But Germany had a busy free enterprise economy.
His article about Ebonics where he talks like a minstrel show actor in blackface is also a highlight of his career.
No. I’m maintaining the balance and helping you with your ego, which is amok.
the link you posted does not compare and contrast the platforms, so the conclusion is invalid.
do you believe that there are no similarities in the rhetoric?
please advise me on the regulatory status of the German economy from 1920 till 1939. also please advise if the rhetoric changed after 1933 concerning wealth distribution.
Pretty much this. Sentence number two and I’m already regretting reading even a description of the movie.
That’s your obligation. To show that any of points of the platform you say they ran on were actually put into action.
it is very interesting that the questions you ask about the alt right are addressed in the movie, you should see it.
facts and counter facts is a discussion, dinesh presents facts, you do not.
welfare section towards the bottom.
small minds struggle here
The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed to attract them to our meetings.The ordinary bourgeoisie were very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red ofBolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant. The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists.
We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings if only in order to break them up so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people.
Page 291 and 292 from the Translation of Mein Kampf used by the American Nazi Party
Still a busy capitalist economy.
a busy military economy.
so you are pointing out they call themselves socialists or what?
It was still a busy capitalist economy, like the allies, EXCEPT the soviets.
This is not what “right wing” means, from a political theory standpoint.
The root of the term comes from revolutionary France - the right side of the parliament supported old monarchist institutions, while those sitting on the left wanted revolutionary change.
“Free markets” and “individual rights” are Lockean liberalism, the “right wing” and conservatism were reactions against that.
No, under the Nazi’s they had a fascist economy.
Spend some time reading up on economic fascism.
Yes he was, and as the creator of fascism when he says its right-wing he has more credibility than you.
Indeed:
If it is admitted that the nineteenth century has been the century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy, it does not follow that the twentieth must also be the century of Liberalism, Socialism and Democracy. Political doctrines pass; peoples remain. It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the “Right,” a Fascist century.
– Benito Mussolini, “The Doctrine of Fascism”
There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago.
–Adolph Hitler, 1922
I consider Pat Buchanan a kind of John the Baptist for Trump’s brand of ethno-national rightwingery, with its focus on ethnic and religious identity and culture wars, as well as the anti-free trade stuff. Buchanan was also early on the Putin train, seeing him as a conservative ally.
A while back, I was readings parts of Buchanan’s book Day of Reckoning, where he explicitly calls for a nation and a sense of nationalism based on (his words) “blood and soil,” a term and a concept (Blut and Boden) favored by romantic German nationalists and racialists and most (in)famously and effectively deployed by Nazi theorist Richard Darre (I am genuinely surpised Buchanan chose those two words, frankly, given the connotation; his overall argument doesn’t require them).
Buchanan openly disdains: pluralism, heterogeneity (racial, cultural, religious), and democracy, although he fudges this sometimes depending on the company he’s in. He’s unapologetic in claiming the superiority of America’s “ethnic core” and its necessity to our nationalism.
A few years ago, he said on a cable news show: “I don’t believe there’s a great salvation in a political process at all. You know, I believe in different – far different things. I put democracy far down the line. I think a devoutly Christian, conservative, traditionalist country, even if it’s a monarchy, is fine with me.” Well, okay. These seem four of the least “liberal” sentences a human being could utter.
I don’t think Pat’s literally a Nazi; I don’t think all conservatives are Nazis. I do think Pat is on the political right; I do think that Pat’s views–taken to their extremes–show how a specific kind of “blood-and-soil” right-wingery can be linked to dangerous forms of reactionary and authoritarian politics such as Nazism.
Similarly, OF COURSE, leftwing extremism and even excessive “liberalism” can be dangerous, violent, destructive, bad, etc. I don’t deny that; I accept it.
In contrast, the more recent attempts (Goldberg, Beck, D’Souza do this, in some way) to finesse the meaning of all extreme right wing beliefs by ignoring the authoritarian axis and equate them with anarchism are incredibly dishonest, especially given the historical origins of the term “right wing.”
3 Likes
