical and sloppy rhetoric
...he wrote with no trace of irony.
Yet Iran's declarations that they will destroy Israel and the US are treated as mere posturing.
OK, then, glad to know the leadership of the US can differentiate between a bad joke and a promise.
(cont)
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
So, the vietcong were decidedly leftist. But were they pacifists? Based on what evidence?
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
So which regime are you saying is right wing and which is left wing? by one person self rule, you mean individualism? are you opposed to that? we have a republic in this country. Most right wingers support it. It allows for individualism. Statism, is not democracy, and certainly socialism is not democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Well this is kind of true.
Realism over idealism.
So, I'll take that as a positive. We are realists. The left are idealists. The fact is though that groups like the nazis and the khmer rouge were actually idealists. Their idealism was hateful and let to murder. But it doesn't make them less than idealists. Thinking you can start society over at year zero s idealism. The nazis were similarly idealistic.
Nationalism over internationalism.
This is tiresome. That was the initial argument of communism. But even stalin became a nationalist when it suited him. A lot of socialist like societies got tired of waiting for international socialism to take hold and instead pushed national socialism. still lefties.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
You'll find that the right is exclusive and inclusive and so is the left. Its not an either or.
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
Absurd. How does this define RIGHT wing/ v left wing? And, for the record, Hitler was a vegetarian.So, based on your logic.....
Gun ownership over gun control
Don't you remember the conversation that occurred a month ago, where carson said "if hitler hadn't taken the guns away from Jews, they might have been able to defend themselves and would have gone to the death camps with more of a fight? That was gun control forced onto the populace by the Nazis. If that would make them left wing, then own up to it, son.
Common sense over theory or science.
Common sense often goes hand in hand with science, since science and common sense are both usually provable. But the nazis based their ubermensch ideas on science of the day. It wasn't common sense, it was stuff like eugenics. Which the progressives were supportive of at the time. The only real protest against it was by people like CK Chesterton. (republican). So not only would it prove nazis were left wing according to this list, but also show how insidious reliance on science can actually be.
Pragmatism over principle.
"Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes." that is somehow RIGHT wing? Ok, we'll take it. Meanwhile, is the argument that the left wing is principled and the right wing doesn't believe in principles?
Religion over secularism."
Secularism is thoroughly modern concept. There are right wingers and left wingers who are secular. And at any rate, the nazis were not religious, certainly not christian. They tried to reorder the church around the state as opposed to christianity. They banned bibles for crying out loud.
Hmmm, the paper back version with volumes I and II is 380 pages. I checked because when I was a kid working organizing the books in the town library basement, I came across a copy that I checked out and read and I sure don't recall 782 pages, turgid or otherwise.
I thought Hitler's remarks on how to manipulate people and crowds were interesting in a Machiavellian, Alinsky sort of way. What astonishes me as an adult is how open he was about everything.
Livermore wrote;
He claims that the Nazis weren't socialists and bases it on the fact that the Nazis killed some socialists.
LOL. Cookie is a hoot.
Because of course, Trotsky was not a socialist. All those people shipped off to the gulags or the farmers killed, were not socialists.
http://www.distributedrepublic.net/archives/2006/05/01/how-many-did-stalin-really-murder/
Clearly there were no socialists in Russia, and stalin had NONE of them killed. It is true, I say.
First, too many labels. The acronyms are especially unintelligible.
Second, principles matter. Judge people by the content of their principles. Judge classes by their unifying principles or behavior.
The novelty of semantic games is wearing thin.
That said, make life, not abortion. And what to make of clinical cannibalism? Moral insanity.
Right, lets resolve this.
Nazi economics grew out of a fusion of
- Bismarckian welfare state systems and government-managed industrial policy (partly as a response to the then radical leftist Social Democrats, partly for national-security)
- Catholic Social thought, as in Rerum Novarum. Hitler probably got a good look at this in Vienna, Karl Lueger being mayor at the time, Rerum Novarum being an affirmative response to Lueger and others.
Both were "third way" approaches to reconcile capitalism and socialism.
If one wants to go further back, managed capitalism, crony capitalism, state capitalism, mercantilism are all terms for state-private economic partnerships which were common in Europe going back to the middle ages. The Bourbon dynasty had a particular flair for centralized control of everything, or they tried anyway. An interesting look at the system - "Ridicule" - Pierre LeConte.
Not everything goes back to Marx, Marx wasn't the only leftist, the Right wasn't, and still isn't, necessarily "capitalist", etc.
The modern American left is more Bourbon and aristocratic than Marxist.
And cookie disappears....
They must mean left wing extremism. Nazism is left wing, not right.
Biff nailed it. "Polite society seems unwilling to take bad actors at their word, whether it is Hitler or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi." Imams, ayatollahs, the self proclaimed caliph, and whatever other Islamic leaders there are state they want to establish sharia throughout the world. But we're supposed to not take them seriously.
And Georgies list has been well attacked. I'll address just this one:
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Don't know a single conservative or right winger who believes that. Rule of law over democracy for certain. Establish a written Constitution- and adhere to it. The French, in particular, don't understand America's adherence to the Constitution. They have one; they've had several. Their politicians simply ignore it if it becomes convenient to do so. Much like Obama and the democrats do. Or say the words mean something else.
"‘When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'
‘The question is,' said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things."
‘The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that's all.'"
Yet the authorities said that Ms. Berenson rented and lived in a house in a suburban neighborhood of Lima, where the rebels planned the attack on Congress. And she was arrested after visiting Congress, under the pretext of working as a journalist. At the time of her arrest she was riding a bus with the wife of a rebel leader. When the police raided the house, they found 8,000 rounds of ammunition and 3,000 sticks of dynamite.
And yet she claims she never saw any weapons. She was a terrorist. Hopefully our government will keep a close eye on her. Wouldn't surprise me if she made common cause with certain "radical" groups currently working to bring about perfect peace her on earth.
"They must mean left wing extremism. Nazism is left wing, not right."
No, the Nazis were right wing...which discussion has been a big part of the comments here, with many as misinformed as you on the matter.
"...did the Soviets kill communists or not? What does that do to your argument?"
I'm sure they did. Stalin killed those whom he saw as rivals to his power, or as plotters against him. Hitler had the communists and socialists imprisoned and many of them executed because he deplored communism and socialism, as he deplored the other groups he singled out for persecution.
Basically, the increasingly fanatical right-wing in this country has devised a wonderful self-justifying rhetorical tool:
1.)The right by definition cannot ever be authoritarian or tyrannical.
2.)Any authoritarian or tyrannical regime by definition is always and can only be left-wing.
And cookie disappears....
Hahaha! Livermoron, it must be nice to still be 15 years old with no other obligations on your time than to sit before a computer all day, but adults must push back from their desks and attend to other life matters. One day you may discover this truth. Perhaps when you are of age to obtain your driver's license you'll spend whole hours away from your computer.
Answer the fucking question cookie.....
I answered it above, Livermoron. Careful reading will make you a better person.
No, the Nazis were right wing...which discussion has been a big part of the comments here, with many as misinformed as you on the matter.
No Squealor, you are wrong.
The idea that fascism was a rightwing ideology did not appear until after Hitler attacked the USSR. Until then fascism was acknowledged by everyone to be a Leftwing ideology, and it was praised by the left as such.
You can keep insisting that it was always "four legs good, two legs better", but we remember the days of "four legs good, two legs bad".
The right's association of the Nazis with leftist ideology serves two-purposes: it adds to all the other evils of which they accuse the leftists, and serves to discredit leftism qua leftism, and, more importantly, it is an attempt to inoculate the right from any association with authoritarianism.
The projection in this comment is stunning.
It was the Left who associated the Right with fascism in an attempt to discredit both fascism ("the Right is evil") and the Right ("fascism is evil"). This association did not begin until Hitler attacked the USSR. Prior to that the Left proudly claimed the fascists.
I am unaware of anyone ever making the statement that the Right cannot be tied to authoritarianism. Monarchy is an obvious form of Rightwing authoritarianism.
Acknowledging that posts can cross would make you less a dick.
You say Hitler killed "because he deplored communism and socialism".
Now don't confuse that with the Democratic Socialists. He didn't like them because he, like Stalin, "killed those whom he saw as rivals to his power, or as plotters against him."
You are going to have to prove that "he deplored communism and socialism."
Hitler didn't like certain flavors of socialism. Stalin felt the same way.
Your arguments are vacuous, ahistorical and deeply wrong. That you cling to them exposes you as a leftist Marxist zealot.
You also posited this strawman as one of your diversions:
Basically, the increasingly fanatical right-wing in this country has devised a wonderful self-justifying rhetorical tool:
1.)The right by definition cannot ever be authoritarian or tyrannical.
2.)Any authoritarian or tyrannical regime by definition is always and can only be left-wing.
----------------------------------------
I provide evidence, quotes, documentation, historical fact and you provide opinion based on double-speak, personal strawmen, and one page of fevered ravings of an itinerant commercial fisherman shitting out his Kocyzinskiesque ramblings in the Bed-Stuy of the internet. That's how desperate you've become.
You are quite laughable but very frightening.
You have a sickness.
"You are quite laughable but very frightening.
You have a sickness."
Who, me? No, I'm quite cuddly and winsome, believe me. I have, though, felt a few twinges of a cold coming on...thanks for noticing. I guess I have to break out the Cold Eeze.
Reminds me of the old parlour game, "Who goes Nazi?"
http://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/
Could this be what's making the current crop of society "reformers" nervous?
@ Georgie:
You quoted approvingly:
“The political right is popularly associated with the following principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist, it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right. These include: [list follows]”
It is quite clear that Hitler favored state-controlled collectivism over individual rights to life, liberty, and property. About this, there is not room for much debate.
Also, these principles are not so complex, really, unless your writer is just fudging. The claim of a popular association may be correct for a subset of the population, but that subset has incomplete understanding if evaluating the descriptions you’ve used / adopted. The “following principles” as stated are loaded with faults, most of which are just bias probably.
Individualism over collectivism. -- Freedom over coercion.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance. -- The right would describe this as freedom of association over coerced association (which is what “racial tolerance” means here); actually Democrats / later modified as Progressives birthed segregation laws in the US and used state power to coerce people to follow them. So this is really two versions of state-directed coercion as used by you and not righty at all. The world over has people associating with people like them, with exceptions. Nothing inherently righty about that. Not righty is favoring forcing people to act unnaturally.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction. -- Huh? Eugenics is of progressives / statists / collectivists / Democrats for the good of the society / volk / country. Not righty at all – this is a false statement of principle. If “freedom of reproduction” means the right to intentionally destroy a foetus, the righty principle should more accurately be stated as “concerned with protection of innocent life.” With the false premises in the statement of principle, it does not necessarily fit here though.
@ Georgie: More:
Merit over equality. -- Again, freedom over coercion. Also depends on whether equality refers to equality of opportunity vs. of equality of outcome. The former is a righty principle (and traditionally American principle for citizens until lately), while the latter is collectivist and therefore lefty. The latter is also a revolt against nature, and therefore dumb. Ability matters. Quality matters.
Competition over cooperation. -- This sounds like freedom and voluntary exchange vs. coercion. “Cooperation” is not the correct way to spell the phrase “government coercion,” “government force,” or “involuntary exchange.”
Power politics and militarism over pacifism. -- Unclear thought here. Pacifists can only be that way if others are protecting them or until they are dead. Is it “defense of self and others over pacifism?” That might be fair. In global affairs, defense of self and others has been made collective, but the righty principle would be fairly stated as “protection of life and property against external and internal threats.” This is where Orwell might come in handy: “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.” Plenty of righties are for less "power politics and militarism" and plenty of lefties favor huge military and aerospace complexes with the attendant goodies they get to hand out.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy. -- In our system, the majority or loud plurality seems to be calling the shots for everyone as a sort of dictatorship by what passes for a voting system. Mob democracy was emphatically not the goal of the draftsmen of the Constitution, but the Supremes have seen to that. Yes, the currently arranged mob democracy without proper checks is a lefty concept, and was favored by Hitler when he needed it too.
Capitalism over Marxism. -- Voluntary exchange free from coercion vs. complete coercion? Seems a fair description of a righty principle.
Realism over idealism. -- Is there any basis for this claim? If “idealism” refers to some imaginary utopian place we can get to if only the government had more control in bringing this about now, then yes, your typical righty would go with realism in balancing. Otherwise, there is no tension between having ideals and striving toward them, while recognizing the limitations life on planet Earth offers. Hitler was bent on enforcing some ideals, using lots of death.
Nationalism over internationalism. -- Is this “less coercion over more coercion” or “protection of life and property rights from external threats (including tax threats)” or “republican self-government over unrepresentative government by bureaucrats appointed by dictators and others without real jobs but large account balances?” If so, maybe. A lot of righties probably would not mind seeing more localism (local government) over the out-of-control national governments and their central bankers and the useless international parastatals. Hitler was pretty international, having taken over or killed people of several other countries.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness. -- Freedom of association vs. coerced association? If so, yes. Good property rights entail the right to exclude. Interference with that is coercive. Hitler favored inclusiveness – of those he favored. Lots of death for the others.
@ Georgie, still more:
Meat-eating over vegetarianism. This might be a principle of common association among members of some fringe group. Seems like most of the world still gets nutrition from all kinds of delicious meats. Plenty of righties don't eat meat for their own reasons. They are just not always going on about it or trying to get government to force others not to.
Gun ownership over gun control. The right of self-defense over state coerced disarmament? You mean confiscation, right? It’s ok to admit it now. How many rapes, murders, and thefts in places like Baltimore and Chicago vs. cities without decades of Democrat rule and disarmament of the law abiding would it take to demonstrate that gun control is a failed idea? How much more in injuries to persons and stuff taken in Britain and Australia before the disastrous effects of the mass gun confiscations will be recognized for what they are? Any right of self-defense including against tyranny is a righty principle and is in the Bill of Rights. (As Mr. Obama might say, "It's the Law of the Land.") The history of “gun control” in the US is not too pretty. It was initiated by Democrats running governments in the South to deny the fundamental right of self-defense to blacks. Learn more about this history made possible by the Democrat Party in Clarence Thomas’s great concurrence in McDonald v. Chicago. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZC1.html
Common sense over theory or science. Is the “science” made by state-funded scientists who also prescribe the political solution which somehow would always lead to more government control (and therefore less freedom) and sinecures for the same scientists? Otherwise, this is just an unsupported slam. Plenty of righties are big fans of science and the scientific method. Are they fans of politicized state-directed “science” which prescribes collectivist political outcomes and emits state propaganda and demonizes opponents and seeks to deny free speech and free expression rights? Probably not so much.
Pragmatism over principle. Wait. Aren’t the righties and those unwashed tea partiers and guys that shut down the government over runaway spending always unwilling to compromise and ruining things – because they are not “pragmatic?” That’s what the New York Times told me.
Religion over secularism. There is no basis for this claim, especially when one takes account of various state ideologies and their dogmas, symbolism, rites, and fervency of members. As an example, we are often told how all the transfer payments are to help the poor because it is the right thing to do. How about a quote from libertarian Jesus: “I told YOU to feed the poor . . . not create laws that steal from people to do it.” The secular reason for the transfer payments is to pay protection money to the poor so they don’t break our stuff. See, Patrick Henry during his successful effort to help ruin France; Bismarck. So transfer payments it is, I guess, whether for religious or secular reasons. A righty might say that, “Transfer payments make the persons from whom the wealth is taken weak, and make those to whom funds flow weaker. The true beneficiaries if there are any would be the intermediaries, though they do not learn useful, productive skills, and thus also make the whole poorer.”
@ Robert Cook, You wrote:
“Look at the American political system for the last 45 years: it has moved further and further to the right, and we have become more and more authoritarian during this time, particularly post-9/11.”
You seem to have this exactly backward. Righties are not authoritarian, except maybe in hoping for zealous, unwavering, and unquestioned protection by those appointed to do so of their rights to life, liberty, and property. Fat chance of that. Collectivist lefties are authoritarian. An ever ratcheting movement toward more collectivism and more state control including herding us around and inspecting us since September 11, 2001 is not movement "further and further to the right." You chose an interesting starting point. Nothing by the progressives controlling the federal government established during the last 100 years has been removed (the little thing about prohibition was a partial change but not by any means a removal of the underlying power and control and today they likely would not bother with any amendment to the foundational document). In short, there has been no substantial movement toward better protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property in the US in the last 45 years.
Whether something is "dictatorial" may only be determined by whether the person issuing the requirement to do or not do something has the power to put you in a cage should you refuse. None of the church, big business, or the family has such power. The military, through the state, may do so, but for now one is not compelled to join. The military thus also lacks that power unless previously agreed to by the volunteer.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा