Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Apparently, Hitler was a "Leftist" Response and rebuttal

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 31 posts ] 
Apparently, Hitler was a "Leftist" Response and rebuttal
Author Message
TheFlyingBastardUser avatarPosts: 787Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:17 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

televator wrote:I'm sorry, but my OCD is overwhelming me. Could the name of this tread be edited? "Rebuttal" is misspelled -- there should be no "i" in the word.

Also, the man's name wasn't Hiteler. :-P
Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:55 pm
WWW
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

TheFlyingBastard wrote:
televator wrote:I'm sorry, but my OCD is overwhelming me. Could the name of this tread be edited? "Rebuttal" is misspelled -- there should be no "i" in the word.

Also, the man's name wasn't Hiteler. :-P


yeah, a few typo's have creeped in on that one, you may have noticed that the thread im responding to is itself called "Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist"" so i merely copy/pasted that and added the response and rebuttial part

good spotting though

:ugeek: also, it's over 20 posts and we're still not done with that page by a long shot. Make of that what you will 8-)
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:43 pm
Anachronous RexLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 2008Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:07 pmLocation: Kansas City, MO Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

Well keep them coming please, I for one am being immensely entertained/informed.
Our prefrontal lobes are too small. Much too small. That's a problem of the birth canal, I'm very sorry to say for those that like their birth canals... tight.
-C. Hitchens.
Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:45 am
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

Other Leftist nationalists




The main argument and definition of fascism seen in the Video here is taken from Roger Griffin's work. And even Griffin argues that fascism was a rightist ideology, (and by extension that the nazis were rightist.)

"Certainly the ultra-nationalism, anti-equalitarianism, hostility to international socialism, collision with traditional right-wing forces and constant appeal to 'primordial' spiritual values all point to the conclusion that fascism belongs to the extended family of Rightist ideologies. ... It seems reasonable to regard it for practical purposes as a subcategory to the ultra right but with special qualities all its own, that we are dealing once again with a particular and thus unique manifestation of a generic ideal type." - Roger Griffin, "The nature of fascism.", p49-50.

The point here is that when it comes to Hitler and by extension Mussolini, we are NOT dealing with leftist nationalists. Such creatures do exist and nationalism is NOT a determiner for left and right, I think it's important to make the distinction between rightist nationalists using the "socialist" tag for propaganda, as hitler and mussolini were and most certainly did, and leftist nationalists, who were Genuine socialists.

In the post-WW2 era, internationalism and a scorn for patriotism has become very dominant among far-Leftists


Perhaps We can accept this in general. because it doesn't really matter. Here's one example of a modern left wing criticism of patriotism. (pdf)

but that was not always so. From Napoleon to Hitler there were also plenty of nationalist and patriotic versions of Leftism.


A Patriot is someone who "loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests" well we know Hitler Clearly fits that definition. He was a Patriot. And yes, Nationalism and Jingoism are both entwined to an extent with Patriotism. Another thing to remember is that portions of almost all ideas can be found in some proportion on both the right and the left, but what Ray does in the following is to mistake the patriotism that is i think common in every nation state, ie that of having pride in your nation's achievements with the, extreme nationalism of the nazis as we shall see. This is surely a logical fallacy.

But anyway, it was "From [Georg Ritter von] Schà¶nerer", of, the rightist Pan-German nationalists, "Hitler took his extreme German nationalism, his ANTI-SOCIALISM, his anti-Semitism, his hatred of the Hapsburgs and his programme of reunion with Germany" - Sir Alan Bullock from "Adolf Hitler", p44. Not the left.

And Schà¶nerer i will get back to later.

That was part of what was behind the various diatribes of Marx and Lenin against "Bonapartism". "Bonapartism" was what we would now call Fascism


And that's partly why i quoted Griffin earlier in this post, but anyways ...

here's oxford's Take on Bonapartism.

Following the practices of Napoléon Bonaparte, First Consul and subsequently Emperor of France between 1799 and 1815, and/or his nephew Louis Bonaparte (Napoléon III), Emperor of France between 1851 and 1870. The term was given its specific meanings by Marx (see especially his Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852). For Marx, Bonapartism was an opportunistic and populist alliance between part of the bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat ('proletariat in rags'), which relied on plebiscites, in which Bonaparte set the questions, to secure legitimacy for the regime. For Marxists, Bonapartism represents the autonomy that the state may achieve when class forces in society are precisely balanced. Historically, Bonapartism stood for strong leadership and conservative nationalism without advocating a return to the ancien régime." Oxford concise Dictionary of Politics.

-

"Bonapartism has always been associated with the cult of the Bonaparte family, and Corsica has invariably been the stronghold of any movement connected with it. In political terms Bonapartism has usually been classified as right-wing, but a number of reservations have to be made.

Napoleon I ended the Revolution, but he attempted to bring about the reconciliation of the French. He established authoritarian government, but sought to preserve the work of the Revolution. He established the rule of notables, gave guarantees to property-owners, distributed hereditary titles, and increased centralization, but maintained the abolition of privileged casts and corporations and declared that careers were open to talent. Napoleon III was accused of establishing a police state and suppressing public opinion, but at the same time he was concerned with economic growth and with the plight of the poor. The notion that Bonapartism is impossible to define seems to be confirmed when one remembers that Napoleon I was famous for his military victories, while Napoleon III's defeats have never been forgotten.

The essence of Bonapartism is that it seeks to be a unifying force in a divided country and tries to achieve this by concentrating on the talents and reputation of an individual. Both emperors drew support from many varied sectors of the population. After 1870 Bonapartism did not die out; it was in the Bonapartist tradition that notables were elected to the National Assembly, and that striking miners shouted 'Vive Napoléon IV!' The movement led by General Boulanger to capture power between 1886 and 1892 had many of the characteristics of Bonapartism. The same has often been said of Gaullism." - The new Oxford Companion to Literature in French.

and although this website makes it out that he sat on the left of the chamber, ergo left wing but in the old outdated sense, but regardless of whether or not Bonapartism is left or right wing, what influence did he have on Hitler? Ray doesn't tell us.

Overall, I would perhaps clasify Bonapartism as an authoritarian, centrist, perhaps centre right ideology as an absolute on the political spectrum as defined earlier.

and it was a rival reformist doctrine to Marxism long before the era of Hitler and Mussolini. It was more democratic (about as much as Hitler was), more romantic, more nationalist and less class-obsessed. The Bonapartist that Marx particularly objected to was in fact Napoleon III, i.e. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, nephew of the original Napoleon. One of Louis's campaign slogans was: "There is one name which is the symbol of order, of glory, of patriotism; and it is borne today by one who has won the confidence and affection of the people." So, like the original Napoleon himself, the Bonapartists were both very nationalist and saw themselves as heirs to the French revolution.


Im not a specialist into the french revolution, I'll grant that Louis Napoleon Bonaparte was a nationalist, it wouldn't surprise me in the socio-political context. plus it doesn't matter as nationalism is not a determiner for left and right. But Hitler havng a modicum of democracy? what a Joke. And as for it being more democratic than marx, (and to repeat myself.) you need to remember that When Marx talks about "The dictatorship of the Proletarian" he doesn't mean an actual physical dictatorship but is referring to how society is structured through the concept of the 'Base' and the "Superstructure" and the interplay between the two.

You see, according to Marxian Theory, we now live in something called "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"; the social, structure is apparantly mainly geared to support them and their interests and the bourgeoisie apparantly run the political structure for their own benefit

From this perspective, Marxists argue that this is why america has two parties that are just different flavors of the very same capitalist substance, Both parties are acceptable to the bourgeoisie that apparantly run the Superstructure. All Marx is saying is that a Worker's democracy that is run for the workers will change that and the base and Superstructure will be set in accordance with worker's needs and not capitalists. if you read his works, What Marx was striving for, was in fact a radical democracy. (of course, he doesn't provide the economics to sustain such a societial model, and that's why im not a Marxist or and im not a socialist for that matter. but i understand how these things work.)

So it was very grievous for most communists when, in his later writings, the ultra-Marxist Trotsky identified not only Fascism but also the Soviet State as "Bonapartist". That was one judgment in which Trotsky was undoubtedly correct, however!


Perhaps the term Bonapartism in a Marxist sense can be best understood is a term often used to refer to a situation in which counter-revolutionary military officers seize power from revolutionaries, and then use selective reformism to co-opt the radicalism of the popular classes. In the process, Marx argued, Bonapartists preserve and mask the power of a narrower ruling class, And Trotsky, being part of the "Left Opposition" and believing that his communism was the true heir to the revolution of 1917, took that analysis to Stalin. He was arguing that stalin was reactionary, not revolutionary and had created a new bourgeoisie to rule over the proletariat , ergo Trotsky, from the perspective of a far leftist was saying both Stalin and nazi germany were rightist. Obviously not a correct analysis as far as Stalin is concerned.

There have always been innumerable "splits" in the extreme Leftist movement -- and from the earliest days nationalism has often been an issue in those. Two of the most significant such splits occurred around the time of the Bolshevik revolution --- when in Russia the Bolsheviks themselves split into Leninists and Trotskyites and when in Italy Mussolini left Italy's major Marxist party to found the "Fascists". So the far Left split at that time between the Internationalists (e.g. Trotskyists) and the nationalists (e.g. Fascists) with Lenin having a foot in both camps. And both Marx and Engels themselves did in their lifetimes lend their support to a number of wars between nations. So any idea that a nationalist cannot be a Leftist is pure fiction.


Lenin was still an internationalist, he just realized after the trauma of the Civil war that the revolution could not survive unless the original base was built up and THEN the revolution moved forward. Trotsky wanted the revolution to move forward without regard to, the forces that would be brought against them.

Internationalism in the face of the power of the nation state to demand ones allegiance is admittedly difficult to maintain particularly amongst the rank and file, but nevertheless Communism by ideology is still internationalist. The, split in the soviet Union wasn't really about nationalism but on how to and at what speed to proceed with the revolution.

And, in fact, the very title of Lenin's famous essay, "Left-wing Communism, an infantile disorder" shows that Lenin himself shared the judgement that he was a Right-wing sort of Marxist. Mussolini was somewhat further Right again, of course, but both were to the Right only WITHIN the overall far-Left camp of the day.


The "Left-Wing" that Lenin is talking about here is the anarchist school,and those that wanted to prematurely dissolve the state before the, revolution was complete, it's like the disagreement between Marx and Bakunin. Mussolini was far Right period, not on the Left at all, private industrialists were empowered and enriched by his regime and he never adopted any sort of socialist program.

If you want to read his "1920 pamphlet against ultra-leftism and anarchism", You can find it here. And no, the work doesnt show that lenin thought of himself as a "Right-wing sort of Marxist" He was only criticising those who considered themselves to be "Left-wing sort of Marxists"

It should further be noted in this connection that the various European Socialist parties in World War I did not generally oppose the war in the name of international worker brotherhood but rather threw their support behind the various national governments of the countries in which they lived. Just as Mussolini did, they too nearly all became nationalists. Nationalist socialism is a very old phenomenon.


Nice of Ray to ignore the work of all those like Jean Jaurà¨s who prevented a previous war and attempted to also stop WWI. And to also forget those on all sides that continued to be against the war even as they were compelled by their gov'ts to fight in it. And Mussolini was ousted by the Italian Socialist Party for his support of Italian intervention in the War.

And it still exists today. Although many modern-day US Democrats often seem to be anti-American, the situation is rather different in Australia and Britain. Both the major Leftist parties there (the Australian Labor Party and the British Labour Party) are perfectly patriotic parties which express pride in their national traditions and achievements. Nobody seems to have convinced them that you cannot be both Leftist and nationalist.


One problem, Ray is what Ray does here is to mistake the patriotism that is i think common in every nation state and on both sides of the political spectrum, ie that of having pride in your nation's achievements with the, extreme rightist nationalism of Hitler. This is what i was talking about in the beginning of this post, it's a real logiclal fallacy on his part.

That is of course not remotely to claim that either of the parties concerned is a Nazi or an explicitly Fascist party. What Hitler and Mussolini advocated and practiced was clearly more extremely nationalist than any major Anglo-Saxon political party would now advocate.


They were good nationalists, as Ray now admits, contridicting his earlier claims. But that aside, as this offers us no defense of his fallacy, The connotation is still there.

And socialist parties such as the British Labour Party were patriotic parties in World War II as well. And in World War II even Stalin moved in that direction. If Hitler learnt from Mussolini the persuasive power of nationalism, Stalin was not long in learning the same lesson from Hitler. When the Wehrmacht invaded Russia, the Soviet defences did, as Hitler expected, collapse like a house of cards. The size of Russia did, however, give Stalin time to think and what he came up with was basically to emulate Hitler and Mussolini.


ah the "Russia was too big" claim, see this for a more balanced look at it



and i've already linked to World at War above ;)

Stalin reopened the churches, revived the old ranks and orders of the Russian Imperial army to make the Red Army simply the Russian Army and stressed patriotic appeals in his internal propaganda. He portrayed his war against Hitler not as a second "Red" war but as 'Vtoraya Otechestvennaya Vojna' -- The Second Patriotic War -- the first such war being the Tsarist defence against Napoleon. He deliberately put himself in the shoes of Russia's Tsars!

Russian patriotism proved as strong as its German equivalent and the war was turned around. And to this day, Russians still refer to the Second World War as simply "The Great Patriotic War". Stalin may have started out as an international socialist but he soon became a national socialist when he saw how effective that was in getting popular support. Again, however, it was Mussolini who realized it first. And it is perhaps to Mussolini's credit as a human being that his nationalism was clearly heartfelt where Stalin's was undoubtedly a mere convenience.


No, Stalin was using nationalistic propaganda, but he was still something of a internationalist in terms of ideology. Hitler was not. BIg difference. i'll come to this later.

I think, however, that the perception of Hitler as a Leftist is more difficult for those with a European perspective than for those with an Anglo-Saxon one. To many Europeans you have to be some sort of Marxist to be a Leftist and Hitler heartily detested Marxism so cannot have been a Leftist. I write for the Anglosphere, however,


although i come from England (obviously part of the anglosphere), I write for no-one, as im not a cultural relativist when it comes to the political compass. I will say however that It's funny that Ray always seems to target the Democrats, Hitler according to him, would probably be a modern member of the democrat party. Completely forgetting that the dems are in absolute terms, More right wing than parties like the British conservatives. and are in fact where the GOP used to be, before the GOP moved to pretty much the Far right in terms of economics. Some are even asking the question if Obama is actualy More conservative than Reagan? Even if you disagree with that, you can perhaps still argue that Obama is more right wing than say Nixon.

and in my experience the vast majority of the Left (i.e. the US Democrats, The Australian Labor Party, the British Labour Party) have always rejected Marxism too so it seems crystal clear to me that you can be a Leftist without accepting Marxist doctrines. So Hitler's contempt for Marxism, far from convincing me that he was a non-Leftist, actually convinces me that he was a perfectly conventional Leftist! The Nazi Party was what would in many parts of the world be called a "Labor" party (not a Communist party).


The trouble is that both The Australian Labor Party and the British Labour Party both embrace something called democratic socialism (though it's Perhaps more dubious with the British Labour Party.) something that Hitler calls a "pestilential whore, cloaking herself as social virtue and brotherly love, from which I hope humanity will rid this earth with the greatest dispatch, since otherwise the earth might well become rid of humanity." - Mein Kampf, vol 1, chapter 2

Hitler wouldn't be a democratic socialist, in fact He wouldn't be a socialist at all.

And, as already mentioned, the moderate Leftists of Germany in Hitler's own day saw that too. The Sozialistische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) who, like the US Democrats, the Australian Labor Party and the British Labour Party, had always been the principal political representatives of the Labor unions, on several important occasions voted WITH the Nazis in the Reichstag (German Federal Parliament).


As James Taylor and Warren Shaw point out "During the 1920's The KPD, following the Moscow Line, misread the Nazis as being part of the Ruling Bourgeoisie, an extreme element of the Capitalist Pseudo-democracy. They saw the SPD as the real enemy. Many times the KPD and the Nazis worked together, breaking up Social Democratic (SPD) meetings with a combination of SA men and Red Commandoes.", The Penguin dictionary of the Third Reich. p61.

In Short, The KPD was blind to the Nazis real intentions. They were just following what their masters in Moscow were telling them. Just because they did work together sometimes does not equal a "Nazi and Communists are ideologically the same" analysis. Even in the Reichstag. you could say that hitler's relationship with the KPD is a machiavellian one. in much the same way that Hitler's relationship with the Soviet union, which has already been mentioned was also machiavellian. And we've already covered who supported passage of the expropriation referendum of 25/26.

But seeing as ray doesn't back this claim with a scholar...

"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens.

;)
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Last edited by theyounghistorian77 on Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:49 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

Non-Marxist objections


Objections to my account of Hitler as a Leftist can however be framed in more Anglocentric terms than the ones I have covered so far. In particular, my pointing to Hitler's subjugation of the individual to the State as an indication of his Leftism could be challenged on the grounds that conservatives too do on some occasions use government to impose restrictions on individuals -- particularly on moral issues. The simple answer to that, of course, is that conservatism is not anarchism. Conservatives do believe in SOME rules.


The simple answer to this is that Anarchism is a left wing philosophy too, see the writings of Mikhail Bakunin. But, as demonstrated earlier, Govt size is NOT a determiner for left and right.

As with so much in life, it is all a matter of degree and in the centrist politics that characterize the Anglo-Saxon democracies, the degree of difference between the major parties can be small. But to compare things like opposition to homosexual "marriage" with the bloodthirsty tyranny exercised by Hitler, Stalin and all the other extreme Leftists is laughable indeed.


The Reductio ad Hitlerum is indeed an absurd piece of logic, but it also means that This

Image

is also laughable indeed.

And it is the extremists who show the real nature of the beast as far as Leftism is concerned. Once Leftists throw off the shackles of democracy and are free to do as they please we see where their values really lie. Extreme conservatism (i.e. libertarianism), by contrast, exists only in theory (i.e. it has never gained political power anywhere in its own right).


You may as well say that Pure communism, by the same token, "exists only in theory (i.e. it has never gained political power anywhere in its own right)".

"In it's original form, Marxism professed to be a scientific explaination of the course of History, providing not just a political ideology but a system of government. Reasoning that the determinant is of all Human action was the economic self-interest of various social groups or classes, and that a "Ruling Class" would so order the economic system as to control and exploit the the other classes, Marx evolved an analysis of the course of History known as the dialectic. In the dialectic, society moved inexorably and inevitably from primitivity through slavery and feudalism to capatalism and, ultimately through a transitory stage of Socialism to true Communism." - Prof Ian Beckett: Communist Military Machine. P6

Reductio ad absurdum complete

Conservatives are not by nature extremists. The issue of allegedly conservative Latin American dictators and the evidence that the core focus of conservatism has historically been on individual liberties versus the State is considered at some length here.


Doesn't matter if you only define conservative to only include libertarian rightists, what matters, is the following, from me earlier.

"There is in this sense only one Left and Right, and it is determined by the political economy position I stated, and that determiner has not changed, which is why it is a useful measure in history and political economy. It is separate from [terms like] 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' and as long as it is used correctly in the academic manner it is always consistent. Then you have the problem in that you are mixing the economic and social sphere in your categorization of conservative and liberal. Taken as its most basic; a conservative is one who wishes to retain the existing social and economic structure and the power of the existing elites. ("Conservativism is - In general terms, is a political philosophy which aspires to the preservation of what is thought to be the best in established society." - oxford concise dictionary of politics.) Throughout history the strategies to do this can take various forms in different places and times. In the past, it has sometimes taken the form more gov't involvement in the private sector to secure the position of those elites either through and aristocracy or the fascist parties.

"..we must also acknowledge the fact that many post-war movements on the extreme right have embraced Libertarian or 'new-right' economics in an attempt to reinvent themselves and to compete with the [contemporary] mainstream conservative parties" "The Routledge Companion to, Fascism and the Far Right" p147

Another more contentious point is that many of the conservative attempts at regulating people's lives are Christian rather than conservative in origin and that Christianity and conservatism are in fact separable. So conservatism should not be blamed for the multifarious deeds of Christians. But to discuss an issue as large and as contentious as that would be far too great a digression here. A discussion of it can however be found elsewhere.


viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5977 Any Opinions on that website and this comment anyone?

To me, It doesn't matter in the context of this critique whether Right Wingers draw authoritarian tendencies from Conservativism or Christianity or wherever else. What matters, is that they are authoritarian, and on the Right, And Hitler was an extreme authoritarian, and on the right.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Last edited by theyounghistorian77 on Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:41 pm
AndiferousUser avatarPosts: 2727Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:00 amLocation: Laputa Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

I finally tried to read through that article tonight. The first half was so comical I was in giggles, but then the absurdity overwhelmed me about two thirds through and somehow turned into over-giggle-sick. There is just so much ridiculous in there that I suspect it might take you ten years and a masters thesis to do a complete analysis, Young Historian. :lol:

I love the section "Walmart Hatred". Hitler is necessarily a socialist because he was against department stores.

One of the more notable insanities of the U.S. Left in the early 21st centrury was Wal-Mart hatred. Anyone who took Leftist advocacy of "the poor" at face-value might have expected that anything which raises the living standards of the poor (which Wal-Mart undoubtedly did) would be warmly welcomed by the Left. But the converse was the case: Seething hate was what Wal-Mart got from the Left. In the run-up to the 2006 mid-term Federal election, one sometimes got the impression that the Democrats were campaigning against Wal-mart rather than against the Republicans.

Why such extreme fuming? Because Leftists hate anything big and successfuil and Wal-Mart was very big and very successful. And British supermarket chains such as Tesco were also despised by British Leftists -- albeit in a somewhat more restrained way. Confronted with either Wal-Mart or Tesco, Leftists suddenly discovered a love of small business -- the quintessential bourgeoisie whom Leftists had been loudly decrying ever since Marx!

There was of course no Wal-Mart in Hitler's day. But there was something very similar -- large Department stores. And Hitler hated them. Item 16 of the (February 25th., 1920) 25 point plan of the National Socialist German Workers Party (written by Hitler) sought the abolition of big stores and their replacement by small businesses.


And further proof in Nazi socialism is supported by the idea that the left is generally racially homogeneous and inherently racist.

As some modern context for that saying, note that there have now been various psychological studies by Putnam and others (e.g. here) showing that people are more willing to share and get involved with others whom they see as like themselves. That leads to the view that socialism will find its strongest support among an ethnically homogeneous population -- which the Scandinavian countries notably were until recently. And ethnic diversity therefore will undermine support for socialism (as in the U.S.A.). And from my studies of them, I have noted that the Scots are a very brotherly lot. There is even a line in a famous Harry Lauder song that says: "Where brother Scots foregather ...". And of course the Scots are enormously socialistic. When Margaret Thatcher came to power on a huge swing towards the Conservatives in England, Scotland actually swung away from the conservatives.

And the increasingly pervasive anti-Israel sentiment among the modern-day Left -- including at times the Canadian government -- shows that modern-day Leftists are not even very different from Hitler in that regard.


:facepalm:

Followed up later by German stereotyping:

Wherever they marched, Nazi formations sang -- be they Hitler Youth, brownshirts or the armed forces. And being German, their music was very good.

And the Nazis, just because they were German DID have many good songs.


And then claims that not only Hitler's socialism and Communism leftist, but worse, they were hypocritical because they were also... classist!

:facepalm:

After two thirds I couldn't go on.
What a nut! Where did he get a PhD? And what in exactly? :lol:
"As there seemed no measure between what Watt could understand, and what he could not, so there seemed none between what he deemed certain, and what he deemed doubtful."
~ Samuel Beckett, Watt
Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:31 am
kenandkidsUser avatarPosts: 1117Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:00 pm Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

Andiferous wrote:What a nut! Where did he get a PhD? And what in exactly? :lol:


Looks like another doctoral graduate from Kent Hovinds trailer in the desert... eerrrmmmm... college...
Teapublican commandment:
Thou shalt not educate or improve the lives of the lesser classes, the lesser races, or women.

Fiddler on:

http://obnoxi.us/
Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:53 am
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

kenandkids wrote:
Andiferous wrote:What a nut! Where did he get a PhD? And what in exactly? :lol:


Looks like another doctoral graduate from Kent Hovinds trailer in the desert... eerrrmmmm... college...


To answer Andi's point. it is good to know that the writer 'John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)' is NOT a historian and holds no credibility in the field. None of his work concerning the Nazis as socialists is peer reviewed but merely one of his many propaganda posts against everything he sees as Leftist. And he pretty much sees everything as Leftist that he doesn't personally like. (Or at least that's what i gather from his Dissecting leftism blog) If he hates it, It therfore has to be leftist.

degrees or not. Which as mentioned, are not in history but in psychology, and was at one time as his biography admits involved in: "psychological warfare" operations in Vietnam, That's what he tends to be doing here Folks.

Those who wish for me to continue this project will have to wait a little bit longer im afraid. Seeing as the motherboard inside my old system completely broke down, i've lost all my documents and stuff so now to regather all of that. I'll try to continue as soon as i can.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:52 am
Sir Pwn4lotUser avatarPosts: 19Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:06 pm

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

theyounghistorian77 wrote:Those who wish for me to continue this project will have to wait a little bit longer im afraid. Seeing as the motherboard inside my old system completely broke down, i've lost all my documents and stuff so now to regather all of that. I'll try to continue as soon as i can.


Take out the harddrive and put it into your new system.

This series is brilliant. Someone give him a Pulitzer.
ImageImage
I may not agree with your opinion, but I'd die for your right to have one
Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:49 am
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

But Neo-Nazis are Rightist!


A remaining important objection to the account I have given so far is that Hitler's few remaining admirers in at least the Anglo-Saxon countries all seem to be on the political far-Right.


Well indeed they are

In discussing that, however, I must immediately insist that I am not discussing antisemitism generally. Antisemitism and respect for Hitler are far from the same thing. Although vocal support for antisemitism was in Hitler's day widespread across the American political spectrum -- from Henry Ford on the Right to "Progressives" on the Left -


And as i have already demonstrated with Andrew Marr, The ideas with which we associate with the nazis were popular with both the left and right of the spectrum. I don't know about you, But i intrepret the line "antisemitism was in Hitler's day widespread across the American political spectrum" as a freudian slip and try and keep this in mind!

- such support [for antisemitism] is these days mostly to be found on the extreme Left and for such people Hitler is anathema.


Oh really? Well given the argument me and some friends have had here with onefodderunit. Someone who clearly is an antisemitic Holocaust denier and who seems to latch onto every anti-Jewish Conspiricy theory going, And furthermore regards himself as a Clear anti socialist [and by deduction a Rightist]. Im going to have to disagree with that. No sorry. Antisemitism still resides in the political right as much as it ever has in the political left and im not talking about any religious Anti semitism here! And it's also the case that for mainstream rightists Hitler is "anathema"

His mentioning of whom Hitler is "anathema" to is just a spot of silly "projection", Something he does alot here!

And the antisemitism of the former Soviet leadership also shows that antisemitism and respect for Hitler are not at all one and the same
.

Stalin's Antisemitism shouldn't be confused with Hitler's.

"Stalin was an anti-semite by most definitions but until after the war, it was more a russian mannerism than a dangerous obsession. He was never a biological racist like the nazis. However, he disliked any nationality that threatened loyalty to the multinational USSR. He embraced the russian people not because he rejected his own Georgian origins but for precisely the same reason: the Russians were the foundations and cement of the Soviet union. But after the war, the creation of Israel, the increased self-consciousness among Soviet Jews and the Cold War with America combined with his old prejudice to turn Stalin into a murderous Anti-Semite. " - Simon Sebag Montefiore, "Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar", p310.

But in the Anglosphere countries Hitler DOES still have his admirers among a tiny band of neo-Nazis and it is true that these are usually called the extreme Right. They normally refer to themselves as "The Right", in fact. How do I know that?


And how do i know it to be true also? Because it's easy for me to find examples like ....

Austrian Times wrote:Fascist Father Angelo Idi, 51 - who once saw off a charity box thief with a truncheon at his church in Vigevano, Italy - [who] confessed: "I am proud of my right wing beliefs. But people shouldn't care about my politics, they should care about how good a priest I am."


Im going to be using Angelo idi him in an essay im composing about Fascism and religion as i write this critique. Im thinking about publishing it here on these forums first!

I know that because I in fact happen to be one of the very few people to have studied neo-Nazis intensively. And I have reported my findings about them in the academic journals -- see here and here. But if Hitler was a socialist, how come that these "far-Rightists" still admire him?


Neither of those articles does anything to add any use to this webpage. And anyway is it natural for a far rightist to admire a far rightist :?: I would think so.

The answer to that is a simple one: They are pre-war Leftists, just as Hitler was. They are a relic in the modern world of thinking that was once common on the Left but no longer is. They are a hangover from the past in every sense. They are antisemitic just as Hitler was. They are racial supremacists just as Hitler was. They are advocates of discipline just as Hitler was. They are advocates of national unity just as Hitler was. They glorify war just as Hitler did etc. And all those things that Hitler advocated were also advocated among the prewar American Left.


Well nevermind that these things were popular on the Right wing as well. And in many ways, Still are


Rawstory wrote:GOP House hopeful Jim Russell praised racist practices, advocated eugenics in 2001 essay

By Stephen C. Webster
Monday, September 20th, 2010 -- 8:25 pm

A New York Republican hoping to displace the long-serving Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey will face an increasingly steep climb to electoral victory thanks to a revelation by Politico's Maggie Haberman, who dug up some of his published works and noted a number of distinctly racist elements in a 2001 piece published by the right-wing Occidental Quarterly.

Jim Russell, who enjoys the support of his state's Republican Party and conservative establishment, has maintained a strongly anti-immigrant stance in his campaign against Lowey, who defeated him in 2008.

The same could be said of his 2001 essay for Occidental [PDF link], titled "The Western Contribution to World History," which advises parents to establish "appropriate ethnic boundaries" for their children, and criticizes the film "Save the Last Dance" for depicting an interracial relationship.

He also opined against the racial integration of public schools and praised two individuals for their antisemitic ideas on how to limit the spread of Jews


Russell even lauded some ideas behind the practice of eugenics, a radical ideology most commonly associated with Germany's Third Reich which seeks to preserve racial and ethnic purity.

In his essay, he also writes highly of the book, "The Camp of the Saints," a tome held dear by many white supremacists. First published in France in the mid-70s, "The Camp of the Saints" depicts a mass migration from India into Europe, resulting in a radically altered political reality.

"The book characterizes non-whites as horrific and uncivilized 'monsters' who will stop at nothing to greedily and violently seize what rightfully belongs to the white man," the Southern Poverty Law Center explained.

"Today, 'The Camp of the Saints' is widely revered by American white supremacists and is a sort of anti-immigration analog to 'The Turner Diaries,' the race war novel written by William Pierce, head of the neo-Nazi National Alliance," they continued. "In fact, Pierce's publishing arm, National Vanguard Books, describes Raspail's book as 'one of the most famous, popular, and important racialist novels.'"

According to Politico, Russell's paper was even featured on Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke's Web site, but has since been removed.

It all led Salon to hands-down declare that the candidate is now "exposed as racist".

"Russell, who was identified in a newspaper article this year as a case manager at the New York State Insurance Fund, has a PhD in 'historical theology' and is author of the book, 'The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation,'" the publication noted.

Russell's campaign had not commented to media about his Occidental essay at time of this story's publication.

Key passages from Russell's essay, all excerpted by Politico, are below.

####

* "(T.S.) Eliot described some conditions for an optimal society: 'The population should be homogeneous. . . . What is still more important is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and culture combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable. There must be a proper balance between urban and rural, industrial and agricultural development. And a spirit of excessive tolerance is to be deprecated.'"

* "Despite threats on his life, Arthur Jensen persevered in studying the relationship between IQ and race. In Canada, neither state-sponsored censorship nor private harassment has deterred J. Philippe Rushton's inquiries into Race, Evolution and Behavior. The importance of applying eugenic measures in the West becomes evident from Richard Lynn's recent work on Dysgenics and his just-released seminal work Eugenics: A Reassessment."

* "Kevin MacDonald's work on religion, and particularly Judaism, as a group evolutionary strategy, is essential for a thorough understanding of our current predicament."

* "While liberals and universalists constantly yammer about "bringing us all together", and how "diversity is our strength," it may be suggested that the biological function of human language and culture is just the opposite, that is, to keep discrete groups apart."

* "It has been demonstrated that finches raised by foster parents of a different species of finch will later exhibit a lifelong sexual attraction toward the alien species. One wonders how a child's sexual imprinting mechanism is affected by forcible racial integration and near continual exposure to media stimuli promoting interracial contact. The most serious implication of human sexual imprinting for our genetic future is that it would establish the destructiveness of school integration, especially in the middle and high-school years. One can only wonder to what degree the advocates of school integration, such as former NAACP attorney Jack Greenberg, were conscious of this scientific concept. It also compounds the culpability of media moguls who deliberately popularize miscegenation in films directed toward adolescents and pre-adolescents. In the midst of this onslaught against our youth, parents need to be reminded that they have a natural obligation, as essential as providing food and shelter, to instill in their children an acceptance of appropriate ethnic boundaries for socialization and for marriage.

"The sociobiological warfare that our youth is subjected to is likely to be even more diabolical since it appears to deliberately exploit a biological theory of sexual imprinting at the critical period of sexual maturity. Movies like this past year's spate of miscegenationist titles, Save the Last Dance, Crazy / Beautiful and O, a parody of Othello, appear deliberately designed to exploit the critical period of sexual imprinting in their target audiences of white pre-adolescent girls and adolescent young women.

"The current of misdirected altruism that permeates contemporary Western society is dangerous when it is divorced from biological reality. It would be better to ignorantly adhere to the laws of human evolution, as do most primitive peoples, than to understand these laws and yet deliberately disobey them. It would be most tragic if the people who discovered the theory of evolution were to perish due to a failure of will to apply it to their own destiny."

* "There is now afoot a conscious effort to de-Europeanize and to re-Judaize Christianity, through scriptural revision, internal treachery and external pressure. One possible strategy to counter these efforts is to encourage a re-Europeanization of Christianity into a European folk religion. Such a strategy might be bolstered by the argument that Euro-Christians should only accept the folk-affirming form of Christianity accepted by our ancestors and not accept the specious "bait and switch" arguments of liberal Christians who try to indoctrinate us with universalist propaganda."

* "Jean Raspail's Camp of the Saints . . . should be required reading for all persons of European descent who labor under the pseudo-morality of self-destruction."


And does this imply figures like David Duke to leftist? If it does than im not buying it. Duke is a republican. He's a Right winger. Period!

That does however raise the question of WHY such thinking is seen as "Rightist" today. And the answer to THAT goes back to the nature of Leftism!


With David Duke in mind, What follows is jus a Hilarious piece of projection....

The political content of Leftism varies greatly from time to time. The sudden about-turn of the Left on antisemitism in recent times is vivid proof of that. And what the political content of Leftism is depends on the Zeitgeist -- the conventional wisdom of the day. Leftists take whatever is commonly believed and push it to extremes in order to draw attention to themselves as being the good guys -- the courageous champions of popular causes. So when the superiority of certain races was commonly accepted, Leftists were champions of racism. So when eugenics was commonly accepted as wise, Leftists were champions of eugenics -- etc. In recent times they have come to see more righteousness to be had from championing the Palestinian Arabs than from championing the Jews so we have seen their rapid transition from excoriating antisemitism to becoming "Antizionist".


You mean like the tea partiers and Sarah Palin currently do? They are currently "push[ing] it to extremes in order to draw attention to themselves as being the good guys" and try to make us believe that they are "courageous champions of popular causes". The statement falls flat when it enters the real world doesn't it? Okay i'd better go tell Palin she's a Leftist and see if i can outrun the bullets from her Moose hunting rifle.


But the thinking of the man in the street does not change nearly as radically as Leftists do.


That's true, You can only push the people so far before they really turn against you. Lest we forget Margret Thatcher was brought down by the Poll Tax controversy

Although it may no longer be fashionable, belief in the superiority of whites over blacks is still widespread, for instance. Such beliefs have become less common but they have not gone away.


It's funny he mentions this, Because if we were to look at the right hand side of his Blog we can find the following....

JJ Ray's Blog! wrote:People who mention differences in black vs. white IQ are these days almost universally howled down and subjected to the most extreme abuse. I am a psychometrician, however, so I feel obliged to defend the scientific truth of the matter: The average African adult has about the same IQ as an average white 11-year-old and African Americans (who are partly white in ancestry) average out at a mental age of 14. The American Psychological Association is generally Left-leaning but it is the world's most prestigious body of academic psychologists. And even they have had to concede that sort of gap (one SD) in black vs. white average IQ. 11-year olds can do a lot of things but they also have their limits and there are times when such limits need to be allowed for.



Does this mean he believes in the superiority of Whites over Blacks?

I report. you decide.

Such beliefs have become less common but they have not gone away. They are however distinctly non-Leftist in today's climate of opinion so are usually defined as "Rightist" by default. So the beliefs of the neo-Nazis are Rightist only in the default sense of not being currently Leftist. They are part of the general stream of popular thinking but that part of it which is currently out of fashion.


And hopefully by now you can see why this is Nonsense!

And so it is because the old-fashioned thinking of the neo-Nazis is these days thoroughly excoriated by the Left that they see themselves as of the Right and reject any idea that they are socialists. I can attest from my own extensive interviews with Australian neo-Nazis that they mostly blot out any mention of Hitler's socialism from their consciousness. The most I ever heard any of them make out of it was that, by "socialism", Hitler was simply referring to national solidarity and everybody pulling together



"In reality, Hitler's 'Social idea' was simplistic, diffuse and manipulative. It ammounted to litttle more than what he told his bourgeois audience in hamburg [more specificly, what he told the Hamburger Nationalklub on 28th feb 1926]: winning the workers over to nationalism, destroying Marxism and overcoming the division between nationalism and socialism through the creation of a nebulous 'national community' (Volksgemeinschaft) based on racial purity and the concept of struggle. The fusion of nationalism and socialism would do away with the class antagonism between a nationalist bourgeoisie and Marxist Proletariat (both of which had failed in their political goals). This would be replaced by a 'Community of Struggle' where nationalism and socialism would be united, where 'brain' and 'fist' would be reconciled, and where - denuded of Marxist influence - the building of a new spirit for the great future struggle of the people could be undertaken. Such ideas were neither new, nor original. And ultimately, they rested NOT ON ANY MODERN FORM OF SOCIALISM [emphasis added], but on the crudest and most brutal version of 19th century imperialist and social-Darwinistic notions. Social welfare in the trumpeted 'national community' did not exist for it's own sake, but to prepare for external struggle, for conquest 'by the sword'" - Ian Kershaw, "Hitler" (abridged) P181-182.


which was indeed a major part of Hitler's message and which has been a major aim of socialism from Hegel on.


Hegel eh? As far as i understand he's a very abstract thinker ad someone who is admired by the left and the right wing. I don't think He can be pigeonholed into any particular wing of thought. So one can cite him all day because it's meaningless. Neo-Cons like Francis fukuyama have been influenced by Hegel


And things like autarky and government control of the whole of society were attractive to them too so they were in fact far more socialist than they would ever have acknowledged. They don't realize that they are simply old-fashioned Leftists. Since most of the world seems to have forgotten what pre-war Leftism consisted of, however, that is hardly surprising.


Shock horror, autarky and government control are not intrinsic qualities of socialism!


And the neo-Nazis are assisted in their view of themselves as Rightist by Hitler's anticommunism. The falling-out among the Nazis and the Communists was in Hitler's day largely a falling-out among thieves but the latter half of the second world war made the opposition between the two very vivid in the public consciousness so that opposition has become a major part of the definition of what Nazism is. And Marxism/Leninism was avowedly internationalist rather than racist. Lenin and the Bolsheviks despised nationalism and wished to supplant national solidarity with class solidarity. Given the contempt for Slavs often expressed by Marx & Engels, one can perhaps understand that Lenin and his Russian (Slavic) Bolsheviks concentrated so heavily on Marx & Engels's vision of international worker solidarity and ignored the thoroughly German nationalism also often expressed by Engels in particular.


maybe, just maybe it's because Lenin saw something that JJ ray doesn't? Sorry, there's No real nationalism much less something as extreme as the extreme nationalism of the nazis in the writings of Marx and Engels except that gleaned from quotemines. Ad the final paragraph of the "But neo-Nazis are rightist part" is just full of superficialities and strawmans, So i'll skip it!. Infact from now on the rest of the article is very wishy-washy so make of that what you will

Insane?


Sooo, Right wingers are insane. Leftists are sane. Hitler was sane therfore leftist?

Or is it .... Left wingers are insane. Right wingers are sane. Hitler was insane therfore leftist?

Either way, Sanity is not a determiner. Let's make the case he was sane.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:03 am
budlacPosts: 12Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:11 pm

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

I am going to set this aside and read on the next stormy evening. I wish I could print this all out, it deserves to be on paper for a proper read.
Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:54 am
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 31 posts ] 
Return to Art, Culture & History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests