U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-15-2008, 07:44 PM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,692 times
Reputation: 173

Advertisements

i give up honestly. i still stand by what i wrote and what you wrote implied exactly what i said. honestly its time to hand it over to other people. it seems intelligent arguement ripping apart you argument has no bearing on your inextinguishable sense of always being right. even if people are shocked here, they may get a laugh.

please put up the poll. im tired of responding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2008, 11:35 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,832,743 times
Reputation: 1300
[MOD CUT]

maybe we can just say that comparisons of modern versus historic governments are not going to mesh perfectly, even if they follow similar ideologies and tenets. we are bickering over the definitions because there is a similarity between both sides, and because those similarities don't exactly represent the new incarnations. political and social evolutions. it's not gonna look the same in any case.

[MOD CUT]

aaron out.

EDIT: i've also made my feelings known about formal education, and find it just as ridiculously inefficient and incompetent as tricky does--but that doesn't mean that anyone that questions the slanted system is baseless and uneducated, or that their point of view can be so easily dismissed and insulted.

Last edited by Ibginnie; 10-15-2008 at 11:51 PM.. Reason: Stay on topic please, not other posters
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2008, 11:40 PM
 
Location: exit 0
4,121 posts, read 2,869,828 times
Reputation: 5224
Topic:

Naziism and the "right"

How about getting back to it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 07:07 AM
 
878 posts, read 1,846,679 times
Reputation: 460
Thanks for your input leangk!
Quote:
Originally Posted by leangk View Post
i believe the most accurate definition would be the fifth one "Fascism is an especially virulent form of far-right populism. Fascism glorifies national, racial, or cultural unity and collective rebirth while seeking to purge imagined enemies, and attacks both revolutionary movements and liberal pluralism in favor of militarized, totalitarian mass politics. Fascism first crystallized in Europe in response to the Bolshevik Revolution and the devastation of World War I, and then spread to other parts of the world.."
I would respond that your definition presupposes the idea that Fascism is right wing, so using it to justify Nazis as being right-wing is inappropriate.

Taking the rest as valid, I think that the idea of totalitarianism and purging enemies (real or imagined) is not a right/left political philosophy, but a necessity for any system of government (including the extreme left or right) to maintain control. Unless "enemies" are eliminated and government fixed, there is always the potential (in a democratic society) for the government to swing left or right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leangk View Post
the nazis and fascists are called "right-wing" because of the right wing "trait" of being anti-gay, anti-immigrants and anti-different, militarilistic (im not saying its true just thats the image and generalizations given to the right). even though we know the anzis were more socialist then right wing.
This goes back to my point that the characterization of the Nazi party as far-right is intended more as political football than as a legitimate characterization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,692 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0 View Post
Thanks for your input leangk!

I would respond that your definition presupposes the idea that Fascism is right wing, so using it to justify Nazis as being right-wing is inappropriate.

Taking the rest as valid, I think that the idea of totalitarianism and purging enemies (real or imagined) is not a right/left political philosophy, but a necessity for any system of government (including the extreme left or right) to maintain control. Unless "enemies" are eliminated and government fixed, there is always the potential (in a democratic society) for the government to swing left or right.


This goes back to my point that the characterization of the Nazi party as far-right is intended more as political football than as a legitimate characterization.
no i know that the definition said right wing, but that is why i purposely said "that part is invalid"/ aside the purging of enemies is as you said neither left or right wing, but one of the "traits" of fascism (which yes people automatically associate with right wing and this is wrong)

people tend to look, as i said, at the anti-gay, anti0immigrant stance of the nazis and make a quick (although not completely wrong) association with the modern right (modern right in the extreme context). this look at only the most "extreme policies" instead of the overall inner policies such as unions, socialism and an overall centralized socialized government, leads people to the conclusion that the Nazi' were right wing. the second conclusion is the one often taught in school that they are fascists. thses two points makes people make the connection therefore that right wing= fascists.

which we have discussed and disproved here with our left wing facsist examples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 01:47 PM
 
225 posts, read 306,440 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0 View Post
I see a lot of posts talking about the "left wing" or the "right wing," analogizing either side to "Communism" or "Nazi/Fascism" respectively.

I question the analogy between Nazism and the term "right wing," as it is commonly used. Looking at some of the political positions of the Nazi party, they are more in line with modern liberalism than modern conservativism.

Examples:


The Rise of Hitler - The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party

Given these platforms are generally opposed by modern Conservatives (considered the "right wingers"), isn't it inappropriate to equate "Nazis" with "far right"?

In fact, many of the policies outlined in the 25 points should best be described as "nationalist socialism," which would be left of center, more towards Communism than conservative thought.

Your thoughts?

edit: I'm not saying that all liberals are Nazis, some of the positions of the Nazi party are deplorable and to suggest that any political affiliation could embrace these by proxy is highly inappropriate.
I went and read the 25 points and you really should post all of them because together they tell quite a different story. The crucial and, in my opinion, discussion ending point is that the Nazi 25 points hinge on a German purity test to begin with. Once you are determined to be of sufficient Germanic purity (read: not Jewish), you are "in the club" and share in the spoils of war, conquest and genocide. Liberals, on the other had, do not require a purity test before you are allowed to share in the spoils of a fair and inclusive society. When viewed this way, the Nazi party looks surprisingly like the modern right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 02:47 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 7,562,862 times
Reputation: 1023
I think the OP's goal is doomed.

1. Trying to predict or interpret a political movement's actions and significance only from its originating documents is bound to present an incomplete picture of that movement. You also have to look at the actions the movement's leader take in the real world. Would it be a valid exercise in history or political philosophy to predict or understand the American political system only by reading the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution?

2. The OP has his own ideas about what 'socialism' is, mostly reflecting the notions popularized by the American hard Right Wing and perhaps also today's libertarian political philosophy. The OP applies the word 'socialism' as if it identifies a well-defined political system when in reality all around the world there is significant range of opinion as to its meaning.

3. The OP doesn't seem to identify the fact that Germany historically is a highly ethnically homogeneous society, like several other of today's nations in Europe and unlike the United States. A nation-state that is highly ethnically homogeneous, not surprisingly, might tend toward a social policy in which notions of "social welfare" are more accepted and even expected because the nation's members see themselves as existentially connected to each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 02:55 PM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,692 times
Reputation: 173
the problem we have to think about is politics change. what was very "leftl" 100 years ago may be considered very "right wing today".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 03:16 PM
 
878 posts, read 1,846,679 times
Reputation: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain View Post
I think the OP's goal is doomed.
The only reason the goal is doomed is because, as is evident from your and Heracles' posts, the left refuses to debate the merits of the argument.

The only connection between Nazism and the modern Right is the assumption that overbearing police force, racism, and suppressing political thought are characteristics of the "Right."

Taking this to its logical conclusion, the left should be about minimal police intrusion, acceptance of all people, and openness towards political ideas.

Unfortunately, the realities of communism (see Cuba, DPRK, and USSR) and modern liberalism (hate crimes, religious intolerance, and government imposed fairness) prove that this original assumption is misplaced.

The facts described do not do not necessitate the opposite view (e.g. all leftists are racist, all right wingers are culturally accepting), but rather that political extremism requires suppression of political dissent, scape goating of some class of people, and near-absolute police control over the populace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 04:02 PM
 
225 posts, read 306,440 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0 View Post
The only reason the goal is doomed is because, as is evident from your and Heracles' posts, the left refuses to debate the merits of the argument...
It has been debated and your argument has been found to be without merit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top