Political Trivia - Left versus Right

[[)roi(]]

Another recent article that also disputes the leftist notion that Hitler wasn't a socialist
...or that other socialists weren't talking about exterminating races, ...

Hitler and the socialist dream

He declared that 'national socialism was based on Marx' Socialists have always disowned him. But a new book insists that he was, at heart, a left-winger

www.independent.co.uk

It is the issue of race, above all, that for half a century has prevented National Socialism from being seen as socialist. The proletariat may have no fatherland, as Lenin said. But there were still, in Marx's view, races that would have to be exterminated.

That is a view he published in January-February 1849 in an article by Engels called "The Hungarian Struggle" in Marx's journal the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and the point was recalled by socialists down to the rise of Hitler. It is now becoming possible to believe that Auschwitz was socialist-inspired. The Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism was already giving place to capitalism, which must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire races would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age; and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history.

So the socialist intelligentsia of the western world entered the First World War publicly committed to racial purity and white domination and no less committed to violence. Socialism offered them a blank cheque, and its licence to kill included genocide. In 1933, in a preface to On the Rocks, for example, Bernard Shaw publicly welcomed the exterminatory principle which the Soviet Union had already adopted.

Socialists could now take pride in a state that had at last found the courage to act, though some still felt that such action should be kept a secret. In 1932 Beatrice Webb remarked at a tea-party what "very bad stage management" it had been to allow a party of British visitors to the Ukraine to see cattle-trucks full of starving "enemies of the state" at a local station. "Ridiculous to let you see them", said Webb, already an eminent admirer of the Soviet system. "The English are always so sentimental" adding, with assurance: "You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs."

A few years later, in 1935, a Social Democratic government in Sweden began a eugenic programme for the compulsory sterilisation of gypsies, the backward and the unfit, and continued it until after the war.

The claim that Hitler cannot really have been a socialist because he advocated and practised genocide suggests a monumental failure, then, in the historical memory. Only socialists in that age advocated or practised genocide, at least in Europe, and from the first years of his political career Hitler was proudly aware of the fact.

Addressing his own party, the NSDAP, in Munich in August 1920, he pledged his faith in socialist-racialism: "If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites - and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose." There was loud applause. Hitler went on: "How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?"

The point was widely understood, and it is notable that no German socialist in the 1930s or earlier ever sought to deny Hitler's right to call himself a socialist on grounds of racial policy. In an age when the socialist tradition of genocide was familiar, that would have sounded merely absurd. The tradition, what is more, was unique. In the European century that began in the 1840s from Engels's article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist, and no exception has been found.

Their scholars know that their rotten history would make it difficult to sell their rotten ideolgy if people were aware of their evil past, hence they've gone to great lengths to change the perception of history, even so far as labelling that which is right and good as somehow linked to the inherent evil the left promote.

In the USA, the present day Democrats are the new western progenitors of the continued lie of Socialism and Marxism; they're certainly not what anyone with a rational mind would classify as Classical Liberalis. Funny enough they've also used propaganda to distance themselves from their evil past; a past filled with slavery, apartheid style laws, eugenics, etc.-- even to the point of trying claim that somehow the Republicans and Democrats miraculously flipped sides, with the Republicans becoming evil, and the Democrats becoming good. Again like the Nazis, that's an easily to dispute red herring to confuse those who don't know history, and those who are too naive to check.

How rotten is an ideology; for its scholars to go to such great lengths to hide history?

 

[Urist]

As long as universities are dominated by marxists, the academic definitions of left and right and nazism = fascisim = far right = alt right = whatever, will remain as they are. The terms "Reactionary" and "Revolutionary" doesn't make sense to me either, it depends entirely on where in the world you are. "Far right" is now also synonymous with "racist" for some reason and is meaningless, as has been proven by blm and eff that both sides of the supposed political spectrum can be racist af.
Only thing we need to guard against is authoritarianism and its tool of identity politics that is being used to dig into people's prejudices to gain popularity and authority. Trump was as guilty of it as Hillary, which is why they were best described by south park as a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

 

[[)roi(]]

As long as universities are dominated by marxists, the academic definitions of left and right and nazism = fascisim = far right = alt right = whatever, will remain as they are. The terms "Reactionary" and "Revolutionary" doesn't make sense to me either, it depends entirely on where in the world you are. "Far right" is now also synonymous with "racist" for some reason and is meaningless, as has been proven by blm and eff that both sides of the supposed political spectrum can be racist af.

Left versus right is not something new and certainly not something that academics get to redefine... for the divide between left and right has been around for a lot longer than most would imagine.

For example:

Ecclesiastes 10:2
As dead flies give perfume a bad smell, so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
Even as fools walk along the road, they lack sense and show everyone how stupid they are.

Left and Right in Scripture

To Hellenistic thinkers like you and me, left means left and right means right. But left and right assume more meaning than a straightfor...

torahmatters.blogspot.com

The dichotomy between right versus left and wise versus fool; not only has a basis in literature and scripture; it also plays out in actions.

The right have never been known for their progressiveness, and similarly the left have never been known for willingness to conserve the existing. Hence the words "Reactionary" versus "Revolutionary" are quite appropriate; however I'd advise skipping over the obvious bias in how these terms are portrayed by Wikipedia and other leftist dominant sources.

Conservatives
Conservatives and by commonality: classical liberals (the right) like to conserve that which has proven to work i.e. from the Latin word "cōnservō"

• to keep, preserve, retain, conserve, hold, save
• to cherish, treasure, keep

In order to know what to preserve requires an acknowledgement that history is our greatest teacher of what works and what does not -- but that by no means the system is perfect; things can be improved upon but through thoughtful and resolute debate.

Progressives
Progressives (the left) are forever pushing for radical upheaval and revolutionary changes within society; stemming from a belief that what they propose has never been tried before or never done correctly -- nobody who understands history would ever take that position.

Hence to conserve is a foundation of wisdom; whereas revolutionary / radical change is a regarded as fool endeavour; for example:

The Bookful Blockhead, ignorantly read,
With Loads of Learned Lumber in his Head,
With his own Tongue still edifies his Ears,
And always List'ning to Himself appears.
...
Name a new Play, and he's the Poet's Friend,
Nay show'd his Faults—but when wou'd Poets mend?
No Place so Sacred from such Fops is barr'd,
Nor is Paul's Church more safe than Paul's Church-yard:
Nay, fly to Altars; there they'll talk you dead;
For Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread.
— Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism, lines 612-615, 620-625

Only thing we need to guard against is authoritarianism and its tool of identity politics that is being used to dig into people's prejudices to gain popularity and authority. Trump was as guilty of it as Hillary, which is why they were best described by south park as a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

Identity politics is not something associated with the right at all; working from the provable premise that leftist academics have purposefully relabelled Nazi and Fascist as right when its clear by their own words and actions they were as radically left as it gets.

Marx for example spent an inordinate amount of effort providing examples of materialist historiography; categorising the rank of classes, and sometimes of various groups or strata within a class -- to reach the conclusion that that every class struggle is actually political struggle.
You certainly won't find similar reasoning in either classical liberalism or conservatism; I've looked and not found any.

As for authoritarianism; conservatives and classical liberals believe in minimal government; only so much as to protect people against injustices. Frederic Bastiat covered this quite eloquently in his book "The Law"; which juxtaposes the political dichotomy between left and right.

Hence by the fact that the left believe that government is their primary vehicle to emancipation; they are by definition far more willing to hand over power to government and even to a more authoritarian one; because radical / revolutionary change cannot occur within a system that has laws to protect against injustices; and only a despot is brazen enough to ignore all of that.

 

[Urist]

Conservatives
Conservatives and by commonality: classical liberals (the right) like to conserve that which has proven to work i.e. from the Latin word "cōnservō"

• to keep, preserve, retain, conserve, hold, save
• to cherish, treasure, keep

That is also what nationalism tries to do, which must not be confused with fascism, to do so by force of a power majority against a minority would resemble Nazism regardless of socialist policies, which is why i'm saying that putting all these different metrics on a single left vs. right axis is like measuring temperature with a kitchen scale.
Academics do get to define things, they call it a science and their agendas reflect in their own theses, becomes canon in human history and is taught to students. Who better to define things? especially subjective things... A few years ago we had 9 planets in the solar system and now we have 8