Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/11/2002 7:42:03 PM EDT
I'm having a arguement with one of my roommates about this. He maintains they were right, I'm saying left. We can both find sources to back ourselves up, but almost all of them have political slants or are AOL or Geocities websites written by God only knows who. Anyone here know of any sources with verifiable credentials that will help? Thanks. Kyle
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 7:45:32 PM EDT
Pick up a copy of "The Ominous Parallels" by Dr. Leonard Piekoff. It will tell you everyting you want to know in great detail. BTW, they were leftists.
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 8:16:39 PM EDT
Pssst.... National [b]SOCIALISTS[/b] German Workers Party. The notion that they were "far right (Facists)" comes from their association with Italy and their conflict with "also left" communism. Of course people convientely forget the National SOCIALISTS also did away with the "right" Republic of Germany. That and Democrats (Socialists/Communists) love to brand ANYTHING that they are opposed to as NAZI. Nevermind the ironic contradiction that Nazi Germany was a SOCIALIST state.
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 8:30:21 PM EDT
SteyrAUG is right on with this one.
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 8:37:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wiggins: I'm having a arguement with one of my roommates about this. He maintains they were right, I'm saying left. We can both find sources to back ourselves up, but almost all of them have political slants or are AOL or Geocities websites written by God only knows who. Anyone here know of any sources with verifiable credentials that will help? Thanks. Kyle
View Quote
Take your roomate to a marker board. Make three columns: 1. Communists, 2. Nazis and 3. Your typical American "right wing" nut case. Then in each row, present an issue: 1. Tax Laws, 2. Gun Control, 3. Laws on Businesses, etc. I think only then will your roomate clear his head of the leftist notion that anyone "right wing" is a fascist. It was the communists and pro-Trotsky internationalist people in the 1940s and 50s who first used that tirade about how the Nazis were "right wing" since they were racist, anti-semitic, etc. It's interesting to point out that Ben Gurion and his wife were about as socialist as Hitler and Goeing for that matter. Hitler believe in eugenics whereas Ben Gurion just wanted a Jewish state and would kick anyone out that opposed the lan take over. That's the only difference to sum things up. themao [chainsawkill] _____________________________ Got ice picks?
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 8:53:55 PM EDT
The interesting part of this debate is that my roomate is right wing, but he is using sources from university websites that don't give sources or the names of the authors and calling them good. I have been using websites that point out the socialist side of the Nazi party, but finding these from "non slanted sources" (i.e. right wing sources) has been dificult. So far I only have the dictionary and encarta. All my other sources are not credible to him, and when I ask him about Nazi right wing policies silence is the only answer I get. What he wants to see is a legitmately unbias source that directly states that the Nazis were left wing. Thanks for the ideas so far. Keep em coming. Deliverator, I'll check that book out. Kyle
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 9:00:29 PM EDT
Socialist lefties. Will I get arrested if I wore a green shirt that says "Green Party" (in white) under a large white Swastika? ***Disclaimer*** I am not a nazi, but I would wear a shirt like that in hopes that it may prevent someone for voting Green..Or, to piss-off a Green Party supporter.
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 9:16:32 PM EDT
Here is a fun point to ponder: The name Nazi is a contraction for the German Nationalist Socialist Worker's Party, and you can't get much more lefty with that name unless you stuck the word communist in place of socialist. The Nazis were pro big government, anti-gun, socialist, and very very PC/groupthink oriented. The US Democratic party is pro big government, anti-gun, socialist, and very very PC/groupthink oriented. The Democrats ARE the American Nazi party! And guess what most of the Jews in this country are registered as?
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 9:40:46 PM EDT
The Nazis were kinda week on coherent ideology, but they had strong socialist strains. See [url]http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/PROGRAM.htm[/url] for a party platform. The Nazis were not "right" in the conventional European sense. Rightists were in favor of tradition; the Nazis were (and proclaimed themselves to be) revolutionaries, out to smash the old society. They were not pro-Christian (more like neo-pagan) and had no use for the monarchy or traditional social structures such as the aristocracy. It's a mistake to lump all the European Fascist movements into one undifferentiated mass. There were some significant differences; you can make a better case for other varieties of Fascists being rightists, such as the Spanish or perhaps the Italians.
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 9:57:11 PM EDT
Thanks for the source, that is exactly the type of thing I am looking for. Kyle
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 10:27:02 PM EDT
Most people think of the right wing-left wing thing as some sort of points on a straight line. Many years ago my political science prof and I, in a discussion about this very topic, decided that the whole thing makes a lot more sense if you forget the straight line thing, and think of it as a circle. If you start at the bottom of the circle, and consider it the "middle of the road", go left with the Socialists, then the Communists, and go right with the Fascists, then the Nazis, you'll find that the Commies and the Nazis end up side by side at the top of the circle. There are differences. The full bore Communists do not believe in private ownership of any means of production. The Nazis were OK with private ownership, but wanted the power to tell the owners how much of what to produce. That's just one example; there are others. Basically though, both schemes give the government effective control of the means of production. Both involve subordinating individual freedom to "the greater good"; ie. the state.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 9:09:06 AM EDT
Communists and other far-left socialists like to refer to Nazis as right-wing, but in reality, all were socialist, and competed for the same socialist minded people. It is all totalitarianism, and against personal freedom, regardless of the political theory used as an excuse for socialists pointing guns at people and forcing them to do what they tell them. After all, in their view, the world would be perfect if only everyone would do as they are ordered. All the left-wing, right-wing, all refers to various types of socialism. It is all socialism.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 10:00:49 AM EDT
The only reason we even speak of 'left wing' and 'right wing' is due solely to the seating arrangements of the deputies at the Estates-General. The 'Mountain' was composed of the highest seats that were on the left hand side of the assembly room in which the delegates met. These '[i][b]Montangards[/b][/i]' or 'Mountain men' were the original leftists of European politics. And, since they sat on the left side of the assembly room, they were collectively referred to as the 'Left.' The 'right' was composed of the [b][i]Feuillants[/i][/b], who favored a turn towards constitutional monarchy. The center, or 'The Plain', which was composed of the most deputies insofar as numbers were concerned, were the [i][b]Girondists[/b][/i], but, as they were usually leaderless, they went back and forth between the two radical factions. Whoever controlled 'The Plain' controlled the [i][b]Estates-General[/b][/i]. But why in the world should we put Adolph Hitler on one end of the political spectrum, as a 'right wing' dictator, with Joseph Stalin on the other end, as a 'left wing' dictator, simply based upon the French model? Hitler and Stalin should be at one end of the political spectrum (totalitarian) with no government (anarchy) at the opposite end. That makes sense! Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 1:16:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2002 1:20:08 PM EDT by Troy]
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 1:49:44 PM EDT
From the quiz: [b] Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) [red]They never do a draft unless it is necessary. But what if they need the people?[/red] Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. [red]Of course not! That doesn't make me a Libertarian.[/red] Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. [red]Like the ones that are enforced? How is this relevant. No one cares (including Republicans)! [/red] Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. [red]This is the Libertarian party platform.[/red] People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. [red]This is a lousey question. State borders or national borders?[/red] Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. [red]Yep.[/red] People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. [red]Of course.[/red] Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. [red]Yes.[/red] End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. [red]Alright![/red] All foreign aid should be privately funded. [red]Amen![/red] [/b] This is a crappy quiz. No offense Paul. It is designed in such a way that people tend to choose Libertarianism. A real, honest quiz would have more questions, and not insert test makers opinions into questions. BTW - I am a conservative.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 2:17:51 PM EDT
Wow, I am a Centrist!
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 2:56:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PostWhore: SteyrAUG is right on with this one.
View Quote
Ditto. Many would like to push the "to the right" stance, but who are they that call them to the right? Might those be in fact a litle to the left?
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 3:21:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shamayim: Most people think of the right wing-left wing thing as some sort of points on a straight line. Many years ago my political science prof and I, in a discussion about this very topic, decided that the whole thing makes a lot more sense if you forget the straight line thing, and think of it as a circle. If you start at the bottom of the circle, and consider it the "middle of the road", go left with the Socialists, then the Communists, and go right with the Fascists, then the Nazis, you'll find that the Commies and the Nazis end up side by side at the top of the circle. There are differences. The full bore Communists do not believe in private ownership of any means of production. The Nazis were OK with private ownership, but wanted the power to tell the owners how much of what to produce. That's just one example; there are others. Basically though, both schemes give the government effective control of the means of production. Both involve subordinating individual freedom to "the greater good"; ie. the state.
View Quote
Your political science professor did not decide anything. He is full of shit. The original Political spectrum started as a straight line and makes more sense as such for the sake of distintion in the role of government. See ETH's post above
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 3:26:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Torf: This is a crappy quiz. No offense Paul. It is designed in such a way that people tend to choose Libertarianism.
View Quote
Bingo!
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 3:28:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: As usual, things are a little more complicated, and describing parties on a single-axis graph is unrealistic. [url]www.self-gov.org/gif/s050_050.gif[/url] This is a better description (two axis). [b]Political Philosophies[/b] Libertarian Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity. Left-Liberal Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality. Centrist Centrist favor selective government intervention and emphasize practical solutions to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on new issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty. Conservative Right-conservatives prefer self-government on economic issues, but want official standards in personal matters. They want the government to defend the community from threats to its moral fiber. Authoritarian Authoritarians want government to advance society and individuals through expert central planning. They often doubt whether self-government is practical. Left-authoritarians are also called socialists, while fascists are right-authoritarians. Find out YOUR position: [url]www.lp.org/quiz/[/url] -Troy [Note: this graph is NOT reflective of MY position.]
View Quote
As a Libertarian myself...i disagree. The original staight spectrum is better. why tilt it on its axis? Is not Authortarian left? Libertarianism right? why complicate things more then need be when its obviously parrell. simple: Left=more govt (post-modern liberals/Authortarians) Right=less govt (Conservative/libertarians)
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 3:36:13 PM EDT
Interesting question. Bork addressed this in "Slouching Toward Gomorrah." His position is that far right (say, theocracy) vs far left (socialism) is a false dichotomy: the real debate is between freedom and totalitarianism. Utopianism inevitably leads to totalitarianism, regardless of whether you're talking about a "right wing" or "left wing" utopia. Extreme libertarianism sometimes gets so impractical it's comical. But I'll bet most people on this board have a strong libertarian bent, in that they believe in personal liberty, and generally keeping the government out of our personal business.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 3:39:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 3:56:28 PM EDT
Regardless of whether you use a circle, or a straight line, after you're done, write down the name and function of every regulatory agency starting with local, then state, then federal, and what they regulate. Compare the results with the 10 planks in Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto", and plot the social/govt. structure in which you live. Enjoy....
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 5:27:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2002 5:28:29 PM EDT by gunman0]
Center is the only way to be. Extreme right is a theocracy, extreme left is communism, and libertarianism is one step from anarchy. Libertarianism sounds good, but will not work in a real government situation. Several questions for libertarians: 1) What about a rebellion among citizens, how can you possibly deal with it without violating your platform? 2) What if a massive invasion occurs on the US mainland? How do you fund, manufacture equipment, and man your war machine to defend the country? 3) Infrastructure? How do you keep control, or even allow for services such as electricity, cable television, telephone, gas, water, and roadways? 4) Trade and diplomacy. If all international trade is unregulated, how could you possibly prevent your enemies from using your own industry to supply its future war against you? 5) If all people were able to cross borders at will, how would you handle the influx of poor, unskilled, non-english speaking laborers? How would you prevent enemies from entering the country? As you answer any of the above questions, you end up straying drastically from the libertarian ideals, and going either towards the left or right. Government is a balance, and although our country is currently leaning a little too far the left for my taste, it is at least functioning. I don't want a right wing government either, but a balance works well.
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 10:19:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shamayim: ....Many years ago my political science prof and I, in a discussion about this very topic, decided that the whole thing makes a lot more sense if you forget the straight line thing, and think of it as a circle. If you start at the bottom of the circle, and consider it the "middle of the road", go left with the Socialists, then the Communists, and go right with the Fascists, then the Nazis, you'll find that the Commies and the Nazis end up side by side at the top of the circle.
View Quote
Then where in the flaming fart would I end up at? I support property rights and ZERO GOVERNMENT. Can you draw this circle pour moi?
There are differences. The full bore Communists do not believe in private ownership of any means of production. The Nazis were OK with private ownership, but wanted the power to tell the owners how much of what to produce. That's just one example; there are others. Basically though, both schemes give the government effective control of the means of production. Both involve subordinating individual freedom to "the greater good"; ie. the state.
View Quote
How did the Nazis support any form of "private ownership", if you played it out to its logical conclusion? This country is the same way. If you don't pay property taxes on your house for instance, the government will steal the money from you via force or seize the whole damn thing. Thus, you don't own shit, the state owns you and allows you to use it just like in the Soviet Union. They US federal govt. could ban all SUVs tomorrow for "the good of the people", just like the Nazis or Soviets. Sadly enough, all these sheeple would then hand their trucks in without a fight. Again Wiggins, don't buy into this bullshit argument about Nazis being "right winged". They use it as a slur against those who love freedom and private property, just because we tend not to support affirmative action, civil rights legislation (that gives the government power to say that businesses can't discriminate against customers/employees on the basis of X) or whatever else that pisses socialists off about freedom. themao [chainsawkill] ________________________________ Got ice picks?
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 10:21:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Hitler and Stalin should be at one end of the political spectrum (totalitarian) with no government (anarchy) at the opposite end. That makes sense! Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
I'm shocked a neocon like you would understand that. Jonah Goldberg would be appalled. Bravo Eric. themao [chainsawkill] ___________________________ Got ice picks?
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 10:29:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2002 10:32:54 PM EDT by themao]
[url]http://www.politopia.com/[/url] This is a much better quiz to take. The grid could also be interpretted as a straight line, if one drew a diagonal line from the libertarian/anarchist guy all the way down to Hitler and Jesse Jackson. [url]http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=zeron[/url] This is good too. My friend at Wash U. made this quiz. Here's the article explaining it: [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.html[/url] themao [chainsawkill] ______________________________ Got ice picks?
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 10:54:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gunman0: Center is the only way to be. Extreme right is a theocracy, extreme left is communism, and libertarianism is one step from anarchy.
View Quote
In order: B.S. Centrism is all relative; B.S. extreme right is everybody capable of handling themselves like 90% of the people on AR15.com; YES commis SUCK; and where do you place libertarianism on the spectrum, depending of course how you define it?
Libertarianism sounds good, but will not work in a real government situation.
View Quote
You mean in a government created situation? Libertarianism can work as long as people are not given incentives to steal from others via the state or be bumbs. I'll answer my question from a more classical/anarcho-capitalist version of libertarianism, more along the likes of Murray Rothbard (my favorite man) and Ludwig Von Mises.
1) What about a rebellion among citizens, how can you possibly deal with it without violating your platform?
View Quote
Simple answer: NOTHING. People should have the right to self-determination. If people in California want to MAO worship Pete Wilson and Dianne Feinstein, then so be it. They should not be allowed to send clowns to Congress whom make laws restricting our gun rights. Private property and freedom rises above all.
2) What if a massive invasion occurs on the US mainland? How do you fund, manufacture equipment, and man your war machine to defend the country?
View Quote
Although such an event, historically speaking, is due to provocation of some sorts by the country being invaded, private insurance firms (in the case of a governmentless society) could be used to ward off attacks. Similary, "public works" much like the original Swiss militia system (before those damned Calvinist WASPs socialized the country) could be employed as well. It may be to the benefit of a region of private property owners to agree upon such matters via contract, but all the while such a contract could allow for private property, meaning a "unsatisfied customer" could leave and seek protection elsewhere.
3) Infrastructure? How do you keep control, or even allow for services such as electricity, cable television, telephone, gas, water, and roadways?
View Quote
Privatize. Those companies have to deal with other people's private property right now, and it would be far cheaper this way than to pay the state ridiculous licensing fees to gain access to "public works". Canada privatized a few of their highways with great success, and people are ENCOURAGED to drive on them because they make $$$$ that way.
4) Trade and diplomacy. If all international trade is unregulated, how could you possibly prevent your enemies from using your own industry to supply its future war against you?
View Quote
The only enemies you'll make is your competitors in selling all that fun sh#t. Honestly, what enemies genuinely THREATEN the United States? How many can lob a nuke at us or dare to do so? How many can take us over? So all the while we sell crap to enemy, he goes broke on worthless war capital while you go rich making it. The economics doesn't add up, and I don't recall history giving an example where one armed their own enemy and it led to their downfall.
5) If all people were able to cross borders at will, how would you handle the influx of poor, unskilled, non-english speaking laborers? How would you prevent enemies from entering the country?
View Quote
Borders are irrelevant. Private property is though, and basically whoever owns land, can do as he/she pleases on who walks or crosses over it. If some rancher wants to shoot any Mexican that enters his land, then so be it. I'll give him a beltfed machinegun to do so. This is where the state fails. They allow these people to come in and take your private property through health care and social security. Immigration should be left to private property owners. People should only be allowed to immigrate to and from their batches of private property or via whomever allows these people to pass to and fro. themao [chainsawkill] ___________________________________ Got ice picks?
Top Top