Liberals: How light on terror are we?

[SKILORD]

Well I porsonally think it absurd to define "Left" and "Right" as to whether or not you find this particular despot pleasing to your class. That is a trivial issue.

The basic duty of government is to establish a morality. Laws against murder attempt this, even socialism attempts this by forcibly promoting charity. That is simply why we have governments, in a (futile) attempt to keep our neighbors from violating us. I measure government by how it does this whether a) leave it to the people or b) takking matters (generally disasterously) into their own hands.

[Bosh]

Boris: Regardless of the charming platitudes that Hitler and his party mouthed they did (In fact) control the economy, Establish laws for the common health (These are seen as progressive!) solidify the German police state with the SS.

Then why was it people who had previously always voted for Right and Center parties that were the source of the Nazi's vote not the other way round. Basically right-wingers voted in the Nazis, while the German Left were their only real opposition (not very effective unfortunately), so therefore the Nazis were right. Pretty basic.

[Sava]

The basic duty of government is to establish a morality.

yikes, you actually believe this?

[SKILORD]

What would you say its duty was, then? To provide order? How does it do so? Through the establishment of laws to govern behavior. The governance of behavior would be (according even to subjectivists and other deniers of moral absolutes) morality.

Therefore since government's chief action is to control one's actions (through laws and taxes) it establishes a morality.

Basically right-wingers voted in the Nazis, while the German Left were their only real opposition (not very effective unfortunately), so therefore the Nazis were right. Pretty basic.

And left wingers I suppose voted in the Soviets in Russia?

No... they actually had elections in Germany on the matter.

-

I personally don't care who voted for him (apparently the majority of Germans did) (actually iirc, he never got the majority until after the reichtag fire). The parties that those people voted for beforehand, they were right wing by your (incorrect) definition or mine?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SKILORD
I personally don't care who voted for him

Typical libertarian, facts don't matter, only our arbitrary definitions.

[SKILORD]

:sigh:

Alright, we'll drop the steryotypical moves then. Were the parties that those people had voted for "right wing" by your definition (which encompasses the Nazis) or by mine (which means that those people went from being 'small gov't' to being Nazis)

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Control over the economy doesn't indicate left or right, it indicates a stance on control over the economy. To focus on that at the ignorance of all the other aspects, such as those listed above, is simply disingenuousness.

The lip service was being paid to socialism. The Nazis deliberately used the word to draw away the proletariat votes. It was simply chicanery, as they weren't in any way interested in a socialist state. Capitalism was alive and very healthy in Nazi Germany, state controls or no. Independent companies thrived and the consumer market was robust. There was no control over the means of production and distribution--this was left to private enterprise. The important word in the Nazi moniker was "National," not "socialist." They did indeed nationalize the economy, but they didn't socialize it. In fact, they pointedly de-socialized Austria's economy after the Anschluss. Why would a leftist government do such a thing?

Of course, you then have the fact that the Nazis were bitterly opposed by the country's communists, real socialists and other leftis organizations. And leftists fled in droves after the Nazis seized power. Why would they do this if the Nazis were leftist?

As for healthcare, look at what the goal of it was--racial eugenics. How is that leftist?

If I may, I'll go out on a limb here.

Control by the government over the economy is the fundamental issue that defines left and right, as far as economics are concerned. The difference on the continuum would be between complete freedom from government regulation as one pole and the complete domination by the government as the other. Most nations fall in the middle, except for the few experiments on the extreme left where the government either controlled all, or tried to.

The Nazis most certainly were interested in a state with much more control by the government than exited prior to them. The word Socialist was not chicanery, it revealed that they did indeed intend to make Germany a better place for Germans through centralised control.

Capitalism is alive and still breathing in Sweden, but they are not a socialist dominated country? Socialism does not bar capitalism, unless you drift too far to the left pole. The fact that capitalism continued to exist in Germany is not an argument against the Nazis deserving the name 'Socialist'.

That there was no control over the means of production is simple horse hooey. The government allocated resources and assigned quotas. Do you consider that left to the means of private enterprise?

You are correct in the importance ascribed to 'National', and there is the key dividing line. Most of socialism was arranged along the lines of international brotherhood and cooperation. The Nazis were antithetical on that point. They believed in Germany for Germans, and as much as possible of Poland, Ukraine, Russia, etc for Germans as well. What you are saying is that they were severe nationalists, not that they were not socialist as far as control of the economy, and all other aspects of life are concerned.

Why did members of the international struggle for socialism flee the Nazis? Because they would get their butts fried as the handiest manifestation of outside influences that the Nazis could get their hands on, that's why. You would have fled too if you represented the International and the people who pledged to purge Germany of corrupting influences like Moscow's communism and the treaty of humiliation seized power through fear and violence.

[Ramo]

Control by the government over the economy is the fundamental issue that defines left and right, as far as economics are concerned.

That's a silly definition that has no basis in popular usage. Anarchism, communism, and social democracy are thought of on the left; fascism, feudalism, and libertarianism are thought of on the right. There's no coorelation between government authority and left/right orientation.

So nye, do you believe that I'm further to the right than you are (I'd wager that I oppose more state authority than you would)?

[notyoueither]

So, there is no contrast between free market and controlled economy?

[Ramo]

I didn't say that. I said that doesn't define the left/right divide.

As someone who believes that the state ought to play a minimal role, and someone on the radical left.

Libertarians like your definition because they get to define everyone but them as on the "left." But being sectarian masturbation doesn't make it correct.

[notyoueither]

Uhm, it does as far as economics are concerned.

Now throw in social policies and assorted other issues.

I am arguing about the traditional placement of Franco at one extreme and Stalin at the other. Now, if you think they are the extremes, and FDR falls in the middle between them, I'm not sure what to say about that other than tht you too have been deluded.

[Ramo]

You're calling me deluded? I'm not arguing an absurdly sectarian definition.

You still haven't answered my question. Do you believe that I'm a far righty economically?

[notyoueither]

I don't have a freekin' clue what you are,Ramo, and nor do I tune into 'As the Poly Turns' enough to care.

Sorry to disappoint you, but get off yourself, OK?

[Ramo]

Relax dude, I'd assumed you knew that I was an anarchist after hinting at it in the previous posts. I don't care what you think of my positions, I was just demonstrating that anarchism fits your definition of the economic right, but is on the radical left.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So, there is no contrast between free market and controlled economy?

Ramo is right.

If you look at history the right have supported one or the other when it's suited them. The Left have done so too IIRC.

The only real distinction I think works in all cases is a commitment to equality or inequality. If you boil it down, that's what you end up with.

"Stripped of their romantic trimmings, all Hitler's ideas can be reduced to a simple claim for power which recognizes only one relationship, that of domination, and only one argument, that of force."

Excellent quote that from an excellent paper - where did you get that, Boris?