Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mute50)
    Mussolini was expelled from the the socialist party and to be expelled from the socilalist party by default means his viewa were incompatible with the party so this would make him far from a hard-line communist.
    Did you not read what i said? "Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a ``Third Way'' between capitalism and communism". That is why the socialist party expelled him. Just because he was expelled doesn't mean his views were not socialist views. It means they were not conventional socialist views.



    Anti-socialism/communism was much more distinguished within the nazi party and other fascist regimes than anti-capitalism.The core objective of fascism was to seduce the working class(especially the urban poor) away from socialism, which in fascist eyes preached the traitorous, idea of international working class solidarity(in comparision to the emphasis of nationhood and the 'aryan race') and upheld the misguided values of cooperation and equality(In contrary to the Nazi believe of a fixed hierarchical society in which the fuhrer was some sort of demi-god). Also the Nazis wanted loyalty to race to be stronger than those of social class.
    According to a popular misconception, the Nazis must have been on the political right because they persecuted communists and fought a war with the communists in Russia. This specious logic has gone largely unchallenged because it serves as useful propaganda for the left, which needs ``right-wing'' atrocities to divert attention from the horrific communist atrocities of the past century. Hence, communist atrocities have received much less publicity than Nazi war crimes, even though they were greater in magnitude by any objective measure

    Your last paragraph is a fallacy just because just because 'Q'(Nazis) is anti-capitalism 'W' that does not make Q(Nazis) to be C(socialist). In addition you are getting into mekky water to say that the Nazis were inherently anti-capitalist.
    The Nazis are widely known as nationalists, but that label is often used to obscure the fact that they were also socialists. Some question whether Hitler himself actually believed in socialism, but that is no more relevant than whether Stalin was a true believer. The fact is that neither could have come to power without at least posing as a socialist. And the constant emphasis on the fact that the Nazis were nationalists, with barely an acknowledgment that they were socialists, is as absurd as labeling the Soviets ``internationalists'' and ignoring the fact that they were socialists (they called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Yet many who regard ``national'' socialism as the scourge of humanity consider ``international'' socialism a benign or even superior form of government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Did you not read what i said? "Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a ``Third Way'' between capitalism and communism". That is why the socialist party expelled him. Just because he was expelled doesn't mean his views were not socialist views. It means they were not conventional socialist views.
    Wrong Mussolini was expelled from the socialist party not because he viewed that conventional socialism(please elaborate what you mean by conventional socialism) was not working, fascism was not an alternative strategy to bring forth socialism. He was expelled due to him explicitly supporting italian participation in the first world war

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    According to a popular misconception, the Nazis must have been on the political right because they persecuted communists and fought a war with the communists in Russia. This specious logic has gone largely unchallenged because it serves as useful propaganda for the left, which needs ``right-wing'' atrocities to divert attention from the horrific communist atrocities of the past century. Hence, communist atrocities have received much less publicity than Nazi war crimes, even though they were greater in magnitude by any objective measure
    So you discardig the obvious ideology differences between socialist and fascist that i have stated in the previous post?

    The Nazis were and are a extreme right wing movement. As i have previously stated in this thread, they were inherently hierarchial in which they believed in social darwinism, they were socially conservative(Kinder, Küche, Kirche etc). So saying that the nazis are political right is not some sort of kryton-socialist plot, its factual. Also communism if you know what you are on about has not materialize yet so when you talk of communist atrocities i am very much lost in the woods.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The Nazis are widely known as nationalists, but that label is often used to obscure the fact that they were also socialists. Some question whether Hitler himself actually believed in socialism, but that is no more relevant than whether Stalin was a true believer. The fact is that neither could have come to power without at least posing as a socialist. And the constant emphasis on the fact that the Nazis were nationalists, with barely an acknowledgment that they were socialists, is as absurd as labeling the Soviets ``internationalists'' and ignoring the fact that they were socialists (they called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Yet many who regard ``national'' socialism as the scourge of humanity consider ``international'' socialism a benign or even superior form of government.
    No The nazis were not socialist. So ok they integrated some 'socialist' policies such as 'jobs for all'. Using your logic this would make the BNP socialist would it not? ,but fundamentally it was pragmatism not ideological which drove the nazis(and mussolini) to adopt such policies as i have previously stated the reasons in the thread. Your reference to 'national socialism and international socialism is going off a tangent and if you do want to discuss it i suggest you start another thread.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    If you look at the neocons like Kristol and so on, you will find that all of them are ex-leftists with an admiration for Trotsky.

    Instead of a global socialist revolution, they want a global democratic revolution.
    That's irrelevant.

    First, lots of people move to the right when they get older. Remember that popular adage that not to be a liberal when you are young is not to have a heart, and not to be conservative when you get older is not to have a brain?

    Francois Guisot (1787-1874): "Not to be a
    republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is
    proof of want of head."

    Revived by French Premier Georges
    Clemenceau (1841-1929): "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of
    want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."

    Second, lots of people who are extremists or ideologues of one kind jump to an entirely opposite extreme or ideology.

    Think of Saul the Pharisee persecuting the early followers of Christ who became Paul the Apostle one of the most significant shapers of Christianity there have been. When the fascists defeated the communists in the bloody Spanish Civil War some communists who had fought bitterly against the fascists decided to join them. There are modern examples of Israeli settlers, the most zealous Zionists, defecting and becoming not just Muslims but violence-supporting Islamists.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    That's irrelevant.

    First, lots of people move to the right when they get older. Remember that popular adage that not to be a liberal when you are young is not to have a heart, and not to be conservative when you get older is not to have a brain?

    Francois Guisot (1787-1874): "Not to be a
    republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is
    proof of want of head."

    Revived by French Premier Georges
    Clemenceau (1841-1929): "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of
    want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."

    Second, lots of people who are extremists or ideologues of one kind jump to an entirely opposite extreme or ideology.

    Think of Saul the Pharisee persecuting the early followers of Christ who became Paul the Apostle one of the most significant shapers of Christianity there have been. When the fascists defeated the communists in the bloody Spanish Civil War some communists who had fought bitterly against the fascists decided to join them. There are modern examples of Israeli settlers, the most zealous Zionists, defecting and becoming not just Muslims but violence-supporting Islamists.
    It can't always be irrelevant because if someone was a communist as a grown man, you have to question their beliefs.

    Anyway, the neocons are essentially Wilsonian liberals who are also Zionists (mainly because loads of them are Jewish).

    They support the welfare state, they don't do anything against abortion and they ae strong supporters of radical feminism and some toned down form of multiculturism.

    In short, they aren't conservatives despite what they say.
    Offline

    15
    As Im sure everyone on this website has established with the rash of BNP threads during the EU elections there can never be anything more useful, productive or civillised in political debate than pointing at people you don't like, saying they're Nazis and then finding spurious reasons why. I must say it's alot easier to do with the BNP than it is with Socialism but what kind of a person would I be if I didn't let you righties have your moment in the spotlight.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    It can't always be irrelevant because if someone was a communist as a grown man, you have to question their beliefs.

    Anyway, the neocons are essentially Wilsonian liberals who are also Zionists (mainly because loads of them are Jewish).

    They support the welfare state, they don't do anything against abortion and they ae strong supporters of radical feminism and some toned down form of multiculturism.

    In short, they aren't conservatives despite what they say.
    I think you have seriously misunderstood what neo-conservatism is, and who is neo-conservative.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    This is a load of nonsense IMHO. Libertarians, especially in America, are possibly the most keen on disassociating themselves from the traditional left-right spectrum out of anyone. It's no coincidence that the Nolan chart, the famous picture of political positions represented on a 2-dimensional
    plane, was pioneered by a libertarian - it's precisely libertarians who think, in my opinion rightly, that there are superior alternatives to the old dichotomy between left and right. In other words, your claim that libertarians "like to pretend that the political spectrum is a simple line between big government lefties and small government right wingers" is manifestly false. Either you don't know what you're talking about, you haven't met very many libertarians, or you're being dishonest about it.

    At any rate, I certainly believe that the Nazis were socialist, in at least some every-day senses of the word. It's much easier to call your opponents disingenuous than it is to actually engage with their arguments, though.
    It is the case that many libertarians argue that the left-right divide is a simple spectrum of big and small government and its a tenant of the low-brow propaganda they put out to try and proselytise on behalf of libertarianism for the benefit of uninformed and simple minded American college students who think its all so profound.

    I like the Nolan chart (though any such exercise still cannot encompass the complexity of the political spectrum) and if you agree with it you ought to acknowledge that you can be a right wing statist, conservative on social issue and nationalistic - just as the NAZIs were. NAZI support really came from the bourgeoisie, the people most frightened by and opposed to socialism. The NAZIs fought war on the socialist and the left before they started persecuting Jews, and Hitler considered the war with Soviet Russia a 'holy war' for the same reasons.

    Of course there are complexities, the Soviet system was against nationalism and religion, but Stalin used both of these things to help morale in fighting the Germans. There were elements of right wing politics in Stalinism, but it would be just as disingenuous - though equally possible - for me to define totalitarian oppression as right wing and argue that the Soviet system was a perversion of the aims of communism and under Stalin a form of right wing authoritarian tyranny.

    The only reason people are so obsessed with characterising Nazism and Communism as on one side of the political spectrum or the other is so that they can discredit their own political opponents (who are in no way reminiscent of either of these political systems) as being entirely wrong and tarred with the association of the great crimes carried out upon humanity in the name of these two ideologies. It doesn't matter what libertarians claim on this front, except that its annoying to hear people spread misinformation that might persuade the ignorant, the fact is that the academic consensus among historians and political scientists is entirely against them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    It can't always be irrelevant because if someone was a communist as a grown man, you have to question their beliefs.

    Anyway, the neocons are essentially Wilsonian liberals who are also Zionists (mainly because loads of them are Jewish).

    They support the welfare state, they don't do anything against abortion and they ae strong supporters of radical feminism and some toned down form of multiculturism.

    In short, they aren't conservatives despite what they say.
    Like the NAZIs weren't socialist despite what their name said.

    There is no inherent reason why feminism or the abortion issue should have anything to do with the left-right divide. In America it does because of Christian social conservatism, but its perfectly possible to be a right wing feminist or be right of Attila the Hun and be fine with abortion. Again this just shows how reality is a lot more messy and complex that neat little analytical categories. But I am interested in how you think the neocons are multiculturalists?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    I think you have seriously misunderstood what neo-conservatism is, and who is neo-conservative.
    No, I haven't. I have studied these issues quite a lot as a conservative trying to regain the word "conservative" from the neoconservatives.

    "Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists."

    This is from the neoconservative Michael Lind so it is straight from the horse's mouth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, under Bush and the Neo-Cons the size of government ballooned incredibly. The direct opposite of conservative in the American sense of the word.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
    Yes, under Bush and the Neo-Cons the size of government ballooned incredibly. The direct opposite of conservative in the American sense of the word.
    Even in the American sense, which is any case not definitive - you can choose to define the political spectrum however you want, but we are not obliged to accept your definition - that is the definition of a fiscal conservative, not simply a conservative and not a social conservative. And that its rather a myth can be shown by inflation indexed government spending, which reveals that the only president soundly conservative in this sense was Bill Clinton. Reagan may have talked the talk, in fact is largely responsible for the oversimplified idea that conservatives want small government and democrats want big government, but actual federal spending under his administration increased significantly just as it has under most presidents in recent history. And think of Nixonian price and wage controls, that isn't small government either. Historians know the score better than wishful thinking ideologues.

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)

    Have you got a source for that graph, it seems rather strange as it is contradicted by a few other sources. Also, are the figures in millions or what?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    And that its rather a myth can be shown by inflation indexed government spending, which reveals that the only president soundly conservative in this sense was Bill Clinton.
    Thats a myth in itself. democrats and the like will tell you Bill Clinton was fiscally conservative due to balencing the budget. What they won't tell you or don't know is that he borrowed money from Medicare and social security to make the public books read 0. Not to mention that Clinton signed the CRA which directly caused the downfall of the economy, and that he told Janet Reno to threaten banks if they didn’t make loans to people who had no way to pay them back.



    Reagan may have talked the talk, in fact is largely responsible for the oversimplified idea that conservatives want small government and democrats want big government, but actual federal spending under his administration increased significantly just as it has under most presidents in recent history.
    Reagan wasn't a fiscal conservative, he was a neocon just like Bush. Both believed that a large government is an inevitable result of providing national security and restoring traditional moral values.
    Reagan fooled the entire nation into believing that he would create a small efficient government that would bring more prosperity to Americans through free-trade. He may have preached of his fiscally conservative economic plans but by Reagan's second term the national debt ballooned by more than 15% as a percent of GDP and totaled $2.6 trillion. Between 1980 and 1990, the national deficit had tripled to $220 billion. When he left office, the country owed more to foreigners than it was owed, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Just because he promised fiscal conservatism, doesnt make him one.


    The last truly fiscal conservative President was Calvin Coolidge who left office in 1929. If you want a good example of what most people define as fiscally conservative policies nowadays, you should read a few speeches by Ron Paul, i think he is on youtube aswell.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandro)
    Well obviously,
    the nazis were socialists.
    who both nationalised everything,
    and dressed up in shiny leather clothes

    They were not marxists however,
    There are many strands of socialist thought
    of which marxism is but one


    lol

    Clearly you lack the mind for rocket science. Socialism and fascism are not logically incompatible. The nazis combined both socialist AND fascist policies.
    And in discussing the two ideologies, it's not exactly obvious that we're talking about two separate things
    There is at least a family resemblance
    They're at completely the opposite ends of the political spectrum though :/ I don't get how they can be as interchangable as you say.

    And although clearly I'm not a rocket scientist, no, it would seem to make sense as a logical argument... Seem perhaps being the operative word...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Thats a myth in itself. democrats and the like will tell you Bill Clinton was fiscally conservative due to balencing the budget. What they won't tell you or don't know is that he borrowed money from Medicare and social security to make the public books read 0. Not to mention that Clinton signed the CRA which directly caused the downfall of the economy, and that he told Janet Reno to threaten banks if they didn’t make loans to people who had no way to pay them back.





    Reagan wasn't a fiscal conservative, he was a neocon just like Bush. Both believed that a large government is an inevitable result of providing national security and restoring traditional moral values.
    Reagan fooled the entire nation into believing that he would create a small efficient government that would bring more prosperity to Americans through free-trade. He may have preached of his fiscally conservative economic plans but by Reagan's second term the national debt ballooned by more than 15% as a percent of GDP and totaled $2.6 trillion. Between 1980 and 1990, the national deficit had tripled to $220 billion. When he left office, the country owed more to foreigners than it was owed, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Just because he promised fiscal conservatism, doesnt make him one.


    The last truly fiscal conservative President was Calvin Coolidge who left office in 1929. If you want a good example of what most people define as fiscally conservative policies nowadays, you should read a few speeches by Ron Paul, i think he is on youtube aswell.
    Federal spending didn't rise as much under Clinton as it did under other recent President's, that's the key point and that is not a myth.

    If Reagen is not a conservative by your definition then basically there is no such thing as a conservative these days except a few libertarians in the wilderness. I don't think this is a discourse that non-libertarians would find useful. You can't redefine conservatism so that only what you advocate is conservative, it makes the idea meaningless to the rest of us, when there are very real differences between the left and right as they actually exist. Its fantasy to suppose that the federal government will shrink back down to the size it was in the 1920s.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think anyone can deny that Reagan was a conservative of atleast some sort but I think you can so with Bush to an extent (although I think it may be that Bush is more conservative than he acts and that the Neoconservatives just have some level of control over him).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
    Have you got a source for that graph, it seems rather strange as it is contradicted by a few other sources. Also, are the figures in millions or what?
    Federal spending per house hold (not per capita), inflation indexed. So its adjusted by population and for current real value.

    Source is the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation at www.heritage.org
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Federal spending didn't rise as much under Clinton as it did under other recent President's, that's the key point and that is not a myth.
    Well, if anything this proves, just how similiar the democrats and neoconservatives have become.

    If Reagen is not a conservative by your definition then basically there is no such thing as a conservative these days except a few libertarians in the wilderness.
    Exactly. But maybe i am just overjudgemental. Reagans foreign policy also contradicted conservative/constitutionalist values.


    I don't think this is a discourse that non-libertarians would find useful. You can't redefine conservatism so that only what you advocate is conservative, it makes the idea meaningless to the rest of us, when there are very real differences between the left and right as they actually exist. Its fantasy to suppose that the federal government will shrink back down to the size it was in the 1920s.

    I define true conservatism as being a mixture of laissez-faire policies such as free trade, opposition to state banks such as the Federal Reserve and opposition to business regulations. Strict opposition to environmental regulations, corporate welfare, subsidies, and other areas of economic and foreign intervention, and strong adherance to the constitution.

    But then again i suppose my own definition is one of many different views and ideas.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well, if anything this proves, just how similiar the democrats and neoconservatives have become.



    Exactly. But maybe i am just overjudgemental. Reagans foreign policy also contradicted conservative/constitutionalist values.





    I define true conservatism as being a mixture of laissez-faire policies such as free trade, opposition to state banks such as the Federal Reserve and opposition to business regulations. Strict opposition to environmental regulations, corporate welfare, subsidies, and other areas of economic and foreign intervention, and strong adherance to the constitution.

    But then again i suppose my own definition is one of many different views and ideas.
    Then I'd say your a constitutional libertarian, rather than a conservative, though your views entail radical fiscal conservatism it wouldn't be the most appropriate label for me to describe you.

    If you take away the constitutional bit, it would be easy to compare that level of libertarianism to anarchism - though you have different objects in mind the outcome of such policies would be very similar in my view. To think that man can live safely and comfortably with next to no government is as Utopian and misguided as the communist experiment was. States matter, and institutions matter - without these things we would have to regress to a far more primitive economic system, in which transaction costs for trade, and especially for protection, would skyrocket and thus the volume of trade would significantly decline. If such a thing could be it would be a violent, lawless and dangerous environment for people to live in - except for warlords and their attendant followers. And the whole state-building process would start again. Radical libertarians are far too optimistic about the nature of man, just like the communists, and any system which is not in accord with man's nature can never succeed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    If you take away the constitutional bit, it would be easy to compare that level of libertarianism to anarchism - though you have different objects in mind the outcome of such policies would be very similar in my view. To think that man can live safely and comfortably with next to no government is as Utopian and misguided as the communist experiment was.
    On the contrary, i am in favour of heavy localisation of power. It is the centralisation of power to the state or Government that i am against not the Government itself. Rather than utopian, it is a practical and logical way to ensure a greater representation for the people, increasing democracy, while retaining a small federal type Government to uphold the law, defend property rights and provide an armed defence of the nation.

    States matter, and institutions matter
    I agree completely, that states and institutions matter. Not the state or the institution.

    Radical libertarians are far too optimistic about the nature of man, just like the communists, and any system which is not in accord with man's nature can never succeed.
    I am no anarchist, i like to think of myself more as a minarchist. I appreciate the role that Government plays. But am strictly against any kind of heavy centralisation of power to one institution. I believe in representative democracy that is actually representative, rather than a thinly veiled ochlocracy.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.