Debunking Left vs. Right Wing
Bond
"left wing" vs. "right wing". It's really quite simple:
LEFT WING:
-- Heavy controls
-- Centralized power
-- Everything is false until proven true
RIGHT WING:
-- Minimal controls
-- Networked power
-- Everything is true until proven false
The terms have been SEVERELY distorted by the media propogating
information from the government. The most notable instance was when the
British convinced the Americans to enter WWII by convincing them that
Fascism and Communism were left wing while Capitalism was right wing.
Given these definitions, ALL systems of government are left wing
ideologies because by definition government involves placing controls on
individuals and centralizing power. The opposite of this is freedom,
which involves individuals choosing what to do for themselves. If every
individual chose what to do for themselves then the result would be a
highly decentralized society. If a small group of people controlled
what people did then you would have a highly centralized society.
Left Wing Political Ideologies:
Fascism -- is the belief that all individuals should be controlled to
behave in a manner dictated by a central state. Examples of fascism are
Nazi Germany and the US.
Communism -- is the belief that all property is owned (controlled) by
the state. Examples of Communism are the USSR and Canada, although
Canada has fascist tendencies as well.
Right Wing Political Ideologies:
Anarchy -- is the belief in no government whatsoever and advocates a
society that is the sum result of each individual choosing for
themselves what they want.
Libertarianism -- is similar to anarchy except that certain functions
such as military and law enforcement should be left to a centralized
government.
----
Capitalism is kind of both -- the belief that power be distributed by
who has the most amount of money, which is kind of left wing and kind of
right wing. There is in effect a Left-Wing type of capitalism where you
have large multinational corporations and monopolies controlling what
products enter the market and convincing people what they need to buy
(Microsoft, GM, MacDonalds). And a Right-Wing type of capitalism where
the money and control is distributed somewhat evenly amongst an
interoperating network of businesses.
---
Finally, the two scientific methods -- the methods we use to determine
what is true and what is false. On the left, you have the scientific
method where nothing is believed until it is proved. On the right there
is the 'religious method' where you have faith that something is true
unless it is proven false.
---
All that being said, the reality is that both terms have been so
severely distorted by the government, media and rewriting of history
that the terms are essentially meaningless. The real issue is the
points people make and whether or not you agree with them or disagree
with them.
Paul Keenleyside
> "left wing" vs. "right wing". It's really quite simple:
>
> LEFT WING:
> -- Heavy controls
> -- Centralized power
(Government)
> -- Everything is false until proven true
Actually everything is false until proven true through royal commissions on
[name of previous conservative govenrment blunder]
and left wing..
- have odd numbered licence plates
- like red and orange as well as black.
- Political parties are heavily bureaucratic and have gender parity on
boards and local associations
- Do not allow amendments from the floor to policy resolutions at plenary
sessions.
- Swing a lunch bucket
- Are "working British Columbians"
- Watch WCW.
- Know the words to "Solidarity Forever" and address associates as "brothers
and sisters".
- Drive Volkwagen minibuses and 1968 Volkswagen beetles.
- Have a 1984 Pontiac Firebird with 110,000 miles on it and have their eye
on a 1987 Chevrolet Camero with 95,000 miles
on it.
- Consider Dave Barrett, John Fryer and Art Kube as B.C. political icons.
- Worked the loading dock at a local business.
- Have a Honda crotch rocket or a Harley Davidson Fat Boy.
- Dream of a vacation to Cuba.
- Follow the news with Bill Good.
- Has an account with Vancouver City Savings Credit Union.
- Addresses a particular RCMP Staff Sgt. as "Sgt. Pepper".
> RIGHT WING:
> -- Minimal controls
(for business)
> -- Networked power
(Complete with Starbucks latte)
> -- Everything is true until proven false
Actually everything is true and alternative means to prevent it from
happening again through royal commissions on [name of
socialist govenrment blunder]
right wing..
- have even numbered licence plates
- members like blue (some like red if it is mixed in a logo with red and
white)
- political parties are lightly bureaucratic and do not have gender parity
on boards and local associations.
- carry a briefcase
- Are working British Columbians
- Watch WWF
- Don't know the words to "Solidarity Forever" and address associates by a
salutation and their first name or just initials.
- Consider Bill Bennett, Jimmy Pattison, and Grace McCarthy as icons.
- Have a 1992 Ford Crown Victoria with 65,000 miles on it, and have their
eye on a 1999 Chrysler New Yorker with
45,000 miles on it.
- Have a Honda GoldWing or Harley Davidson TourGlide.
- Dream of a vaction aboard a cruiseship in the Caribbean.
- Follow the news with Tony Parsons.
- Has an account at a credit union other than Vancouver City Savings Credit
Union.
- Addresses a particular RCMP Staff Sgt. as "sir".
> The terms have been SEVERELY distorted by the media propogating
> information from the government. The most notable instance was when the
> British convinced the Americans to enter WWII by convincing them that
> Fascism and Communism were left wing while Capitalism was right wing.
> Given these definitions, ALL systems of government are left wing
> ideologies because by definition government involves placing controls on
> individuals and centralizing power. The opposite of this is freedom,
> which involves individuals choosing what to do for themselves. If every
> individual chose what to do for themselves then the result would be a
> highly decentralized society.
.. it would also be mass mayhem.
> Left Wing Political Ideologies:
>
> Fascism -- is the belief that all individuals should be controlled to
> behave in a manner dictated by a central state. Examples of fascism are
> Nazi Germany and the US.
This is incorrect. traditional political science places Fascism be on the
right, not the left.
> Communism -- is the belief that all property is owned (controlled) by
> the state. Examples of Communism are the USSR and Canada, although
> Canada has fascist tendencies as well.
Canada has been far removed from Communism. Communism can only thrive in a
totalitarian state such as the former
USSR, The People's Republic of Albania, and the current People's Republic of
China, and the People's Republic of North
Korea.
> Right Wing Political Ideologies:
>
> Anarchy -- is the belief in no government whatsoever and advocates a
> society that is the sum result of each individual choosing for
> themselves what they want.
What a mess that would be. Who would want to live in a society like that?
(Hey I can go 85 MPH down Broadway because I want to). Wanna bet that
these same anarchists would be crying to the police to arrest an idiot like
that?
> Libertarianism -- is similar to anarchy except that certain functions
> such as military and law enforcement should be left to a centralized
> government.
Not bad.
> Capitalism is kind of both -- the belief that power be distributed by
> who has the most amount of money, which is kind of left wing and kind of
> right wing. There is in effect a Left-Wing type of capitalism where you
> have large multinational corporations and monopolies controlling what
> products enter the market and convincing people what they need to buy
> (Microsoft, GM, MacDonalds).
Monopolies can be the end product of intensive marketing. Microsoft, GM and
McDonald's are dominant now, but this is not going to last forever. Quite a
few "monopolies" have collapsed under their own weight. Chrysler almost did,
Pan AM was a dominant player in the airline market in the 1960's, but fell.
IBM was a dominant player in PC's for awhile, but
that too disintegrated. Monopolies in this instance exist because of
consumer demand. It is not regulated and no one says
that one has to buy their products. (For example, I may have Microsoft
Windows, but I do not buy every product that Microsoft sells because there
is a better alternative than what MS offers. Remember Netscape was the
dominant player well behind IE until Gates saw something).
McDonald's has a large share of the fast food market, but it isn't
monoplistic (i.e. total 100% control) on the fast food market.
GM the same thing.
Microsoft may have a large share (and a 95% share of the operating system
market) of the software market, but Microsoft
does not have a 100% dominance in the software market (i.e. MS doesn't have
a 100% market share in every aspect of
software categories that are offered to the marketplace. In many instances,
MS doens't even offer software for many areas
of the software market, and in others the software is simply not that good).
Monopolies are also a product of government intervention. There is no rule
that says Microsoft cannot have competition. Or the software operating
system marketplace has to be Microsoft and that's it. On the otherhand, ICBC
can be considered a true monopoly because it is regulated by the province
that one can only buy basic insurance and register a vehicle through ICBC.
BC Ferries is a monopoly on all their routes (except for truck trailer
carriage which is also handled by Seaspan. I.e there is no direct competion
with BC Ferries in terms of same type of services provided except for
trailer ferry service to the Island). BC Hydro is a monopoly, but for 100%
of the province. West Kootenay Power provides power for the Trail /
Castlegar / Nelson area.
Don't forget you can also have monopolistic competition. Petroleum companies
are a good example, as are some air carriers
and our two major ralways.
> Finally, the two scientific methods -- the methods we use to determine
> what is true and what is false. On the left, you have the scientific
> method where nothing is believed until it is proved. On the right there
> is the 'religious method' where you have faith that something is true
> unless it is proven false.
Not nessesarily. That hypothesis doesn't go far in business. It's also a
stupid way to arrive at an outcome. The sensible manager or administrator
will prove something based on fact rather than taking Divine Providence that
it is true. A check is done to verify the outcome. (Ever worked in an
accounting department? A tape is always done to check a collection of
figures, even if it is a bunch of cheques going to the bank). A business
that relies on faith is not going to last very long.
Even on a personal level one would be smart to prove that he or she has the
money in the bank before going out to Future Shark to buy that DVD and not
act solely on faith that the money will be there when you make it to the
check out stand
(it may not be. That cheque that was sent to Greenpeace may be automatically
cashed by the bank before you push the door
open at Future Shark and could cause your bank account to not have enough to
carry the cost of the DVD.
(In fact I remember on a business trip to San Jose once, that my associate
and I went to pick up the car, and there was this
guy in front of us. His face went white because he was wanting to pick up a
car, but his credit card had gone past its limit.)
Essentially, "never count your chickens before they've hatched".
With critical information always check and test your facts or figures. Check
again. Check a third time.
Russil Wvong
> I've noticed that many people have trouble with the concept of
> "left wing" vs. "right wing". It's really quite simple:
>
> LEFT WING:
> -- Heavy controls
> -- Centralized power
> -- Everything is false until proven true
>
> RIGHT WING:
> -- Minimal controls
> -- Networked power
> -- Everything is true until proven false
If you don't mind my saying so, this seems like a rather strange
interpretation. I believe the standard interpretation is that
"left wing" usually refers to working-class interests (higher
wages), "right wing" refers to upper-class interests (lower taxes,
fewer strikes).
I'm not sure I could describe myself as either "left wing" or
"right wing", but I have both left-wing and right-wing friends.
> The most notable instance was when the
> British convinced the Americans to enter WWII by convincing them that
> Fascism and Communism were left wing while Capitalism was right wing.
?? Actually, it was Pearl Harbor that convinced the Americans to
enter WWII.
Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Imperial Japan were all
totalitarian dictatorships. The key thing is that their combined
military strength was greater than that of the liberal democracies,
so it wasn't possible for the US and UK to defeat them without
at least one as an ally -- Russia, as it turned out. (See
George Kennan, "American Diplomacy 1900-1950".)
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, BC
www.geocities.com/rwvong
Paul Keenleyside
>
> If you don't mind my saying so, this seems like a rather strange
> interpretation. I believe the standard interpretation is that
> "left wing" usually refers to working-class interests (higher
> wages), "right wing" refers to upper-class interests (lower taxes,
> fewer strikes).
No.
Left wing people sit on the left side of the bus. Right wing peoiple sit on
the right side of the bus.
Left wing people shop for books at the People's Bookstore. Right wing people
shop for books at Chapters.
Left wing people keep to the centre lane. Right wing people keep to the curb
lane.
Left wing people if required to do so on the job join a union.
Right wing people if required to do so on the job join a professional
organisation.
New Left wing people got their political start with the Young New Democrats.
New right wing people got their political start with the Young Liberals,
Progressive Conservative Youth or the
Young Socreds.
> I'm not sure I could describe myself as either "left wing" or
> "right wing", but I have both left-wing and right-wing friends.
I have both. Also have a friend who plays goalie.
>
> > The most notable instance was when the
> > British convinced the Americans to enter WWII by convincing them that
> > Fascism and Communism were left wing while Capitalism was right wing.
>
> ?? Actually, it was Pearl Harbor that convinced the Americans to
> enter WWII.
Historically correct. The U.S. stayed out of WW2 because of policy. It
wasn't until early 1942 that they
became active in the European Theatre. But after that as everyone knows, the
U.S. "won" WW2 by themselves
(or at least with a square jawed blonde blue eyed kid from North Platte
Nebraska who took out half a dozen Germans in the Hollywood version).
> Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Imperial Japan were all
> totalitarian dictatorships.
German was run by an extreme right wing fascist as was Japan. The USSR
pratices Stalinist style Communism which was heavy on left wing (i.e. in
favour of the workers).
The key thing is that their combined
> military strength was greater than that of the liberal democracies,
> so it wasn't possible for the US and UK to defeat them without
> at least one as an ally -- Russia, as it turned out. (See
> George Kennan, "American Diplomacy 1900-1950".)
Hence the contributions of the Soviet Union, and the infrigements of German
and Japan upon its terrority.
The Soviet Union was more of an ally in Europe contributing to the defeat of
the Nazis in Europe than they were in Asia defeating the Empire of Japan.
SunnyJim
<pl...@paralynx.com> wrote:
Nice reply. Thanks.
Hartmann Schaffer
"Paul Keenleyside" <pl...@paralynx.com> writes:
> ...
> German was run by an extreme right wing fascist as was Japan. The USSR
> pratices Stalinist style Communism which was heavy on left wing (i.e. in
> favour of the workers).
something workers in the stalinist coubtries had a hard time
noticing. the riots in east germany in 1953 (june 13) and the
solidarity movement in poland were started by workers
hs
--
War is not healthy for children and other living beings
E. Barry Bruyea
Schaffer) wrote:
>In article <3bc46e00$0$25...@fountain.mindlink.net>,
> "Paul Keenleyside" <pl...@paralynx.com> writes:
>> ...
>> German was run by an extreme right wing fascist as was Japan. The USSR
>> pratices Stalinist style Communism which was heavy on left wing (i.e. in
>> favour of the workers).
>
>something workers in the stalinist coubtries had a hard time
>noticing. the riots in east germany in 1953 (june 13) and the
>solidarity movement in poland were started by workers
>
>hs
Both countries having been conquered by representatives of the
"Worker's Paradise."
Bond
> right, not the left.
Karl Marx plajurized the majority of his work from George Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel, a German phiosopher, born in Stuttgart in 1770. Hegel studied the human
mind as opposed to sociological organization but said that that the human mind
was made up of a community of 'different voices'. The inner child, the inner
male voice, the inner female voice, the inner politician, the inner pessimist,
etc. Human thought, he proposed was similar to a society in the sense that an
individual had to play politics with these different voices. Karl Marx took
these Hegelianism concepts and adapted to become a means of government which we
now know as communism. This modified version of Helaganism expressed itself
thus "If you create two opposing sides and bring them into conflict, you will
create a third force, a sunchronisation of both of them. It is known as thesis
vs. antithesis = synthesis". The difference between Hegelianism and Marxism is
that Hegel was talking about the spirit and mind while Marx rejected the idea of
God and an afterlife. He was a meterialist and to him this world was all there
was.
Marx wrote the 'Communist Manifesto' with Friedrich Engels, a German
Industrialist who promoted freedom from capitalism while at the same time
exploiting child labour in Lancashire, England. It was from Engel that Marx got
his ideas of a class war. The notion was that if you brought these classes into
conflict with each other the result would be a synthesis or new world order.
These opposing sides were Communism which were supported by the commoners,
Fascism which was supported by the arristocrats and Capitalism which was
supported by business and the clergy.
Prior to World War II, the governments and the media campaigned to convince the
public that Communism and Capitalism should unite against the forces of
Fascism. The Communists/Capitalists were touted as a left-wing ideology with
the fascists on the far-right. As anticipated, WWII broke out and the resulting
synthesis was the United Nations and European Community.
With Fascism defeated, Capitalism was then re-defined by governments and the
media as a right wing ideology resulting in the Cold War. To this day we
consider both Capitalism and Fascism right wing ideologies with Communism on the
left wing. This is far from the truth however in that Fascism and Capitalism,
as defined by the dictionary are completely the opposites of one another and can
hardly be considered to occupy the same "wing". People have been sold various
ideas of what wing Fascism, Communism and Capitalism occupy by governments and
the media trying to create a "world power" as the result of manipulating the
ideologies into wars and thus it continues to this day. The end result is that
we now have Fascists attacking Communists although the two belief systems are
nearly identical. Both belief systems advocate a highly centralized 'power
heirarchy' and a monopoly on the use of force to control individuals and
manipulate the general market to achieve certain aims.
Thus the confusion between left vs. right wing. The terms have been severely
distorted over the past 100 years or so as part of governments efforts to create
division amongst people, build coalitions and muster public support for going to
war. Presently, as the result of the war on terrorism, the US government is
again promoting the notion that the network of terrorists and Islamic
fundamentalists are hard-core left wingers. If you look at Al-Queda and their
supporters you will find that their ideologies closely resemble capitalism,
hence the need to redefine them as the "enemies of freedom" when their primary
motivation is clearly to "liberate the Arabs from the Infidels" (i.e. to achieve
their own freedom). Thus the confusion continues...
My advice is to disregard everything you know about left wing vs. right wing
because everything you know about them is contradictory, and essentially
meaningless. The only purpose those terms serve is to motivate people who
otherwise would disagree with each other to form coalitions, and to motivate two
groups of individuals who essentially agree with each other to kill each other.
Nothing more.
Goldhammer
> German was run by an extreme right wing fascist
Odd. Hitler and the Nazis considered themselves
socialists.
SunnyJim
Both are bad. There is no government like no government.
>
Paul Keenleyside
> Both countries having been conquered by representatives of the
> "Worker's Paradise."
Don't forget that some of these places were officially named as a "People's
Democratic Republic" or
a "Democratic Republic" (as in Deutsche Demokratische Republik - DDR the
official name of East Germany)
RES
Bond wrote:
>
> I've noticed that many people have trouble with the concept of
> "left wing" vs. "right wing". It's really quite simple:
>
> LEFT WING:
> -- Heavy controls
> -- Centralized power
> -- Everything is false until proven true
>
> RIGHT WING:
> -- Minimal controls
> -- Networked power
> -- Everything is true until proven false
>
The above 'right wing' is neo-conservatism. RES
> The terms have been SEVERELY distorted by the media propogating
> information from the government. The most notable instance was when the
> British convinced the Americans to enter WWII by convincing them that
> Fascism and Communism were left wing while Capitalism was right wing.
The British Government said this? So what. So does Iconoclast. RES
> Given these definitions, ALL systems of government are left wing
> ideologies because by definition government involves placing controls on
> individuals and centralizing power.
Therefore rather inadeqaute criteria to base 'definitions' on. RES
The opposite of this is freedom,
> which involves individuals choosing what to do for themselves. If every
> individual chose what to do for themselves then the result would be a
> highly decentralized society. If a small group of people controlled
> what people did then you would have a highly centralized society.
>
> Left Wing Political Ideologies:
>
> Fascism -- is the belief that all individuals should be controlled to
> behave in a manner dictated by a central state. Examples of fascism are
> Nazi Germany and the US.
>
US fascist? Really! We'll have to rewrite every political textbook on
the planet! RES
> Communism -- is the belief that all property is owned (controlled) by
> the state. Examples of Communism are the USSR and Canada, although
> Canada has fascist tendencies as well.
>
Canada Communist? Well, it all makes sense now! RES
I'd say the above definitions are certainly 'wingy'. RES
RES
Must drive you and the neo-cons in this group nuts with the US
Government is employing Keynsian economics to stimulate the economy with
massive infusions of capital, and a massive increase in the role of
government. Wonder how many Americans would wish their government would
butt out of Afghanistan and leave those terrorists alone. perhaps a
private sector outfit may be contracted out to get bin Ladin. I hear
MetroPol Security is training some fellows to speak some Arab-like
language. RES
RES
Nope. Wrong. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. RES
nkennedy
Government is employing Keynsian economics to stimulate the economy with
massive infusions of capital, and a massive increase in the role of
government. Wonder how many Americans would wish their government would
butt out of Afghanistan and leave those terrorists alone. perhaps a
private sector outfit may be contracted out to get bin Ladin. I hear
MetroPol Security is training some fellows to speak some Arab-like
Don't get away from this message Res, In every thread that you respond
to post this. Post it until they engage you. Well done...
Neil K
ok...@server.net
This might bring a little clarity in the present circumstance;
HERMANN GOERING, ADOLF HITLER'S #2 MAN WOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THE U.S.
OIL-MONOPOLY DRUG-CARTEL ESTABLISHMENT IS UP TO IN AFGANISTAN:
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it
is to
come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't
want
war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany.
That
is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a
parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people
can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have
to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers
for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same
in
any country."
(Thanks to Tom J. Kennedy at his WTC Cyberclassroom
www.cyberclass.net/wtc.htm )
efkent
their tool to gain power. Hitler was just a front for their reactionary
conservative tactics.
It was the right wing groups that destroyed the Wiemar Republic and its
socialist mandate.
Just as Bush and his right wing religious bigots are today destroying
democracy and replacing it with a international right wing dictatorship. In
other words you right wing hate mongers just use spin to confuse the average
person what your true objectives are.
zionism=$=racism.
Goldhammer <goldh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9s9ekn.t...@cr171940-a.pr1.on.wave.home.com...
RES
and the many business leaders who backed Hitler as Marxist. RES
Goldhammer
>> Goldhammer <goldh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrn9s9ekn.t...@cr171940-a.pr1.on.wave.home.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > > German was run by an extreme right wing fascist
>> >
>> >
>> > Odd. Hitler and the Nazis considered themselves
>> > socialists.
> Goldhammer would also view Siemans, Krupp, I G Farben, Dresdener Bank
> and the many business leaders who backed Hitler as Marxist. RES
Where did I say that?
Paul Keenleyside
"RES" <resc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BC4DA9A...@home.com...
Actually he's right. the Nazi party of Germany had the offical German name
of National Sozialiste Deutsche Arbeiter Partei
(NSDAP) or in English The German National Socialist Worker's Party. It's
where the moniker "Nazi" comes from.
Check it out.
Read the Oath to Hitler at: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hess1.htm
There's references to the National Socialist
cause in it.
Should have paid more attention to the history book rather than the skirt in
the next row who was a member of the cheerleader squad, pal.
nkennedy
name
of National Sozialiste Deutsche Arbeiter Partei
(NSDAP) or in English The German National Socialist Worker's Party. It's
where the moniker "Nazi" comes from.
Wow!!
Neil K
Micheal Wilson
news:3BC3CF5B...@hotmail.com...
> I've noticed that many people have trouble with the concept of
> "left wing" vs. "right wing". It's really quite simple:
>
> LEFT WING:
> -- Heavy controls
> -- Centralized power
> -- Everything is false until proven true
Actually everything IS false until proven true.
Did you know that Martians live among us?
> RIGHT WING:
> -- Minimal controls
translation: Anarchy is fun.
> -- Networked power
translation: <fog>
> -- Everything is true until proven false
translation: You are a criminal until you prove that you are not.
You have no idea what it means to be right wing. Your fancy little post
here is a load of crap. I assume that you are an anarchist, although you
might prefer the term Libertarian. However libertarianism and
conservativism are not the same thing. Libertarianism is a flawed
philosophy that suggests that we should drop all social customs, mores,
rules and laws and let society decay until somebody feels like fixing it.
You are not a right-winger. I am.
--
Mike
Not all right wingers are extremist nutbars.
Micheal Wilson
"nkennedy" <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:3BC4DA15...@seascape.ns.ca...
If it seems like I am always siding with the left-wingers on this newsgroup
instead of my fellow right-wingers, it's because very few of those on the
right here know anything about what they are talking about. Most of the
time they think that everything can be boiled down to a left-right thing.
I still have differences with those on the left here, and those differences
will and have come out when policy is the topic of discussion.
However most discussions here are not about policy, and in fact left-right
labels should not apply at all. I find that most of the time those on the
left in this Newsgroup know a hell of a lot more about what they are talking
about than most people on the right. I am not going to disagree with
someone, when I know they are correct, just because they are left wing. And
I will not agree with someone who is wrong, even if they are right-wing.
The point is, (after all that),I have to agree with Neil, RES is entirely
correct.
nkennedy
entirely
(blush) Thank you Mike.
The point is, you want to discuss honest differences, many of the
so called right who post here merely find stances.
They are neither conservative or Tory, but for the most part
soulless neo-liberals. They defame the "conservative" tag.
I'm a socialist, they call John Carrick a communist. Mr. Carrick, is
a conservative who has traditionally supported the CCF-NDP as as a more
effective way to promote social change.
But a man, I feel, much more "at home" with Dalton Camp, Davey
Fulton, Heward Grafty, ---- ------ (the NB civil rights champion whose
name escapes me, I should be ashamed) than with the Liberals.
Maybe I shouldn't try to speak for Mr. Carrick, but I feel I know
him having spent many years being involved with the philosophical
"battle" within the CCF-NDP.
Yes its too bad there is so much Fraser Institute "static" in these
groups.
But in a free country we must learn to work within it.
It bugs me, I have to hit "send" and still.... Ah it came to me.
The honourable gentleman's name is Gorden Fairweather.
.
Neil K
Paul Keenleyside
Knew that in Grade 10. Big schmeal. Old news. Hitler was toast.
nkennedy
Keenleyside
Jeesus, when I said "Wow", he thought I meant it.
Increeedible!
Neil K
Paul Keenleyside
> Did you know that Martians live among us?
Right.
One is named Marvin and wears a helmet that features a broom brush on the
top and has a mute dog Commander K-9.
He has destructive weaponry such as the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space
Modulator.
John Carrick
>I've noticed that many people have trouble with the concept of
>"left wing" vs. "right wing". It's really quite simple:
>
>LEFT WING:
>-- Heavy controls
>-- Centralized power
>-- Everything is false until proven true
>
>RIGHT WING:
>-- Minimal controls
>-- Networked power
>-- Everything is true until proven false
O.K. That's far enough for anyone to read.
Your true name is not "Grimm", is it?
You are really quite good at fairy tales.
I'll bet you think that with their "heavy controls, and "centralized
powers" the Nazis and other 20th C. fascists were left-wingers too.
What a dope.
David Johnston
>
> "RES" <resc...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3BC4DA9A...@home.com..
> >
> >
> > >
> > > In article <3bc46e00$0$25...@fountain.mindlink.net>, Paul Keenleyside
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > German was run by an extreme right wing fascist
> > >
> > > Odd. Hitler and the Nazis considered themselves
> > > socialists.
> >
> > Nope. Wrong. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. RES
>
> Actually he's right. the Nazi party of Germany had the offical German name
> of National Sozialiste Deutsche Arbeiter Partei
> (NSDAP) or in English The German National Socialist Worker's Party. It's
> where the moniker "Nazi" comes from.
> Check it out.
>
Tell me. Do you believe the name is the thing? If I were to found the
"Conservative Republican Party", and run on a platform of banning handguns,
government medical insurance, respect for the monarchy and the legalisation
of all drugs...would I be a conservative republican?
Cy Coe
> You are not a right-winger. I am.
I beg to differ. You're a left-of-centre faux-conservative, like
Dalton Camp and David Orchard. Unfortunately, the federal PC party is
full of you guys. And when the genuine conservatives left your party
to go to Reform, your hold over the PC's became a death grip.
You constantly side with the big-government confiscators on this
newsgroup. IMHO, a conservative should at least pay some lip service
to individualism and should oppose government social engineering. And
MacDonald's "no truck or trade" colonialist rantings notwithstanding,
a Canadian conservative shouldn't be anti-American. Anti-American
nationalism, in its modern incarnation, is a product of the Canadian
left.
Moderation is one thing. Lying is another. If you support the
collectivist/egalitarian agenda of the left-wing posters on this
newsgroup, then you are *not* a conservative.
Cy
SunnyJim
You can read but even short sentences are tough toi understand.
There is no government like no government.
And please explain to us all what a neo-con is? Is it like a
sasquatch?
SunnyJim
And you are all wrong. You have been duped by soft headed lefties M.
You can probably go back to your camp but they will want to give you a
good scrub first.
Dave Simpson
Michael Wilson wrote:
>> RIGHT WING:
>> -- Minimal controls
>
>[T]ranslation: Anarchy is fun.
This classic straw man argument has long been held
ridiculous.
Besides, many conservatives favor, rather than disfavor,
authoritarianism.
Dave Simpson
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca
Well you have written a lot of drivel about anarchy in fact, and not
unlike the Libertarians, you are a "neo-con". A "neo-con" is part fascist,
part capitalist, part anarchist, and 100% killer. Just like you. Have a
good look in the mirror, and you will see Bin Laudin dressed in the covert
clothing that kills ordinary people.
All that comes about because like the communists, you have no regard for
human life, or human rights.
And one other thing about "neo-cons". They are irresponsible. Just look at
you, and some of the things you are written and said. Its as if the
lessons of history completely escaped you. Only they didn't. Its the final
characteristic of "neo-cons" --- deception, lying, cheating and stealing
as a moral code. That is because "survival" has always been your sole
objective, but you cannot see that under certain conditions, life is not
worth living if you cannot live the life of a human being with dignity and
freedom.
Do you want to know why? That is simple. "Neo-cons" have reptilian minds
and cold blooded instincts, something that is alien to human beings.
There you have it. A "neo-con". Its closely related to a "communist",
except for the colors. "Neo-cons" wear blue tee shirts while "communists"
wear red tee shirts. Both however went to the same school.
Joe Green
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca
Organization: Edmonton Community Network
Distribution:
SunnyJim (su...@wiggly.com) wrote:
: On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:30:55 -0700, "Micheal Wilson"
<snipped and cutting to the chase>
: >Mike
: >
: >Not all right wingers are extremist nutbars.
: >
"Neo-cons" are extremist nutbars at the best of times, and in practice
much worse.
"Conservatives" that are consistent with their traditions are roots are
not extremists and are not anarchists. Unlike "neo-cons", traditional
"conservatives" actually work for "responsible government". In other
words, they are not "dogmatic" and "idiological" in the way the Taliban or
the Jerry Falwells are. They are often "pragmatic" but consistent with
their overall beliefs that large complex governments are not required.
In this, they share many common values with "liberals" who also stand for
"pragmatic" conduct for "responsible government". In Canada, the
"liberals" are more successful than the "conservatives" in winning and
keeping power in Government. The ideological parties like the NDP, and the
Social Credit/Reform/Alliance are too extreme for most people, and
generally injure their long term prospects because of their unbending
ideological programs. In this conduct, the parties are more like the
mullahs then "secular politicians". From this point of view, "communism"
was a "state religion".
The "right" and the "left" are not very useful terms in Canada, since the
institution of Parliament tones down ideological extremes and eliminates
them from our political life.
Joe Green
Paul Keenleyside
"Karl Pollak" <ka...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:3bc47978....@news.pacificcoast.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>
> >If you don't mind my saying so, this seems like a rather strange
> >interpretation. I believe the standard interpretation is that
> >"left wing" usually refers to working-class interests (higher
> >wages), "right wing" refers to upper-class interests (lower taxes,
> >fewer strikes).
>
> I certainly don't mind you saying so and Paul probably doesn't either, but
> this is a rather outdated, Marxist "class struggle" view of society. If
> that were so, there would be no Left in Canada.
The Marxist "class struggle" has its origins during the Industrial
Revolution.
But it seems that there's (amongst left wing socialists and NDP'ers) always
instances of "struggle for.. [ name of goal here]" and "fighting for [ name
of goal here ]", and let's not forget (for Cuba) the proverbial "a
revolution for.. [name of goal here]"
Seems that with Marxists that everyone was supposedly equal. But under some
Communist regimes that used Marxist politicial ideaology as a base, some
persons were definately more equal to others when it came to privilege.
Especially if one had a CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union)
membership card.
Marxism as it has been seen (even in the most puritan Marxist state of The
People's Republic of Albania led by Enver Hoxa) never worked. The Socialist
utopia was never achieved.
Bond
> not extremists and are not anarchists. Unlike "neo-cons", traditional
> "conservatives" actually work for "responsible government". In other
> words, they are not "dogmatic" and "idiological" in the way the Taliban or
> the Jerry Falwells are. They are often "pragmatic" but consistent with
> their overall beliefs that large complex governments are not required.
>
Conservatism, as you define it, would be a left wing ideology then because you
expect the a "responsible government" to respond to your interests rather than
responding to them yourself. You believe that in order to be happy you must
force others to behave in a manner that is acceptable to you, yet you attack
others when they try to force you to behave in a manner acceptable to them.
Besides being hypocritical, both sides are left wing because they involve
controlling others through threats of violence. Everybody loses.
Bond
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
Sunny Jim is an Ayn Rand follower, i.e. an Objectivist and your definition of
Neo-Con seems to describe them accurately. I've never met an objectivist
who wasn't violent; in fact I had an objectivist girlfriend once that I had to
report to the police once for abusing her daughter. Seems she believed
in self-centeredness as a virtue. i.e. if your 3 year old is hungry and
crying, lock
her in the closet and tell her she's a worthless peice of shit, etc.
> All that comes about because like the communists, you have no regard for
> human life, or human rights.
Exactly, objectivists don't have any concern for anything but themselves.
That
is the root of the philosophy.
> And one other thing about "neo-cons". They are irresponsible. Just look at
> you, and some of the things you are written and said. Its as if the
> lessons of history completely escaped you. Only they didn't. Its the final
> characteristic of "neo-cons" --- deception, lying, cheating and stealing
> as a moral code. That is because "survival" has always been your sole
> objective, but you cannot see that under certain conditions, life is not
> worth living if you cannot live the life of a human being with dignity and
> freedom.
As an objectivists view of the world ends at their own eyeballs, they are not
capable of responding because they don't have a clue what is going on outside
their own subjective minds. Deception, lying, cheating and stealing would all
be acceptable if you considered yourself as having a monopoly on Truth as the
objectivists claim to be able to determine.
>
> Do you want to know why? That is simple. "Neo-cons" have reptilian minds
> and cold blooded instincts, something that is alien to human beings.
>
> There you have it. A "neo-con". Its closely related to a "communist",
> except for the colors. "Neo-cons" wear blue tee shirts while "communists"
> wear red tee shirts. Both however went to the same school.
Agreed. Objectivism as I call it, and Neo-Con as you call it are far left
ideologies.
The difference between communism and objectivism is that a communist believes
the
state owns everything and is all powerful and all knowing, while the
objectivist believes
that they themselves are all knowing, all powerful and own everything.
Bond
Russil Wvong wrote:
> Bond <bke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I've noticed that many people have trouble with the concept of
> > "left wing" vs. "right wing". It's really quite simple:
> >
> > LEFT WING:
> > -- Heavy controls
> > -- Centralized power
> > -- Everything is false until proven true
> >
> > RIGHT WING:
> > -- Minimal controls
> > -- Networked power
> > -- Everything is true until proven false
>
> If you don't mind my saying so, this seems like a rather strange
> interpretation. I believe the standard interpretation is that
> "left wing" usually refers to working-class interests (higher
> wages), "right wing" refers to upper-class interests (lower taxes,
> fewer strikes).
>
> I'm not sure I could describe myself as either "left wing" or
> "right wing", but I have both left-wing and right-wing friends.
>
Perhaps because your definition of left vs. right wing is blurred.
Working class people can be both left or right wing. A left wing working
class
person is one who let's a union make decisions for him, isn't interested in
learning
anything on the job, pledges allegiance to the flag and doesn't believe
anything
anyone tells them. They've worked at the same job for 20 years and have no
desire to change and are incredibly boring people.
A right wing working class person is one who stubbornly refuses to join a
union,
has certificates in numerous trades, pledges allegiance to his family and
questions
his beliefs if presented with conflicting information. Right wing workers
don't have
jobs, they are independent contractors and they don't have bosses, they
have client
lists.
There are also both left and right wing businesses. A left wing business
has a detailed
organization heirarchy chart and a chain of command. All employees have
manditory
medical and dental plans. Their salary is based on the length of time at
the company and
the amount of post-secondary brain-washing they received.
A right wing business has a 6 page business plan and all employees are
independent sub-
contractors. Decisions are made by these sub-contractors with minimal
guidance, and
perhaps some necessary infrastructure being provided by the company. Their
salary is
based on performance and if you don't preferm you aren't fired, you simply
don't make
any money.
>
> > The most notable instance was when the
> > British convinced the Americans to enter WWII by convincing them that
> > Fascism and Communism were left wing while Capitalism was right wing.
>
> ?? Actually, it was Pearl Harbor that convinced the Americans to
> enter WWII.
Or so that is what the American historians claim. If you read the history
of other
countries you will find that very little of american history is true as it
was entirely
re-written after World War I to ensure the US didn't revert to it's pre-war
state.
> Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Imperial Japan were all
> totalitarian dictatorships. The key thing is that their combined
> military strength was greater than that of the liberal democracies,
> so it wasn't possible for the US and UK to defeat them without
> at least one as an ally -- Russia, as it turned out. (See
> George Kennan, "American Diplomacy 1900-1950".)
>
> Russil Wvong
> Vancouver, BC
> www.geocities.com/rwvong
David Johnston
Your definition of "left-wing" is stupid and self serving.
nkennedy
Johnson
Bond showed up here with what I took to be some meaningful
remarks about the food drop.
It didn't take long to see that those comments were a ruse to get
attention.
We have another mindless member of the Libertarian mob.
He might be Jack Plant, except that he can speak in sentences.
Neil K
Bond
> powers" the Nazis and other 20th C. fascists were left-wingers too.
Of course they were, if you bother to look up the definition of fascism
it actually mentions the Nazis.
Bond
Libertarianism
is a right wing philosophy while conservatism is hard-core left wing. It is
the
conservatives who are resistant to change and wan't to place controls on
things
like abortion, cloning, same-sex-marriages, etc. That is pretty hard-core
left
wing if you ask me. In fact the progressives are much more right wing that
the
conservatives (provided they raise their R & D dollars in the general market
rather than steal it from taxpayers).
Don
If you reread Carrick's post, he is not disputing the link between Nazis and
fascism but rather, between nazis and left-wing ideology.
Bond
> of National Sozialiste Deutsche Arbeiter Partei
> (NSDAP) or in English The German National Socialist Worker's Party. It's
> where the moniker "Nazi" comes from.
> Check it out.
>
If you look up fascism in the dictionary it says "See Nazis". No joke, look it
up.
Because someone calls themselves a socialist doesn't mean they are. Just look
at
all the left-wing radicals on this group that call themselves right wing.
The New Democratic Party have a Socialist platform.
>
> Read the Oath to Hitler at: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hess1.htm
> There's references to the National Socialist
> cause in it.
>
National Socialist was the name of a party, not the political ideology it
represented.
Look at the dictionary definitions of Fascism then re-read that speach. You
will see
that while they call themselves socialists that the message is that everyone
'should obey
the state without question even if it means your children and your husband are
surely
going to be slaughtered'. That is fascism plain and simple.
This is much like the US, where children are brainwashed to 'pledge allegance to
the flag'
sing 'god bless America' and read propogandized versions of their national
history to
brainwash them into believing they are worthless unless they treat the
government as a
God. If someone questions this, they are promptly labelled a traitor, fired
from their jobs
or locked up for 'subversion', etc. The US and Nazi germany governments are
identical
in all aspects.
> Should have paid more attention to the history book rather than the skirt in
> the next row who was a member of the cheerleader squad, pal.
You should actually read the articles you post here so you don't come across
like a fool.
Goldhammer
> Marxism as it has been seen (even in the most puritan Marxist state of The
> People's Republic of Albania led by Enver Hoxa) never worked. The Socialist
> utopia was never achieved.
The most ideologically "pure" Marxist state was,
in my estimation, Saloth Sar's Cambodia 1975-1979.
>
>
>
>
David Johnston
>
> > Actually he's right. the Nazi party of Germany had the offical German name
> > of National Sozialiste Deutsche Arbeiter Partei
> > (NSDAP) or in English The German National Socialist Worker's Party. It's
> > where the moniker "Nazi" comes from.
> > Check it out.
> >
>
> If you look up fascism in the dictionary it says "See Nazis". No joke, look it
> up.
>
I did, and it didn't.
David Johnston
>
> I agree that conservatism is not the same thing as libertarianism.
> Libertarianism
> is a right wing philosophy while conservatism is hard-core left wing.
No, conservatism is a ham sandwich and libertarianism is a kazoo.
Bond
> > > powers" the Nazis and other 20th C. fascists were left-wingers too.
> >
> > Of course they were, if you bother to look up the definition of fascism
> > it actually mentions the Nazis.
>
> If you reread Carrick's post, he is not disputing the link between Nazis and
> fascism but rather, between nazis and left-wing ideology.
Fascism IS a left-wing ideology. It is almost identical to communism and
socialism.
The only difference is that where communism controls people by stealing their
money
and their property, Fascism controls people by manipulating their minds and
killing them
if they don't support the state. They are both highly autocratic, highly
centralized, highly
controlled and the opposite of freedom and independence.
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca
: > "Conservatives" that are consistent with their traditions are roots are
Ah its such a pleasure to separate genuine "conservatives" from
"libertarians" and "neo-cons". You are of course mistaken, and you also
betray your true colors, that of a "neo-con".
The "conservativism" of Sir John A. MacDonald, Cartier, Diefenbaker, and
others going back to before such British conservatives as Edmund Burke, is
not at all the same as the "neo-cons" that pretend to be "conservatives".
Most of these historical "conservatives" subscribed to the doctrine of
"responsible government" some would even say they invented and popularized
its use, certainly in Canada.
In contrast, the "libertarians" and the "neo-cons" are a completely
different force with completely different beliefs and practices. They
philosophical home is "anarchy". And their "religous" views are primarily
that of pagans, hedonists, and atheists.
There is a fundamental reason how this has come about, its due primarily
to the development of "modernism".
"Modernism" holds that everything is dynamical and constantly changing and
that this chaos is "good". Most "conseratives" and "liberals" look at
history and find good reason for distrusting revolution and radical and
ceaseless change that is destructive and undesirable. They work toward the
goals of "responsible government" which is just another word for
"stability".
In the dynamical world of "modernists", "libertarians", "anarchists" and
"capitalists", there is no stability, only ceaseless unpredictable change
punctuated with sudden and unpredictable dislocation.
At their very core, "modernists" and "libertarians" and certainly
"capitalists" deal everyday with the flip side of the "chaos" and that is
"fear".
Its identical in this regard to communism, which is another development of
"modernism".
To endorse "liberalism" and "conservativism" and endorse the "rule of law"
and to espouse "responsible government" means to reject "modernism".
All respectable world religions have come to the conclusion that
"modernist" trends at best are irresponsible and at worst are murderous.
The current North American development of "libertarians", "laisse fair
capitalists", "anarchists", and "neo-cons" are ALL "modernist" movements
that are doomed to be replaced with still more dynamical change that will
sweep them off the stage with still more chaotic and random and mindless
change.
That is what will happen to the "neo-cons" in the Alliance, as they become
irrelevant to Canadian political life. North America is reacting to
terrorism, and that terrorism by Bin Laudin and company IS ALSO A
MODERNIST MOVEMENT.
Thus one modernist movement introduces fresh chaos and dynamic input to
displace another, not unlike buildings being torn down in New York to
be replaced by newer more modern buildings. That has been going on long
before the September 11 tragedy.
Whereas historic "liberal" and "conservative" movements have been
restrained by the lessons of history, "modernist" movements like
"capitalism" and "communism" know no such restraint. That is the primary
reason that it kills so many people.
Joe Green
Don
Well, I consider myself quite right wing yet I favour abortion as well as
investigating cloning technology (could have a great affect on medical
science). So what does that make me?
Don
Definitions aside, I don't like either. Most people on this NG including
those who profess to be quite astute at political science have argued
profusely that fascism is not left wing. Your analogy above concerning mind
manipulation and death vs. confiscation of money and property is intriguing.
I suppose that like most states, the definition of what's right-wing and
what's left-wing should not be seen as static but rather as a dynamic
evolution. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not yet in position
to agree or disagree since I don't believe I have all the necessary
information to form an accurate opinion.
What I'd like to see is that any arguments disagreeing with the connection
between fascism and left-wing ideology give reasons and not just reiterate
the point that fascism does not follow the exact methods of communism.
SunnyJim
Now this is good. I can make music for all to appreciate at any time
but a ham sandwich? How about I tunafish? Tunaguitar?
>
>
SunnyJim
wrote:
Too difficult for bondo to comprehend. If you don't fit into the
little niche's he has constructed then you don't exist.
Ask him about the how many tonnes of size 3 left shoes were produced
in Bulgaria in 1953. That is the sort of thing that left wing ideologs
care about. Oh yeah, and making sure that you don't think or act for
yourself because big government is here to help you. Or else.
You can just make fun of him and his little buddies rather than try
and debate. They think they have some sort of importance other than
self to the rest of us. Quelle suprise, again and again.
>
>
SunnyJim
wrote:
In bondo's world you suffer 'mind maipulation' if you cannot repeat,
verbatim, the Lefty Litany of Lies.
Goldhammer
> Fascism IS a left-wing ideology. It is almost identical to communism and
> socialism. The only difference is that where communism controls people
> by stealing their money and their property, Fascism controls people by
> manipulating their minds and killing them if they don't support the state.
Communism also controls people by manipulating
their minds and killing them if they don't
support the state. It also exercises control
killing them randomly and for imagined reasons.
>
David Johnston
I already did that. It's not about the methods but about goals and motivations.
Fascism's motivation (for it's true believers) is patriotism above all other
considerations and it's goal is to maximise the nation's power. It is the motivation
of traditional right wing believers, taken beyond the bounds of reason and good sense.
The defining motivation of left-wing ideologies is to eliminate or least alleviate
human inequity.
Libertarians already have a perfect word with which to castigate all their opponents
(which is to say, just about everyone). "Statist". They should stick to it. It sounds
evil, and it doesn't have a definition for them that conflicts with everyone else.
Goldhammer
> Fascism IS a left-wing ideology. It is almost identical to communism and
> socialism. The only difference is that where communism controls people
> by stealing their money and their property, Fascism controls people by
> manipulating their minds and killing them if they don't support the state.
Communism also controls people by manipulating
their minds and killing them if they don't
support the state. It also exercises control
by killing them randomly and for imagined reasons.
>
Bond
> those who profess to be quite astute at political science have argued
> profusely that fascism is not left wing. Your analogy above concerning mind
> manipulation and death vs. confiscation of money and property is intriguing.
> I suppose that like most states, the definition of what's right-wing and
> what's left-wing should not be seen as static but rather as a dynamic
> evolution. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not yet in position
> to agree or disagree since I don't believe I have all the necessary
> information to form an accurate opinion.
None of the arguements I've heard from the fascists explain why they consider
themselves right wing. Actually, come to think of it they haven't made any
arguements. It does seem to be a matter of how you define the right
and left wings though. What I object to is fascists claiming they are right
wing
while communists/socialists are left wing when their ideologies are so similar.
Indeed the definitions of Right and Left are very distorted and ideologies shift
depending on the political scenery. For example, during the breakup of the
soviet union, the hard line communists were referred to as 'right wing radicals'
by
the soviet press. Reading the history of how the terms have been distorted
suggest that the terms are frequently manipulated by the governmedia to convince
people that:
a) We should side with X because we are both left wing (although the ideologies
are
clearly totally contrary to one another), and
b) We should kill Y because we are left and they are right (or vice-versa)
although
essentially the two sides agree with each other.
In short, the definitions of right and left have been distorted to create
alliances and wars.
So which definition of right vs. left is correct then? None of them. However
if we are
to define right vs. left this definition needs to meet a few criteria to be
acceptable:
1) The definition should be clear and simple.
2) Since the terms are generalizations their application should accurately
describe what
they are generalizations of
3) The terms should be resistant to re-definition by the Governmedia.
>
> What I'd like to see is that any arguments disagreeing with the connection
> between fascism and left-wing ideology give reasons and not just reiterate
> the point that fascism does not follow the exact methods of communism.
I'm working on a short essay on this that I've done some serious research on and
I'll be
posting it shortly. Feel free to offer any points.
SunnyJim
Child molester was already taken. But you are approximately correct
with your definition.
>
RES
Paul Keenleyside wrote:
>
> "RES" <resc...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3BC4DA9A...@home.com...
> >
> >
> > Goldhammer wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3bc46e00$0$25...@fountain.mindlink.net>, Paul Keenleyside
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > German was run by an extreme right wing fascist
> > >
> > > Odd. Hitler and the Nazis considered themselves
> > > socialists.
> >
> > Nope. Wrong. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. RES
>
> Actually he's right. the Nazi party of Germany had the offical German name
> of National Sozialiste Deutsche Arbeiter Partei
> (NSDAP) or in English The German National Socialist Worker's Party. It's
> where the moniker "Nazi" comes from.
> Check it out.
>
Uhh... Have 'checked it out'. Many years ago in a land far far away. I
have neither the interest or the time to respond re: German History,
fascism and the rise of the Nazi Party. Suffice to say anyone who
believes the Nazi party was a 'socialist' party or a 'left-wing' party
is in serious need of reading a book, prefereably a history book. RES
> Read the Oath to Hitler at: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hess1.htm
> There's references to the National Socialist
> cause in it.
>
Oh the word socialist is in there. OMG!!! It all makes sense now!
<sarcasm> RES
> Should have paid more attention to the history book rather than the skirt in
> the next row who was a member of the cheerleader squad, pal.
Uhhh. Perhaps that's the explaination of your misinterpretation of basic
politics 101. Kind of a laugh hearing this coming from someone who
believes the Nazi Party is socialist. No doubt you believe the Liberal
Democratic Party of Russia led by Vlad Zhironovsky is Liberal and
democratic. LMAO RES
RES
Karl Pollak wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> RES <resc...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Goldhammer wrote:
> >> Odd. Hitler and the Nazis considered themselves
> >> socialists.
> >
> >Nope. Wrong. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. RES
>
> Actually, Goldhammer is right, you're not. Thank you for playing.
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
You may not be aware, but your 'discovery' has yet to be accounted for
in any political studies text yet written. RES
RES
neo-cons over the edge I think. RES
Micheal Wilson wrote:
>
> "nkennedy" <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote in message
> news:3BC4DA15...@seascape.ns.ca...
> > "Must drive you and the neo-cons in this group nuts with the US
> > Government is employing Keynsian economics to stimulate the economy with
> > massive infusions of capital, and a massive increase in the role of
> > government. Wonder how many Americans would wish their government would
> > butt out of Afghanistan and leave those terrorists alone. perhaps a
> > private sector outfit may be contracted out to get bin Ladin. I hear
> > MetroPol Security is training some fellows to speak some Arab-like
> > language."-> RES
> >
> > Don't get away from this message Res, In every thread that you respond
> > to post this. Post it until they engage you. Well done...
> >
> > Neil K
>
> If it seems like I am always siding with the left-wingers on this newsgroup
> instead of my fellow right-wingers, it's because very few of those on the
> right here know anything about what they are talking about. Most of the
> time they think that everything can be boiled down to a left-right thing.
>
> I still have differences with those on the left here, and those differences
> will and have come out when policy is the topic of discussion.
>
> However most discussions here are not about policy, and in fact left-right
> labels should not apply at all. I find that most of the time those on the
> left in this Newsgroup know a hell of a lot more about what they are talking
> about than most people on the right. I am not going to disagree with
> someone, when I know they are correct, just because they are left wing. And
> I will not agree with someone who is wrong, even if they are right-wing.
> The point is, (after all that),I have to agree with Neil, RES is entirely
> correct.
>
> --
> Mike
>
> Not all right wingers are extremist nutbars.
nkennedy
Of course you are, its a shame how the tag has been stolen by the
neo-liberal shit that is so prominent here.
Its funny , but last nigh I was trying to recall Gorden Fairweather's
name, and it was by spotting your name in the mail list that jogged my
memory, you were my association to him.
Neil K
David Johnston
> None of the arguements I've heard from the fascists explain why they consider
> themselves right wing. Actually, come to think of it they haven't made any
> arguements. It does seem to be a matter of how you define the right
> and left wings though. What I object to is fascists claiming they are right
> wing
> while communists/socialists are left wing when their ideologies are so similar.
They aren't. Although they might seem to be to someone who doesn't know the
difference between a communist and a socialist.
SunnyJim
Slicing bullshit baloney thick or thin provides the same result.
A socialist and a communist and a fascist are the same in that they
all despise the individual and all manifestations of indivdualism. And
that is all that matters.
>
>
James Goneaux
wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2001 21:32:27 -0700, Bond <bke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I've noticed that many people have trouble with the concept of
>>"left wing" vs. "right wing". It's really quite simple:
>>
>>LEFT WING:
>>-- Heavy controls
>>-- Centralized power
>>-- Everything is false until proven true
>>
>>RIGHT WING:
>>-- Minimal controls
>>-- Networked power
>>-- Everything is true until proven false
>
>O.K. That's far enough for anyone to read.
>
>Your true name is not "Grimm", is it?
>
>You are really quite good at fairy tales.
>
>I'll bet you think that with their "heavy controls, and "centralized
>powers" the Nazis and other 20th C. fascists were left-wingers too..
Maybe he does, which would be unfortunate.
However, "heavy controls" and "centralized powers" means that both the
communists and the fascists were statist.
As are you.
-----------------------
email: jam...@my-deja.com
"Things that are bad for business are bad for people who work for business." Thomas E. Dewey
Paul Keenleyside
"> Working class people can be both left or right wing. A left wing working
> class
> person is one who let's a union make decisions for him, isn't interested
in
> learning
> anything on the job, pledges allegiance to the flag and doesn't believe
> anything
> anyone tells them. They've worked at the same job for 20 years and have
no
>
> desire to change and are incredibly boring people.
Some left wing people are more interesting than right wing people.
>
> A right wing working class person is one who stubbornly refuses to join a
> union,
> has certificates in numerous trades, pledges allegiance to his family and
> questions
> his beliefs if presented with conflicting information. Right wing workers
> don't have
> jobs, they are independent contractors and they don't have bosses, they
> have client
> lists.
Actually this in't quite true. Many friends of mine because of their
occupation are/were union people, but are
fiscally conservative. For example one person I know (now retired) was a
member of the IWA and worked
the equipment shop as the Shop Foreman at one of MacMillian Bloedel's
logging camps. He was supportive of BC Social Credit and had (and still has)
a dislike for the NDP. Another is a worker at the grain terminals
in Vancouver (member of the grainworker union) and defiantely does not like
the NDP or socialist ideals. He too is not left wing. He's a Liberal, but
not a left winger.
A few others are teachers (BCTF), and others work in government (BCGEU or
PSAC or OTEU).
As for right winger "working persons" being independent contractors, that's
not entirely correct. Many hold the
traditional employee - employer relationship.
> There are also both left and right wing businesses. A left wing business
> has a detailed
> organization heirarchy chart and a chain of command.
All businesses (and organisations including political parties) have a chain
of command. It's called an organisational chart.
All employees have
> manditory
> medical and dental plans.
Not all companies provide that to the employees, especially new companies
just starting out.
Their salary is based on the length of time at
> the company and
> the amount of post-secondary brain-washing they received.
This is true for most businesses.
> A right wing business has a 6 page business plan and all employees are
> independent sub-
> contractors. Decisions are made by these sub-contractors with minimal
> guidance, and
> perhaps some necessary infrastructure being provided by the company.
Their
> salary is
> based on performance and if you don't preferm you aren't fired, you simply
> don't make
> any money.
Not all employees are independent sub-contractors.
Working in business isn't supposed to be a day at the beach. If you don't
contribute to the operations of
the company or make an effort to do so, you're out. The goal is to
contribute to the growth of the company,
thus retaining your job.
RES
Well I have to say I'm in good company then. But calling me a 'Red Tory'
would be going too far:) RES
RES
In much the same way a scientist would look at two life forms, say viral
and bacterial, and say, 'Hey', what the hell do I care, they're both
bugs', and then expect to find an antidote. RES
David Johnston
> >They aren't. Although they might seem to be to someone who doesn't know the
> >difference between a communist and a socialist.
>
> Slicing bullshit baloney thick or thin provides the same result.
>
> A socialist and a communist and a fascist are the same in that they
> all despise the individual and all manifestations of indivdualism.
That's a lie.
RES
Mike, you're so right about there being virtually no discussion in this
ng about policy. Unfortunatley, when you consider that there are so many
here that can't, for the life of them, understand the subtle differences
between the major ideologies of the 20th C, it's not surprising.
Given their fundamental confusion it's no wonder their topsy turvy view
of politics leads them to such bizarre conclusions as 'Hitler is a
socialist', and 'Fascism is a form of socialism', and "left wing' vs
right wing" , the latter more an expression of 'popular journalism' as
opposed to any serious description or classification of political
thought.
It seems any deviation from the accepted view of these characters is
termed 'sedition', Marxism, socialism, and now 'terrorism'. RES
RES
Karl Pollak wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> RES <resc...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Goldhammer wrote:
> >> Odd. Hitler and the Nazis considered themselves
> >> socialists.
> >
> >Nope. Wrong. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. RES
>
> Actually, Goldhammer is right, you're not. Thank you for playing.
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
OK I'll play.
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=fascism&hc=1&hs=20
Contains some 123,000 website dealing with fascism. You may wish to read
one or two. Here's but a sampling of what you'll find.
If you can find one credible link among these many 10's of thousands
which back the view that the Nazi's were socialist, please let us know
and we'll delink/delist the other 122,9999 ok? RES
Mussolini's definition. Hmm. Wonder why he is a 'former socialist'. Go
figure.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
"Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the
nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other
loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a
period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a
"spiritual revolution" against signs of moral decay such as
individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge "alien" forces and
groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism tends to celebrate
masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of
violence. Often, but not always, it promotes racial superiority
doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At
the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on
either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries.
Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy, though sometimes it may
also promote female solidarity and new opportunities for women of the
privileged nation or race."
http://www.pipeline.com/~rgibson/fascism.html
"2. Fascism and capitalism are inseparable. There has never been a form
of capital that was not built on a fascist base--from early British
action against the Chartists to today's varieties of imperialism. All
major capitalist nations have fascist ties. "
http://www.stcloudstate.edu/~jaz/altruism/fascism.html
"Italian fascism was founded in Milan on Mar. 23, 1919, by Benito
MUSSOLINI, a former revolutionary socialist leader. His followers,
mostly war veterans, were organized along paramilitary lines and wore
black shirts as uniforms. The early Fascist program was a mixture of
left-and right-wing ideas that emphasized intense NATIONALISM,
productivism, antisocialism, elitism, and the need for a strong leader."
"Closely related to Italian fascism was German National Socialism, or
NAZISM, under Adolf HITLER. It won wide support among the unemployed,
the impoverished middle class, and industrialists who feared socialism
and communism."
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/slouch_Alternatives12.html
"Fascists were tamer versions of Nazis. Most fascists' economic doctrine
was largely negative: they were not socialists, and they did not believe
that the Marxist platform of the nationalization of industry and the
expropriation of the capitalist class was the right way to run an
economy."
"But fascists were identifiably of the same ideological genus as Nazis."
http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/world/lectures/fascism.html
"Each stage in the rise of European fascism can be related to a moment
of middle-class panic caused either by economic crisis or by its
consequences, the threat of socialist revolution."
Goldhammer
> National Socialist was the name of a party, not the political
> ideology it represented. Look at the dictionary definitions of
> Fascism then re-read that speach. You will see that while they
> call themselves socialists that the message is that everyone
> 'should obey the state without question even if it means your
> children and your husband are surely going to be slaughtered'.
> That is fascism plain and simple.
One could make a case that National Socialism is,
practically speaking, almost identical to Communism's
"first steps" as described by Marx and Engels in
the Communist Manifesto. The difference is who the
enemies were, and who the heros were. For Marx, the
enemies were the bourgoisie, the heros were the
workers. For the Nazi ideologists, the enemies were
the Jews (among others), while the heroes were German
workers. Nazi rhetoric like 'the blood-sucking Jews
crush the spirit of noble German workers' is hardly
different from the Marxist version 'the blood-sucking
bourgeois crush the spirit of noble proletarians'.
I'm surprised more people don't notice the similarities.
If you compare Marx's remarkably blind central
thesis:
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the
history of class struggles. " [Communist Manifesto]
to Hitler's own view the history of all hitherto existing
society was the history of racial struggles, particularly
against the Jews, you will no doubt begin to wonder
why people think these ideologies are so different
as to merit separation on diametrically opposite political
poles referred to as "left" and "right".
In fact, modern Marxists provide a fusion of Marx's
and Hitler's ideas in what they call the "hierarchy",
which is the principle that the history of all hitherto
existing society is the history of class, racial, and
gender struggles.
Anyhow, here are the "first steps" in the revolution,
according to Marx and Engels
"We have seen above that the first step in the revolution
by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the
position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest,
by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize
all instruments of production in the hands of the state,
i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class;
and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
"Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except
by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and
on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures,
therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable,
but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves,
necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are
unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of
production. "
- Communist Manifesto
Bond
David Johnston wrote:
> Bond wrote:
> >
> > > Actually he's right. the Nazi party of Germany had the offical German name
> > > of National Sozialiste Deutsche Arbeiter Partei
> > > (NSDAP) or in English The German National Socialist Worker's Party. It's
> > > where the moniker "Nazi" comes from.
> > > Check it out.
> > >
> >
> > If you look up fascism in the dictionary it says "See Nazis". No joke, look it
> > up.
> >
>
> I did, and it didn't.
http://datadump.icaap.org/cgi-bin/glossary/SocialDict/SocialDict
Bond
David Johnston wrote:
I look forward to your explanation of the differences between communism, socialism
and fascism.
Bond
> all despise the individual and all manifestations of indivdualism. And
> that is all that matters.
Believe it or not I actually agree with you on this :-)
Bond
RES wrote:
Then I also look forward to your explanation of the differences between fascism,
communism and socialism.
Bond
David Johnston wrote:
As for you, I don't care what your opinions are on the differences between
fascism, socialism or communism.
Bond
> investigating cloning technology (could have a great affect on medical
> science). So what does that make me?
As I've been discovering in my research into the history of the terms
right wing vs. left wing, the terms are essentially meaningless. If I had
to make a generalization about you, I'd say that you are in favour of
abortion and cloning technology for the sake of progress.
David Johnston
But you just said you look forward to hearing them. Ah well, never mind then.
David Johnston
> >The New Democratic Party have a Socialist platform.
>
> That it does and that is precisely what makes them ideological cousins of
> the Communists and the Fascists.
Except of course for not wanting to establish a one party system in which
conformity of speech and action to the party goals is mandatory. I consider
that a significant difference.
David Johnston
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> >Communism also controls people by manipulating
> >their minds and killing them if they don't
> >support the state. It also exercises control
> >by killing them randomly and for imagined reasons.
>
> killikng people who do not buy the official ideology.
By libertarian standards Sweden and Britain were both collectivist regimes,
and neither did.
Erik T
left wing' idea, why not consider the more popular social-versus-fiscal
conservatism division here? /Erik Wandering why you placed objectivists on the
far left and libertarians on the right...
Bond wrote:
> I agree that conservatism is not the same thing as libertarianism.
> Libertarianism
> is a right wing philosophy while conservatism is hard-core left wing. It is
> the
> conservatives who are resistant to change and wan't to place controls on
> things
> like abortion, cloning, same-sex-marriages, etc. That is pretty hard-core
> left
> wing if you ask me. In fact the progressives are much more right wing that
> the
> conservatives (provided they raise their R & D dollars in the general market
> rather than steal it from taxpayers).
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
The repetitious thread as to whether Fascists were left or right or
whether Communists were Fascists is ultimately moot in any case as the
end result for the people that have lived under these systems has been
the same. Compliance with the governing ideology or punishment,
which, under both systems could mean death or the camps.
E. Barry Bruyea
No, it's the truth.
>
>
RES
Karl Pollak wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> RES <resc...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >OK I'll play.
> >
> >http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=fascism&hc=1&hs=20
> >
> >Contains some 123,000 website dealing with fascism. You may wish to read
> >one or two. Here's but a sampling of what you'll find.
> >
> >If you can find one credible link among these many 10's of thousands
> >which back the view that the Nazi's were socialist, please let us know
> >and we'll delink/delist the other 122,9999 ok? RES
>
> I would let you know as soon as I find _any_ credible link on the web on
> _any_ subject.
>
> >
> >Mussolini's definition. Hmm. Wonder why he is a 'former socialist'. Go
> >figure.
>
> He was a "former" Socialist because the Socialist Party was not radical
> enough for him. Or alternatively, he was too radical for the Italian
> Socialist Party executive.
>
> >http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
> >"Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology ...
>
> You only need to read this far to clue in that the writer is an idiot.
> There is no left or right.
>
> >that celebrates the
> >nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other
> >loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a
> >period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a
> >"spiritual revolution" against signs of moral decay such as
> >individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge "alien" forces and
> >groups that threaten the organic community.
>
> So substitute in the above "proletariat" or "working class" for "nation"
> and tell me how it is different from any Marxist babbling?
>
> >http://www.pipeline.com/~rgibson/fascism.html
> >"2. Fascism and capitalism are inseparable.
>
> Hello? One has nothing to do with the other.
>
> >http://www.stcloudstate.edu/~jaz/altruism/fascism.html
> >black shirts as uniforms. The early Fascist program was a mixture of
> >left-and right-wing ideas that emphasized intense NATIONALISM,
> >productivism, antisocialism, elitism, and the need for a strong leader."
>
> Like duuuh man! Of course it looks like a mixture of "left-and right-wing
> ideas" to somebody who is hell bent on pushing his own collectivist
> ideology and trying desperately to disassociate himself from all its
> manifestations.
>
> >http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/slouch_Alternatives12.html
>
> Berkely? Alternatives? And you don't think this is a Commie?
> >
> >"Most fascists' economic doctrine
> >was largely negative: they were not socialists, and they did not believe
> >that the Marxist platform of the nationalization of industry and the
> >expropriation of the capitalist class was the right way to run an
> >economy."
>
> OK, so tehre you have it. They were not Marxist Socialists, so they can't
> be Socialists at all. Tell that to Joy McPhail. I'm sure she'll give you
> an argument, I couldn't be bothered.
>
> >http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/world/lectures/fascism.html
> >"Each stage in the rise of European fascism can be related to a moment
> >of middle-class panic caused either by economic crisis or by its
> >consequences, the threat of socialist revolution."
>
> Holy smokes! Neighbours, lock up your daughters, the Socialists are coming
> 1!
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
Brent Beach
news:3BC68F...@telusplanet.net...
David is right on this one. Only the NDP would go that far.
JHall
wording, of course (new generation of lawyers and lawyers must make money
why else are they lawyers).
May I suggest that one may be wise to save this post as some of the
"points" listed may find there way into our fine democratic society.
Hint: georgie porgie with the BIG BIG penis and his "military" minded
henchpeople have made "outrageous & disgusting" overtures to their PR
CORPORATIONS that "some" ?NEWS? should be CENSORED with more "due
diligence".
This fiasco has provided the u.s. fascists with their springboard.
To ensure that the momentum is maintained the fbi is issuing "warnings"
that some of the cia's covert action teams may make "strikes" within
the u.s. borders.
Imagine these "war games" are now being played out "for real" rather than
in the "games' rooms" and hollywood. If the attack succeeds only a "few"
americans will die (but for all the right reasons) and if the attacks
fail then the "defense" is awarded 5 points and the weekend off.
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Karl Pollak wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> goldh...@my-deja.com (Goldhammer) wrote:
>
> >One could make a case that National Socialism is,
> >practically speaking, almost identical to Communism's
> >"first steps" as described by Marx and Engels in
> >the Communist Manifesto. The difference is who the
> >enemies were, and who the heros were.
>
> Let us open a few eyes, hitherto glued only to their pathetic dictionaries
> on web based propaganda, shall we?
>
> The Twenty-Five Points Of The National Socialist German Workers' Party,
> 1920
>
> The program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party is limited as
> to period. The leaders have no intention, once the aims announced in it
> have been achieved, of setting up fresh ones, merely in order to increase
> the discontent of the masses artificially, and so ensure the continued
> existence of the Party.
>
> 1) We demand the union of all Germans to form a Greater Germany on the
> basis of the right of self-determination enjoyed by nations.
>
> 2) We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with
> other nations, and abolition of the peace treaties of Versailles and
> Saint-Germain.
>
> 3) We demand land and territory (colonies) for the nourishment of our
> people and for settling our excess population.
>
> 4) None but members of the nation may be citizens of the state. None but
> those of German blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation.
> No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation.
>
> 5) Anyone who is not a citizen of the state may live in Germany only as a
> guest and must be regarded as being subject to foreign laws.
>
> 6) The right of voting on the leadership and legislation is to be enjoyed
> by the state alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of
> whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the country, or in the smaller
> localities, shall be granted to citizens of the state alone. We oppose the
> corrupting custom of Parliament of filling posts merely with a view to
> party considerations, and without reference to character or capacity.
>
> 7) We demand that the state shall make it its first duty to promote the
> industry and livelihood of citizens of the state. If it is not possible to
> nourish the entire population of the state, foreign nationals (non-citizens
> of the state) must be excluded from the Reich.
>
> 8) All non-German immigration must be prevented....
>
> 9) All citizens of the state shall be equal as regards rights and duties.
>
> 10) It must be the first duty of each citizen of the state to work with his
> mind or with his body. The activities of the individual may not clash with
> the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the
> community and be for the general good.
>
> WE DEMAND THEREFORE:
>
> 11) Abolition of incomes not earned by work.
>
> 12) In view of the enormous sacrifice of life and property demanded of a
> nation by every war, personal enrichment because of a war must regarded as
> a crime against the nation. We demand therefore ruthless confiscation of
> all war gains.
>
> 13) We demand nationalization of all businesses (trusts)....
>
> 14) We demand that the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared.
>
> 15) We demand extensive development of provision for old age.
>
> 16) We demand creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, immediate
> communalization of wholesale business premises, and their lease at a cheap
> rate to small traders, and that extreme consideration shall be shown to all
> small purveyors to the state, district authorities, and smaller localities.
>
> 17) We demand land reform suitable to our national requirements....
>
> 18) We demand ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious
> to the common interest. Sordid criminals against the nation, usurers,
> profiteers, etc., must be punished by death, whatever their creed or race.
>
> 19) We demand that the Roman Law, which serves the materialistic world
> order, shall be replaced by a legal system for all Germany.
>
> 20) With the aim of opening to every capable and industrious German the
> possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement, the
> state must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of
> education....
>
> 21) The state must see to raising the standard of health in the nation by
> protecting mothers and infants, prohibiting child labor, increasing bodily
> efficiency by obligatory gymnastics and sports laid down by law, and by
> extensive support of clubs engaged in the bodily development of the young.
>
> 22) We demand abolition of a paid army and formation of a national army.
>
> 23) We demand legal warfare against conscious political lying and its
> dissemination in the press. In order to facilitate creation of a German
> national press. In order to facilitate creation of a German national press
> we demand:
>
> a) that all editors of newspapers and their assistants, employing the
> German language, must be members of the nation;
>
> b) that special permission from the state shall be necessary before
> non-German newspapers may appears. These are not necessarily printed in the
> German language;
>
> c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participation
> financially in or influencing German newspapers....
>
> It must be forbidden to publish papers which do not conduce to the national
> welfare. We demand legal prosecution of all tendencies in art and
> literature of a kind likely to disintegrate our life as a nation, and
> the suppression of institutions which militate against the requirements
> above-mentioned.
>
> 24) We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the state, so far
> as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the moral
> feelings of the German race. The Party, as such, stand for positive
> Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any
> particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within us
> and without us....
>
> 25) That all foregoing may be realized we demand the creation of a strong
> central power of the state.
> Unquestioned authority of the politically centralized Parliament over the
> entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of chambers for
> classes and occupations for the purpose of carrying out the general laws
> promulgated by the Reich in the various states of the confederation.
>
> The leaders of the Party swear to go straight forward - if necessary to
> sacrifice their lives - in securing fulfillment of the foregoing points.
>
>
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
>
>
Goldhammer
>> >> Odd. Hitler and the Nazis considered themselves
>> >> socialists.
>> >
>> >Nope. Wrong. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. RES
>>
>> Actually, Goldhammer is right, you're not. Thank you for playing.
> You may not be aware, but your 'discovery' has yet to be accounted for
> in any political studies text yet written. RES
It's simply a matter of historical record that the
Nazis considered themselves socialists. But I gather
that what you are really asserting is that a 'political
studies text' has yet to be written which argues
that Nazism and communism are both forms of
socialism - not simply that the Nazis considered
themselves as much. In this, you would be wrong,
of course. In his book "The Road to Serfdom",
Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek exposes the common
socialist roots of communism, Nazism, and fascism,
and argues quite effectively against the myth that
communism and Nazism are somehow radically different.
Goldhammer
> Karl Pollak wrote:
>> RES <resc...@home.com> wrote:
>> >Goldhammer wrote:
>> >> Odd. Hitler and the Nazis considered themselves
>> >> socialists.
>> >
>> >Nope. Wrong. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. RES
>>
>> Actually, Goldhammer is right, you're not. Thank you for playing.
> You may not be aware, but your 'discovery' has yet to be accounted for
> in any political studies text yet written. RES
It's simply a matter of historical record that the
Nazis considered themselves socialists. But I gather
that what you are really asserting is that a 'political
studies text' has yet to be written which argues
that Nazism and communism are both forms of
socialism - not simply that the Nazis considered
themselves as much. In this, you would be wrong,
of course. In his book "The Road to Serfdom",
RES
Goldhammer wrote:
>
> In article <3BC61273...@home.com>, RES wrote:
> > Karl Pollak wrote:
> >> RES <resc...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >Goldhammer wrote:
>
> >> >> Odd. Hitler and the Nazis considered themselves
> >> >> socialists.
> >> >
> >> >Nope. Wrong. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. RES
> >>
> >> Actually, Goldhammer is right, you're not. Thank you for playing.
>
> > You may not be aware, but your 'discovery' has yet to be accounted for
> > in any political studies text yet written. RES
>
> It's simply a matter of historical record that the
> Nazis considered themselves socialists.
Correction. There were some Nazi's that thought of themselves as
'socialists'. These elements were purged during the 'Night of the Long
Knives'. You may not be aware that the only elected members of the
Reichstag TO OPPOSE the Nazi Party were the Social Democrats. They did
so at great personal risk. The SD of Germany was the mainstream
'socialist party' of Europe. The Nazi Party was anti-socialist,
notwithstanding *some* of their language and party policies. This
fiction about the 'socialist' nature of the Nazi Party is simply a myth
perpetrated by the ignorant and the extreme right wing, disowning their
own I suppose they think.
Which one are you? RES
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
But I gather
> that what you are really asserting is that a 'political
> studies text' has yet to be written which argues
> that Nazism and communism are both forms of
> socialism - not simply that the Nazis considered
> themselves as much. In this, you would be wrong,
> of course. In his book "The Road to Serfdom",
> Friedrich Hayek exposes the common socialist roots of
> communism, Nazism, and fascism, and argues quite
> effectively against the myth that communism and Nazism
> are somehow radically different.
Hayek is simply a voice in the wilderness and not considered any kind of
an authority when it comes to the study of fascism. The fact is all the
ideologies of the 20th C share 'roots'. But how on earth was Hayek
supposed to know this? <sarcasm> RES
Dave Simpson
RES wrote:
> Given their fundamental confusion\
Don't mistake confusion for other people's knowing more than you do.
Communism and fascism are well described as "fraternal twins" if you
view the collectivism and authoritarian totalitarianism shared by both.
While I view fascism as "right-wing" or one of the true instances in the
real world of what is called by a term woefully misused by idiots, "far
right," many people are aware that the extremes of left and right have
more in common with each other than you apparently have realized.
(It requires observation. It's hardly rare that someone is described as
"so far [lefr or right], [he or she] comes back around to the other siide,"
and fascism and communism have more in common than they don't
share, all the way to the same greater emphasis on "internal" than on
"external" defense, same pounding on the door at 3:00 AM, etc..)
You may not accept the claim in the following book that all forms of
authoritarian collectivism and removal of individual rights are leftist
(I do not), but you're foolish to dismiss it without thinking. (Indeed, to
dismiss it outright is proof of no thinking.) If the link is messed up, here
is the title, which is provocative enough. (There are reviews on the
page to which I'm providing a link that are both positive and negative.)
Leftism Revisited:
From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot
More provocative are sites such as these, which all address the foregoing
book and make other statements..
http://www.msu.edu/user/hallc/george/leftists.htm
http://www.ptloma.edu/philrel/reed/reedings/1992/18Rdng18.htm
RES
Dave Simpson wrote:
>
> RES wrote:
>
> > Given their fundamental confusion\
>
> Don't mistake confusion for other people's knowing more than you do.
>
> Communism and fascism are well described as "fraternal twins" if you
> view the collectivism and authoritarian totalitarianism shared by both.
> While I view fascism as "right-wing" or one of the true instances in the
> real world of what is called by a term woefully misused by idiots, "far
> right," many people are aware that the extremes of left and right have
> more in common with each other than you apparently have realized.
I happen to know fascism and communism have a great deal in common. They
are opposite sides of the same totaliarian coin. Just because you think
I don't know anything doesn't make it a fact. RES
> (It requires observation. It's hardly rare that someone is described as
> "so far [lefr or right], [he or she] comes back around to the other siide,"
> and fascism and communism have more in common than they don't
> share, all the way to the same greater emphasis on "internal" than on
> "external" defense, same pounding on the door at 3:00 AM, etc..)
>
> You may not accept the claim in the following book that all forms of
> authoritarian collectivism and removal of individual rights are leftist
> (I do not), but you're foolish to dismiss it without thinking.
You assume a great deal. RES
(Indeed, to
> dismiss it outright is proof of no thinking.)
Must I think about it now? RES
RES
Karl Pollak wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> RES <resc...@home.com> wrote:
> >Knives'. You may not be aware that the only elected members of the
> >Reichstag TO OPPOSE the Nazi Party were the Social Democrats. They did
> >so at great personal risk.
>
> What is that supposed to prove? The first party the Czech Communists
> eliminated after getting into power was the Cz. social democratic party. In
> fact the Soviet Communist party had evolved from the All Russia Social
> Democratic Party. It was subject to a rather nasty fratricidal fight
> between the Bolsheviks(majority) and the Mensheviks(minority) with the
> result that the Mensheviks were up before the firing squads even before
> those nasty capitalists.
>
> >The Nazi Party was anti-socialist,
> >notwithstanding *some* of their language and party policies. This
> >fiction about the 'socialist' nature of the Nazi Party is simply a myth
> >perpetrated by the ignorant and the extreme right wing, disowning their
> >own I suppose they think.
>
> Actually, this is a popular nonsense perpetrated by every other Socialist
> since WWII in order to disassociate themselves from the inescapable fact
> that all Socialist ideologies are just different flavours of the same evil.
>
> >Hayek is simply a voice in the wilderness and not considered any kind of
> >an authority when it comes to the study of fascism.
>
> That's right. He's not considered anything by those for whom his views are
> way too uncomfortable. If you can't debate him, you can always call him a
> crackpot.
>
You are the one dismissing 122,999 websites on fascism as having
opinions other than your own and dismissing them based on one
line.."fascism is a right wing political party...'. They of course
disagree with you so they must be incorrect. RES
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
David Johnston
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> However as a collectivist party, they woud sooner or later come to it
> anyway. May I remind you that they believe that their way is _THE_ONLY_WAY
> whcih pretty much implies that had they been in power enpough they would
> have eventually eliminated other political parties.
Nonsense. Socialists were the party in power for decades in Sweden and Britain
and did not eliminate other political parties.
Micheal Wilson
"Paul Keenleyside" <pl...@paralynx.com> wrote in message
news:3bc50aad$0$16...@fountain.mindlink.net...
>
> "RES" <resc...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3BC4DA9A...@home.com...
> >
> >
> > Goldhammer wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3bc46e00$0$25...@fountain.mindlink.net>, Paul Keenleyside
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > German was run by an extreme right wing fascist
> > >
> > > Odd. Hitler and the Nazis considered themselves
> > > socialists.
> >
> > Nope. Wrong. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. RES
>
> Actually he's right. the Nazi party of Germany had the offical German name
> of National Sozialiste Deutsche Arbeiter Partei
> (NSDAP) or in English The German National Socialist Worker's Party. It's
> where the moniker "Nazi" comes from.
> Check it out.
>
> Read the Oath to Hitler at:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hess1.htm
> There's references to the National Socialist
> cause in it.
>
> Should have paid more attention to the history book rather than the skirt
in
> the next row who was a member of the cheerleader squad, pal.
>
>
>
The National Socialist German Worker's Party was certainly not a socialist
party, in your definition of the word anyway. The night that the Reichstag
was burned down in 1933, the first decree Hitler sent out was that all
Communists were to be arrested.
I'm sorry, but if the name is your only proof that the Nazis were
socialists, you might as well just go home now.
--
Mike
Don't respond to the neo-con attacks in an angry way, don't let them push
you into saying stupid things. It's time for the real conservatives, the
moderates, and anyone else with something thoughtful to say to turn this
back into a discussion group. Eventually the extremists will leave.
Micheal Wilson
>
> > Did you know that Martians live among us?
>
> Right.
> One is named Marvin and wears a helmet that features a broom brush on the
> top and has a mute dog Commander K-9.
> He has destructive weaponry such as the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space
> Modulator.
>
Marvin the Martian is my favourite cartoon character. Why did they never
make a Marvin the Martian movie?
Micheal Wilson
"Karl Pollak" <ka...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:3bc57357....@news.pacificcoast.net...
> x-no-archive: yes> Of course. You're the proof of it.
>
Did you read any of the rest of my post?
Micheal Wilson
"Cy Coe" <cy...@cotse.com> wrote in message
news:846a4b0.01101...@posting.google.com...
> "Micheal Wilson" <Michea...@ooyah.com> wrote in message
news:<6f8x7.16160$jM.20...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>
> > You are not a right-winger. I am.
>
> I beg to differ. You're a left-of-centre faux-conservative, like
> Dalton Camp and David Orchard. Unfortunately, the federal PC party is
> full of you guys. And when the genuine conservatives left your party
> to go to Reform, your hold over the PC's became a death grip.
>
> You constantly side with the big-government confiscators on this
> newsgroup. IMHO, a conservative should at least pay some lip service
> to individualism and should oppose government social engineering. And
> MacDonald's "no truck or trade" colonialist rantings notwithstanding,
> a Canadian conservative shouldn't be anti-American. Anti-American
> nationalism, in its modern incarnation, is a product of the Canadian
> left.
No, anti-Americanism is traditionally a right-wing concept in Canada. In
the early 1960's, the Liberals were pushing for some sort of free trade deal
with the United States, and at that time it was Canada's right which opposed
cozying up to the US.
> Moderation is one thing. Lying is another. If you support the
> collectivist/egalitarian agenda of the left-wing posters on this
> newsgroup, then you are *not* a conservative.
>
I support anyone who puts thought into posting, and I oppose anyone who
prefers to resort to personal attacks rather than add thoughts to the
discussion. You have to understand that I, as a conservative, would prefer
it if more people on the right here were thoughtful. Until they do, you
will see me agreeing with the left-wingers on this NG. Except in policy
discussions, but they are pretty few and far between here. Usually when a
discussion of policy begins, someone on the right ends up getting frustrated
and throws personal insults around. You've seen it happen many times I'm
sure. I'm sure it bothers you too.