Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Make America Great Again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    For the Nazi's to be on the Right they'd have to do stuff like:

    Allow freedom of assembly, speech, and religion with the minimum of government interference.
    Allow land ownership, and that includes foreign land ownership.
    Encourage a free market and capitalism without government interference.
    Promote the individual over the group or society
    Eschew the welfare state
    Allow freedom of choice in education, health care, and other decisions.
    Allow businesses to fail rather than step in and prop them up.

    Basically, there isn't anything the Nazis were doing that fits a model of government by the Right.

    Racism isn't a Right-Left issue. It is something any government or society can decide to do or not do as part of its social norms. So, the US can be Right of Center in governance while being racist to Blacks and Asians as it was in the 30's and 40's. The Nazis can be Leftists and equally be racist to Jews, gypsies, and people from Eastern Europe.

    The counter arguments so far for the Nazis being on the Right point to no specifics that indicate they were.
    It does not make much sense to associate modern leftists with Nazi just because the Nazi supported certain policies. Having the Nazi support a welfare state or public education and healthcare is like trying to argue that their pro-military, anti-gay and anti-communist policies are proof to classify them together with the modern republican right. It does not work that way. When one makes comparisons, he should also see the differences between extremists like Nazi's or Stalinists and moderates on the right and on the left. If we do not see such differences, we can as well argue that dogs are cats because they are both mammals.


    Nor is it that easy to argue that freedom of choice and individualism is a characteristic of the right. Monarchists are part of the right and anarchists put individual rights above any government. Thus, the distinction between the right and left cannot be accomplished with lists like the one you provided or the list I provided as a counterexample to show the problem with your line of thinking. It is obvious that there is a political spectrum of ideologies in which the extreme part of the right or left wing offers different degrees of freedoms (usually less) compared to more mainstream ideologies, although I mentioned examples when extreme ideologies on both sides may even support more freedom compared to other mainstream ideologies (anarchists and libertarians with respect to individual freedom from the government's restrictions).

    So, with such confusing picture, how does one make the distinction between the left and the right?
    To me, I will use history as a guide. I do not know the details of political science, but I do recall that the term "right" and "left" came from the French Revolution

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E...tical_spectrum

    The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.

    And from a historical perspective, I see that the right and left can be accurately defined according to how they interpreter the "equality" part of the French motto "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." The left spectrum is associated with those forces which see equality in economic terms and try to to reduce it . The extreme part of that spectrum includes ideologies in which inequality is basically illegal (communism). On the other hand, the right sees inequality as an unavoidable and necessary part of our societies, coming as a result of a divine will ( monarchists and the old right), or as a result of the human nature which creates inequality among people of different skills in an environment of equality (supposedly) of opportunities (capitalists and modern right).

    It is from this perspective that the Nazi ideology belongs to the right wing spectrum because unlike the leftist communist ideology, the Nazi's did not question inequality and certainly never aimed at the elimination of social classes. On the contrary, they wanted a very rigid and hierarchical socioeconomic structure in which a powerful state would make sure that everything runs smoothly and there will be no social unrest among the different classes.
    Last edited by pamak; 13 Jul 18, 04:34.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Holliday
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    If you disagree, then post something that either proves or disproves your point.
    I don't have to do either...I asked, you answered in typical form....Your a good parrot and share the same credibility as your source(s), with the same agenda...Thanks...

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Holliday View Post
    Do you think providing links to completely partisan news outlets actually helps your debate...?? How about some links (if you must) from news outlets whose anchors/reporters/entertainers didn't cry when they realized Clinton lost the election...
    If you disagree, then post something that either proves or disproves your point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Holliday
    replied
    Do you think providing links to completely partisan news outlets actually helps your debate...?? How about some links (if you must) from news outlets whose anchors/reporters/entertainers didn't cry when they realized Clinton lost the election...

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Trump's conduct at the NATO summit was deplorable as well as malicious:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

    Trump once again either lied or greatly exaggerated about issues at the summit:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...cid=spartanntp

    I have doubts that Trump can tell reality from fantasy:

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/12/polit...018/index.html

    This analysis is telling:

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...sot-ac-vpx.cnn

    The Western Alliance is the greatest military alliance in history and Trump's attitude, threats, bullying and general conduct towards our allies puts the US in danger.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    Your comments remind me much about blaming the rape on the woman for dressing provocatively.
    Either way, I think I have made my point.
    You didn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post

    It doesn't prove your point. If you're threatened because of your stupid policies, it's you fault. Finland doesn't feel threatened nor let's say Bielorussia or Kazakhstan. So the problem is not on Russian side but on the side of those countries.


    Your comments remind me much about blaming the rape on the woman for dressing provocatively.
    Either way, I think I have made my point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post

    Funny! Your reply seems to imply agreement by example. There will always be people who rise to the top (elites) and work to gain--is that not self-interest. Can you give an example of any communist regime that did not pursue their own gain? I choose communist regimes because they proclaim an ideology that has not proven doable in history. And one can look at all the regimes in history and find the self interest. The history record on democracies is not good either--once the populace begin to appropriate benefits to themselves, it falls. Isn't human nature self-interest based on Maslov's hierarchy of needs?
    To start with, there was any communist regime in history. There were always errors on different levels. As I said, one of reasons for those errors was the low level of developpment of countries who tried communism. Communism requires an evolution of society that wasn't reached yet, when the defaults of human nature could be effectively aborted before they can damage the community.

    Leave a comment:


  • R.N. Armstrong
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post

    You read the whole post. Nomenklatura and all the elites in other Communist countries are the old elites reborn. They used the ideas of Communism for their own gain. A Soviet joke about that: " Brezhnev's mother comes in Kremlin. She looks around and says to him: you're living like a tsar now. Yes mom, replies Brezhnev. She starts to cry and says: what if bolcheviks come again ?".
    Funny! Your reply seems to imply agreement by example. There will always be people who rise to the top (elites) and work to gain--is that not self-interest. Can you give an example of any communist regime that did not pursue their own gain? I choose communist regimes because they proclaim an ideology that has not proven doable in history. And one can look at all the regimes in history and find the self interest. The history record on democracies is not good either--once the populace begin to appropriate benefits to themselves, it falls. Isn't human nature self-interest based on Maslov's hierarchy of needs?

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    For the Nazi's to be on the Right they'd have to do stuff like:

    Allow freedom of assembly, speech, and religion with the minimum of government interference.
    Allow land ownership, and that includes foreign land ownership.
    Encourage a free market and capitalism without government interference.
    Promote the individual over the group or society
    Eschew the welfare state
    Allow freedom of choice in education, health care, and other decisions.
    Allow businesses to fail rather than step in and prop them up.

    Basically, there isn't anything the Nazis were doing that fits a model of government by the Right.

    Racism isn't a Right-Left issue. It is something any government or society can decide to do or not do as part of its social norms. So, the US can be Right of Center in governance while being racist to Blacks and Asians as it was in the 30's and 40's. The Nazis can be Leftists and equally be racist to Jews, gypsies, and people from Eastern Europe.

    The counter arguments so far for the Nazis being on the Right point to no specifics that indicate they were.
    Racism is not confined to the right: well-known liberals as FDR, H.Black, Dr Schweitzer, Ghandhi,..were racists and also Marx and Engels . And Corbyn, and LBJ, etc,etc,and Bill ,and Hillary,......and ....Bill Kristol , and .....Kevin Williamson who said that white working communities deserve to die .
    It is a good thing for Buckley to be dead, to not to see how DS is overtaking The National Review.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    No, he was a right wing demagogue. The Communists were the leftists, not the Nazis. Why else do you believe they were at each others' throats?
    Hahaha, the quality of the DS arguments is decreasing with every post .FDR and Churchill were also at Hitler's throat, thus that means that Winston was a leftwinger ??

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    Well, those Nations certainly feel threatened.

    I hope you are aware that your comment that they will be threatened if they don't do as the Russians dictate kind of proves my point.
    So thank you.
    It doesn't prove your point. If you're threatened because of your stupid policies, it's you fault. Finland doesn't feel threatened nor let's say Bielorussia or Kazakhstan. So the problem is not on Russian side but on the side of those countries.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post

    The aren't threatened. But if they don't rethink their policies, this can be the case.
    Well, those Nations certainly feel threatened.

    I hope you are aware that your comment that they will be threatened if they don't do as the Russians dictate kind of proves my point.
    So thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post

    I cannot get past your lead sentence. How do you explain the Nomenklatura in the Soviet Union, and all the elites in other Communist countries? They seemed to believe they should have perks and comforts beyond the workers. How can a Soviet Premier collection multiple automobiles while most the populace cannot afford one; and the country has never been able to market a car on the international level? Yugoslavia did, South Korea does
    You read the whole post. Nomenklatura and all the elites in other Communist countries are the old elites reborn. They used the ideas of Communism for their own gain. A Soviet joke about that: " Brezhnev's mother comes in Kremlin. She looks around and says to him: you're living like a tsar now. Yes mom, replies Brezhnev. She starts to cry and says: what if bolcheviks come again ?".

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    The nations threatened by the Russians need to rethink their policies or the Belgians?
    Are you suggesting that the Russians get to invade nations that do not submit to them?

    The aren't threatened. But if they don't rethink their policies, this can be the case.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X