Milo/UC Berkley protestors stop 'hate speech' by using violence and hate...

B&W said:
Go check on Wikipedia, if you are unaware of what is right wing.

In a nut shell it describes a broad swathe of political positions mostly socially/economic conservative and usually strongly identify with nationalism.

Extreme right wing is where modern day fascists usually lie.

What is the point of your question though as obviously you know what right wing is.
Click to expand...

Your post is an interesting one. Whilst I'm sure you, I and many others are aware of the points you've stated, to many, anyone who doesn't think everyone should be able to do whatever they want and should be openly embraced for doing it is seen as being right wing.
 
Evangelion said:
The SA faction was purged as early as possible, because Hitler correctly recognised that their ideas were incompatible with Nazism.
Click to expand...

He did mention that (the night of the long knives),as an aside, ref: your quote, I'm not sure that I'd count anti liberal ideology as being al that compatible with being pro-business, they were rather anti free markets and very keen on state control. It is accepting of business, sure but it isn't a particularly business friendly ideology.

Though that they had the purge isn't particularly relevant to the reason this came up in the thread which was that people who are perhaps (more accurately than most) referred to as "nazis" such as Richard Spencer (the figure mentioned a few posts back), do seem to adopt those sorts of national socialist beliefs. As did the BNP, they were influenced by Strasserism too. The fact that it was later purged in the actual original nazis doesn't really take away from the fact that the people that are perhaps closest to what you could describe as "nazis" today are very much in line with that ideology and strongly influenced by it.

Rather unlike say the subject of the OP or people like Jordan Peterson etc.. who get "nazi" shouted at them with no real basis.
 
VincentHanna said:
Nobody with critical thought believes this.

Stupid comments like this is what @B&W is attempting to draw attention to.
Click to expand...

I was being some what hyperbolic, but compare how often you see the terms far left and far right used compared to just left/right/libertarian/centralist these days.

The conversation gets pushed to extremes (extremes of any political kind are bad) as that's all that is seen. American politics is far worse for this but we are not far behind.
 
B&W said:
Go check on Wikipedia, if you are unaware of what is right wing.
Click to expand...

I can look at a dictionary or encyclopedia defintion of a phrase like 'right wing' trouble is it seems in contemporary usage that such phrases are rather too broadly and sometimes confusingly applied to disparate groups to the point where the team becomes rather meaninglessness.

B&W said:
In a nut shell it describes a broad swathe of political positions mostly socially/economic conservative and usually strongly identify with nationalism.
Click to expand...

A 'broad swathe' you say? I just wonder why it's relevant that some may describe me and people with similiar views as 'right wing' when we are for the personal liberty of citizens of a country and the rights of individuals generally over rights of groups and support free markets over thoose who support heavy state control?

Because facist states like nazi Germany and states like the USSR seem to have more in common with each other here then with me and my fellow thinkers when it comes to matters of how economies should be run (I.e with heavy state interference for the former) and how societies should operate (I. E based along the elevation of the group over the individual) ?

B&W said:
Extreme right wing is where modern day fascists usually lie.
Click to expand...

I'm not really that interested in assigning left right positions too much because I think such a linear scale is misleading. As above I wonder why you apparently think its more meaningful to group disparate organisations with massive differences in how they think economics and society should be run when the people at the other end of the scale appear to have far more in common here?

VincentHanna said:
According to Carakus2k, the Nazis were left-wing.
Click to expand...

According to me..... the nazi's had more in common with other socialists when it comes to economics and and societal organisation then they do with people like me who don't think collective identity politics is a great idea in general beyond thinking that it helps to have a state where there is some common consensus on matters of liberty and security
 
Last edited:
The problem you have with Nazism Vs socialism is you are viewing it via a 21st century lens.

In the 30s, National Socialism stood for a dictatorial one party party state in order to regain control and economic stability. Autarky with huge state intervention and protectionism in all industries, private and nationalised, to secure self sufficiency and the promotion of the nation state and people of that nation above all else. The use of violence to neutralise opposition and rejection of a liberal democracy. It was a direct challenge to the hyper inflation and failed political classes who came before.

Those principles have cross over with Socialism in removing the free market from the elite for the good of the masses (private businesses like VW, Siemens and IBM did very well out of the Nazi industrialists), use of force in dealing with opposition and removing a liberal democracy in the case of communism. Hitler in his 1941 speech deliberately stated Nazism was similar to Marxism. In post WW1 Germany the country was awash with the disinfranchised with communist principles from the East and Fascism from the South creeping into the political discussion.

Hitler didn't hate communism, he identified, correctly, the Soviet Union as probably the only force on the continent with the resources and sheer man power to steam roller over him. Operation Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike as he knew he was on borrowed time with Stalin planning his invasion.
 
Last edited:
Evangelion said:
* they were aggressive capitalists
Click to expand...

More context to consider for this claim from the notorious facists mouthpiece that is the BBC and economist Germa Bel....

BBC said:
How Hitler increased employment

  • He began a huge programme of public works, which included building hospitals, schools, and public buildings such as the 1936 Olympic Stadium. The construction of the autobahns created work for 80,000 men.
  • Rearmament was responsible for the bulk of economic growth between 1933 and 1938. Rearmament started almost as soon as Hitler came to power but was announced publicly in 1935. This created millions of jobs for German workers.
  • The introduction of the National Labour Service (NLS) meant all young men spent six months in the NLS and were then conscripted into the army.
  • The German Labour Front (DAF). This was a Nazi organisation that replaced Trades Unions, which were banned. It set wages and nearly always followed the wishes of employers, rather than employees.
  • Small business - Rules on opening and running small businesses were tightened, which resulted in 20 per cent of them closing.
Click to expand...

The BBC do state that thoose in control of 'big business benefitted under the nazi's but who was benefitting from the Nazi state' s economic actions?

Let's see what an economist has to say.....


Germa Bel said:
Abstract:
The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also
unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. (emphasis mine) As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a
political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.


It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State-
owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party (emphasis mine)

Conclusions
Although modern economic literature usually ignores the fact, the Nazi government in 1930s
Germany undertook a wide scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in several State-owned firms in different sectors. In addition, delivery of some public services previously produced by the public sector was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the Nazi Party.
Ideological motivations do not explain Nazi privatization. (emphasis mine)

However, political motivations were important. The Nazi government may have used privatization as a tool to improve its relationship with big industrialists and to increase support among this group for its policies. Privatization was also likely used to foster more widespread political support for the party. Finally, financial motivations played a central role in Nazi privatization. The proceeds from privatization in 1934-37 had relevant fiscal significance: No less than 1.37 per cent of total fiscal revenues were obtained from selling shares in public firms. Moreover, the government avoided including a huge expenditure in the budget by using outside-of-the-budget tools to finance the public services franchised to Nazi organizational. (emphasis mine)

Nazi economic policy in the mid-thirties went against the mainstream in several dimensions.
The huge increase in public expenditure programs was unique, as was the increase in the armament programs, and together they heavily constrained the budget. Exceptional policies were put in place to finance this exceptional expenditure, and privatization was just one among them. Nazi Germany privatized systematically, and was the only country to do so at the time. This drove Nazi policy against the mainstream, which flowed against privatization of state ownership or public services until the last quarter of the twentieth century.
Click to expand...

So conscripted Labour, huge expansion of public works, prohibition of trade unions, privatization driven by need not ideology and generally only the party faithful being allowed to be the one's to profit from Nazi policies.....

The nazi's actions were not a result of ideology but a practical response to the needs to re arm quickly and to retain support from the party faithful.

Much like Lenin's actions in the 1920's where, driven by a another pressing set of practical needs, he allowed the re introduction of markets and private enterprise in the USSR.

This doesn't mean Lenin wasn't a Socialist and by the same logic the privitisation enacted by the Nazi's in the 1930`s doesn't stop them being ideologically socialist either.
 
What is being "ideologically socialist", it can't both fool people it's socialist when it's actions are antithetical to that and still be socialist, unless of course this some strange double bluffing, it seem's rather senseless to just discount things that move them closer to the centre (mix of left/right wing policies) and right wing in general.

Otherwise any party doing anything outside their usual set of policies is just a big old lie and never ever changes their inherent politics, we know this isn't true as it's happened often enough.

We know how the USSR ended up because we let it live, we'll never know how Nazi Germany would have ended up politically, so it seems abrasively obtuse to assume.

The biggest issue with Nazi Germany is the fact it was a war economy, and i'm not sure how you can separate it from that reality without making gross assumptions riddled with bias.

To me if it is truly to be socialism, then it clearly took a huge backseat vs nationalism which is where the far-right gets it's rather abusive imagery.
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
What is being "ideologically socialist",
Click to expand...

People have tried being fully 'ideologically socialist' in the past.

For example Lenin when the reds won the civil war.... and the results have been so disastrous that even a commited socialist like Lenin needed to let pragmatism rule over ideology and retreat on his ideological beliefs about how the economy should be run to avert total disaster.

Pragmatism (and human greed) repeatedly outweigh ideology when it comes to socialism.

This doesn't at all get the ideology of the hook as it's the inevitable outcome of the ideology.

Lenin didn't re introduce markets into the USSR in the 1920`s because of his ideology he did it despite his ideology which was always that the state could seize private property and industry as it pleased.

The nazi's similarly seized private property and industry as it suited them in the 1930`s (often Jewish possessions) and pragmatically sold off stuff to powerful nazi members and sympathisers to reinforce their power as they were paying to re arm their country for war.

The Nazi regime did not have any scruples in applying force and terror, if that was judged useful. And in economic policy it did not abstain from numerous regulations and interventions in markets, in order to further rearmament and autarky as far as possible. Thus the regime,by promulgating Schacht's so-called New Plan in 1934, very much strengthened its influence on foreign exchange and on raw materials al-
location, in order to enforce state priorities. Wage-setting became a task of public officials, the capital market was reserved for state demand, and a general price freeze was decreed in 1936.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doodah said:
OK then Milo....grifting powers waining much?
Click to expand...

LOL "demoted" his boyfriend...

He's trying to get some publicity again - seems to be endorsing conversion therapy - ironically that sort of puts him in line with current woke types/trans rights activists who are also attempting a form of conversion therapy to try and encourage lesbians to get into lady penis... lest they be accused of being 'phobic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom