PDA

View Full Version : Che Guevara


Moooo
07-07-2006, 12:12 AM
This is a very weird post, I know, but bear with me...

http://www.users.odn.de/~odn03821/che_guevara.jpg

So I am a person who likes to know about those who influenced our past. To me its not enough to be familiar with the name. Only when you get an idea of what a person did do you truely understand the way they and what they created work.

So what is everyone's opinion of him here. Being anti-american, he surely has left some with a bitter taste in their moutn, but I'm just curious, with him doing so in the name of ending poverty.

Moooo

Miles
07-07-2006, 12:38 AM
I honestly don't know a lot about him but my general impression is that he had good intentions but with flawed theories. I always had the impression that his actions were somewhat despicable and violent. Though that could just be the common perception of him

On another note that is a seriously well known photograph/portrait.

DanT
07-07-2006, 08:11 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara

http://slate.com/id/3137

Of the innumerable commentaries on Che that have been published in the last few weeks, Alma Guillermoprieto offered the clearest, in The New Yorker. "He was a fanatic," she wrote, "consumed by restlessness and a frightening abstract hatred, who in the end recognized only one moral value as supreme: the willingness to be slaughtered for a cause." But I am struck most by a commentary that appeared in the Mexican weekly Etcétera, under the byline Gilberto Guevara Niebla--no relation to Che himself, yet a figure of great importance in the revolutionary history of the 1960s. Gilberto Guevara Niebla was arguably the single most important student leader of the Mexican student uprising of 1968--the uprising that was finally put down in a massacre by the Mexican army in October 1968.

He wrote, "Che offered his life to the cause of the disinherited, but he did it by offering a political method that, in the long run, had disastrous effects on whoever tried to uphold it. Guerrilla war imposed a militarist logic and closed the space for democracy. What Latin America lived since Che launched his slogans was a bloodbath and a wave of destruction and terror. ... The myth of Che has been a wall impeding the observation of those fatal historical results." Who was Che? A man who "wanted to change the world through the means--always sordid--of killing other men."

Also see
Che Guevara: Assassin and Bumbler – by Humberto Fontova (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/23/171252.shtml) for more information about the man who disdained other people's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

FringeNC
07-07-2006, 08:39 AM
How is it possible to vote for anything except the top option?

Cochise
07-07-2006, 09:22 AM
The Cult of Che
Don't applaud The Motorcycle Diaries.
By Paul Berman
Posted Friday, Sept. 24, 2004, at 7:33 AM ET

The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster.

Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won.

Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination.

In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for "two, three, many Vietnams," he also spoke about martyrdom and managed to compose a number of chilling phrases: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become …"— and so on.

He was killed in Bolivia in 1967, leading a guerrilla movement that had failed to enlist a single Bolivian peasant. And yet he succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands of middle class Latin-Americans to exit the universities and organize guerrilla insurgencies of their own. And these insurgencies likewise accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale.

The present-day cult of Che—the T-shirts, the bars, the posters—has succeeded in obscuring this dreadful reality. And Walter Salles' movie The Motorcycle Diaries will now take its place at the heart of this cult. It has already received a standing ovation at Robert Redford's Sundance film festival (Redford is the executive producer of The Motorcycle Diaries) and glowing admiration in the press.

Che was an enemy of freedom, and yet he has been erected into a symbol of freedom. He helped establish an unjust social system in Cuba and has been erected into a symbol of social justice. He stood for the ancient rigidities of Latin-American thought, in a Marxist-Leninist version, and he has been celebrated as a free-thinker and a rebel. And thus it is in Salles' Motorcycle Diaries.

...

The modern-day cult of Che blinds us not just to the past but also to the present. Right now a tremendous social struggle is taking place in Cuba. Dissident liberals have demanded fundamental human rights, and the dictatorship has rounded up all but one or two of the dissident leaders and sentenced them to many years in prison. Among those imprisoned leaders is an important Cuban poet and journalist, Raúl Rivero, who is serving a 20-year sentence. In the last couple of years the dissident movement has sprung up in yet another form in Cuba, as a campaign to establish independent libraries, free of state control; and state repression has fallen on this campaign, too.

These Cuban events have attracted the attention of a number of intellectuals and liberals around the world. Václav Havel has organized a campaign of solidarity with the Cuban dissidents and, together with Elena Bonner and other heroic liberals from the old Soviet bloc, has rushed to support the Cuban librarians. A group of American librarians has extended its solidarity to its Cuban colleagues, but, in order to do so, the American librarians have had to put up a fight within their own librarians' organization, where the Castro dictatorship still has a number of sympathizers. And yet none of this has aroused much attention in the United States, apart from a newspaper column or two by Nat Hentoff and perhaps a few other journalists, and an occasional letter to the editor.

The statements and manifestos that Havel has signed have been published in Le Monde in Paris, and in Letras Libres magazine in Mexico, but have remained practically invisible in the United States. The days when American intellectuals rallied in any significant way to the cause of liberal dissidents in other countries, the days when Havel's statements were regarded by Americans as important calls for intellectual responsibility—those days appear to be over.

I wonder if people who stand up to cheer a hagiography of Che Guevara, as the Sundance audience did, will ever give a damn about the oppressed people of Cuba—will ever lift a finger on behalf of the Cuban liberals and dissidents. It's easy in the world of film to make a movie about Che, but who among that cheering audience is going to make a movie about Raúl Rivero?

As a protest against the ovation at Sundance, I would like to append one of Rivero's poems to my comment here. The police confiscated Rivero's books and papers at the time of his arrest, but the poet's wife, Blanca Reyes, was able to rescue the manuscript of a poem describing an earlier police raid on his home. Letras Libres published the poem in Mexico. I hope that Rivero will forgive me for my translation. I like this poem because it shows that the modern, Almodóvar-like qualities of impudence, wit, irreverence, irony, playfulness, and freedom, so badly missing from Salles' pious work of cinematic genuflection, are fully alive in Latin America, and can be found right now in a Cuban prison.


http://www.slate.com/id/2107100/

banyon
07-07-2006, 10:02 AM
How is it possible to vote for anything except the top option?

I voted for the last option, because it was the closet to the option which I would've wanted to pick which would read like your third option but altered.

"He had some good ideas and some bad ideas, accomplished some positive things, and was involved in other things that did not work out well."

I mean, are you really against his reformations and assistance at the leper colony in Peru?

:cuss: free-loadin' lepers!!! you attend mass or you starve!

Brock
07-07-2006, 10:34 AM
I voted for the last option, because it was the closet to the option which I would've wanted to pick which would read like your third option but altered.

"He had some good ideas and some bad ideas, accomplished some positive things, and was involved in other things that did not work out well."

I mean, are you really against his reformations and assistance at the leper colony in Peru?

:cuss: free-loadin' lepers!!! you attend mass or you starve!

Does mass murder fall under "bad ideas" or is it more like "things that did not work out well"?

banyon
07-07-2006, 10:35 AM
Does mass murder fall under "bad ideas" or is it more like "things that did not work out well"?

I think I'm going to need a link on that one.

Brock
07-07-2006, 10:39 AM
I think I'm going to need a link on that one.

DanT already provided them.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2006, 10:51 AM
Commies...I hate 'em...they're the BIGGEST believers in the "ends justifies the means."

banyon
07-07-2006, 10:54 AM
DanT already provided them.

What Latin America lived since Che launched his slogans was a bloodbath and a wave of destruction and terror.

Are you referring to this?

banyon
07-07-2006, 10:55 AM
Commies...I hate 'em...they're the BIGGEST believers in the "ends justifies the means."

>Fascists?

Brock
07-07-2006, 11:03 AM
Are you referring to this?

No, banyon. :rolleyes:

Guevara sent 1,897 men to the firing squad

Cochise
07-07-2006, 11:39 AM
No, banyon. :rolleyes:

Dude. He's on t-shirts. Nobody on t-shirts ever did anything bad.

FringeNC
07-07-2006, 11:41 AM
I voted for the last option, because it was the closet to the option which I would've wanted to pick which would read like your third option but altered.

"He had some good ideas and some bad ideas, accomplished some positive things, and was involved in other things that did not work out well."

I mean, are you really against his reformations and assistance at the leper colony in Peru?

:cuss: free-loadin' lepers!!! you attend mass or you starve!

I'm sure someone could find something positive Hitler or Stalin did, too. Why are all lefties so willing to give mass murders free-rides?

FringeNC
07-07-2006, 11:43 AM
Commies...I hate 'em...they're the BIGGEST believers in the "ends justifies the means."

If only that were true. The end result are hell-holes.

banyon
07-07-2006, 11:44 AM
No, banyon. :rolleyes:

Man, Newsmax doesn't like Che? who would've guessed?

Here's what wikipedia (often inaccurate, but mostly unbiased) says in their entry:

he was responsible for the execution of many men found guilty of being informers, deserters or spies.

He was appointed commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison, and during his six-month tenure in that post (January 2 through June 12, 1959),[12] he oversaw the trial and execution of many people including former Batista regime officials, members of the BRAC (Buró de Represión de Actividades Comunistas, "Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities") secret police, alleged war criminals, and political dissidents. The trials he conducted were alleged to be "unfair", according to Time Magazine.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara#Cuba

So executing persons alleged to be spies, informers, or deserters after a trial is "mass murder"? Is that the reading that you want? I would classify this as a "grevious crime" if read in the worst possible light and it was accurate. So maybe I should amend my earlier answer to "Did some good work and some grevious crime". But it doesn't look as clear as you put it.

And the trials were alleged to be unfair...who does this remind me of? :hmmm: Oh, well I'm sure I'll think of who else wants to execute their enemies after secret, allegedly unfair trials if I think about it for a while... :(

DanT
07-07-2006, 11:56 AM
Here's one of the entries on the "Witness to Persecution" webpage.

http://picard.montclair.edu/witness/LaCabana.html

Executions at "La Cabaña" fortress under Ernesto "Ché" Guevara

Document written by José Vilasuso, a lawyer who worked under "Ché" in the preparation of indictments that often resulted in the death sentence during the first months of the Communist government in 1959


In January of 1959 I worked under the well known leader of the Purging Commission, Ciro Redondo Column, fortress of La Cabaña. I was a recent Law School graduate and had the enthusiasm of one who witnesses his own generation assume power.

I was part of the team assembling the details of the cases against those accused of committing crimes during the previous government, such as murder, embezzlement, torture, betrayal, etc. Through my desk passed the files of accused men such as Commander Alberto Boix Coma and the journalist Otto Meruelo. Most of the indicted were military of low ranks, or politicians of no renown or charisma. On their side, the witnesses were ardent youth, vengeful, utopian, or simply malicious, anxious to earn revolutionary honors. I remember a Lieutenant Llivre, with an eastern-Cuba accent who would instigate us with “We must set up the show, we must bring real revolutionary witnesses who can shout ‘justice!, justice!, firing squad!, esbirros*!. This is what moves people.” The commissioner of the Marianao section once exhorted us: “We have to get all of these heads. All of them”

At the beginning, the Tribunals were composed of civilian and military lawyers, under the direction of Captain Mike Duque de Estrada and Lieutenants Sotolongo and Rivero (who later went crazy), and the prosecutors Tony Suarez de la Fuente (Pelayito) also known as “Pool o’blood” (Charco de Sangre) among others. Then, most of us quit given the excesses. Later, others without any legal training occupied our positions.

There were relatives of victims of the previous regime who were put in charge of judging the accused.

The first case on which I worked was that of Ariel Lima, a former revolutionary who had gone to the government side. His fate was sealed. He was dressed in prison uniform. I saw him handcuffed with his teeth chattering. According to the Law of the Guerrillas the facts were judged without any consideration to general juridical principles. The right of Habeas Corpus had been suspended.

The statements of the investigating officer constituted irrefutable proof of wrongdoing. The defense lawyer simply admitted the accusations and requested the generosity of the government in order to reduce the sentence. In those days, Guevara was visible in his black beret, cigar in mouth. Cantinflas-like face and bandaged arm in sling. He was extremely thin and his slow and cold tone demonstrated his “posse” of “gray eminence” of the Revolution and total adherence to Marxist theory. Many people congregated in his office and engaged in lively discussions about the revolutionary process. However, his conversation used to be full of irony, he never showed any alteration in temperament or paid any attention to different opinions He reprimanded in private more than one colleague; in public, he chastised us all: “Don’t delay these trials. This is a revolution, the proofs are secondary. We have to proceed by conviction. They are a gang of criminals and murderers. Besides, remember that there is an Appeals Tribunals”

This Appeals Tribunal never decided in favor of the appeal. It simply confirmed the sentences. It was presided by Commander Ernesto Guevara Serna.

The executions took place in the early morning hours. Once sentence was passed, the relatives and friends exploded in horrible cries, supplications of pity for their children, their husbands, etc, Desperation and terror spread throughout the room. Several women had to be taken out by force. The next step was “goodbye” a room where they embraced for the last time, united by pain. Those embraces of minutes looked like the prelude of a long trip. Once alone, there were some men who resisted until the time of the discharge of the guns. Others went shaking, dejected, overwhelmed. One policeman, as a last wish wanted permission to urinate. Many learned only that day what a priest was. More than one died shouting :”I am innocent” A brave captain commanded his own execution.

To witness such a butchery was a trauma that will accompany me to my grave and it is my mission to let this be known. During those hours the walls of that medieval castle received the echoes of the rhythmic footstep of the squad, the clicking of the rifles, the command voices, the resounding of the shots, the sorry howling of the dying and the shouting of officers and guards upon their final shots. The macabre silence when everything was consummated.,

In front of the wall, full of holes by the bullets, tied to posts, the agonizing corpses remained, soaked in blood and paralyzed in indescribable positions, spastic hands, painful expressions of shock, unhinged jaws, a hole where an eye used to be before. Some of the bodies had the skulls destroyed and exposed brains due to the last shot.

Executions took place from Monday to Saturday, and each day about one to seven prisoners were executed, sometimes more. Death sentence cases had a blanket authorization of Fidel, Raul and Ché, and were decided by the Tribunal or by the Communist Party. Each member of the firing squad got fifteen pesos per execution. The officers got twenty five. In Oriente province summary sentences were profusely applied, but I don’t have reliable figures. Nevertheless, in La Cabaña, until June of 1959, about six hundred prisoners were executed, plus and indefinite number of prison sentences… all this after a revolutionary process in which about four thousand people lost their lives on both sides.**

BucEyedPea
07-07-2006, 11:57 AM
If only that were true. The end result are hell-holes.


Excellent point! :thumb:

I should clarify that in achieving that hell-hole, they will commit any atrocity, lie, cheat and steal....in other words....the means justifies their ends.

Che is popular right now with college kids....wearing t-shirts etc.
And upon questioning they think he is good guy. If they only knew. :mad:

BucEyedPea
07-07-2006, 12:03 PM
Here's what wikipedia (often inaccurate, but mostly unbiased) says in their entry:

No it can also be biased.

I've seen it on certain things I've studied in depth...especially by leaving info out that can color things differently.

It's based on contributions by people. I've seen vehement disagreement with their bias. Saw a real flame war. Actually it was someone arguing over their obvious support of Iraq and the editor refused to budge. They had something the other day with a frame asking people for corrections to something too.

It's a good place to start though.

Spicy McHaggis
07-07-2006, 12:13 PM
Dude. He's on t-shirts. Nobody on t-shirts ever did anything bad.


I've got a Che flag in my room that one of my Argentine friends gave me. This girl was over and says "Oh, cool. I like that."
Me: "Yeah, my buddy gave it to me."
Girl: "Sweet. I love Bob Marley."
Me: (stunned silence)


I almost kicked her out for being a dumbass. But if all of us did that we'd never get laid.

DanT
07-07-2006, 12:17 PM
Here's a 1999 Human Rights Watch report on the "Repressive Machinery in Cuba".

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-03.htm

Anybody that respects the legal process in a society that doesn't even respect property rights is lost. Che Guevara grew up middle-class and went way the hell out of his way to go kill a whole bunch of people who didn't deserve to die, leaving behind a legacy of repression, murder and poverty.

Cochise
07-07-2006, 12:20 PM
Good work on the thread DanT, interesting info that you don't commonly hear.

DanT
07-07-2006, 12:30 PM
Here's a blog with the text of one of Alvara Vargas Llosa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvaro_Vargas_Llosa)'s articles that appeared in The New Republic. The article has to my ear the absolute ring of truth. There are evil people out there who think that they know better than other people who deserves to live: in many cases, these people have absolutely no regard for other people's property rights.

http://cheguevaralies.blogspot.com/2006/01/killing-machine-che-guevara-from.html

click here for an a webpage with the text of the above article, displayed in an easier-to-read typeface (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535)

I'd be happy to read any links about Che Guevara from people who disagree with me about him.

Brock
07-07-2006, 12:33 PM
In front of the wall, full of holes by the bullets, tied to posts, the agonizing corpses remained, soaked in blood and paralyzed in indescribable positions, spastic hands, painful expressions of shock, unhinged jaws, a hole where an eye used to be before. Some of the bodies had the skulls destroyed and exposed brains due to the last shot.

Executions took place from Monday to Saturday, and each day about one to seven prisoners were executed, sometimes more. Death sentence cases had a blanket authorization of Fidel, Raul and Ché, and were decided by the Tribunal or by the Communist Party. Each member of the firing squad got fifteen pesos per execution. The officers got twenty five. In Oriente province summary sentences were profusely applied, but I don’t have reliable figures. Nevertheless, in La Cabaña, until June of 1959, about six hundred prisoners were executed, plus and indefinite number of prison sentences… all this after a revolutionary process in which about four thousand people lost their lives on both sides.**

banyon, ooops. I'm sure you'll find some way to discredit the source, or to make a nonsensical comparison to Guantanamo.

banyon
07-07-2006, 12:39 PM
No it can also be biased.

I've seen it on certain things I've studied in depth...especially by leaving info out that can color things differently.

It's based on contributions by people. I've seen vehement disagreement with their bias. Saw a real flame war. Actually it was someone arguing over their obvious support of Iraq and the editor refused to budge. They had something the other day with a frame asking people for corrections to something too.

It's a good place to start though.

Didn't I say "mostly"?

If an article is disputed, typically there will be a disclaimer at the top of the article.

banyon
07-07-2006, 12:51 PM
banyon, ooops. I'm sure you'll find some way to discredit the source, or to make a nonsensical comparison to Guantanamo.

Well, it does directly contradict the first link you used which states that there were no trials, so I guess you need to select which account you would like to go with. I'm not clear why you are so incensed. Are you against post-Revolution executions in any situation? Do you hold our founding fathers accountable for hanging spies or traitors? Is this "Che lied, people died?"



Why is the comparison nonsensical? Those detainees were being denied habeus corpus, and when the Administration was finally forced to bring them to some sort of trial after a couple of years, the tribunals they came up with allowed "secret evidence" that was presented to the judge that couldn't be seen by the defendant or his attorney. There is also no appeals process as of yet. And executions are on the table. Moreover a great number of the originally detained individuals that were certain to be "enemy combatants" have been subsequently released. So it is not as if we have a foolproof methodology of separating the guilty from the innocent.

Ultra Peanut
07-07-2006, 01:02 PM
He's like, so treeendy man.

Ultra Peanut
07-07-2006, 01:03 PM
I've got a Che flag in my room that one of my Argentine friends gave me. This girl was over and says "Oh, cool. I like that."
Me: "Yeah, my buddy gave it to me."
Girl: "Sweet. I love Bob Marley."
Me: (stunned silence):LOL:

Brock
07-07-2006, 01:18 PM
Well, it does directly contradict the first link you used which states that there were no trials, so I guess you need to select which account you would like to go with. I'm not clear why you are so incensed. Are you against post-Revolution executions in any situation? Do you hold our founding fathers accountable for hanging spies or traitors? Is this "Che lied, people died?"



Why is the comparison nonsensical? Those detainees were being denied habeus corpus, and when the Administration was finally forced to bring them to some sort of trial after a couple of years, the tribunals they came up with allowed "secret evidence" that was presented to the judge that couldn't be seen by the defendant or his attorney. There is also no appeals process as of yet. And executions are on the table. Moreover a great number of the originally detained individuals that were certain to be "enemy combatants" have been subsequently released. So it is not as if we have a foolproof methodology of separating the guilty from the innocent.

There hasn't been one - not ONE - execution of guantanamo prisoners.

If you like, I can provide you with several eyewitness accounts of people who were imprisoned by Guevara and the manner in which the executions took place were not subsequent to any kind of trial. Somehow, I doubt it would make any difference to you.

In 1959, Che Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959-1963, he oversaw the executions of hundreds of political prisoners and regime opponents (estimates range from 500 to 1700). Many individuals imprisoned at La Cabana, such as poet and human rights activist Armando Valladares, allege that Guevara took particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of some prisoners.


Incensed? Hardly. I find your naivete quite laughable.

FringeNC
07-07-2006, 01:23 PM
Well, it does directly contradict the first link you used which states that there were no trials, so I guess you need to select which account you would like to go with. I'm not clear why you are so incensed. Are you against post-Revolution executions in any situation? Do you hold our founding fathers accountable for hanging spies or traitors? Is this "Che lied, people died?"



Why is the comparison nonsensical? Those detainees were being denied habeus corpus, and when the Administration was finally forced to bring them to some sort of trial after a couple of years, the tribunals they came up with allowed "secret evidence" that was presented to the judge that couldn't be seen by the defendant or his attorney. There is also no appeals process as of yet. And executions are on the table. Moreover a great number of the originally detained individuals that were certain to be "enemy combatants" have been subsequently released. So it is not as if we have a foolproof methodology of separating the guilty from the innocent.

So any group that assumes power through the violent overthrow of a government, executes anyone that gives a hint of loyalty to the old guard, is excused from their atrocities because they were legitimately exercising power?

Stalin, Castro and the Khmer Rouge must be your heroes.

Brock
07-07-2006, 01:27 PM
So any group that assumes power through the violent overthrow of a government, executes anyone that gives a hint of loyalty to the old guard, is excused from their atrocities because they were legitimately exercising power?

Stalin, Castro and the Khmer Rouge must be your heroes.

They're right up there with Washington and Jefferson.

Nightwish
07-07-2006, 01:48 PM
I honestly don't know a lot about him but my general impression is that he had good intentions but with flawed theories. I always had the impression that his actions were somewhat despicable and violent. Though that could just be the common perception of him

On another note that is a seriously well known photograph/portrait.
I, too, don't know that much about him. My impression from what I have heard is that he sincerely intended to create something good for his country (or adopted country, I don't remember if he was native to Cuba or to Argentina), but that the bad that eventually came of his efforts was less his own doing and more the result of others exploiting the door that he opened.

Iowanian
07-07-2006, 01:53 PM
I think Che was a shitbag.


Charles Manson also has a popular Tshirt. It doesn't make him sane.

BIG_DADDY
07-07-2006, 02:02 PM
I think Che was a shitbag.


Charles Manson also has a popular Tshirt. It doesn't make him sane.

I like Charlies better.

Moooo
07-07-2006, 02:03 PM
Stalin, Castro and the Khmer Rouge must be your heroes.

No, mostly just Pul Pot and Mao :)

Moooo

Cochise
07-07-2006, 02:25 PM
Why is the comparison nonsensical? Those detainees were being denied habeus corpus, and when the Administration was finally forced to bring them to some sort of trial after a couple of years, the tribunals they came up with allowed "secret evidence" that was presented to the judge that couldn't be seen by the defendant or his attorney. There is also no appeals process as of yet. And executions are on the table. Moreover a great number of the originally detained individuals that were certain to be "enemy combatants" have been subsequently released. So it is not as if we have a foolproof methodology of separating the guilty from the innocent.

It really looks like you decided that you like Che, because he's some kind of liberal pop-culture icon, before you knew really anything about him and now instead of saying he may not have been such a heroic guy you are just digging in your heels. It's not very becoming.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2006, 02:40 PM
They're right up there with Washington and Jefferson.

Except commies kill more after they take power than during.
That's when they kill off the intelligentsia, the educated, lawyers, businessmen...in short all the people needed to keep the place running or who could challenge them at the idea level. The commies killed hundreds of millions of people...more than the Nazi's, any pre-20th century war or 'isms"... They were mega-mortacracies.

If it weren't for Washington our revolution would have ended in bloody revenge like the French revolution. Many people wanted the heads of the Tories to roll but it was Washington who had a policy of mercy and ended the violence right then so this country could move on. Not France...they wound up with dictatorship, Robespierre followed by Napoleon.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2006, 02:44 PM
Didn't I say "mostly"?

If an article is disputed, typically there will be a disclaimer at the top of the article.
Not always. Not on Pope Pius XII and some more that I can't recall off the top of my head.

I have actually used it to download hi-res illuminated manuscripts for showing how we got our lower case letters after using Roman caps for so long for one of my classes that has history of writing in it.

banyon
07-07-2006, 03:21 PM
It really looks like you decided that you like Che, because he's some kind of liberal pop-culture icon, before you knew really anything about him and now instead of saying he may not have been such a heroic guy you are just digging in your heels. It's not very becoming.

This is a plausible reading of what I have posted so far, but that's not what I am doing. I will respond more fully when I have time later. Glad you are concerned about my "comeliness" however. :p

banyon
07-07-2006, 03:22 PM
Not always. Not on Pope Pius XII and some more that I can't recall off the top of my head.

I have actually used it to download hi-res illuminated manuscripts for showing how we got our lower case letters after using Roman caps for so long for one of my classes that has history of writing in it.

Didn't I say "mostly"?

BucEyedPea
07-07-2006, 03:50 PM
Correct banyon...I guess when it comes to controversial things such as politics I disagree with the "mostly" as well...sometimes is better for me.

Cochise
07-07-2006, 03:54 PM
This is a plausible reading of what I have posted so far, but that's not what I am doing. I will respond more fully when I have time later. Glad you are concerned about my "comeliness" however. :p

It's kind of humorous that someone who worked so hard to smash capitalism is now marketed like a cosmetic. He's a fashion statement. He's nothing more than an abercrombie logo or a nike logo to 99% of the people who have his name on their lips.

It'll take a lot of mental gymnastics to turn Guevara into someone to be admired - save by the type of totalitarianist that might have found Stalin admirable.

I don't think you can name a lot of places where the governmental system employed by Castro's Cuba has existed and there were not massive human rights abuses.

It's typical, and not atypical, of the system. No matter how much one dislikes America, Capitalism, free markets, basically all the founding principles of the United States, you can at least say for us that we don't have mass executions of political dissidents.

Hydrae
07-07-2006, 04:09 PM
I must say this thread highlights one of my favorite things about this board in general and the DC forum in particular. I knew basically nothing about Che before this thread but have learned a lot! (Thanks DanT, your linked articles are always spot on)

SBK
07-07-2006, 04:23 PM
It's kind of humorous that someone who worked so hard to smash capitalism is now marketed like a cosmetic. He's a fashion statement. He's nothing more than an abercrombie logo or a nike logo to 99% of the people who have his name on their lips.

It'll take a lot of mental gymnastics to turn Guevara into someone to be admired - save by the type of totalitarianist that might have found Stalin admirable.

I don't think you can name a lot of places where the governmental system employed by Castro's Cuba has existed and there were not massive human rights abuses.

It's typical, and not atypical, of the system. No matter how much one dislikes America, Capitalism, free markets, basically all the founding principles of the United States, you can at least say for us that we don't have mass executions of political dissidents.

But our president bombs woman and eats babies! ROFL

go bowe
07-07-2006, 11:37 PM
as long as he only bombs ugly women, it's ok with me...

as far as eating babies, i tend to like the fat ones better...

BucEyedPea
07-08-2006, 06:15 AM
>Fascists?
I KNEW someone would bring this up because sympathetic commie-types and communists themselves ALWAYS do. Commies hate fascists and fascists hate communist. To me there's little difference between the two.

So I agree you are right banyone....they do use the same means.
I call it "Keeping it in The Family."

Both are brother sister "isms" sharing much in common with each other as in choose your collectivism even if they use the same "means." That's why they hate one another, each knows the other's operating basis real well. It's like sibling rivalry. Like I said gotta keep it in "the Family." (Sounds like Mafia types too...doesn't it?)

Let's not forget, however, that today's NeoCons are descendents of Trotsky and Leo Strauss....both advocates of the same "means justifies the ends."

FringeNC
07-08-2006, 08:32 AM
I KNEW someone would bring this up because sympathetic commie-types and communists themselves ALWAYS do. Commies hate fascists and fascists hate communist. To me there's little difference between the two.



What gets me is the left tries to portray Hitler as "right-wing", even though Nazis were statists and socialists. Hey lefties: Hitler is your's, too.

And Democrats to this day use one of the Nazi's main election strategies: class-warfare rhetoric (envy). In fact, it is usually the defining characteristic of a Dem's presidential campaign. (a la John Edwards ridiculous Two Americas).

Most Dems actually think people getting rich CAUSE other people to be poor. The zero-sum model of economic interaction.

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 09:54 AM
What gets me is the left tries to portray Hitler as "right-wing", even though Nazis were statists and socialists. Hey lefties: Hitler is your's, too.
Both the left and the right have elements in common with the Nazis and Hitler. You're right that Hitler is "one of theirs," but you're wrong if you assume he wasn't also "one of yours."

And Democrats to this day use one of the Nazi's main election strategies: class-warfare rhetoric (envy).
So do Republicans. Dems employ a class envy approach, while Republicans employ a class disdain approach. The Nazis tended to favor the latter, which is more commonly a Republican tactic.

Most Dems actually think people getting rich CAUSE other people to be poor. The zero-sum model of economic interaction.
Might I suggest you actually start paying attention to what the Dems believe, instead of what your Republican talking heads tell you the Dems believe?

FringeNC
07-08-2006, 10:01 AM
Both the left and the right have elements in common with the Nazis and Hitler. You're right that Hitler is "one of theirs," but you're wrong if you assume he wasn't also "one of yours."


So do Republicans. Dems employ a class envy approach, while Republicans employ a class disdain approach. The Nazis tended to favor the latter, which is more commonly a Republican tactic.


Might I suggest you actually start paying attention to what the Dems believe, instead of what your Republican talking heads tell you the Dems believe?

May I suggest you stop the condescending bullshit when I know damn well what the Democrats stand for? Is that too much too ask?

And Class disdain approach? That's a new one to me...I think you just made that shit up off the top of your head...

Now if you wanted to say the Republicans, especially in the past, have played the race card, then I might agree....but "class disdain"? WTF is that?

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 10:14 AM
May I suggest you stop the condescending bullshit when I know damn well what the Democrats stand for? Is that too much too ask?
Apparently you don't. Show me one instance where a Democrat has claimed that people getting rich causes others to become poor. Again, examine their beliefs yourself, stop letting your talking heads think for you.

And Class disdain approach? That's a new one to me...I think you just made that shit up off the top of your head...
You didn't honestly think that "envy" is the only approach to class warfare, did you?

Now if you wanted to say the Republicans, especially in the past, have played the race card, then I might agree....but "class disdain"? WTF is that?
If you take a moment to think about it, I'm sure you won't need me to explain it to you.

banyon
07-08-2006, 10:35 AM
What gets me is the left tries to portray Hitler as "right-wing", even though Nazis were statists and socialists. Hey lefties: Hitler is your's, too.

And Democrats to this day use one of the Nazi's main election strategies: class-warfare rhetoric (envy). In fact, it is usually the defining characteristic of a Dem's presidential campaign. (a la John Edwards ridiculous Two Americas).

Most Dems actually think people getting rich CAUSE other people to be poor. The zero-sum model of economic interaction.

:spock:

Basic tenants of Mein Kampf/fascism

1. Massively increase government surveillance of citizens. Create secret police forces.

2. Conduct as much of government in possible in secrecy, in closed non-transparent proceedings.

3. Repeal laws protecting criminal defendants. Restrict laws protecting citizens from search/seizures.

4. Torture and experiment on/kill dissidents and critics.

5. Consolidate and control major news media. Develop sophisticated propaganda apparatus.

6. Achieve rigidity in party discipline. Marginialize political opposition.

7. Institute corporations as preeminent dominant economic force.
Dissolve corporate/governmental distinctions by giving corporations traditional governent functions.

8. Maintain and reinforce class structures.

9. Promote nationalistic fervor, denounce critics as unpatriotic. Encourage wearing of nationalistic symbols.

10. Engage in pre-emptive military hostilities (like against Czech/Poland).


So, which one of these is "left-leaning?" I think you must be thinking of those "small government" Republican guys, but they all went away.

HC_Chief
07-08-2006, 10:36 AM
F*ck that dead murdering commie bastard and anyone stupid enough to think he was "cool".

http://www.spreadshirt.com/shops/63000/62441/motives/62441_461075_big.gif

HC_Chief
07-08-2006, 10:36 AM
This one says it all

http://www.spreadshirt.com/shops/63000/62441/motives/62441_461551_big.gif

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 10:51 AM
:spock:

Basic tenants of Mein Kampf/fascism

1. Massively increase government surveillance of citizens. Create secret police forces.
In America, anyway, this is mostly favored by the Right.

2. Conduct as much of government in possible in secrecy, in closed non-transparent proceedings.
Both sides equal in this regard.

3. Repeal laws protecting criminal defendants. Restrict laws protecting citizens from search/seizures.
In America, mostly favored by the right, but in today's partisan climate, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Dems do it, too, if they regain power.

4. Torture and experiment on/kill dissidents and critics.
Not really a characteristic of either the left or right in America, though in recent months, it has been the Right that has spoken out in favor of at least lesser forms of "torture."

5. Consolidate and control major news media. Develop sophisticated propaganda apparatus.
Both sides equal in this regard. And the White House always has its own propaganda minister, except we call him a Press Secretary.

6. Achieve rigidity in party discipline. Marginialize political opposition.
Common to both sides these days, though it appears to be slightly more common to the Right.

7. Institute corporations as preeminent dominant economic force.
Dissolve corporate/governmental distinctions by giving corporations traditional governent functions.
I wasn't aware of this being a Nazi philosophy, but it is definitely one which coincides much more with the Right than with the Left.

8. Maintain and reinforce class structures.
Both sides do this. The Right does it to preserve economic stratification, and the Left does it to preserve a powerful political playing card.

9. Promote nationalistic fervor, denounce critics as unpatriotic. Encourage wearing of nationalistic symbols.
Right wing all the way.

10. Engage in pre-emptive military hostilities (like against Czech/Poland).
Not necessarily a defining characteristic of either side, but it is commonly mistaken as a Right wing characteristic, since they are the ones who actually did it.

Final tally:

Right wing - 8 (including those common to both sides)
Left wing - 4 (including those common to both sides)
Neither wing - 2

banyon
07-08-2006, 10:55 AM
It's kind of humorous that someone who worked so hard to smash capitalism is now marketed like a cosmetic. He's a fashion statement. He's nothing more than an abercrombie logo or a nike logo to 99% of the people who have his name on their lips.

It'll take a lot of mental gymnastics to turn Guevara into someone to be admired - save by the type of totalitarianist that might have found Stalin admirable.

I don't think you can name a lot of places where the governmental system employed by Castro's Cuba has existed and there were not massive human rights abuses.

It's typical, and not atypical, of the system. No matter how much one dislikes America, Capitalism, free markets, basically all the founding principles of the United States, you can at least say for us that we don't have mass executions of political dissidents.

O.K.

First, let me make a confession that sounds really stupid. I haven't read much about Che, and most of what I do know about his life comes from a single viewing of the film The Motorcycle Diaries and the minimal history that I have picked up in the course of reading about other subjects.

So, I thought that there should be a poll option that mentioned the possiblity that Che did some good things. To date I had not considered him to be on a par with Stalin, Hitler, or even Castro, so I wasn't saying that because I thought everybody does some good.

Then Brock posts a statement as fact from none other than Newsmax. So naturally, I am suspicious to see if it is true, much as you would be if I posted things from "Al Martin Raw" or something and listed them as facts".

But after looking into the matter more, it appears that there were certainly some nefarious activities he was involved in.

I am still not comfortable with Brock's label of "mass murder" because the criteria do not fit with what I normally think of as "mass murder". I was trying to get someone to spell out why it was mass murder in a way that would not implicate our own foreign policy or other historical events that probably should not be termed that way.

If it's just execution of political/revolutionary opponents after questionable trial proceedings, then that criteria woud fit our own plans for the Gitmo detainees. Yes, no one has been executed to date, but executions will or at least can be ordered from these proceedings. So if anyone wants to draw a meaningful distinction for me that doesn't amount to "That was them, this is us" then I'd like to hear it.

And I don't say these things because I "hate America" or some B.S. like that. I say them because I believe our country is capable of being held to a higher standard than our enemies in these matters.

banyon
07-08-2006, 10:59 AM
I wasn't aware of this being a Nazi philosophy, but it is definitely one which coincides much more with the Right than with the Left.



yes. Mussolini;s state was considered "corporatist" for these reasons, and the ties between the Hitler and Corporate leadership were extensive.

FringeNC
07-08-2006, 11:00 AM
:spock:

Basic tenants of Mein Kampf/fascism

1. Massively increase government surveillance of citizens. Create secret police forces.

2. Conduct as much of government in possible in secrecy, in closed non-transparent proceedings.

3. Repeal laws protecting criminal defendants. Restrict laws protecting citizens from search/seizures.

4. Torture and experiment on/kill dissidents and critics.

5. Consolidate and control major news media. Develop sophisticated propaganda apparatus.

6. Achieve rigidity in party discipline. Marginialize political opposition.

7. Institute corporations as preeminent dominant economic force.
Dissolve corporate/governmental distinctions by giving corporations traditional governent functions.

8. Maintain and reinforce class structures.

9. Promote nationalistic fervor, denounce critics as unpatriotic. Encourage wearing of nationalistic symbols.

10. Engage in pre-emptive military hostilities (like against Czech/Poland).


So, which one of these is "left-leaning?" I think you must be thinking of those "small government" Republican guys, but they all went away.

I'm not sure how relevant all that is to the fact that Nazis were self-proclaimed socialists.

The early Nazi member was a lower middle-class person who blamed the merchant/banking class for his relatively low standard of living and German's reparation payments...and it just so happens that Jews dominated the merchant/banking class. Jews were not rounded up because they were inferior, they were rounded up because they were superior...ie, the class envy thing, and in Germany at that time the class that was hated happened to look just a little different, have a different religion, and be close-knitted....

Nowadays there is not one racially identifiable sub-group that makes up the "rich"...and it's a good thing, too.

I consider statism (central planning) and socialism to be "left". The Nazis had those in spades. I don't remember Hitler calling for free-markets.

banyon
07-08-2006, 11:05 AM
Final tally:

Right wing - 8 (including those common to both sides)
Left wing - 4 (including those common to both sides)
Neither wing - 2

i disagree with your view on #5. Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed by Clinton and enacteed by a Republican Congress, most Dems today strongly wish to repeal it. Michael Powell, Colin Powel''s Son as FCC commissioner has done more to consolidate media than most of his predecessors combined. So I'd sy "Both, but more right than left.

I would also say that #2 leans right, especially wrt this administration.

But I would like to note that there were none that were "left only".

banyon
07-08-2006, 11:14 AM
I'm not sure how relevant all that is to the fact that Nazis were self-proclaimed socialists.

Because that's in their name? Hitler denounced what socialism is repeatedly and at every occasion. Is the People's Republic of China a republic because it's in their name?

The early Nazi member was a lower middle-class person who blamed the merchant/banking class for his relatively low standard of living and German's reparation payments...and it just so happens that Jews dominated the merchant/banking class. Jews were not rounded up because they were inferior, they were rounded up because they were superior...ie, the class envy thing, and in Germany at that time the class that was hated happened to look just a little different, have a different religion, and be close-knitted....

Nowadays there is not one racially identifiable sub-group that makes up the "rich"...and it's a good thing, too.

Yes...so since the right does not hate a specific racial group the other shared qualities don't matter?

I consider statism (central planning) and socialism to be "left". The Nazis had those in spades. I don't remember Hitler calling for free-markets.

Yeah, once again the "new Right" in this country is all into statism. The empowered left, if thats who we are talking about, has never called for anything except free-trade either, so I'm not sure why this gets you anywhere. NAFTA was not passed by a Republican president.

FringeNC
07-08-2006, 11:30 AM
Because that's in their name? Hitler denounced what socialism is repeatedly and at every occasion. Is the People's Republic of China a republic because it's in their name?



Yes...so since the right does not hate a specific racial group the other shared qualities don't matter?



Yeah, once again the "new Right" in this country is all into statism. The empowered left, if thats who we are talking about, has never called for anything except free-trade either, so I'm not sure why this gets you anywhere. NAFTA was not passed by a Republican president.

Trying running a regression on voting yes/no for NAFTA..include all relevant variables economic variables of the state..and you will still find that party affiliation is still a significant variable -- and that being a Republican makes you more likely to support free-trade.

Republicans are no panacea when it comes to free-trade. Problem is, the Democrats are worse.

The two big Republican problems are not really the one's you mentioned:

1) support for teaching creationism and other nonsense
2) farm subsidies (let's call it what it is: welfare for farmers)

At the local level, #1 almost disqualifies Republicans in my book...but at the national level, it's not something to worry about...

This whole police state under Bush....I just don't see it.....can you give me concrete examples of your life being affected by it? Other than being needlessly hassled at the airport (which is bipartisan nonsense), I haven't felt it.

Personally, I think the Republican Party are a bunch of idiots....but it's the only game in town.

patteeu
07-08-2006, 11:33 AM
:spock:

Basic tenants of Mein Kampf/fascism

1. Massively increase government surveillance of citizens. Create secret police forces.

2. Conduct as much of government in possible in secrecy, in closed non-transparent proceedings.

3. Repeal laws protecting criminal defendants. Restrict laws protecting citizens from search/seizures.

4. Torture and experiment on/kill dissidents and critics.

5. Consolidate and control major news media. Develop sophisticated propaganda apparatus.

6. Achieve rigidity in party discipline. Marginialize political opposition.

7. Institute corporations as preeminent dominant economic force.
Dissolve corporate/governmental distinctions by giving corporations traditional governent functions.

8. Maintain and reinforce class structures.

9. Promote nationalistic fervor, denounce critics as unpatriotic. Encourage wearing of nationalistic symbols.

10. Engage in pre-emptive military hostilities (like against Czech/Poland).


So, which one of these is "left-leaning?" I think you must be thinking of those "small government" Republican guys, but they all went away.

I would say that most if not all of these characteristics are much closer to Soviet socialism than to Bush Republicanism and even farther from small government Republicans (who are still in far greater supply than small government democrats).

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 11:37 AM
I'm not sure how relevant all that is to the fact that Nazis were self-proclaimed socialists.
The Nazis were socialist in name only. Actually, they created a new paradigm called "national socialism," which borrows a few elements of classical socialism, but is in most respects a totalitarian nationalist economy which bears very little in common with the sort of socialism that is associated with some left-wing ideologies.

The early Nazi member was a lower middle-class person who blamed the merchant/banking class for his relatively low standard of living and German's reparation payments...and it just so happens that Jews dominated the merchant/banking class. Jews were not rounded up because they were inferior, they were rounded up because they were superior...ie, the class envy thing, and in Germany at that time the class that was hated happened to look just a little different, have a different religion, and be close-knitted....
That is extremely oversimplified. To understand the Nazi disdain of the Jews, gypsies, Czechs, and others, you have to understand both the founding ideologies of Naziism and the tenets of the Thule Society that were later introduced into its power elite. The Nazis were extremely nationalistic, as were the German people in general. They believed that national identity and dedication to homeland were of paramount importance. They had a particular disdain for people who would leave their national homelands to live elsewhere, and especially hated those who were not of ethnic "Aryan" German origins living in Germany, as they believed the "great" nation of Germany was the product of the blood and toil of ethnic "Aryan" Germans, and that anyone else who was enjoying the fruits of their labor was a parasite. They similarly disliked ethnic "Aryan" Germans who chose to leave Germany and live abroad, though to a much lesser degree. It is true that there was also some class envy of the Jewish people, as they tended to be richer, on the average, than the other "parasitic races" living in Germany at the time, but class envy was not as dominate a factor as you claim, as the average Jew was no richer than the average ethnic German.

I consider statism (central planning) and socialism to be "left". The Nazis had those in spades. I don't remember Hitler calling for free-markets.
Socialism is generally considered "left," but as I mentioned above, Naziism, though it included the word "Socialist" in its name, was something altogether different. The sort of abridged socialism that the Nazis embraced had very little in common with left-wing thinking, but a great deal in common with right-wing thinking.

banyon
07-08-2006, 11:39 AM
Trying running a regression on voting yes/no for NAFTA..include all relevant variables economic variables of the state..and you will still find that party affiliation is still a significant variable -- and that being a Republican makes you more likely to support free-trade.

Republicans are no panacea when it comes to free-trade. Problem is, the Democrats are worse.

I guess I don't understand why you are trying to make a big thing about Republican support for free trade. What you say here is accurate, but simply because the right has one dissimilar characteristic with the Fascists does not make them more dissimilar to that ideology than the left, because you have rebutted none of the other ten characteristics I listed.

The two big Republican problems are not really the one's you mentioned:

1) support for teaching creationism and other nonsense
2) farm subsidies (let's call it what it is: welfare for farmers)

At the local level, #1 almost disqualifies Republicans in my book...but at the national level, it's not something to worry about...

What, if anything does this have to do with this discussion?

This whole police state under Bush....I just don't see it.....can you give me concrete examples of your life being affected by it? Other than being needlessly hassled at the airport (which is bipartisan nonsense), I haven't felt it.

Are you really saying "It doesn't affect me, so why should I worry?" That's really a sad approach, if true.

Personally, I think the Republican Party are a bunch of idiots....but it's the only game in town.

Well I feel the same way about Dems, except that I often just deny them my vote as well.

banyon
07-08-2006, 11:40 AM
I would say that most if not all of these characteristics are much closer to Soviet socialism than to Bush Republicanism and even farther from small government Republicans (who are still in far greater supply than small government democrats).

like I said, those guys are gone, or at least not in control of our government, which you will have to admit, has expanded more than under any other Republican president.

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 11:43 AM
I would say that most if not all of these characteristics are much closer to Soviet socialism than to Bush Republicanism and even farther from small government Republicans (who are still in far greater supply than small government democrats).
Interesting. If "Bush Republicanism" is so far from what Banyon described, then why has the Bush Administration, with the support of much of the modern Republican party, clearly engaged in almost all of them?

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 11:48 AM
I guess I don't understand why you are trying to make a big thing about Republican support for free trade. What you say here is accurate, but simply because the right has one dissimilar characteristic with the Fascists does not make them more dissimilar to that ideology than the left, because you have rebutted none of the other ten characteristics I listed.

Actually, his comments about free trade don't even rebut #7, since your point was about favoring corporations and blurring the distinction between government and corporations, not about free trade. This sort of relationship between government and big industry can occur with both privately-run industries (as we've seen lately) and with state-run industries, such as what we saw in WWII Germany.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2006, 11:49 AM
NAFTA was not passed by a Republican president.

It was passed by both parties with several past presidents standing on stage when it was passed as well as Mr. Rockefeller...in the background if anyone noticed.

Fascism and/or Nazism IS actually LEFT on the political spectrum (if using a bar with total govt/big govt on left and no govt/anarchy on the right). It is just NATIONAL socialism instead of INTERNATIONAL socialism. Communism attempts to bring about socialism under a world govt and is internationalist in scope. Fascism is socialism that is nationalist in scope.

In fact Nazi stands for NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY.

Hitler had the major corporations owned by the state and was at some socialist meetings early on. He was impressed by them despite his rhetoric. He was a classic lying phony who did anything to grab power. Mussolini also was endeared to communism (Which really is still a socialism...Marxist-Leninist kind) in his early writings but because of the RCC's adverse stand on communism and he didn't want to butt heads with them. So he renamed it "fascism." He was the former editor of Italy's official Socialist newspaper Avanti. Fascism shares six planks of communism out of ten.

The only difference between the two is one of degree and form. In a fascism enterprise is not owned outright by the state...but enterprise is so regulated for the collective good, that even while the the deed or title is legally owned by an individual they really don't have any right to control it...that's not real ownership. It is not for one's own benefit. It's statism and collectivism pure and simple.

communists=collectivists=facists=socialists (The real a bundle of rods?? :p )

And this is one subject that wikipedia mishandlse as it uses the same old tired misinformation about it even if it acknowledges that scholars have vehemently debate these points at the end.

Modern Leftism: Recycled Fascism (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id8.html) They'll never admit it though...they are in denial.

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 11:55 AM
Fascism and/or Nazism IS actually LEFT on the political spectrum (if using a bar with total govt/big govt on left and no govt/anarchy on the right). It is just NATIONAL socialism instead of INTERNATIONAL socialism. Communism attempts to bring about socialism under a world govt and is internationalist in scope. Fascism is socialism that is nationalist in scope.Like with socialism, Naziism only included certain facets of fascism. It neither a squarely fascist or a squarely socialist thing. It was its own thing, rather unique, something the world had never seen before or since. I agree that using a scale measuring left and right only in terms of size of government, Naziism would fall on the left side of the spectrum. But where would it fall when using scales that measure left and right in the numerous other terms which define those spectra? I think if it were measured on all possible scales of comparison between what we know as Left and Right, it will fall Right more often than Left.

The only difference between the two is one of degree and form. In a fascism enterprise is not owned outright by the state...but enterprise is so regulated for the collective good, that even while the the deed or title is legally owned by an individual they really don't have any right to control it...that's not real ownership. It is not for one's own benefit. It's statism and collectivism pure and simple.
I may be wrong, but I don't think this is what was going on in Nazi Germany. It may have been going on in Mussolini's Italy, but the German's at that time, if I'm not mistaken, employed market socialism, which actually combines both socialist and capitalist philosophies. The state owned and profited from the major industries, such as energy and defense, but other industries could still be privately owned and their profits enjoyed by the owners or by stockholders.

NewChief
07-08-2006, 11:55 AM
Fascism and/or Nazism IS actually LEFT on the political spectrum (if using a bar with total govt/big govt on left and no govt/anarchy on the right). It is just NATIONAL socialism instead of INTERNATIONAL socialism. Communism attempts to bring about socialism under a world govt and is internationalist in scope. Fascism is socialism that is nationalist in scope.

In fact Nazi stand for NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY.

Hitler had the major corporations owned by the state and was at some socialist meetings early on. He was impressed by them despite his rhetoric. He was a classic lying phony who did anything to grab power. Mussolini also was endeared to communism (Which really is still a socialism...Marxist-Leninist kind) in his early writings but because of the RCC's adverse stand on communism and he didn't want to butt heads with them. So he renamed it "fascism." He was the former editor of Italy's official Socialist newspaper Avanti. Fascism shares six planks of communism out of ten.

The only difference between the two is one of degree and form. In a fascism enterprise is not owned outright by the state...but enterprise is so regulated for the collective good, that even while the the deed or title is legally owned by an individual they really don't have any right to control it...that's not real ownership. It is not for one's own benefit. It's statism and collectivism pure and simple.

communists=collectivists=facists=socialists (The real a bundle of rods?? :p )

And this is one subject that wikipedia does mishandle as it uses the same old tired misinformation about it even if it acknowledges that scholars have vehemently debate these points at the end.

Modern Leftism: Recycled Fascism (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id8.html) They'll never admit it though...they are in denial.

Ummm, once again you're cherrypicking your sources and evidence to back up what you believe. Do you not think that certain people have an agenda in trying to paint Fascism/Nazism as a leftist ideology. The fact is that the most vocal critics and activists against Nazism and Fascism during both WWII and the Spanish Civil War were leftists/socialists. Those were the people that went over to Spain to fight against Franco. Meanwhile the righties during that time went to fight with Franco.

Where the confusion arises is in trying to use Marxist-Leninism as representative of socialist ideology, when it is only one offshoot (and a bastardized on at that) of it. I'll give you that in application as an actual means of governance, communism and fascism have had many similarities, the chief being that they're a statist form of government encouraging totalitarian control and a self-serving hegemony in power. That being said, the two are complete opposites in theory.

On top of that, your spectrum of anarchism being the ultimate pole of the right wing is flawed by the fact that Marx actually saw anarchy as the endgame of Marxism. Eventually the people would need no government under Marxist ideology.

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 12:03 PM
To be honest, I don't think paradigms like fascism, marxist/leninist communism, and naziism can really be called Left or Right. And, as NewChief correctly pointed out, attempts to place them squarely in one camp or the other are agenda-driven, using them to try to disparage the competition. In truth, those paradigms borrow elements of both left-wing and right-wing ideologies, but pervert them in such ways that the final result is at odds with both.

FringeNC
07-08-2006, 12:04 PM
.

communists=collectivists=facists=socialists (The real a bundle of rods?? :p )



Let's just go to the source: Straight out of Hitler's mouth:

"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."

And one of Hitler's advisors:We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak ... and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.

And here is what Nobel-winning economist F.A. Hayek said:

The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. .... From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2006, 12:05 PM
Like with socialism, Naziism only included certain facets of fascism. It neither a squarely fascist or a squarely socialist thing. It was its own thing, rather unique, something the world had never seen before or since. I agree that using a scale measuring left and right only in terms of size of government, Naziism would fall on the left side of the spectrum. But where would it fall when using scales that measure left and right in the numerous other terms which define those spectra? I think if it were measured on all possible scales of comparison between what we know as Left and Right, it will fall Right more often than Left.

Well ya' see I don't agree with those other scales. I feel they are flawed.
I feel they are flawed because they do not have a place for anarchy on them...and although some claim anarchy is an ideal that doesn't exist( as pure communism hasn't), it CAN occur, however briefly...it's just that any vacuum gets filled with something so it's fleeting. It usually gets filled with the biggest bully hence that right side of the bar appears to be a right-wing dictatorship. If you took that bar and bent it into an arch or a circle you can kinda get that idea. It's just basic basic definitions.

There are different kinds of collectivism...it's just basically a philosophy of the group is all or more important than the individual. Rewards are as a group according to need not according what the person has contributed or done because the group is all or more important. It's just a matter or degree and the form it takes.

There was a whole thread here discussing this that was pretty good.
I did something in Illustrator diagramming it. I'll have to go find it.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2006, 12:09 PM
Let's just go to the source: Straight out of Hitler's mouth:

"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."

And one of Hitler's advisors:We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak ... and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.

And here is what Nobel-winning economist F.A. Hayek said:

The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. .... From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.
:clap: :clap: I'd pos rep ya' but I can't yet.
Great quotes Fringe. I also LOVE Hayek. You seem like you read what I read.

banyon
07-08-2006, 12:10 PM
It was passed by both parties with several past presidents standing on stage when it was passed as well as Mr. Rockefeller...in the background if anyone noticed.

I didn't notice that. Interesting if true.

Fascism and/or Nazism IS actually LEFT on the political spectrum (if using a bar with total govt/big govt on left and no govt/anarchy on the right). It is just NATIONAL socialism instead of INTERNATIONAL socialism. Communism attempts to bring about socialism under a world govt and is internationalist in scope. Fascism is socialism that is nationalist in scope.

Yes, yes...your political spectrum is different than everyone else's. We've heard it, it still doesn't sell. No need to shout.

In fact Nazi stands for NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY.

Not the name thing again...didn't Nightwish and I already address this point? If you put so much stock in the name, then maybe you should move to "The People's Democratic Republic of Congo" With a name like that, it must be great.

Hitler had the major corporations owned by the state and was at some socialist meetings early on. He was impressed by them despite his rhetoric. He was a classic lying phony who did anything to grab power. Mussolini also was endeared to communism (Which really is still a socialism...Marxist-Leninist kind) in his early writings but because of the RCC's adverse stand on communism and he didn't want to butt heads with them. So he renamed it "fascism." He was the former editor of Italy's official Socialist newspaper Avanti. Fascism shares six planks of communism out of ten.

The only difference between the two is one of degree and form. In a fascism enterprise is not owned outright by the state...but enterprise is so regulated for the collective good, that even while the the deed or title is legally owned by an individual they really don't have any right to control it...that's not real ownership. It is not for one's own benefit. It's statism and collectivism pure and simple.

You can either have the government own the corporations or the corporations own the government, they are two paths to the same destination.

communists=collectivists=facists=socialists (The real a bundle of rods?? :p )

And this is one subject that wikipedia mishandlse as it uses the same old tired misinformation about it even if it acknowledges that scholars have vehemently debate these points at the end.

Modern Leftism: Recycled Fascism (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id8.html) They'll never admit it though...they are in denial.

Yep. Everyone else are socialists. got it. :rolleyes:
They probably all have cooties too.

patteeu
07-08-2006, 12:12 PM
The problem here seems to be that not everyone agrees on what left and right mean. I see it more like buceyedpea where left is statism and right is individualism. To the extent that Bush policies have shades of similarities with some of the items on banyon's list, it's because Bush has some big government, statist tendencies. For that reason, Bush isn't a good proxy for the "right" IMO. Nonetheless, Soviet socialism was still closer to what banyon describes as fascism than Bush and his big government tendancies are.

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 12:12 PM
Let's just go to the source: Straight out of Hitler's mouth:

"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."A) This doesn't say they're the same thing. It says that they share enough in common that the one can be easily enough acclimated to the other. It does nothing to rebut the anti-Communist doctrine that was always an element of naziism. B) When did Hitler say this? Was it early, when he was still making overtures to Russia to woo them into an alliance leading up to the war? Or did he say it after he turned on the Russians, and the Russians joined our side?And one of Hitler's advisors:We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak ... and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.
And what was this meant to rebut? Saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," is not the same thing as saying "the enemy of my enemy is identical to myself." Communists and Islamists both equally despise a free market, but nobody is going to claim one is the same as the other.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2006, 12:16 PM
Ummm, once again you're cherrypicking your sources and evidence to back up what you believe. Do you not think that certain people have an agenda in trying to paint Fascism/Nazism as a leftist ideology. The fact is that the most vocal critics and activists against Nazism and Fascism during both WWII and the Spanish Civil War were leftists/socialists. Those were the people that went over to Spain to fight against Franco. Meanwhile the righties during that time went to fight with Franco.

Where the confusion arises is in trying to use Marxist-Leninism as representative of socialist ideology, when it is only one offshoot (and a bastardized on at that) of it. I'll give you that in application as an actual means of governance, communism and fascism have had many similarities, the chief being that they're a statist form of government encouraging totalitarian control and a self-serving hegemony in power. That being said, the two are complete opposites in theory.

On top of that, your spectrum of anarchism being the ultimate pole of the right wing is flawed by the fact that Marx actually saw anarchy as the endgame of Marxism. Eventually the people would need no government under Marxist ideology.

No I'm not cherrypicking even it seems this way. I just can't write everything down about it....hence my link.

I am perfectly well aware, as well, that Marx saw the state withering away as the end game of socialism...but factually once the state has so much power it does not let it go. Power corrupts so no one should ever have too much even if for the collective good. So real communism has never occurred except in religious orders on a voluntary basis. So it's an ideal that has never a happened. However, I'd prefer to call them frauds....lying cheatin' frauds.

On the other hand Marxist-Leninists, use the technique of creating anarchy to create an environment by which they can take over.

There are other anarchists or near anarchists which are your right-libertarians who believe in little to no govt, even less than a traditional conservatives. There are also left-libertarians which are just another type of collectivist...or communitarians...aka communists.

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 12:20 PM
Well ya' see I don't agree with those other scales. I feel they are flawed.
I feel they are flawed because they do not have a place for anarchy on them...and although some claim anarchy is an ideal that doesn't exist( as pure communism hasn't).
That's not quite what I meant. What I meant was that there are several more criteria that have gone into defining what is Left and what is Right. The size of government is just one of those, and a scale which compares left and right only in terms of the size and role of government will find naziism on the Left. But a scale which compares them in terms of, say, nationalist attitudes, will find naziism on the Right (where the far left may be "question everything your country does" and the far right may be "judge not your country.") And there are many other ways in which they can be measured.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2006, 12:24 PM
That's not quite what I meant. What I meant was that there are several more criteria that have gone into defining what is Left and what is Right. The size of government is just one of those, and a scale which compares left and right only in terms of the size and role of government will find naziism on the Left. But a scale which compares them in terms of, say, nationalist attitudes, will find naziism on the Right (where the far left may be "question everything your country does" and the far right may be "judge not your country.") And there are many other ways in which they can be measured.
I don't think any of that really matters. The scale is just an indicator of how much govt and how much individual freedom exists on a general basis.Therefore all types of ideologies, isms and forms of govt can be placed.

As I posted before one could probably use any image or scale so long as the definitions held.

To banyon:
The scale I use was once the accepted scale before the left got into education and wanted to use as Orwell says propaganda by redefinition of words to confuse. Many still do use it...progressives hate it. I wonder why? Does it expose them for what they are?

BucEyedPea
07-08-2006, 12:31 PM
To be honest, I don't think paradigms like fascism, marxist/leninist communism, and naziism can really be called Left or Right. And, as NewChief correctly pointed out, attempts to place them squarely in one camp or the other are agenda-driven, using them to try to disparage the competition. In truth, those paradigms borrow elements of both left-wing and right-wing ideologies, but pervert them in such ways that the final result is at odds with both.
NewChief's take, I feel, is completely erroneous. If that's the case it would be the left not wanting to be associated by anything considered "right wing" due to connotations....even if that "right wing" really is left.

I guess it all depends on how one is educated. Academia and media tend to lean left and so we get their version.

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 12:33 PM
I don't think any of that really matters. The scale is just an indicator of how much govt and how much individual freedom exists on a general basis.Therefore all types of ideologies, isms and forms of govt can be placed.
The terms "Left" and "Right" may well have been that simply defined early on when folks first started discussing them. But in modern vernacular, those terms have evolved to include much more than just a comparison of government size and individual freedoms. And since the post introduced by FringeNC which first started this sidebar about Naziism and the Left/Right was rather obviously geared toward the modern understanding of Left and Right, as opposed to the classical understanding of those terms, it would behoove us to weigh our judgment of naziism in terms of that modern evolution of those terms. We can't really say that the classical definition is "correct" but the modern definition is "incorrect," because it is in the nature of language for terms to evolve in exactly this sort of way.

FringeNC
07-08-2006, 12:36 PM
[/i]
And what was this meant to rebut? Saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," is not the same thing as saying "the enemy of my enemy is identical to myself."

Huh? His crtique of classical liberalism is indistinguishable from the Marxist critique.

If you guys want to say crushing of civil liberties like what happened in Russia and Germany is neither right nor left or could be both or could be neither, okay..

...but the fact remains that the economic policy of Germany was anti-liberal (Adam Smith liberalism I mean). In no way can the economic policy of Germany be considered "right-wing". I know of no one that doesn't consider moving right as moving towards free-markets (with regards to economic policy).

The rich Jewish banker was public enemy #1 in both Russia and Germany.

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 12:38 PM
NewChief's take, I feel, is completely erroneous. If that's the case it would be the left not wanting to be associated by anything considered "right wing" due to connotations....even if that "right wing" really is left.
Actually it is not at all uncommon for left-wingers to disassociate themselves from any association with Marxist/Leninist Communism, for that very reason. They don't often disassociate themselves with socialism or pure communism (at least as far as socialism being a left-wing philosophy, though most American lefties don't embrace socialism as their preferred economic paradigm), since Marxism/Leninism is a perversion of both socialism and pure communism. So while you are correct in assuming the left would want to disassociate itself with such things, you are in error in assuming that many of them don't already do so.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2006, 12:41 PM
The terms "Left" and "Right" may well have been that simply defined early on when folks first started discussing them. But in modern vernacular, those terms have evolved to include much more than just a comparison of government size and individual freedoms. And since the post introduced by FringeNC which first started this sidebar about Naziism and the Left/Right was rather obviously geared toward the modern understanding of Left and Right, as opposed to the classical understanding of those terms, it would behoove us to weigh our judgment of naziism in terms of that modern evolution of those terms. We can't really say that the classical definition is "correct" but the modern definition is "incorrect," because it is in the nature of language for terms to evolve in exactly this sort of way.

Well I don't even agree with the Libertarian chart...you know the square-shaped cartesian coordinate system that they turn on it's points to look like a diamond. I mean wtf? So how does one describe themself? Up-Left, up-up-right, dead zero, down-right? LMAO!

The main reason I don't agree with their scale is because they use one line for economics and one for social issues. I say economics is not the gov'ts domain—at all! it exists merely to protect rights.

No I don't think we need to use, all the complicated definitions for discussing big govt versus small govt on a spectrum. I think the definitions should be used for defining those "isms" or "ologies" in detail later. Like I said one could probably use a variety of diagrams but the definitions should still hold. Of course not even a dictionary definition would be enough for someone to really understand the nuances.

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 12:46 PM
Huh? His crtique of classical liberalism is indistinguishable from the Marxist critique.
But that doesn't make them identical philosophies. It means they have that thing in common.

...but the fact remains that the economic policy of Germany was anti-liberal (Adam Smith liberalism I mean). In no way can the economic policy of Germany be considered "right-wing". I know of no one that doesn't consider moving right as moving towards free-markets (with regards to economic policy).
Free markets is only one aspect of the Right. Actually, it's not really even an aspect of the Right, since the Left, at least in America, embraces free markets as well. And I'm not saying that the economic policy of Germany is squarely considered "right-wing," although most academic treatments of naziism usually label them right-wing. I'm saying that the total politics of the Nazis, including their economic policies, share things in common with both what we consider Right and what we consider Left, but taken overall, they lean more Right than Left, by our modern understanding of those terms. By BEP's classical definition, considering only personal freedoms and size of government, however, they would be entirely Left. But that's no longer what Right and Left mean.

The rich Jewish banker was public enemy #1 in both Russia and Germany.
In Germany, yes, due to the nationalistic foundations of Naziism, and the racial elitism of the Thule Society which informed much of the later doctrines of Naziism. In Russia, not so much. In Russia, public enemy #1 was the bourgoisie in general, not just the rich Jewish banker. You may argue, though, that the rich Jewish banker epitomized the bourgoisie, and I would probably not disagree.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2006, 12:47 PM
I also meant to say Nw that I don't really feel it's modern vernacular...I feel it's a bit of intentional disinformation and some misinformation...as in not really fully understand from the start. The same way words evolve....one reason is because the original word was never correctly understood. So words get colloqualized. I actually have to cover this when I teach my profession...it happens with regular words too.

banyon
07-08-2006, 12:48 PM
You have a really odd way of arguing a topic. You seem to ignore any part of my post that works against you and focus on some tangential aspect where you might bring up something different.

Let's just go to the source: Straight out of Hitler's mouth:

"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."

So, because there is revolutionary sentiment, they are the same?

And one of Hitler's advisors:We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak ... and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.

Ok. Heeeeere's Hitler!:

"Marxism is a fight against culture and the idea of freedom, a war against tradition and honour. It is an attack upon all the foundations of our community-life and thus an attack upon the bases of our life as a whole. Towards the world without pacifist, in the domestic sphere terrorist - such is the world outlook of the destructive Marxist doctrine."


"I regard it as my task before posterity to destroy Marxism, and that is no empty phrase but a solemn oath which I shall perform as long as I live. . . This is for us no fight which can be finished by a compromise. We see in Marxism the enemy of our people which we shall root out and destroy without mercy."

And here is what Nobel-winning economist F.A. Hayek said:

The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. .... From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.

Typically, Hegel and Nietzsche are credited as the forbears of Hitler, Fichte? Not so much. These guys: Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc, and Saint-Simon are typically credited as the most important founders of the theory. I've read Fichte, he was against free trade, but that's about it, he is certainly not "the most important ancestor of socialism". I don't know what that guy's talking about. :bong:

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 12:49 PM
Well I don't even agree with the Libertarian chart...you know the square-shaped cartesian coordinate system that they turn on it's points to look like a diamond. I mean wtf? So how does one describe themself? Up-Left, up-up-right, dead zero, down-right? LMAO!I hate that chart, too. It's about the worst one I've ever seen. Truthfully, I don't like any of them, even the simple government scale you mentioned. Anytime you try to narrow something as complex as the politico-economic spectrum down to a chart, line or graph, you're inevitably going to place limitations on it which don't truly exist, as well as ignore facets of the spectrum which actually do exist.

banyon
07-08-2006, 12:54 PM
The problem here seems to be that not everyone agrees on what left and right mean. I see it more like buceyedpea where left is statism and right is individualism. To the extent that Bush policies have shades of similarities with some of the items on banyon's list, it's because Bush has some big government, statist tendencies. For that reason, Bush isn't a good proxy for the "right" IMO. Nonetheless, Soviet socialism was still closer to what banyon describes as fascism than Bush and his big government tendancies are.

No, this was not the original point. It isn't "Soviet-style socialism" vs. Bush big gov't. It was:


What gets me is the left tries to portray Hitler as "right-wing", even though Nazis were statists and socialists. Hey lefties: Hitler is your's, too.

So I tried to make what I thought was the sane and obvious observation that no, Hitler is not a "leftie".

That's what the topic is.

banyon
07-08-2006, 12:58 PM
To banyon:
The scale I use was once the accepted scale before the left got into education and wanted to use as Orwell says propaganda by redefinition of words to confuse. Many still do use it...progressives hate it. I wonder why? Does it expose them for what they are?

Oh yeah, I remember when all us progressives had that meeting and voted to adopt Orwellian-style propaganda.
http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/ncaa/phpbb/images/smiles/01-wingedeagle.gif

I have always said that I distrust big government and big corporations equally. After all power always corrupts, the goal is to disperse it.

banyon
07-08-2006, 01:01 PM
...but the fact remains that the economic policy of Germany was anti-liberal (Adam Smith liberalism I mean). In no way can the economic policy of Germany be considered "right-wing". I know of no one that doesn't consider moving right as moving towards free-markets (with regards to economic policy).

Yes, it can. Read #7 again. There's more to economic policy than trade policy (although you seem to be using 'markets' and 'trade' interchangeably for some reason).

BucEyedPea
07-08-2006, 01:05 PM
Actually it is not at all uncommon for left-wingers to disassociate themselves from any association with Marxist/Leninist Communism, for that very reason.

Well, I've seen this. But they don't disassociate with Marx. They disassociate with the Leninist suffix as he advocated violent overthrow to implement Marx whereas there are many left-wingers who prefer creeping Marxism or Socialism aka Fabian-Socialists. They use education, activism and then the vote. Says this right on their sites. Is one reason they dominate in education today. I am amazed at how many teachers/professors I've met just on football boards that are in this camp. Two who outright admitted they favored communism ( peaceful kind not ML) and world govt. I even dated a card carry communist who was a teacher...although I didn't know until afterwards. I don't care what they want to call themselves...anarcho-socialists or what...it's all s/g I don't want and dangerous to liberty.

You know the logo of a Fabian socialist is a wolf in sheep's clothing?
Did you know Bertrand Russell, Beatrice Potter and many other authors were members of the British Fabian Society?

To me it's the same result. The means are just different.
But I do feel they deceive with ideas.

They don't often disassociate themselves with socialism or pure communism (at least as far as socialism being a left-wing philosophy, though most American lefties don't embrace socialism as their preferred economic paradigm), since Marxism/Leninism is a perversion of both socialism and pure communism. So while you are correct in assuming the left would want to disassociate itself with such things, you are in error in assuming that many of them don't already do so.
I don't mean to criticize but this sounds confusing and convoluted to me.
They don't disassociate with socialism but don't embrace socialism?
Seems more like they don't want to admit what they really are...like a state of denial. They want to create an egalitarian society. I don't care what you wanna call it. It's the same end goal.

As I said above Marxism-Lenism is just how socialism is implemented. Marx for socialism and Lenin for violent overthrow or revoution but they are still implementing socialism.

BTW the welfare-state as a system of wealth-transfers while still maintaining some degree of private ownership is still socialism. That's also Swedish socialism. Control of the "major means of production" also means "you" and "me." The people are the producers. I'd say our economy today is a mixed one: socialism, fascism, corporatism ( once known as mercantilism) and only some free-markets.

I'm saying left-wingers don't want to be associated with the term "facism" as a leftist concept.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2006, 01:18 PM
Oh yeah, I remember when all us progressives had that meeting and voted to adopt Orwellian-style propaganda.
Orwell wrote some incredible stuff about how abuse of language can be used to change the people and control ideas. Right in his own words. You may not be aware of it even if you are a product of it. You just haven't realized it yet. :p

Once you have some taste of success...you'll wanna keep what'cha have and change. o:-)


I have always said that I distrust big government and big corporations equally. After all power always corrupts, the goal is to disperse it.

I only fear corporations who are getting protection from markets and competition through gov't connections and/or protections...such as Nafta etc.

There is nothing to fear if they are on their own.http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/animal/animal0018.gifChicken!

NewChief
07-08-2006, 01:23 PM
One quibble: Leninism isn't just about violent overthrow. It's also about the way power was kept and consolidated in Soviet Russia. The original idea was to have constantly evolving leaders chosen from the proletariat, with none staying in power long enough to attempt to consolidate that power. Lenin nixed that with an idea of: the proletariat doesn't know what's good for them, and we're going to have to stay in power until they're smart enough to recognize the good of communism. This then led to the hegemony entrenching and consolidating it's power which led to a totalitarian state. That's, generally, the quibble that many theoretical socialists have with Lenin and the point where they see Russia as having gone astray. Of course, they also don't espouse violent overthrow because such is pretty much anathema to our society and way of thinking; embracing violent revolt would serve as a deterrent to socialism ever becoming widely accepted as a viable ideology.

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 01:26 PM
Well, I've seen this. But they don't disassociate with Marx. They disassociate with the Leninist suffix as he advocated violent overthrow to implement Marx whereas there are many left-wingers who prefer creeping Marxism or Socialism aka Fabian-Socialists.I would agree with this point.I don't care what they want to call themselves...anarcho-socialists or what...it's all s/g I don't want and dangerous to liberty.I feel a Monty Python moment coming on. Can we exchange "anarcho-socialist" for "anarcho-syndichist?" "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"You know the logo of a Fabian socialist is a wolf in sheep's clothing?
Did you know Bertrand Russell, Beatrice Potter and many other authors were members of the British Fabian Society?Actually, I hadn't even heard of a Fabian Socialist until you just mentioned it.I don't mean to criticize but this sounds confusing and convoluted to me.
They don't disassociate with socialism but don't embrace socialism?By "disassociate," I mean that they don't try to claim that socialism is not a left-wing philosophy. They recognize that it belongs in their periphery, so to speak, that those who do embrace socialism are most likely going to be left-wingers, not right-wingers. But when I say that many of the American Left don't embrace it, I am invoking the square/rectangle dichotomy (all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares). Most people don't embrace "assembly-line" politics or economics, by which I mean that they may identify themselves by a particular label, by virtue of embracing more of its tenets than those of other labels, but they don't necessarily embrace all of them. Most members of the American Left don't embrace socialism as their preferred economic paradigm, since captialism is working just fine for them. Now, many of them do endorse the adoption of socialist concepts in certain areas, like medicine and health care, but that does not equate to embracing socialism in general. They aren't calling for an end to the free market.I'm saying left-wingers don't want to be associated with the term "facism" as a leftist concept.I don't think it is a leftist concept. As I said, most academic treatments of fascism treat it as a right-wing concept. Socialism is a left-wing concept, but fascism incorporates both left- and right-wing ideas, and perverts them both. It doesn't belong in either camp, it's its own thing.

banyon
07-08-2006, 01:28 PM
I only fear corporations who are getting protection from markets and competition through gov't connections and/or protections...such as Nafta etc.

There is nothing to fear if they are on their own.http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/animal/animal0018.gifChicken!

I never understand why absolutist free-marketeers pretend as if late 19th century America didn't exist. Even Adam Smith believed in some measure of regulation. To assert that there should be no controls at all seems more like a faith-based approach to what should be an empirical issue.

patteeu
07-09-2006, 08:10 AM
But that doesn't make them identical philosophies. It means they have that thing in common.


Free markets is only one aspect of the Right. Actually, it's not really even an aspect of the Right, since the Left, at least in America, embraces free markets as well. And I'm not saying that the economic policy of Germany is squarely considered "right-wing," although most academic treatments of naziism usually label them right-wing. I'm saying that the total politics of the Nazis, including their economic policies, share things in common with both what we consider Right and what we consider Left, but taken overall, they lean more Right than Left, by our modern understanding of those terms. By BEP's classical definition, considering only personal freedoms and size of government, however, they would be entirely Left. But that's no longer what Right and Left mean.


In Germany, yes, due to the nationalistic foundations of Naziism, and the racial elitism of the Thule Society which informed much of the later doctrines of Naziism. In Russia, not so much. In Russia, public enemy #1 was the bourgoisie in general, not just the rich Jewish banker. You may argue, though, that the rich Jewish banker epitomized the bourgoisie, and I would probably not disagree.

I love how you go on and on about how "left" and "right" are such complex terms that you don't seem to be able to articulate what they actually mean but then go on to simply summarize and say that naziism shares more with the right than with the left. LMAO

patteeu
07-09-2006, 08:16 AM
No, this was not the original point. It isn't "Soviet-style socialism" vs. Bush big gov't. It was:




So I tried to make what I thought was the sane and obvious observation that no, Hitler is not a "leftie".

That's what the topic is.

You can try to frame the debate however you want, but I still agree with BEP that left means more government control and right means less and on that scale, the Nazis were left just like democrats and Soviets.

Adept Havelock
07-09-2006, 09:17 AM
Free markets is only one aspect of the Right. Actually, it's not really even an aspect of the Right, since the Left, at least in America, embraces free markets as well. And I'm not saying that the economic policy of Germany is squarely considered "right-wing," although most academic treatments of naziism usually label them right-wing. I'm saying that the total politics of the Nazis, including their economic policies, share things in common with both what we consider Right and what we consider Left, but taken overall, they lean more Right than Left, by our modern understanding of those terms. By BEP's classical definition, considering only personal freedoms and size of government, however, they would be entirely Left. But that's no longer what Right and Left mean.


In Germany, yes, due to the nationalistic foundations of Naziism, and the racial elitism of the Thule Society which informed much of the later doctrines of Naziism. In Russia, not so much. In Russia, public enemy #1 was the bourgoisie in general, not just the rich Jewish banker. You may argue, though, that the rich Jewish banker epitomized the bourgoisie, and I would probably not disagree.

You can try to frame the debate however you want, but I still agree with BEP that left means more government control and right means less and on that scale, the Nazis were left just like democrats and Soviets.

ROFL ROFL
Oy, another in the endless series of "no, the nazis are on your side" argument, while the other side is solely the province of Mom, Fuzzy Bunnies, the Flag, and Apple Pie.

After all, "my side" couldn't possibly have any unpleasant historical associations....
:rolleyes:

There are clearly some leftist traits to the NSDAP, as there are some rightist traits. How many industries were nationalized/taken over by the state in the 3'rd Reich? Seems to me if it was strictly a "leftist" state, the massive Industrial complex of Krupp and Co., IG Farben, Messerschmitt, BMW, etc. would have been outright annexed and controlled by Speer's ministry. Read Manchester's "The Arms Of Krupp", Speer's memoirs "Inside the Third Reich", Shirer's "Rise and Fall", and you would realize the Nazi's both believed in and practiced economic competition with minimal state involvement, even during wartime. That, and their refusal to commit to a "wartime" economy until late 1942 due to opposition from the Industrial concerns was one reason that the command economy of the USSR (in the short-term only) was able to vastly outproduce them, even in the face of massive Soviet economic dislocation. Well, that and some massive infrastructure support for the USSR from the good old USA.

Now that I've vented, please, by all means, resume your pis*ing contest.... ;)

memyselfI
07-09-2006, 11:05 AM
Commies...I hate 'em...they're the BIGGEST believers in the "ends justifies the means."

Well, that is until the Chickenhawk PNAC bunch emerged...

BucEyedPea
07-09-2006, 03:24 PM
Well, that is until the Chickenhawk PNAC bunch emerged...

Yes they do believe the means justfies the ends.

But the Chickenhawk PNAC bunch are part of the same left spectrum in my book.

NeoCons as I posted earlier in this thread are philosophical descendants of Trotsky...particularly the permanent revolution/warfare part.

They are also followers of Leo Strauss who believed in the BIG-lie technique because he felt the people are too dumb to know what's needed to be done....right out of Plato's Philosopher King concept (Sparta and Soviet model basis). Also Strauss believed in Machiavellian techniques as well. These guys are hard-Wilsonian progressives.

NeoCons are defectors from the LEFT of the sixties who were revolted by the anti-war faction of the left...but still they are not on the right. They only use rhetoric that appeals to those on the right to gain their support as is being done currently, except for the few who are beginning to see through them.

They are also what's called Third-Way Socialists...that's Bush right there.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2006, 03:41 PM
I never understand why absolutist free-marketeers pretend as if late 19th century America didn't exist. Even Adam Smith believed in some measure of regulation. To assert that there should be no controls at all seems more like a faith-based approach to what should be an empirical issue.
This is a progressive's understanding of markets however.
Ya' see this is what Keyenesian economics doesn't teach in our colleges except for the free-market prof's of which there are some fortunately, even if still underepresented.

100% Hundred percent pure free-markets ( a definition is certainly required for what this means for sensible debate) has never existed in this country. Even the Framers were protectionists. Free markets were within the United States and our country was funded with tariffs instead of income taxes.

Adam Smith is also dismissed by real free-market economists...for different reasons than Marxist ( Keyenesians) economists do.

The way the free-market school ( the only real one imo is the Austrian school of Mises) was able to finally debunk Marxist theories of economy was by discovering Adam Smith's errors. It was due to AS' error on the "labor-theory of value" that Marx was able to make his intellectual inroads. But Smith was wrong. This is exactly how Mises was finally able to refute and blast with intellectual and pragmatic holes in one of Marx's central theories. There is no such thing as the "labor-theory of value"....value is done by individuals. We each do our own valuing. Therefore the value of any product of service is subjective. If no one wants it and it costs $2000 to produce it is worth NOTHING.

Banyon, we also need to define what you mean by regulation too.
I doubt we're talking the same thing here as well.

banyon
07-09-2006, 03:45 PM
You can try to frame the debate however you want, but I still agree with BEP that left means more government control and right means less and on that scale, the Nazis were left just like democrats and Soviets.

Then since that's the only relevant variable you want to use, then by your analysis, Bush is a "leftie". And since you support him, you're a "leftie" too. How do you like them apples?

|Zach|
07-09-2006, 03:51 PM
Then since that's the only relevant variable you want to use, then by your analysis, Bush is a "leftie". And since you support him, you're a "leftie" too. How do you like them apples?
ROFL

BucEyedPea
07-09-2006, 04:26 PM
I found it.
Skousen of National Center for Constitutional Studies uses this spectrum
I added the libertarian area as I used this elsewhere.
I also added where I feel we are today. Today's center has shift left and has been since before Bush.


[http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/671/politicalspectrum5mc.gif


http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/3397/scenter3tn.gif


How can there be a socialist dictatorship on the left and a right-wing dictatorship or a facism on the right?
There is no place for anarchy.
Even if anarchy doesn't really exist, or for long, it is a stand that people advocate. This also represents ideas.

All big govts are on the left. What form they take or the specifics of what makes them up is irrelevant for the purpose of saying which is big govt, which is centrist, limited or totalitarian govt.

Now just arch the bar to see how anarchy usually fills with a dictatorship creating the apparency of being on the right.

banyon
07-09-2006, 04:48 PM
I found it.
Skousen of National Center for Constitutional Studies uses this spectrum
I added the libertarian area as I used this elsewhere.
I also added where I feel we are today. Today's center has shift left and has been since before Bush.


[http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/671/politicalspectrum5mc.gif


http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/3397/scenter3tn.gif



A link?

Is this why everyone who doesn't share your views is a Fascist/Marxist Communist?

I will say it again...It is highly farcical to condense all political ideologies together solely on the basis of federalism-type issues.

Shouldn't there be an eye in the middle of your triangles? :p

http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/img/cover_lg.jpg
j/k

banyon
07-09-2006, 06:03 PM
100% Hundred percent pure free-markets ( a definition is certainly required for what this means for sensible debate) has never existed in this country. Even the Framers were protectionists. Free markets were within the United States and our country was funded with tariffs instead of income taxes.

So, just to be clear, your argument is that even though there was extremely little regulation in the 19th century and it was terrible for everyone who wasn't wealthy, we cannot use that as empirical evidence because it was not 100% fully unregulated? That if the economy was 99/100ths unregulated, it tells us nothing until it is 100/100ths unregulated?

patteeu
07-09-2006, 06:20 PM
Then since that's the only relevant variable you want to use, then by your analysis, Bush is a "leftie".

I alluded to as much in my first post in this thread. I agree that Bush is a "leftie" in many respects. Thankfully, he's not as much of a leftie as the guy who lost in the last two elections, though.

And since you support him, you're a "leftie" too. How do you like them apples?

I don't think your logic is sound. Perhaps if I were an unequivocal supporter, it would be.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2006, 06:07 AM
So, just to be clear, your argument is that even though there was extremely little regulation in the 19th century and it was terrible for everyone who wasn't wealthy, we cannot use that as empirical evidence because it was not 100% fully unregulated? That if the economy was 99/100ths unregulated, it tells us nothing until it is 100/100ths unregulated?

One reason there was little regulation is because everyplace, including America, had been an agricultural society with no big business.You could say big business was emerging at the time of the late 19th century. But the entire argument about the industrial revolution as presented by the left is exaggerated and much of it is flawed. For example that is "was terrible for everyone." That's another thread.

Also, usually general terms such as "regulation" doesn't communicate because even libertarian free-markters allow for some regs such as enforcement of contracts and fraud. I'd even support more than that as well, as would conservatives, but that's another thread.

And you were not trying to be clear in your other post either...you were being rhetorical for effect.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2006, 06:22 AM
A link?
Nope I have no link. I did look.
I told you where it was from. I could scan it from a book and host though.

Is this why everyone who doesn't share your views is a Fascist/Marxist Communist?

Who said that? I think you're extrapolating this on your own.

Does it matter if everyone shares my view on this? No.
Collective thought agreement is now the truth? No.
Who is "everyone?" The lefties?
Do you always use sweeping generalities and speak for all? You really are a collectivist aren't you? No individual ideas, no individual differences, no dissent on an intellectual level we must all kow-tow to left-wing authority...just "group think" counts.
Kinda like America being a democracy /eh?
So there are flat earthers in this world...what else is new?

This is a valid scale for many and is used by conservatives.
I was taught it when I changed parties.

Like I said, you could probably use any visual representation so long as the definitions held. It's the definitions and full descriptions that flush out what kind of govt system a place has...not just the general concept of how much govt exists overall or how much concentrated power is held by govt.

I will say it again...It is highly farcical to condense all political ideologies together solely on the basis of federalism-type issues.
In your opinion. And who is doing that?
All the scale does is show concentration of govt power...it does not flush out what type of system a govt is. That's in the descriptions.

BTW the entire debates by our Founders centered on this concept of preventing concentration of power because it corrupts....all kinds: progressive, fascists or any other dictatorship.

Shouldn't there be an eye in the middle of your triangles? :p

Ad hominem. Guess you can't defend your stand today 'ey banyon?
You're a lawyer? Pretty weak.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2006, 07:00 AM
I am going to scan those pages...not immediately though.
Along with testimonials by some of our leaders on the source for this praising it.*

In the meantime, from some's favored source:
wikipedia
Political Spectrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Spectrum)

• Multiplicity of interpretation of the left-right axis

• Historical origin of the terms

• Alternative spectra

Alternative Another alternative spectrum offered by the conservative American Federalist Journal emphasizes the degree of political control, and thus places totalitarianism at one extreme and anarchism (no government at all) at the other extreme. [the one I've been using...it actually comes from the Framer's discussions of all types of govt and the idea of concentration of power which they referred to as "Ruler's Law."] * So much for "everyone" disagreeing with this version. :p

Here is mine again, only it's held on a vertical axis instead.
Hmmm :hmmm: Do we launch into a debate on whether we call it top versus bottom?
http://www.federalistjournal.com/images/spectrum.jpg

American Federalist Journal (http://www.federalistjournal.com/spectrum.php)

Oh yeah, no one agrees with it...I forgot! :hmmm:

banyon
07-10-2006, 07:39 AM
Do you always use sweeping generalities and speak for all? You really are a collectivist aren't you? No individual ideas, no individual differences, no dissent on an intellectual level we must all kow-tow to left-wing authority...just "group think" counts.Kinda like America being a democracy /eh?
So there are flat earthers in this world...what else is new?

Um, compare the above with the following:

This is a valid scale for many and is used by conservatives.
I was taught it when I changed parties.


BTW the entire debates by our Founders centered on this concept of preventing concentration of power because it corrupts....all kinds: progressive, fascists or any other dictatorship.

So, you don't think they would've been concerned with the massive conglomeration of corporate power? Should we pretend that just because it isn't purely governmental (although it has taken on many of those functions) that it is not an accumulation of power that tends to corrupt? Because, apart from that issue, we really aren't that far apart, no matter what your scale tells you.



Ad hominem. Guess you can't defend your stand today 'ey banyon?
You're a lawyer? Pretty weak.

hear jokes much? BTW j/k stands for "just kidding"

BucEyedPea
07-10-2006, 08:18 AM
So, you don't think they would've been concerned with the massive conglomeration of corporate power? Should we pretend that just because it isn't purely governmental (although it has taken on many of those functions) that it is not an accumulation of power that tends to corrupt? Because, apart from that issue, we really aren't that far apart, no matter what your scale tells you.

Separate thread banyon....obviously I not agree with your version that there was a "massive conglomeration of power." If it was I'd agree with you on that being harmful. I don't feel any group,, including the "mob," the proletariat, the bourgeiousie, or corporations has the right to too much power. And I'm talkin' govt power which is "force" not having large market share, which is mainly voluntary.

Never said we were far apart on all issues. There are overlaps where we agree and places where we disagree such as markets and whether or not they are "mostly" self regulating.



hear jokes much? BTW j/k stands for "just kidding"

:lame:
Yeah right! Hide it behind a joke...very transparent banyon.
I didn't see the j/k.....tucked away at teh botttom until now...and I know what it means.

BIG_DADDY
07-10-2006, 01:33 PM
ROFL