|
|
Sunday, May 08, 2005
I'm tired, tired, tired of this aggravating new meme the populist right has been pushing lately - that National Socialism was "socialism," thus a form of "leftism", similar (of course) to liberalism or the Democratic Party as embodied in "Hitlery."
LGF poster "Amy" struggles mightily to correct those Lizardoids laboring under this delusion (and they are legion):
#96 Amy 5/8/2005 03:51PM PDT
The Nazis pretended to be socialists (hence Hitler's rhetoric) in order to gain the support of the working class, but as the article I posted shows, in practice, the Nazis were not socialist at all. They preserved privately owned businesses, worked hand in glove with the most conservative elements of German society, suppressed union activity and purged real socialists from the Party.
I know that modern-day conservatives wish to brand the left-wing with the Nazi connection, but this is revisionism which ignores the facts.
Fascism and socialism are two different things.
Amy is rebutted tiressly by LGFers (unable, seemingly, to distinguish between rhetoric and action) who point out time and again that it was called National Socialism, not National Rightism or National Conservatism (Whether Saddam's Hussein's "Elite Republican Guard" were also members of the GOP is not, sadly, addressed).
LGFer "Iron Fist" (see also Martin Bormann post, below) reveals that he, like many there, is operating off of a different political spectrum than Amy - not the traditional Left-Right spectrum which is based on the French Parliamentary system but the libertarian inspired Nolan Chart:
#103 Iron Fist 5/8/2005 03:57PM PDT
Malleus Dei, hm,
Yeah, I can understand the Socialists wanting to disassociate themselves from the National Socialists, but WTF is up with trying to associate them with the Right? They weren't called the National Socialists because they were secretly libertarian Capitalists.
At the end of the day, they believed in the supremacy of the State, and that is a Left wing concept. The Right believes in the supremacy of the individual. That is, IMHO, the absolute most central difference between the two. All else springs from that.
Of course, the Libertarian Right in this country (e.g., http://www.lewrockwell.com, http://www.mises.org, http://www.fff.org) abjures that obnoxious brand of militaristic nationalism so popular w. the neo-con right nowadays, but that doesn't stop soi-disant "libertarians" like "Iron Fist" from braying for genocide and nuclear war - like Hitler with Socialism, Iron Fist is not actually interested in the core principles of Libertarianism but has instead discovered the usefulness of co-opting Libertarian rhetoric.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15784
When I was a teenager once I asked my uncle what "postmodernism" meant. He explained it as a state in which the truth is up for grabs.
In many ways, the voices represented on LGF represent the face of the new postmodern Right in the US, possessing no core principles but the pursuit and celebration of political power - all else flows from that.
See also the LP positions on Presidential war powers, colonialism and foreign intervention.
|
|
| "The racial
bigot identifies another race as being less than he or
even as worthless sub-human flesh. So it is clear that
the bigot is not "one of them." Racial and ethnic bigots
find support and common cause with one another. They
feed each other's need to feel superior to another racial
or ethnic group. This is of course fear-based
behavior that flows from their own sense of
powerlessness over their own lives."
|
|
|
