Mitt Romney visits the UK, Foot-in-mouth foreign diplomacy Options

[sanitynotincluded]

When it comes to racial superiority theories, they aren't inherently left or right

I'm assuming ... or whatever?

I may have been a little unclear. It is racial superiority theories which are not inherently left or right wing.
The relevant point about their attitude to private property ownership is that they believed it could be seized without compensation at the whim of the state. As for internationalism, you seem to be missing the key point, they were National Socialists.

I'm wondering how many 'ambiguities' your portrayal of fascism's left-wing credentials can withstand.

Vastly more than exist. The point, and this one was in no way unclear, was that while there may have been a few imperfections in their leftism, their whole philosophical outlook was anathema to right wing ideology. The belief that people, as an amorphous blob, are there to serve the will of the state, is utterly incompatible with the key feature of right wing thought.

It is if you're in charge and a homicidal maniac.

I would suggest that it is your being a homicidal maniac which is the source of the danger, not the inconsistency.

[stevo]

The belief that people, as an amorphous blob, are there to serve the will of the state, is utterly incompatible with the key feature of right wing thought.

This is a massive over-simplification. On this basis no truly right-wing administration has ever conscripted its people to go to war, as this is probably the most interventionist exercise in serving "the will of the state".

Since we've got the broad brushes out, a key element in left-wing thought is not the supremacy of the state, but egalitarianism, and redressing inequalities of wealth and power. Where are these to be found in fascism?

[sanitynotincluded]

The belief that people, as an amorphous blob, are there to serve the will of the state, is utterly incompatible with the key feature of right wing thought.

This is a massive over-simplification. On this basis no truly right-wing administration has ever conscripted its people to go to war, as this is probably the most interventionist exercise in serving "the will of the state".

Since we've got the broad brushes out, a key element in left-wing thought is not the supremacy of the state, but egalitarianism, and redressing inequalities of wealth and power. Where are these to be found in fascism?

Again, you are reverting to the argument that because a regime is not perfectly left wing, it is not left wing at all. It is not an oversimplification, because the Nazi and Fascist regimes did expect and force the suppression of individual interests to the interests of the state, and that is ideologically the opposite of right wing thought.

As for egalitarianism, I refer you to the Nazi party platform, " All citizens shall have equal rights and duties. "

You persist in trying to ake out that minor short comings in implementation outweigh absolute incompatibility, and it looks rather desperate.

This post has been edited by sanitynotincluded: Aug 4 2012, 12:47

[Parsifal]

Obama is a lot closer to the center than today's Republicans who have gone so far to the right they just passed Mussolini. The fact they've hounded out all the moderates in their party doesn't help.

Notwithstanding that Ronald Reagan wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell for today's Republican nomination. He was far too lefty for today's crowd.

[Parsifal]

Totalitarianism is utterly incompatible with the disdain for central government control which is central to right wing ideology.

Or else there will be regulations in place preventing predators against consumers or stopping plunderers of the environment for personal gain.

This quite an interesting analysis of it all...

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

Much of Nolan's work echoes this^

That chart shows Romney just a shade further right than Obama (and more authoritarian) who in turn is about equally far right as Cameron.

Anyone who implements, as Hitler did, near complete state control of the entire economy

Where did you find that? Throughout the Third Reich banks, insurance companies, large industries all remained privately held. As for "control of the entire economy" was it much more during WW2 than it was in the UK and the USA? You're talking about wartime economies (beginning in 1939).

[stevo]

Again, you are reverting to the argument that because a regime is not perfectly left wing, it is not left wing at all. It is not an oversimplification, because the Nazi and Fascist regimes did expect and force the suppression of individual interests to the interests of the state, and that is ideologically the opposite of right wing thought.

I might make precisely the same observation about it not being perfectly right-wing. As I said in my last post, if you are going to insist that the suppression of individual interests to that of the state is paramount then Switzerland (maybe Sweden?) can be the only possible candidate for a right-wing democracy in living memory.

As for egalitarianism, I refer you to the Nazi party platform, " All citizens shall have equal rights and duties. "

... unless you are a Jew! That's not egalitarianism! You might as well say North Korea is a democracy because they call themselves the Democratic People's Republic.

[sanitynotincluded]

Again, you are reverting to the argument that because a regime is not perfectly left wing, it is not left wing at all. It is not an oversimplification, because the Nazi and Fascist regimes did expect and force the suppression of individual interests to the interests of the state, and that is ideologically the opposite of right wing thought.

I might make precisely the same observation about it not being perfectly right-wing. As I said in my last post, if you are going to insist that the suppression of individual interests to that of the state is paramount then Switzerland (maybe Sweden?) can be the only possible candidate for a right-wing democracy in living memory.

There is a difference between not being perfectly in compliance with an ideology and being the complete antithesis of it.

As for egalitarianism, I refer you to the Nazi party platform, " All citizens shall have equal rights and duties. "

... unless you are a Jew! That's not egalitarianism! You might as well say North Korea is a democracy because they call themselves the Democratic People's Republic.

Equal rights for all citizens. Ok, even citizens had fuck all in the way of meaningful rights, but that is a common flaw with egalitarianism.

You night claim that North Korea is a democracy, I wouldn't say any such thing.

[Parsifal]

I understand that Romney was a big hit during his top in Jerusalem.

[Kev]

I understand that Romney was a big hit during his top in Jerusalem.

He knows that the Jews make the money.

[Parsifal]

I understand that Romney was a big hit during his top in Jerusalem.

He knows that the Jews make the money.

And we now know that he's a racist, and a stupid one at that (which comes as no surprise to me).

[Kev]

I understand that Romney was a big hit during his top in Jerusalem.

He knows that the Jews make the money.

And we now know that he's a racist, and a stupid one at that (which comes as no surprise to me).

I was being a bit sarcastic about the Jew comment.

[stevo]

There is a difference between not being perfectly in compliance with an ideology and being the complete antithesis of it.

Quite. And I'd be fascinated to find out where you draw the evidence to support the idea that egalitarianism and genocide are not antithetical.

[Parsifal]

There is a difference between not being perfectly in compliance with an ideology and being the complete antithesis of it.

Quite. And I'd be fascinated to find out where you draw the evidence to support the idea that egalitarianism and genocide are not antithetical.

Egalitarianism is in contrast to the plutocratic agenda of the American Republican Party. Therefore he finds it "flawed".

egalitarianism

plutocracy

Or perhaps more aptly: kleptocracy

[Mister R]

There is no such thing as "my right wing ideology" and "your right wing ideology". That which is right is right and that which is left is left. It isn't a subjective distinction.

This is only true in the very broadest sense. I would suggest that when you move beyond extraordinarily broad generalisations that actually the divide between right and left wing is almost entirely subjective if only because everyone's view on where you draw the line between the two sides of the divide is entirely subjective. I'm afraid it just isn't as simple as saying this person wants to lower taxes so they're right wing or that this person believes government has a role to play in healthcare so they're left wing and to argue that it is, is ridiculously simplistic.

Exactly which of the following, (written by messrs HITLER and Drexler) are you suggesting is not leftist?

In fairness the first two aren't inherently leftist (although from memory the second one is in context). That's somewhat besides the point though because if I were to cherry pick statements or policy decisions from just about any political figure or party on the planet you can make them look left or right wing regardless of what they actually are.

You can't really judge it by "administrations" though, the need to please a broad range of voters in order to retain power often results in largely Right or Left "administrations" adopting the "Centre" ground. However, that doesn't apply to individuals or organisations who identify as either Right Wing or Left Wing ideologically - they either subscribe to the existing historical framework or they don't.

Again this only works in fairly broad terms and if you subscribe to the theory that right and left is a simple black and white distinction. It isn't and I don't believe that it ever has been. Its not like an on/off switch. It isn't a case of either you are or you aren't – its called a political spectrum for a reason. In general trying to categorise via left or right wing tends to do more damage than good anyway and I mostly wish we'd just drop it and define people on their actual stated beliefs and ideology rather than what we perceive the left or right to be.

More over the range of issues that now plague modern political discourse makes it increasingly difficult to declare that anyone is strictly right or left wing. And the lines between what is and isn't a right and left wing policy on some issues is astonishingly blurred. For example its those that identify as right wing and are identified as right wing (and apparently are all about individual freedoms and no or at least limited state interference) who tend to be opposed to abortion and gay marriage so those have now become right wing policies despite it being somewhat counter intuitive.

The only other thing to point out is that Racial supremacy was rather less a signature ideology than a politically expedient conspiracy theory which helped distract the wider populace from other failings.

Have I misunderstood the point you're making here or are you suggesting that racial superiority wasn't a 'signature policy' of Nazism?

Again, you are reverting to the argument that because a regime is not perfectly left wing, it is not left wing at all...

But equally it is also an over simplification to suggest that Nazism or Fascism are left wing. Certainly they have some degree of ideological overlap with left wing policy but equally they have some degree of overlap with right wing policy and just as importantly are at massive odds with rather key aspects of both the right and left ideology. I'm not entirely sure why either side is so keen to assign these views to either side of the political divide. They don't belong.

As for egalitarianism, I refer you to the Nazi party platform, " All citizens shall have equal rights and duties. "

This is a rather desperate line to trot out given that the actions of the Nazi Party make it incredibly clear that this wasn't their platform at all. Actions speak louder than words and all that. And lets not forget that a large part of the Nazi platform was also focused on the persecution of Jews which also gives away the lie of equality.

[Parsifal]

The only other thing to point out is that Racial supremacy was rather less a signature ideology than a politically expedient conspiracy theory which helped distract the wider populace from other failings.

Have I misunderstood the point you're making here or are you suggesting that racial superiority wasn't a 'signature policy' of Nazism?

or the KKK? (not to mention dozens of "right-wing" neo-Nazi militaristic groups in the US today)

This post has been edited by Parsifal: Aug 9 2012, 18:26

[sanitynotincluded]

[quote name='Mister R' date='Aug 9 2012, 18:57' post='1951670']
[quote name='sanitynotincluded' post='1947527' date='Jul 30 2012, 17:26']There is no such thing as "my right wing ideology" and "your right wing ideology". That which is right is right and that which is left is left. It isn't a subjective distinction.[/quote]
This is only true in the very broadest sense. I would suggest that when you move beyond extraordinarily broad generalisations that actually the divide between right and left wing is almost entirely subjective if only because everyone's view on where you draw the line between the two sides of the divide is entirely subjective. I'm afraid it just isn't as simple as saying this person wants to lower taxes so they're right wing or that this person believes government has a role to play in healthcare so they're left wing and to argue that it is, is ridiculously simplistic. [/quote]

Ideology is about broad generalities. Specific policies will depend on the application of those to circumstances, but ideology and policy are different. Whether something is right or left wing is not in the least bit subjective, and attempts to claim that it is as a means of brushing unpalatable aspects of the history of one's preferred ideology is pathetic.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Aug 9 2012, 18:57' post='1951670'][quote name='sanitynotincluded' post='1947527' date='Jul 30 2012, 17:26']Exactly which of the following, (written by messrs HITLER and Drexler) are you suggesting is not leftist?[/quote]
In fairness the first two aren't inherently leftist (although from memory the second one is in context). That's somewhat besides the point though because if I were to cherry pick statements or policy decisions from just about any political figure or party on the planet you can make them look left or right wing regardless of what they actually are.[/quote]

Both the notion that the interests of the individual must be subjugated to the interests of the state, and the whole "unearned income" claptrap are exceedingly leftist. As for the other, lovely generalisation, but there isn't anything right wing which you can cherry pick about the Nazis.


[quote name='Mister R' date='Aug 9 2012, 18:57' post='1951670']
[quote name='Nosferatu' post='1948499' date='Aug 1 2012, 21:59']You can't really judge it by "administrations" though, the need to please a broad range of voters in order to retain power often results in largely Right or Left "administrations" adopting the "Centre" ground. However, that doesn't apply to individuals or organisations who identify as either Right Wing or Left Wing ideologically - they either subscribe to the existing historical framework or they don't.[/quote]
Again this only works in fairly broad terms and if you subscribe to the theory that right and left is a simple black and white distinction. It isn't and I don't believe that it ever has been. Its not like an on/off switch. It isn't a case of either you are or you aren't – its called a political spectrum for a reason. In general trying to categorise via left or right wing tends to do more damage than good anyway and I mostly wish we'd just drop it and define people on their actual stated beliefs and ideology rather than what we perceive the left or right to be. [/quote]

It isn't black white, rather cyan and magenta. you can get a pink which isn't pure magenta, but it sure as hell isn't in the vicinity of cyan.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Aug 9 2012, 18:57' post='1951670'] those have now become right wing policies despite it being somewhat counter intuitive.[/quote]

No. If a person you choose to describe as right wing adopts policies which are incompatible with the fundamental premises of right wing ideology, it doesn't mean that those policies have become right wing, it means that you got it wrong when you applied your labels.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Aug 9 2012, 18:57' post='1951670'][quote name='sanitynotincluded' post='1948912' date='Aug 2 2012, 23:41']The only other thing to point out is that Racial supremacy was rather less a signature ideology than a politically expedient conspiracy theory which helped distract the wider populace from other failings.[/quote]
Have I misunderstood the point you're making here or are you suggesting that racial superiority wasn't a 'signature policy' of Nazism? [/quote]

No, this seems to be one of your rare moments of comprehension, although the tone of your question suggests that it is both limited and isolated.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Aug 9 2012, 18:57' post='1951670'][quote name='sanitynotincluded' post='1949432' date='Aug 4 2012, 13:45']Again, you are reverting to the argument that because a regime is not perfectly left wing, it is not left wing at all...[/quote]
But equally it is also an over simplification to suggest that Nazism or Fascism are left wing. Certainly they have some degree of ideological overlap with left wing policy but equally they have some degree of overlap with right wing policy and just as importantly are at massive odds with rather key aspects of both the right and left ideology. I'm not entirely sure why either side is so keen to assign these views to either side of the political divide. They don't belong. [/quote]

Left wing policies - yes
Policies which strike against the very essence of what it is to be left wing - no
Right wing policies - none that spring to mind.
Policies which strike against the very essence of what it is to be right wing - shit loads.

Hence despite minor imperfections (which any practical party will exhibit) they were left wing. Imperfections in one ideology and heresies in the other place you firmly in the former, not in both.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Aug 9 2012, 18:57' post='1951670'][quote name='sanitynotincluded' post='1949432' date='Aug 4 2012, 13:45']As for egalitarianism, I refer you to the Nazi party platform, " All citizens shall have equal rights and duties. "[/quote]
This is a rather desperate line to trot out given that the actions of the Nazi Party make it incredibly clear that this wasn't their platform at all. Actions speak louder than words and all that. And lets not forget that a large part of the Nazi platform was also focused on the persecution of Jews which also gives away the lie of equality.
[/quote]

The Nazis did tend to treat all citizens (except for the party) equally. That they treated them like shit is another matter. Their treatment of non citizens left much to be desired, but that is hardly dispositive, especially when one bears in mind the fact that the persecution was as much a matter of practical politics as ideology.

[Parsifal]

Both the notion that the interests of the individual must be subjugated to the interests of the state, and the whole "unearned income" claptrap are exceedingly leftist.

Subjugating the interests of the individual to those of the "state" is a false claim made of the left by the right. Rather it's a matter of putting the interests of society (and not those of Big Brother) before those of the individual. Individual freedom can be a very lonely place. Again, it's the difference between a YOYO society (You're On Your Own) and a WITT society (We're In This Together). Super wealthy folks e.g. Mitt Romney (worth an estimated $250 million) tend to like a YOYO society once most of the wealth has been shifted their way.

If you don't like the term "unearned income" then you might like to take that up with the accounting profession. It has nothing to do with being left or right (except that the wealthy who get most of their income through non-wages, i.e. unearned income, tend to be politically right-wing don't like the term and don't like to be reminded of it).

As an aside, United States law puts wages at the top of the totem pole. In cases of bankruptcy, wages have first claim on assets, even before the IRS. Everybody else gets in line behind them. (Pity the poor bond holders )

The only other thing to point out is that Racial supremacy was rather less a signature ideology than a politically expedient conspiracy theory which helped distract the wider populace from other failings.

Have I misunderstood the point you're making here or are you suggesting that racial superiority wasn't a 'signature policy' of Nazism?

No, this seems to be one of your rare moments of comprehension, although the tone of your question suggests that it is both limited and isolated.

Well, you have to admit that following you can be a bit bewildering at times.

As for egalitarianism, I refer you to the Nazi party platform, " All citizens shall have equal rights and duties. "

This is a rather desperate line to trot out given that the actions of the Nazi Party make it incredibly clear that this wasn't their platform at all. Actions speak louder than words and all that. And lets not forget that a large part of the Nazi platform was also focused on the persecution of Jews which also gives away the lie of equality.

The Nazis did tend to treat all citizens (except for the party) equally. That they treated them like shit is another matter.

Huh?
Are you suggesting that Aryans, Jews, Homosexuals and Gypsies were all treated equally? Aryans were definitly not treated like shit. You are very confused.

This post has been edited by Parsifal: Aug 10 2012, 19:53

[Mister R]

Ideology is about broad generalities. Specific policies will depend on the application of those to circumstances, but ideology and policy are different. Whether something is right or left wing is not in the least bit subjective, and attempts to claim that it is as a means of brushing unpalatable aspects of the history of one's preferred ideology is pathetic.

Ideology isn't about broad generalities at all and that's the point I was making.

Both the notion that the interests of the individual must be subjugated to the interests of the state, and the whole "unearned income" claptrap are exceedingly leftist. As for the other, lovely generalisation, but there isn't anything right wing which you can cherry pick about the Nazis.

The first statement isn't specific and unavoidably about subjecting people to the will of the State (which by the way isn't a leftist view anyway). For the record the right still believes in the rule of law which encroaches upon the freedoms of the individual with the justification that it is in the best interest of the community/society at large. In fact this is in general a restatement of one of the key theories of political structure namely social contract theory. The second statement isn't inherently leftist either (although as I mentioned within the full context I believe it probably is) as, in theory at least, social welfare isn't a right wing policy.

The idea that there's nothing remotely right wing that you can cherry pick from the Nazi's is one of the funniest statements I have ever read in my life. The social structure of Nazi Germany is inherently right wing, the use of patriotism and national pride is inherently right wing, the abolish on unions is inherently right wing, the use of state endorsed religion is inherently right wing and I could go on...

No, this seems to be one of your rare moments of comprehension, although the tone of your question suggests that it is both limited and isolated.

In which case you are historically ignorant.

Hence despite minor imperfections (which any practical party will exhibit) they were left wing. Imperfections in one ideology and heresies in the other place you firmly in the former, not in both.

Its becoming strikingly clear that you have very little conception of what the right and left wing actually are. Or that you're choosing to ignore this knowledge because it doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to spin.

The Nazis did tend to treat all citizens (except for the party) equally...

No they didn't. Again historical ignorance.

[stevo]

Why on earth would anyone want to select any of the 20th century European dictatorial regimes as sound examples of anything other than exploitation, greed, lust for power and fear?

[Parsifal]

I wonder what Romney has to say about the London games now.