egafd.com

Sam Slater wrote:

> Jesus Christ, Robches. Political ideals cover more than just
> basic freedoms and the rights of citizens. You have to take
> into account economics, laws and to a certain extent culture
> and religion.
>
> Your political ideology could be to the far right, where you
> clamp down on individual freedoms, speech, expression etc, but
> still have a far left economic doctrine. Stalinism, or Maoism
> is a good example of this. You can have the same far right
> political stance when it comes to freedom and also have a far
> right economic doctrine too, as in Italian and Chilean fascism.
> They'll allow a free and open market as long as they think it
> serves the national interest (or an oligarchy/certain
> class/certain race).
>
> Leaders use economics to help achieve a certain goal. Hitler
> used a far left economic system because he thought this would
> make Germany stronger, as did Stalin. Certain fascist/military
> juntas like Pinochet encouraged a free market because they too
> thought that was in the national interest. That's why it's
> simplistic to look at Hitler and say he's to the left, or
> right. He was both. For me, though, I think the killing and
> enslaving of certain races, as well as the inability to have
> Hitler voted out as being more important, or dangerous, than
> than what type of economic philosophy he implemented. So, to
> me, Hitler is a far right dictator. He used a far left economic
> system to strengthen and help enforce a far right political
> ideal.
>
> Stalin, though, is a little different. By my previous logic you
> would conclude that I think Stalin a far right dictator too.
> And I suppose this would sit well with many of my leftist
> comrades. Unfortunately it's obvious that Stalin and Hitler,
> while both authoritarian and having far left economies, their
> motives were different. Hitler used a socialised economy to
> enrich, and enforce his grip on power, so he could complete his
> goal of creating a master race. For Stalin he created an
> authoritarian regime so he could enforce a far left political
> system on the people. The authoritarian bit I find more
> dangerous, obviously, but the ultimate goal was Communism and
> so we lefties can't so easily label him 'right-wing'. He was a
> far right dictator with a far left agenda. Weird. It's a bit
> simpler with Hitler. He was a far right dictator with a far
> right agenda.
>
>

I think your comments just serve to illustrate why the terms left and right wing are of little use these days. As you say, Hitler had socialist economic policies, and nationalistic foreign policy, hence National Socialism. But Stalin was pretty similar, hence his annexation of parts of Finland, Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia, and the three Baltic states. If you get to point of sating that Hitler was right/left, and Stalin was left/right, it all gets a bit pointless doesn't it? Hitler was a racist ultra-nationalist with socialistic economic policy and extreme authoritarian views; the words left or right don't really serve to describe that do they?

[quote]Hitler was a racist ultra-nationalist with socialistic economic policy and extreme authoritarian views; the words left or right don't really serve to describe that do they?[/quote]

Well, as I said in my previous post, it depends on what you're talking about and what's most important to you. Since this thread hasn't really touched on economics then I see no controversy in labelling Hitler right-wing. beutelwolf mentioned a Radio 5 programme where some American Republican said Mein Kampf was left-wing literature. Now, if this Republican was debating economics at the time he may have a point......but I think he just wanted to sow the seed that Mein Kampf is somehow left-wing because the Gifford killer has supposedly read it, and, sadly, the ignorant in America will swallow this disinformation hook, line and sinker.

In the fevered atmosphere of American politics I can't blame anyone for pointing out that this killer was interested in extreme literature such as Mein Kampf and Das Kapital. He has nothing to do with the Tea Party, which as far as I can see wants to restrict federal government power and return the USA towards something like the Constitution says it should be.

"He has nothing to do with the Tea Party, which as far as I can see wants to restrict federal government power and return the USA towards something like the Constitution says it should be."

Have to agree dear viewer, if anyone thinks the American people are going to allow this foreign Muslim extremist subvert our proud Constitution, than they had better go check the meaning of the Second Amendment re. bearing arms.

We never gave in to those guys from Towel-land who were involved in 9/11 and we ain't going to give in now to their representative in the White House.

Over to Chuck for the baseball scores after this short advert for liposuction.

Thanks
David Johnson
Fox News Presenter.