"D. S. A." <DSA9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:MPG.21ed46728bb32f49989fee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
retired unionized high school teacher Ross John Lambourn AKA
Ali
Nader <ciceroii@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 7:17 am, Ali Nader <cicer...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > [quoted text muted]
> > mouths, should first read Goldberg's book, along with Mises'
> > "Socialism" and F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom".
> >
> >
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=BAE3E654-D64...
>
>
Forget it. That old Conservative lie never fooled anyone and never will.
It's aimed at uneducated, gullible pin heads like Ross john Lambourn and
your
knuckle dragging brethren who can only find the sup****t they need from
radical
and discredited web blogs like Frontpagemag.com because no one else
believes
their lies.
Mises and Hayek are dead, discredited right wing ****lls who did nothing in
their lives but publish rants demonizing anything that refuted their
insane
and lost ideology. Even their Economic philosophy has been thoroughly
debunked (see Bush and Reagan's massive deficits). Frontpagemag has no
credibility and is run by a communist Jew by the name of Horowitz. Why
are
you
quoting communists?
Is it because you are not a capitalist, but a retired unionized teacher
sucking from Canada's social safety net who pretends to be a wealthy
American
laissez-faire capitalist because of the attention you crave?
You frequently prove to know nothing of economics, politics or history; as
frequently demonstrated through your pathological lying in posts and
blind,
partisan ignorance. You, like Terry Pearson, are a pathetic old little
man
with a Walter Mitty complex, collecting government cheques for your very
survival while ranting against them at the same time.
Fascism, Nazism and Conservatism
European fascism drew on existing anti-modernist conservatism, and on
the conservative reaction to communism and 19th-century socialism.
Conservative thinkers such as historian Oswald Spengler provided much
of the world view (Weltanschauung) of the Nazi movement.
In Britain, the conservative Daily Mail enthusiastically backed Sir
Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and part of the Conservative
Party sup****ted closer ties with Nazi Germany.
When defeat in World War II ideologically and historically
discredited fascism, almost all Western conservatives tried to distance
themselves from it. Nevertheless, many post-war Western conservatives
continued to admire the Franco regime in Spain, clearly conservative
but also fascist in origin. With the end of the Franco regime and
****tugal's Estado Novo in the 1970s, the relation****p between
conservatism and classical European fascism was further weakened.
Militarism is perhaps the most striking similarity between Fascism and
contem****ary American conservatism. Of course, there are many liberals
in America who sup****t the military and even call for increased
military spending.
Even so, American liberals are traditionally more skeptical of the
military than American conservatives. It is often said that
Neoconservatives, like Hitler, see the military as a paradigm for
problem solving (even in situations that may render militarism
impractical or unethical).
The relation****p of fascism to right-wing ideologies (including some
that are described as neo-fascist) is still an issue for conservatives
and their opponents. Especially in Germany, there is a constant
exchange of ideology and persons, between the influential national-
conservative movement, and self-identified national-socialist groups.
In Italy too, there is no clear line between conservatives, and
movements inspired by the Italian Fascism of the 1920s to 1940s,
including the Alleanza Nazionale which is member of the governing
coalition under premier Silvio Berlusconi. Conservative attitudes to
the 20th-century fascist regimes are still an issue.
Under an ideological definition of Socialism, for example one stating
that only a system adhering to the principles of Marxism can qualify as
socialist there is a well-defined gap between Nazism and socialism.
Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class conflict and
opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers
should control the means of production. For those who consider class
conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of
socialism, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National
Socialism" as non-socialist.
===
For socialists who consider democracy a core tenet of socialism, Nazism is
often seen as a polar opposite of their views. Primo Levi argued that
there
was
an im****tant distinction between the policies of Nazi Germany and those of
the
Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China: while they were all
arguably
totalitarian, and all had their idea of what kind of parasitic cl***** or
races
society ought to be rid of, Levi saw the Nazis assigning a place given by
birth
(since one is born into a certain race), while the Soviets and Chinese
determined their enemies according to their social position (which people
may
change within their life). There are many other philosophical differences
between Nazism and Marxism.
===
Then perhaps you can explain why one of the largest groups of victims of
Stalin's dictator****p was the families of "enemies of the the people".
Many
people whose only crime was to be a son, daughter, wife, father, mother or
other relative of an "enemy of the people" were exiled to the Gulag. That
is
why Bukharin's young wife, Anna, and many other relatives of Stalin's
enemies found themselves in the Gulag, often for many years. And a very
large percentage of those who went to the Gulag - six out of seven,
according to Nobel Prize winner Alexandr Solzhenitsyn - didn't survive
their
sentences.
And if you're trying to claim that race was not a factor in the treatment
of
people in Stalin's Soviet Union, perhaps you can explain the forced mass
migrations that took place. For example, Stalin didn't trust Soviet
citizens
of Korean heritage that lived near the Korean border so he order mass
migrations of all Soviet Koreans to areas thousands of kilometers from
their
homes. A significant number of these ethnic Koreans died. Soviet practice
in
this area was spectacularly harsh; Solzhenitsyn gives eyewitness accounts
of
groups of these people who were placed on a barge and ferried up rivers,
then hundreds of kilometers into the virgin wilderness, they were ordered
to
debark on the riverbank with no food, tools, or supplies, often in
mid-winter. The next time the barge came back, months later, these
"colonies" had died to the last man. In other cases, the regime saved time
by simply sinking the barge in the middle of the river and drowning all
aboard. And this pattern was repeated time and again for many other
"suspect" ethnic groups.
While Marxists and Fascists claim to have many key ideological
differences,
the reality is that they have a great deal in common, especially their
propensity to commit mass murder of any and all enemies. The difference is
that the Marxists killed far more people than the Fascists ever did. In my
opinion, both ideologies are utterly vile and reprehensible. I fail to
understand how any person could ever sup****t either ideology and still
call
himself a moral human being.
===
There were ideological shades of opinion within the Nazi Party,
particularly
before their seizure of power in 1933, but a central tenet of the party
was
always the leader principle or Führerprinzip. The Nazi Party did not have
party
congresses in which policy was deliberated upon and concessions made to
different factions. What mattered most was what the leader, Adolf Hitler,
thought and decreed. Those who held opinions which were at variance with
Hitler's either learned to keep quiet or were purged, particularly after
1933.
This is compared to the behavior of certain Communist states such as that
of
Stalin in the Soviet Union or Mao Zedong in China.
===
I hope you're not suggesting that Stalin was tolerant of differences in
opinion in the leader****p of the Soviet Union! Any honest history of these
times - and remember, the archives have been open for several years now
and
a great deal is known irrefutably - will tell you that Stalin ruthlessly
schemed to bring down anyone who disagreed with him. While Lenin had
tolerated a certain amount of private dissent in the upper reaches of the
Communist Party, Stalin most emphatically did NOT. Robert Conquest's book,
The Great Terror: A Re*****sment (1990) describes Stalin's ruthless
purging
of all who opposed him. In the early days, there were other men with their
own followers so Stalin collaborated with Zinoview and Lunacharski to
purge
Trotsky, then he schemed with Bukharin and others to purge Zinoviev and
Lunacharski, then he purged Bukharin and the other "Left Opposition"
group.
Eventually, there were no dissenters left and all were replaced with men
whose sole quality was their relentless loyalty to Stalin.
===
Critics of this view point out that Mussolini imprisoned Antonio Gramsci
from
1926 until 1934, after Gramsci, a leader of the Italian Communist Party
and
leading Marxist intellectual, tried to create a common front among the
political left and the workers, in order to resist and overthrow fascism.
Other
Italian Communist leaders like Palmiro Togliatti went into exile and
fought
for
the Republic in Spain.
--
Rhino
|
