You think the Nazis were liberal? Facism and Naziism's is the most radical far-right racist political philosophy ever. The ability of conservatives to rewrite history is incredible. Next thing will be regurgitation of the Glenn Beck soundbyte that the Ku Klux Klan was originally a leftist PAC funded by George Soros.
Nazism (German: Nationalsozialismus; English long form National Socialism) was the ideology of the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany. It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism. Nazism used elements of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World War I Germany. It was designed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism. Major elements of Nazism have been described as far-right, such as allowing domination of society by people deemed racially superior, while purging society of people declared inferior which were said to be a threat to national survival.
Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 12-28-2012 at 07:11 AM.
Fascism is considered by certain scholars to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism. Roderick Stackleberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism"—on the right, explaining that "the more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be."
Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s. A major element of fascism that has been deemed as clearly far-right is its goal to promote the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements.
Benito Mussolini in 1919 described fascism as a movement that would strike "against the backwardness of the right and the destructiveness of the left". Later the Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism, stating: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century." However Mussolini clarified that fascism's position on the political spectrum was not a serious issue to fascists and stated that:
Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center ... These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don't give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words.
The accommodation of the political right into the Italian Fascist movement in the early 1920s led to the creation of internal factions. The "Fascist left" included Michele Bianchi, Giuseppe Bottai, Angelo Oliviero Olivetti, Sergio Panunzio and Edmondo Rossoni, who were committed to advancing national syndicalism as a replacement for parliamentary liberalism in order to modernize the economy and advance the interests of workers and the common people. The "Fascist right" included members of the paramilitary Squadristi and former members of the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI). The Squadristi wanted to establish Fascism as a complete dictatorship, while the former ANI members, including Alfredo Rocco, sought an authoritarian corporatist state to replace the liberal state in Italy, while retaining the existing elites. However upon accommodating the political right, there arose a group of monarchist Fascists who sought to use Fascism to create an absolute monarchy under King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy.
After King Victor Emmanuel III forced Mussolini to resign as head of government and put him under arrest in 1943, Mussolini was rescued by German forces and now dependent on Germany for support, Mussolini and remaining loyal Fascists founded the Italian Social Republic with Mussolini as head of state. Mussolini sought to re-radicalize Italian Fascism, declaring that the Fascist state had been overthrown because Italian Fascism had been subverted by Italian conservatives and the bourgeoisie. Then the new Fascist government proposed the creation of workers' councils and profit-sharing in industry, however German authorities who effectively controlled northern Italy at this point, ignored these measures and did not seek to enforce them.
A number of fascist movements described themselves as a "third position" outside the traditional political spectrum. Spanish Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera said: "basically the Right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while the Left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile".
Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
1. I don't think the SA is primarily about the personal right to own a gun, although the use of the word "keep" certainly validates it. I think that the culture of the founders was such that gun ownership for personal use was viewed as a fundamental right -- in fact a necessity. This was a largely rural society in which guns served an essential purpose for food supply, property protection, and protection against the native population. Something more is afoot with this amendment, and the logic of it leads into interesting territory...
2. Why the mention of well-regulated militias, security of a free state, bear arms? As constitutional scholars have pointed out, during the time of the constitutional convention and after, "bear arms" was cited approximately 115 times in quotes. In 114 of them "bear arms" was understood as a military connotation. As Gary Wills stated, you don't bear arms to kill rabbits. So what was all this about?
3. It would seem to me that the SA is at its core about the protection of the right of the people/civilians to organize an armed response to protect their freedom from both internal and external "threats to freedom." It was in effect a counterbalance against the potential abuses of the Army and a counterbalance against "standing armies, which most of the founders did not support." The key here is civilians. The founders were very careful to make sure that all military power did not reside exclusively in professional military hands. In some ways, the SA is akin to the "right of assemby." The vehicle of organization was expressed according to the model of the time... i.e., militias governed by the states (although still under federal authority). Secondarily, it was giving approval to the right of civilians to police their communities, as publically funded police forces did not exist during the time of the founders.
4. If the above reading is correct, it raises a number of puzzling questions. Under what conditions would civilians actually exercise the SA in practice without violating the rest of the Constitution (i.e. the treason clause)? Wouldn't the right to constitute a civilian military force also promote the availability to civilians of military grade weaponry, at least in some form of a regulated arsenal? Have civilians simply conceded the political aspect of the Second Amendment in the face of rapidly advancing military technology and scope? Are physical weapons even the best approach to civilian protection of a "free state" in the modern world?
The above reading would argue that in the SA there are essentially two strands of rights: personal ownership for individual protection or sport, and the organized civilian counterbalance in the form of modern day versions of the militia (which is largely unregulated and in the form of survivalist compounds). The first has been the entire focus of gun debate because the second was long ago subsumed by abandonment of state militias and incorporation into the National Guard, which is federal. In the latter sense, which I would argue was the main point of its drafting, the Second Amendment has been effectively neutered, unless we consider our local police to be the modern equivalent of a civilian militia.
We also still have the Patriot act in place and effectively have a private army. I don't here the NRA saying squat about any of it.
The courts have made quite clear what it means, and the solution if the People dislike that meaning is clear. Amend the Constitution to correct it, if you can get the People to support your cause.I think the Second Amendment is one of those items. It has troubled constitutional scholars and justices for much of its life, primarily because.....
Somehow we could ban alcohol and correct civil rights, but cannot do anything else since? The loss of the Amendment process as an answer is one of our biggest problems and failings IMO. Teh route to "fix" is very clear, if we chose to have the debate and use it.
You've nailed it. The Amendment serves two purposes. A. the right to personal arms for personal use (common then, less so now, but still common). And B. A force, even if only theoretical, to stand in opposition to the federal should the Federal go too far (as the King they just rebelled against had), in order to keep the new Government in check of the poeple and away from totalitarianism.The above reading would argue that in the SA there are essentially two strands of rights: personal ownership for individual protection or sport, and the organized civilian counterbalance
If anything, the furthest reaches of the American right-wing are more akin to a Taliban-light (in their desire for religious-based system of laws) than anything the Nazi's did. Even then, there is no question of degree, with the american far-right being much less than any similar current Islamic-based Nation in terms of religious-based impositions.
Sure it would, look who made out the best under Hitler....the big German Firms who produced things. Rule by the Corporate Party loyalists, socialism for everyone else (Germans only of course).If Nazi Germany was just another version of socialism, it would hardly have garnered such support.
Well said. Totalitarianism is the word that best describes both, complete subjucation of the Nation and people to a single form of leadership (the party in both cases), unquestionable for fear of death, and in complete power and control of all aspects of the Nation.Not dissimilar is the Big business had a very cosy relationship with the Nazis that worked to support both enormous profits, influence and support of Nazi power, all in the service of social and nationalistic goals that demonized and marginalized threats to racial purity and national patriotism, were highly militaristic and arrogant, and took law-and-order to an extreme of abuse, torture, and genocide. Oddly, the Communists were much the same, but under different rhetoric. Neither really promoted democracy, the volk, the proletariat, or any other term that conceded power to the populace. The Nazis were flaming demons; the Communists were fraudulent demons... both were dispicable.
Re the Nazis, it's well to remember that they didn't initially promote extermination and death camps. They certainly promoted violence toward their designated scapegoats and marginalization or rejection. The idea of "cleaning up the culture" is an enticing one to many people and takes many forms, usually with a strong arm of some sort. In the end, the question of ideology usually comes down to a social agenda -- our conviction of what we think is right living, which then influences our choice of economic models and models of governance. Most people/voters haven't a clue about the nuances of economics or governance (most economists and political science experts don't either) but they have very decided personal opinions. I think that's why the whole left/right debate is so charged. It's not really about rational economics or whether cities, states or national governments should run some program. It's about framing a society to be an extension of our comfort zone on a personal level. And that's why the Nazi model is so clearly frightening.
Perhaps so. I would maintain that the only Final Solution to the 2nd Amendment Question (see what I did there?) is a Consitutional Amendment clarifying what we the People want the Gun rights of our citizens to be in greater specificity and more modern/accurate terminology, to suit our modern ideas across the board.The courts tended to emphasize one aspect of the Second Amendment or the other, but rarely both. The collective reading has been supplanted by the individual reading.
The founders never expected to answer all questions of teh future, but the very specificly put in a mechanic to allow US to do so. We just have to choose to.
Sadly, I do not have my source books in front of me here to cite the references, but even the earliest plans for the Jews (specificly) was deportation and confiscation. The plan for other "inferiors" was sterilization and worse (including killing).Re the Nazis, it's well to remember that they didn't initially promote extermination and death camps. They certainly promoted violence toward their designated scapegoats and marginalization or rejection.
In the US case it's rather clear, it's biblical-based Judeo-Christian morality as the source.The idea of "cleaning up the culture" is an enticing one to many people and takes many forms, usually with a strong arm of some sort.
Well said.In the end, the question of ideology usually comes down to a social agenda -- our conviction of what we think is right living, which then influences our choice of economic models and models of governance. Most people/voters haven't a clue about the nuances of economics or governance (most economists and political science experts don't either) but they have very decided personal opinions. I think that's why the whole left/right debate is so charged. It's not really about rational economics or whether cities, states or national governments should run some program. It's about framing a society to be an extension of our comfort zone on a personal level.
It cannot be ignored that we (individual people) are NOT looking for the "best and most efficient" system of economics or resource-utilization. We generally are not looking at tghe most "equal" resource utilization either. We have many ideals, morals and beleifs that come before ideas of resource equallity or maximum efficientcy, and thank the flying spaghetti monster for that.
You simply cannot seperate that the most equal and efficient system may also be the most unfair and totalitarian system as well. Forced equallity and maximum efficientcy by their very nature do not place any value on the individual, only on the system as a whole. That is as dangerous an arena to explore as any other tbqh.
One Question? How many rights do you want to give up? What is next speech!