Was Hitler a "right wing" socialist or is the left in denial of one of their own?
- Thread starter JoeSF
- Start date
- Status
Zander
member
It's certainly important if you believe in being factual.
Not all of history's villains are on the Other Guy's Team (I'm sure you can come up with some exceptions if you try hard enough)...just the most despicable, murderous tyrants and totalitarians the world has ever known.
And everyone knows that ol' Joe the right-winger was, deep down in his black heart, a die-hard conservative.
Fer cryin' out loud, this doesn't even "rise" to the level of sophistry...why the desperation?
Tom C.
Member.
Left - Right Thing
Right wing and left wing are artifacts of the French Revolution. The National Assembly was a bunch of crazies, but Robspiere and his crowd were, I believe, sat in the left wing of the assembly hall, and the anti crowd sat on the right.
If we want to take a political spectrum now, left wing being statists, and right wing being total freedom, we can now more accurately label pols and the governments they run.
That said, Hitler, in my opinion was a leftist. Lenin was a leftist. The only operational difference I have seen is that Lenin wanted to own the means of production, and Hitler was content to let Krupp and his buddies maintain ownership, while he, Hitler, directed what they produced.
That means that the rest of the stuff, like Arian supremacy, dictatorship of the proletariat, etc., was just eyewash for the masses.
That means that Clinton, while he is a Marxist, ruled as a Natzi.
Right wing and left wing are artifacts of the French Revolution. The National Assembly was a bunch of crazies, but Robspiere and his crowd were, I believe, sat in the left wing of the assembly hall, and the anti crowd sat on the right.
If we want to take a political spectrum now, left wing being statists, and right wing being total freedom, we can now more accurately label pols and the governments they run.
That said, Hitler, in my opinion was a leftist. Lenin was a leftist. The only operational difference I have seen is that Lenin wanted to own the means of production, and Hitler was content to let Krupp and his buddies maintain ownership, while he, Hitler, directed what they produced.
That means that the rest of the stuff, like Arian supremacy, dictatorship of the proletariat, etc., was just eyewash for the masses.
That means that Clinton, while he is a Marxist, ruled as a Natzi.
Tamara
Senior Member
Zander,
And that has "doodly-squat" (I believe the term was) to do with the issue of my post.
Care to expound on how, exactly, "right wing" and "left wing" interact with "liberal" and "conservative" outside of late 20th Century America?
Lemme guess: In your universe Hitler and Stalin were "Liberals", right?
And that has "doodly-squat" (I believe the term was) to do with the issue of my post.
Care to expound on how, exactly, "right wing" and "left wing" interact with "liberal" and "conservative" outside of late 20th Century America?
Lemme guess: In your universe Hitler and Stalin were "Liberals", right?
Silver Bullet
Member
"Left" and "right" are meaningless to me. I see a spectrum with anarchy at one end and totalitarianism at the other. Communism, socialism, fascism, and capitalism are economic terms.
Zander
member
The issue of your post was to define the mission of all us right-wingers...we can't rest until all the truly evil characters of world history are buried on the other side of the political fence from us.
I simply pointed out that most of them are already buried there, even though you should be capable of providing an exception or two. Perhaps it's too much trouble.
Which is it? Do I follow your earlier suggestion..."(You may want to abandon, for the sake of this discussion, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" and go back to "left" and "right". )"...or this one? Before this post, I've used the word 'conservative' exactly twice in this discussion; in quotes, in response to someone's labelling of feudal Japanese warlords. I reckon that'd get us out of the late 20th Century without much problem.
In my "universe"? LOL!
They were leftists. Both of them on the Other Guy's Team.
Hand_Rifle_Guy
Member
In my case...
I see it like this.
On the various "lefty" forums that occaisonally get linked here for the purposes of ridicule and subsequent attack/anihilation, a common insult used by the liberal contributors is to call Bush 'Hitler' and the Repubs 'Nazi'. Typically, these types of posting don't bother with any sort of analysis of the ACTUAL political orientation of the party targeted. They are more concerned with delivering a hateful insult.
So let us not read rationality into "leftist" labeling. Statist, or socialistic, leanings on the part of our current Demos are closer to the Nazi political orientation than are the current "conservative" Repubs. However, accuracy of labeling has never been an important point to the current "lefty" movement. Accuracy of ANYTHING is unimportant to them. What matters to them is the EMOTIONAL response to a given subject. For most of our recent history, our culture has held Hitler and the Nazis up as examples of ultimate revulsion. "Freely hate these institutions of the past, as they are truly despicable and do not bear repeating."
For people who live on emotional responses to guide their thinking, one of the most powerful objects of disgust and revulsion they can point at is the Nazi regime. The technicalities of the politics involved don't even enter the equasion. It's just a "big red button" of disgust.
Therefore, when referring to our current administration that they cannot stand, and lacking the the technical wherewithal or understanding of the actual politics involved, "lefties" simply call it the most repulsive name they can think of. Bush becomes Hitler, Repubs become Nazis, and right-wing supporters become death-camp-proponents.
So, NEVER MIND correctly defining era-dependent contexts for labels like right- or left-wing. Realize that labels are just that: labels. Conveniences. Insults from the "left" side are particularly exempt from any sort of factual accuraccy, and are chosen by the relative power of the emotional response they evoke. That has always been the problem when fighting off rhetoric from the liberals. THEY DON'T BOTHER WITH FACTS. Pointing out factual innaccuracies to flaming liberals just makes 'em madder, as they aren't trying to convey real information, they're just trying to inflame an emotional response that's akin to their own.
I see it like this.
On the various "lefty" forums that occaisonally get linked here for the purposes of ridicule and subsequent attack/anihilation, a common insult used by the liberal contributors is to call Bush 'Hitler' and the Repubs 'Nazi'. Typically, these types of posting don't bother with any sort of analysis of the ACTUAL political orientation of the party targeted. They are more concerned with delivering a hateful insult.
So let us not read rationality into "leftist" labeling. Statist, or socialistic, leanings on the part of our current Demos are closer to the Nazi political orientation than are the current "conservative" Repubs. However, accuracy of labeling has never been an important point to the current "lefty" movement. Accuracy of ANYTHING is unimportant to them. What matters to them is the EMOTIONAL response to a given subject. For most of our recent history, our culture has held Hitler and the Nazis up as examples of ultimate revulsion. "Freely hate these institutions of the past, as they are truly despicable and do not bear repeating."
For people who live on emotional responses to guide their thinking, one of the most powerful objects of disgust and revulsion they can point at is the Nazi regime. The technicalities of the politics involved don't even enter the equasion. It's just a "big red button" of disgust.
Therefore, when referring to our current administration that they cannot stand, and lacking the the technical wherewithal or understanding of the actual politics involved, "lefties" simply call it the most repulsive name they can think of. Bush becomes Hitler, Repubs become Nazis, and right-wing supporters become death-camp-proponents.
So, NEVER MIND correctly defining era-dependent contexts for labels like right- or left-wing. Realize that labels are just that: labels. Conveniences. Insults from the "left" side are particularly exempt from any sort of factual accuraccy, and are chosen by the relative power of the emotional response they evoke. That has always been the problem when fighting off rhetoric from the liberals. THEY DON'T BOTHER WITH FACTS. Pointing out factual innaccuracies to flaming liberals just makes 'em madder, as they aren't trying to convey real information, they're just trying to inflame an emotional response that's akin to their own.
Why debate on your terms alone? I may as well concede that anything you say is automatically correct. My arguement does include history. Feudal Japan was merely a convenient example because it is sufficiently far removed from European influences to throw historical influences in.
I don't say that Hitler et. al. were conservatives, I just state that in the long run conservatives will disarm the population also. Limiting the scope to only American "conservatives" and "liberals" is meaningless, as that is simply one issue that is used to garner votes. Over the greater course of human history, the idea of individual rights and therefore the individual RKBA is a liberal thought (true meaning of liberal vs. current political meaning).
As far as the politics of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, when complete control is the goal, the usual political terms lack meaning. The state serves an individual, and the individual will do what it takes to stay in power. As Tamara pointed our right and left (and liberal and conservative) are situational labels, not absolutes.
There is a weird human tendancy to split into pairs of opposing factions. People seem to have this need to make it an us and them situation. Why does it really matter if "all the truly evil characters of world history are buried on the other side of the political fence from us."? They were - they were out for themselves. Besides, what was done historically has no bearing on me personally. I can still choose to do right and wrong. I am honorable or dishonorable on my own merit. I do not inherit the sins of my father, nor do those who follow me inherit my sins.
Tamara, I did like the humor. Keep throwing them from left field.
Silver Bullet
Member
Yup, which is why I said left and right are meaningless. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are all at the extreme totalitarian end of my anarchy-totalitarianism spectrum.
Zander
member
Do you mean in theory or do you have examples? If roughly 5% of a society was allowed arms and the remaining 95% of the society was barred the ownership, carrying and usage of arms under penalty of summary execution, in what sense is the ruling class "conservative"?
What label do you apply to the remainder of that society other than 'peasants' serving the "state"?
Something is discordant...and asking for expansion of your point is not forcing you to debate on "my" terms alone.
Clearly, in all three of those instances, individuals were forced to serve the state. In two of your three examples, the regimes continued on after the death of their initiators. In fact, their ideology was exported in the most brutal fashion. That's the nature of totalitarianism...and totalitarianism is overwhelming associated with leftists.
I do freely admit that my view, given here and on TFL before, is that the left-right continuum isn't a straight line but a circle. Where a regime such as Stalin's or Hitler's is placed on that circumference is still a matter of some dispute.
But are they useful in the context of the discussion? Of course they are. Should we not use them because some find them inconvenient? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand why this seems to be such a point of contention.
Perhaps Tamara will tell us...it was, after all, her charge that "some of us" view it as our main mission in this discussion.
We are obligated to learn from history. Labels are useful tools because, in the words of one of the authors of the linked articles, we ought to be capable of recognizing when that sort of ugliness raises its head again...as we know it has and will.
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
That was the best brief answer I've seen here or at TFL on the classic derivation of the words.
Modern day, since the 1930's the difference between rightwing and leftwing socialists has been the rightwing believed in a joint corporate-government ownership of the capital and the leftwing believed in pure government capitalism.
Both wings have as their solid belief the concept that the people who used to run things (in this case the US citizenry) need to be run out of power and socialism is to replace them. Both firmly believe in the government right to confiscate anything it wants at the point of a gun.
Joe Gunns
Member
Tom C basically has it about the origin of "right" and "left" as political labels.
To paraphrase the textbook definitions through the filter of my aging memory: "socialism" is about government REGULATION of private enterprise for the benefit of society; "communism" is about government OWNERSHIP of resources and means of production, for the collective benefit of the workers; "National socialism" is about government CONTROL of business for the benefit of the state. These all describe economic relationships.
As someone (sorry, I forgot who and couldn't find it again doing a quick scroll) pointed out, Left and Right can be seen as lines running on out from each side of "moderate" and ultimately forming a circle by meeting at totalitarianism. It doesn't make much difference to the oppressed which side the oppressor feels politically aligned with.
Another way of thinking about it is that labels like right, left, conservative, liberal, apply to political philosophies, while terms such as democratic, totalitarian, monarchist, apply to forms of government, . Obviously, in common usage the lines are not so neatly drawn. And, again as many have already averred, terms such as Nazi or commie have taken on additional meaning derived from actions such as the Holocaust. Thus they are used in a perjorative sense for their emotional impact rather descriptors of an economic system.
As others have observed, the problem with labels of left/right, conservative/liberal, even of Republican/Democrat as used in popular debate is that their practical definitions tend to shift over time. Today's conservative was yesterday's liberal not soley because he/she has gotten older and wiser.
Well. gotta email my two liberal demo senators and remind them that the filibuster they are supporting against Bush court appointees is same reactionary tactic used by segregationist Dixie-crats (Southern Democrats) to thwart the liberal policy of integration and civil rights, and commend them for living up to the true heritage of their party.
Joe
To paraphrase the textbook definitions through the filter of my aging memory: "socialism" is about government REGULATION of private enterprise for the benefit of society; "communism" is about government OWNERSHIP of resources and means of production, for the collective benefit of the workers; "National socialism" is about government CONTROL of business for the benefit of the state. These all describe economic relationships.
As someone (sorry, I forgot who and couldn't find it again doing a quick scroll) pointed out, Left and Right can be seen as lines running on out from each side of "moderate" and ultimately forming a circle by meeting at totalitarianism. It doesn't make much difference to the oppressed which side the oppressor feels politically aligned with.
Another way of thinking about it is that labels like right, left, conservative, liberal, apply to political philosophies, while terms such as democratic, totalitarian, monarchist, apply to forms of government, . Obviously, in common usage the lines are not so neatly drawn. And, again as many have already averred, terms such as Nazi or commie have taken on additional meaning derived from actions such as the Holocaust. Thus they are used in a perjorative sense for their emotional impact rather descriptors of an economic system.
As others have observed, the problem with labels of left/right, conservative/liberal, even of Republican/Democrat as used in popular debate is that their practical definitions tend to shift over time. Today's conservative was yesterday's liberal not soley because he/she has gotten older and wiser.
Well. gotta email my two liberal demo senators and remind them that the filibuster they are supporting against Bush court appointees is same reactionary tactic used by segregationist Dixie-crats (Southern Democrats) to thwart the liberal policy of integration and civil rights, and commend them for living up to the true heritage of their party.
Joe
Good shot, Tamara. That is the main point of most arguments over nomenclature.
As for "right-wingers" who are also history's villains, I think it is safe to say that much of the chaos in the Islamic world is "liberals" (left) vs "conservatives" (right) -- and that the guys on the right are the dangerous ones.
Oh, Hitler? He was for home and family, family values, law and order, more military spending, increased patriotism, and return to the traditional values that made the country great. What's that make him?
pax
Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms. – Robert Heinlein
bad_dad_brad
Member
I really don't think you can categorize Nazi Germany as envisioned by Adolf Hitler as anything akin to classical "right or left" politics. That is the point I am trying to make.
Hitler and his perverse form of government were a total product of the times and his personality. It is not about liberalism or conservatism. It is all about Adolf Hitler.
The circumstances in history were unique. A downtrodden once proud country. A powerfull right wing class of industrialists. A beaten down army with a Prussion professional heritage.
Then on the scene, comes a brilliant political animal, a child of the times, a perverse populist, and you have the creation of Nazi Germany.
This phenom is not right or left, liberal or conservative. Oh no. It is all about a persona. A zealot full of hatred with absolute power named Adolf Hitler. Study the man, and you will understand the movement. Very simple.
Hitler and his perverse form of government were a total product of the times and his personality. It is not about liberalism or conservatism. It is all about Adolf Hitler.
The circumstances in history were unique. A downtrodden once proud country. A powerfull right wing class of industrialists. A beaten down army with a Prussion professional heritage.
Then on the scene, comes a brilliant political animal, a child of the times, a perverse populist, and you have the creation of Nazi Germany.
This phenom is not right or left, liberal or conservative. Oh no. It is all about a persona. A zealot full of hatred with absolute power named Adolf Hitler. Study the man, and you will understand the movement. Very simple.
Tamara
Senior Member
Zander,
I ain't talkin' just to hear my head roar: Go back and read it again.
You have thus far (in this thread) used the terms "liberal" and "left", "right" and "conservative" pretty interchangeably.
I questioned that.
Elucidate, please.
I ain't talkin' just to hear my head roar: Go back and read it again.
You have thus far (in this thread) used the terms "liberal" and "left", "right" and "conservative" pretty interchangeably.
I questioned that.
Elucidate, please.
You asked me to limit the time period of my references, not expand my point.
Conservative hardly means serving in the interests of the citizenry, or looking out for their rights. Slave owing societies, even the "democracies" have roughly that ratio of armed to unarmed.
As MeekandMild pointed out, modern politics is about control, one party versus the other. As time has gone on, the idea that the power of the government rises from the people has been forgotten, changing to the idea that people getting their rights from government. "Conservatives" merely use the RKBA issue to garner more votes to increase their individual and party power. If it were really about beliefs, why did the Democrats back off so fast when they saw that the issue lost votes? Why did Republicans not capitalize by loosening restrictions? Why volunteer to sign any renewal assault weapon ban before the bill is even presented?
LiquidTension
Member
Hey Tamara, I just wanted to add to the quantum humor.
In my polysci class the teacher drew the political spectrum on the board. Naturally there was left and right, but he put libertarians (with whom I most closely relate to) at the TOP. If I can remember what was at the BOTTOM, we've got 'em all covered. STRANGE would encompass the system of government that I had to create for a paper in the class, and CHARMED...well, haven't figured that one out yet.
Back to topic, I can't say as I've ever heard anyone claim that Hitler was right wing (or left wing, for that matter). Where are you guys reading this? Was it in a publication or was this something that someone said?
In my polysci class the teacher drew the political spectrum on the board. Naturally there was left and right, but he put libertarians (with whom I most closely relate to) at the TOP. If I can remember what was at the BOTTOM, we've got 'em all covered. STRANGE would encompass the system of government that I had to create for a paper in the class, and CHARMED...well, haven't figured that one out yet.
Back to topic, I can't say as I've ever heard anyone claim that Hitler was right wing (or left wing, for that matter). Where are you guys reading this? Was it in a publication or was this something that someone said?
In context of Hitlerite Germany, "conservatives" were made up of an alliance of pro-monarchy, land-owning nobles, large business owners and army & navy (Heer and Kriegsmarine) officers, particularly the "Prussian" officer corps. They were hierarchical oligarchs.
"Liberals" in the same context were generally Social Democrats, who wanted greater participation of workers and commoners in the exercise of political and economic power.
An equivalent of today's Free Democrats (FDP) - advocates of a small government and free market - did not exist in any organized force at the time in Germany.
Communists and Marxists were considered "radicals" and revolutionaries (like Rosa Luxembourg of the Spartacist fame).
The National Socialists were unique in that they borrowed popular themes of each group and amalgamated them into often mutually contradicting whole. For example, they espoused the staunch nationalism and mercantilism (as well as anti-communism) of the conservatives, advocated anti-conservative populism (anti-hierarchical establishment) of the liberals while organizing like Marxist revolutionaries.
I saw a funny German cartoon once, which had Hitler pitching his Party to two groups with different signs:
To Conservatives and Army Officers -
NATIONAL socialistische DEUTSCHE arbeiter PARTEI
(NATIONAL socialist GERMAN workers PARTY)
To Commoners and Union members -
national SOCIALISTISCHE deutsche ARBEITER PARTEI
(national SOCIALIST german WORKERS PARTY)
So, as others stated already, the Nazis did not fall neatly into the left-right, liberal-conservative line. To the extent their most mortal enemy was the international communist (radical left), they were considered the radical nationalist right.
BTW, we in the US tend to view the "liberal" as socialist/statist and "conservative" as small government/free market, but the classical (European) sense of the terms, a "liberal" was equivalent to America's libertarian while a "conservative" was a Tory (pro-monarchy, Peerage-pushing hierarchical types). I suppose we Americans would call such people "reactionaries," instead of "conservatives."
"Liberals" in the same context were generally Social Democrats, who wanted greater participation of workers and commoners in the exercise of political and economic power.
An equivalent of today's Free Democrats (FDP) - advocates of a small government and free market - did not exist in any organized force at the time in Germany.
Communists and Marxists were considered "radicals" and revolutionaries (like Rosa Luxembourg of the Spartacist fame).
The National Socialists were unique in that they borrowed popular themes of each group and amalgamated them into often mutually contradicting whole. For example, they espoused the staunch nationalism and mercantilism (as well as anti-communism) of the conservatives, advocated anti-conservative populism (anti-hierarchical establishment) of the liberals while organizing like Marxist revolutionaries.
I saw a funny German cartoon once, which had Hitler pitching his Party to two groups with different signs:
To Conservatives and Army Officers -
NATIONAL socialistische DEUTSCHE arbeiter PARTEI
(NATIONAL socialist GERMAN workers PARTY)
To Commoners and Union members -
national SOCIALISTISCHE deutsche ARBEITER PARTEI
(national SOCIALIST german WORKERS PARTY)
So, as others stated already, the Nazis did not fall neatly into the left-right, liberal-conservative line. To the extent their most mortal enemy was the international communist (radical left), they were considered the radical nationalist right.
BTW, we in the US tend to view the "liberal" as socialist/statist and "conservative" as small government/free market, but the classical (European) sense of the terms, a "liberal" was equivalent to America's libertarian while a "conservative" was a Tory (pro-monarchy, Peerage-pushing hierarchical types). I suppose we Americans would call such people "reactionaries," instead of "conservatives."
Zander
member
socialists: progressives
enemies: the working people's representatives
exploitation: the growing gap between rich and poor
economically weak: the unlucky in life
unfair salaries: it's outrageous what those CEO's [baseball players, et al.] get paid!
wealth and property: nobody needs that much money!
responsibility and performance: we can't afford those tax cuts
destroy this system: "undocumented workers", "hate crime", "if it saves just one child", "Americans have a right to feel safe", ad nauseum, ad infinitum
Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.
That's the way Peter Jennings explains it.
Not necessary...I understood your thinly-veiled insult the first time.
That's simply inaccurate. In fact, I haven't even used the 'L' word. Remember this question? ...
"Lemme guess: In your universe Hitler and Stalin were "Liberals", right?"
Remember my answer? Do you remember this? ...
"And everyone knows that ol' Joe the right-winger was, deep down in his black heart, a die-hard conservative.
"Then you question a figment of your imagination.
Beyond the explanation that you insist on making incorrect observations? 'Scuse me, I'm going to concentrate on the folks who want a real discussion.
Zander
member
I suppose that depends on which definition of 'conservative' you used in your initial remarks. Since this was a discussion about political labels, I concluded that your reference was political in nature. Was it? If you meant that the feudal lords were simply interested in maintaining the status quo, that casts a whole new light on it.
By the way, you still haven't given me any other examples.
Because it was politically expedient. Just as it's politically expedient to suggest [ref: Ashcroft's recent remarks] that the administration's support for renewal of the ban isn't firm anymore.
Bahadur...
Excellent context and analysis. Seems I always end up learning something from your posts. Thanks...
Zander, your reply about Bush was
As for examples of conservative disarmament, how about every dictator that the United States supported in its war against communism? They didn't want an armed population.
Every one in power wants to maintain the statues quo. All other changes are relatively meaningless except remaining in power. In that sense all power groups are conservative.
Doesn't that apply to what Hitler said also? His words were a politically expedient way to get the support of the German people.
As for examples of conservative disarmament, how about every dictator that the United States supported in its war against communism? They didn't want an armed population.
Every one in power wants to maintain the statues quo. All other changes are relatively meaningless except remaining in power. In that sense all power groups are conservative.
Zander
member
My reply was a statement of fact, not of support.
Ergo?
Do you have a specific example, please?
Didn't want an armed population or didn't want communist insurgents armed? We really do need a specific example here.
Then Hitler, Stalin and Mao really were conservatives?
LOL! We seem to have come full circle. Nice chattin' with you.
Ergo you cannot take Hitler's statements at face value any more than you can with another politician. Statements are issued for the consumption of the public, not as a record of true belief.
Pinochet, Marcos, the Shah, the Duvaliers, etc. They did not want any dissent, and didn't really care if the people against them were merely for human rights, democracy, communism, or a free market.
Also, killing to eliminate any political belief is repugnant. The fact that civilians were commmunists really doesn't justify killing them. Many were also communists in name only, since the United States was a democracy, and supporting a dictator, communism was, at the time, the opposing force.
And it is a half circle.
Pinochet, Marcos, the Shah, the Duvaliers, etc. They did not want any dissent, and didn't really care if the people against them were merely for human rights, democracy, communism, or a free market.
Also, killing to eliminate any political belief is repugnant. The fact that civilians were commmunists really doesn't justify killing them. Many were also communists in name only, since the United States was a democracy, and supporting a dictator, communism was, at the time, the opposing force.
And it is a half circle.
GinSlinger
Member
socialism--an ECONOMIC theory
communism--a political theory
conservative--wishes to maintain the status quo
liberal--wishes to upset the status quo
left-wing/right-wing--typically used to illustrate liberal/conservative.
A Communist hardliner under a communist regime is a conservative. A Communist hardliner under a socialist economic system is generally refered to as conservative because they wish to further the ideals of the status quo. A communist hardliner in a capitalist economy would be considered a liberal for wishing to overthrow the status quo.
Left wing/right wing and liberal/conservative are subjective terms, and vary in meaning from one ecomic-political situation to another. Lenin was a liberal, Stalin a conservative. Hitler was a liberal when he wanted to change the German system, and a conservative when he wished to maintain his power. Those two terms are ambiguous at best.
A Classical Liberal (notice the capitol letters) and a Classic Conservative are different. Those terms were defined by Burke on his Reflections on the Revolution in France where he identified Liberal with greater individual freedoms, limitations on the excesses of the Church, and a freer economy. Classical Conservatives were the landed aristocracy, the clergy, and the various buergouise who wished to maintain the special privileges they enjoyed under the monarchy. These terms (Liberal and Conservative) have an objective definition in terms of the French Revolution, and can be extended to other situations where Burke's definition fits.
There is much more to this, but I suspect I should wait for the flames....
GinSlinger
communism--a political theory
conservative--wishes to maintain the status quo
liberal--wishes to upset the status quo
left-wing/right-wing--typically used to illustrate liberal/conservative.
A Communist hardliner under a communist regime is a conservative. A Communist hardliner under a socialist economic system is generally refered to as conservative because they wish to further the ideals of the status quo. A communist hardliner in a capitalist economy would be considered a liberal for wishing to overthrow the status quo.
Left wing/right wing and liberal/conservative are subjective terms, and vary in meaning from one ecomic-political situation to another. Lenin was a liberal, Stalin a conservative. Hitler was a liberal when he wanted to change the German system, and a conservative when he wished to maintain his power. Those two terms are ambiguous at best.
A Classical Liberal (notice the capitol letters) and a Classic Conservative are different. Those terms were defined by Burke on his Reflections on the Revolution in France where he identified Liberal with greater individual freedoms, limitations on the excesses of the Church, and a freer economy. Classical Conservatives were the landed aristocracy, the clergy, and the various buergouise who wished to maintain the special privileges they enjoyed under the monarchy. These terms (Liberal and Conservative) have an objective definition in terms of the French Revolution, and can be extended to other situations where Burke's definition fits.
There is much more to this, but I suspect I should wait for the flames....
GinSlinger
Tamara
Senior Member
GinSlinger,
Nah, you'll just be told that you're being ignored in favor of "folks who want a real discussion." (That's ZanderSpeak for "Folks who agree with me." )
Nah, you'll just be told that you're being ignored in favor of "folks who want a real discussion." (That's ZanderSpeak for "Folks who agree with me."
)- Status