Were Nazis lefties?

[Lexicus]

Sociologists are good at sociology. That's not politics.

Sorry, I don't recognize this distinction as having any validity whatever. I am generally suspicious of political science and economics - I prefer political economy.

How is your claim, that; "authoritarianism = right-wing" any different?

It's not, really.

On the contrary, I'm right. If I wasn't, you wouldn't feel the need to invent strawmen to burn. I never said the USSR wasn't authoritarian. It self-evidently was. It must be really easy to beat my arguments when you invent them yourself.

You are not the arbiter of which features of a polity are substantial and which are not.

You were saying that you could as easily characterize the USSR's authoritarianism as a matter of aesthetics, because I said that the propaganda posture of the Bolsheviks, representing progress, the future, etc. was just that: a pose. I responded by saying of course that's ridiculous because the USSR really was quite authoritarian, as you know perfectly well.

While Hitler and Goering were more sophisticated, many other leading Nazis legitimately believed they were recreating Germany, not creating a new one.

And so? Many leading Nazis legitimately believed they were making the world a better place by exterminating the Jews. Should we take that belief seriously? Why?

Only an idiot believes hierarchies aren't natural. If they weren't, they wouldn't exist.

By this logic everything that exists is natural and saying hierarchies are natural becomes a rather trivial claim.

There is literally zero legitimate anthropological research indicating any of your claims either. Prehistoric societies were more egalitarian than modern ones, but that doesn't mean there were no elites, even if the mark of elite status was simply "got to wear the nicest cloak, first pick of wives when raiding neighbour's for women." The reason for this is debatable; I tend to believe it has more to with the lack of goods with which to conspicuously Mark your elite status than anything else. But unless we invent a time machine, we'll never know for sure.

The appearance of elites in the archaeological record is actually fairly apparent, but of course those who claim that hierarchy (and war for that matter) are inevitable can't accept that and must invent a past for which there really is no evidence.

And, uh, I also note you don't actually acknowledge the fact that I demonstrated that Wiki page you quoted. was misleading. Which is why you should never get definitions from Wiki.

You didn't demonstrate anything of the kind, you simply noted that some other page you looked at made misleading use of its cited sources. I actually went ahead and checked out the citations on the left-wing and right-wing politics; the ones in the sentences I quoted were apparently true to the sources feel free to check yourself.

And, uh, I also note you don't actually acknowledge the fact that I demonstrated that Wiki page you quoted. was misleading. Which is why you should never get definitions from Wiki.

I don't get my definitions from wiki, I just cited that to demonstrate that those definitions are actually fairly mainstream and not some "idiot" invention of mine...

 

[Traitorfish]

The modern single-party state is clearly an invention of Lenin via the notion of the vanguard party.

Lenin may have invented it first, but there were at least several other independent inventions- in Italy, Mexico, China and Turkey. The one-party state is really less an outgrowth of the "vanguard party", which was always more of a theoretical construct than a practical model, and more simply what authoritarian regimes look like in a political culture of mass-mobilisation. Military regimes exist in opposition to civil society, monarchical or kleptocratic regimes in its absence; authoritarian regimes which come to power through civil society must harness that civil society for their own purposes, must tame rather than simply eliminate it, and so necessarily inherits its forms. There's a reason why so many dictators construct parties or quasi-parities to support their regimes, even if those parties had been marginal during their rise to power, or were constructed wholly after the fact.

 

[HoloDoc]

Sorry, I don't recognize this distinction as having any validity whatever. I am generally suspicious of political science and economics - I prefer political economy.

Political economy is economics.

It's not, really.

So you admit your claims are entirely arbitrary and supported by nothing, yet still make them?

You were saying that you could as easily characterize the USSR's authoritarianism as a matter of aesthetics, because I said that the propaganda posture of the Bolsheviks, representing progress, the future, etc. was just that: a pose. I responded by saying of course that's ridiculous because the USSR really was quite authoritarian, as you know perfectly well.

Except that the USSR really did pursue such policies as universal healthcare, universal education, universal employment, etc.. How can you say the USSR is right wing for its authoritarianism, without acknowledging the obvious left wing policies it pursued? If those are "aesthetics" and therefore don't count, I can just as easily say that the authoritarianism was "aesthetics" and doesn't count.

See the problem with ignoring nasty facts that don't support your argument? Other people can do the same thing to prove whatever they like.

And so? Many leading Nazis legitimately believed they were making the world a better place by exterminating the Jews. Should we take that belief seriously? Why?

If we're discussing the political goals of the movement, of course we should take those beliefs seriously. Not as "maybe they really were," but as "they were attempting to achieve X goal through Y actions." Eliminating Jews was seen as a way of bringing back the glorious golden age Aryan culture; therefore, reactionary.

By this logic everything that exists is natural and saying hierarchies are natural becomes a rather trivial claim.

It is a trivial claim. But certain things clearly aren't natural, but artificially created. Metal is natural; alloys are not. Uranium is natural; plutonium is not. My ex-wife's breasts are natural; that girl from Wollongong's breasts were not.

Hierarchies naturally form in human communities. How those hierarchies are formed can, and often is, artificial. Having one guy be in charge is natural. Having him be in charge because his dad was is artificial.

The appearance of elites in the archaeological record is actually fairly apparent, but of course those who claim that hierarchy (and war for that matter) are inevitable can't accept that and must invent a past for which there really is no evidence.

This is both false and another strawman. Your argument is honestly getting fairly pathetic, given your need to constantly resort to attacking claims I never made.

Archaeological evidence shows the gulf between elites and commoners. It cannot show whether or not a person was elite during their lifetime. And we can see differences in burial practices for individuals dating back to the Ice Age; some groups only ceremonially painted certain deceased individuals, for example. What does that paint mean? We don't know, but it does differentiate them in some way from the unpainted. Perhaps by family, social class, profession, or simply because they liked to paint. If we can't determine that from archaeological evidence, how are we supposed to determine if Og, Caveman Emperor, was an elite? His crown went to his son Gog, as did his beautiful sabretooth cloak. Only his mighty war club remains, and it has petrified to a stick by now.

Sociological evidence, which you claim to prefer, shows that elites exist in even the most primitive and egalitarian of societies, such as the New Guinea Highlands or amongst the San Bushmen. It's difficult to establish such things in studies of uncontacted peoples - because we can't exactly ask them - but aerial surveillance supports it.

You didn't demonstrate anything of the kind, you simply noted that some other page you looked at made misleading use of its cited sources. I actually went ahead and checked out the citations on the left-wing and right-wing politics; the ones in the sentences I quoted were apparently true to the sources feel free to check yourself.

Now you're just lying. Paul Johnson's definition of right wing politics is one of those cited by Wikipedia. I checked the definition he provided, the one Wiki links to. It differed from the one on Wiki, as seen below:

A general descriptive term for any of several otherwise rather different, conservative, reactionary or fascist political ideologies, the common denominator of which is their qualified or enthusiastic support for the main features of the current social and economic order, accepting all (or nearly all) of its inequalities of wealth, status and privilege (or even in some cases support for a return to an earlier, even more inegalitarian and hierarchical political-economic order). Right wing ideologies tend to emphasize the values of order, patriotism, social cohesion, and a personal sense of duty that makes the individual citizen who “knows his place” responsive to discipline from his political and social superiors. In America, the term has a somewhat more derogatory flavor than in Europe.

In other words; Wiki inaccurately cites his definition. The other three cited sources in the definition of "Right Wing Politics" are not linked, as they are books. Unless you happen to have all three books, you can't have checked them.

In other words, you're lying. You've resorted to outright fabrications in order to bolster your argument. Because if you really did check Dr Johnson's definition, you would see it did not match your own. Therefore you either checked it, thought; "oh crap!" and decided to try to bluster through, or, more likely, didn't check it at all and decided to bluster through.

You're also continuing to misrepresent my statements, as I told you I checked Johnson's definition which Wiki cited, yet above you claim I found a different site that was misleading. I don't think A Glossary of Political Economy, published in 2003, falsified its definition from elsewhere. Especially as it cites no sources; as a reference book, it is the source.

I don't get my definitions from wiki, I just cited that to demonstrate that those definitions are actually fairly mainstream and not some "idiot" invention of mine...

Whether you invented them or not, they are idiot inventions, which do not correspond with the actual definitions. Like I said, women = raccoons.

 

[Lexicus]

How can you say the USSR is right wing for its authoritarianism, without acknowledging the obvious left wing policies it pursued? If those are "aesthetics" and therefore don't count, I can just as easily say that the authoritarianism was "aesthetics" and doesn't count.

I never claimed those things were aesthetic. I said specifically that the propaganda pose of the USSR was aesthetic.

In other words, you're lying. You've resorted to outright fabrications in order to bolster your argument. Because if you really did check Dr Johnson's definition, you would see it did not match your own. Therefore you either checked it, thought; "oh crap!" and decided to try to bluster through, or, more likely, didn't check it at all and decided to bluster through.

That definition does match the one in the wiki article.

 

[HoloDoc]

That definition does match the one in the wiki article.

No it doesn't. It has some similarities, but is dramatically different in other ways.

Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4]. 693, 721[5][6][7][8][9] Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences[10][11] or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system".[14]

That is completely different to Dr Johnson's definition. Why are you lying? The evidence is right in front of you.

 

[Lexicus]

That is completely different to Dr Johnson's definition. Why are you lying? The evidence is right in front of you.

It is obviously not completely different. In fact Dr Johnson's definition is exactly "hierarchy is desirable or inevitable appealing to natural law."

The fact that it uses more elaborate phrasing (and also incorporates some other details) doesn't mean that the substance is different; I really don't know what else to say here.

 

[HoloDoc]

It is obviously not completely different. In fact Dr Johnson's definition is exactly "hierarchy is desirable or inevitable appealing to natural law."

The fact that it uses more elaborate phrasing (and also incorporates some other details) doesn't mean that the substance is different; I really don't know what else to say here.

This:

...the common denominator of which is their qualified or enthusiastic support for the main features of the current social and economic order, accepting all (or nearly all) of its inequalities of wealth, status and privilege (or even in some cases support for a return to an earlier, even more inegalitarian and hierarchical political-economic order).

is not the same as this:

Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4]

Dr Johnson's definition differs substantially from the definition which cites his definition. He never states that hierarchies are "inevitable, natural, [or] normal," merely that right-wing politics classes hierarchies as "desirable." Your claim that Dr Johnson's definition "incorporates some other details" doesn't explain why the definition you cite in Wiki outright invents details Dr Johnson never mentions.

You have to be being deliberately dishonest here. You can't be so foolish as to think these two radically different definitions are one and the same.

 

[Lexicus]

Dr Johnson's definition differs substantially from the definition which cites his definition. He never states that hierarchies are "inevitable, natural, [or] normal," merely that right-wing politics classes hierarchies as "desirable." Your claim that Dr Johnson's definition "incorporates some other details" doesn't explain why the definition you cite in Wiki outright invents details Dr Johnson never mentions. Your claim that Dr Johnson's definition "incorporates some other details" doesn't explain why the definition you cite in Wiki outright invents details Dr Johnson never mentions.

It doesn't "differ substantially" actually but the actual differences couldn't possibly be because it's a composite of multiple cited definitions, right? Nah definitely not. In fact I probably edited that wikipedia article myself to make it appear to support my arguments.

 

[HoloDoc]

Couldn't possibly be because it's a composite of multiple definitions, right? Nah definitely not. In fact I probably edited that wikipedia article myself to make it appear to support my arguments.

Except that the other books are not online, and therefore you can't possibly have checked them as you claim. I never claimed you edited the article; stop strawmanning because your argument isn't holding up under scrutiny. Although I do find it a little suspicious that you went there.

 

[Lexicus]

Except that the other books are not online, and therefore you can't possibly have checked them as you claim

One of them is partially available in Google Books. Another is quoted in the citation section. It's true I didn't check them exhaustively and probably should have been clearer about that, but I checked what was available to check online.

I never claimed you edited the article; stop strawmanning because your argument isn't holding up under scrutiny.

Making fun of you = / = strawmanning

Although I do find it a little suspicious that you went there.

The edit history is publicly available; you're welcome to take a look if you think that's a good use of your time.

 

[HoloDoc]

I actually just tracked down Noorberto's text, through the wonders of my University Library access, which I really shouldn't be wasting on a messageboard argument. The cited text:

2 Whereas Cofrancesco starts by distinguishing the essential element in the left/right distinction from the nonessential ones, Elisabetta Galeotti starts by distinguishing the contexts in which the distinction is used, which are supposed to be the following four: everyday language , ideological language, historical and sociological analysis , and the study of social imagery (she includes Laponce's work in the last category and comments on it in depth) .8 Galeotti's new interpretation of the distinction is based on ideological analysis, and again the purpose is to identify the more comprehensive and universal concepts which would make it possible to classify with maximum simplicity and thoroughness the ideologies which have dominated the last two centuries. Her conclusions are in part the same as Laponce's, and the chosen terms are 'hierarchy" for the right and ' equality' for the left . Here again the opposites are not what one would expect.

This is a highly reductionist - it reduces left and right to single words! - and also does not conform with the definition provided by Wiki.

But Wiki also cites another page in Norberto's work. Perhaps it provides more context?

2 These introductory arguments were necessary because when we say that the left is egalitarian and the right is inegalitarian, we certainly do not want to say that to be left-wing one needs to proclaim that every single person is equal in all things irrespective of any discriminating factor, because this would not only be a utopian vision , to which, admittedly , the left is more inclined than the right, or perhaps to which only the left is inclined, but, what is worse , it would be a proposal which could not possibly have any rational meaning.

That, um, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to with the definition. It actually only uses the word "right" once, and not in any context relevant to the definition on Wikipedia. In fact, in its claim that we can't take left-wing to mean a complete lack of any and all hierarchies, total equality, because "it would be a proposal which could not possibly have any rational meaning," it echoes my own comments in this thread that you "can't call everyone right of Rosa Luxembourg right-wing," because it would be "ridiculous."

Goldthorpe's text is not available online, even with my university access.

Carlisle's text is available online, after a fashion. Unfortunately, it doesn't have a definition of right-wing in it! Oops!

In other words, Wikipedia's definition is entirely fabricated, and not supported by the sources it cites as references. Which is why I told you that you shouldn't get political or philosophical content, nor definitions, from Wikipedia. History is usually okay, albeit either very broad or extremely detailed, depending on the subject.

 

[Lexicus]

This is a highly reductionist - it reduces left and right to single words! - and also does not conform with the definition provided by Wiki.

The single words are literally hierarchy and equality. It absolutely does conform to the definition.

 

[HoloDoc]

The single words are literally hierarchy and equality. It absolutely does conform to the definition.

No, it doesn't. It's ridiculously reductionist. You're just latching on to the fact that it uses the particular buzzword you've decided supports your argument.

And no one ever denied that right-wing politics had a fetish for hierarchy. It also goes on to note that "hierarchy" was chosen over "inequality" because it was a stronger term, not because it was more accurate, and was done primarily to avoid lumping liberalism in with the right. This obviously pre-dates the idea of the political compass, making it next to useless in modern discussions of left-vs-right.

Regardless, Galeotti's methodology is crap anyway, and I don't know what exactly she thought she was proving by reducing complex political concepts to single words. She should have known better than that.

Once again, I note you fail to respond to the body of the post, instead only responding to points you think you have a little wiggle room on. I'm still waiting to hear how the overthrow of the Spanish Republic was a coup d'etat against the Spanish monarchy.

 

[Lexicus]

No, it doesn't. It's ridiculously reductionist.

You need to choose between dismissing that definition as reductionist or saying that the wiki article differs from it.

Regardless, Galeotti's methodology is crap anyway, and I don't know what exactly she thought she was proving by reducing complex political concepts to single words. She should have known better than that.

I guess we're going with "that definition is bad" rather than "the definitions are different." Obviously, I disagree, and I don't think right and left are particularly complex political concepts.

Once again, I note you fail to respond to the body of the post,

I didn't bother responding to it because it's criticizing a claim I never really made. Opposition to hierarchy doesn't mean utopian 100% equality, it just means going for less hierarchy and more equality in whatever social, political context you're given.

 

[HoloDoc]

You need to choose between dismissing that definition as reductionist or saying that the wiki article differs from it.

No I don't. The Wiki definition is far larger than two words. Galeotti's definition, cited in Norberto, is reductionist, and it doesn't match the Wiki definition.

I guess we're going with "that definition is bad" rather than "the definitions are different." Obviously, I disagree, and I don't think right and left are particularly complex political concepts.

Right and left are demonstrably complex political concepts. If they weren't, they wouldn't cover so much ground, and there wouldn't be so much debate around them. And Galeotti's reductionist approach isn't even really a definition; definition's aren't single words.

I knew I recognised her name from somewhere. I think she gets quoted in articles over here dealing with female circumcision; her face is definitely familiar. While she writes about politics, her PhD is actually in moral philosophy. That's... Not really relevant to the discussion. Not sure what exactly she was going for with that reductionist approach.

I didn't bother responding to it because it's criticizing a claim I never really made. Opposition to hierarchy doesn't mean utopian 100% equality, it just means going for less hierarchy and more equality in whatever social, political context you're given.

He says while selectively quoting my criticism. WTH? Explain how the overthrow of the Spanish Republic was a coup d'etat against the Spanish monarchy please.

 

[innonimatu]

I actually just tracked down Noorberto's text, through the wonders of my University Library access, which I really shouldn't be wasting on a messageboard argument.

It is useful as a demonstration of how wikipedia's references can me mistaken or deliberately misleading. It is not at all immune to politics.
This is a very useful thing, thanks for going though the trouble of tracking down those references.

 

[HoloDoc]

It is useful as a demonstration of how wikipedia's references can me mistaken or deliberately misleading. It is not at all immune to politics.
This is a very useful thing, thanks for going though the trouble of tracking down those references.

Thanks. As I said, I've come across this phenomenon before, on Wikipedia's page on religion. It used a definition that had clearly been altered, as it didn't match the source; it was actually much worse than this example.

My library actually has a copy of that book I couldn't find an online source for. Unfortunately, I wouldn't feel right taking a reference book off the shelves to "win" an online argument when exams start here next week.

 

[caketastydelish]

Being a lefty is an advantage in combat (they’ve even scientifically proven it). For example, Floyd Maywether and Connor McGregor are both lefties. As many other champion fighters being lefties disproportionately to the general population. The nazis however ended up getting their ass kicked in combat, so they probably weren’t lefties.

 

[HoloDoc]

Being a lefty is an advantage in combat (they’ve even scientifically proven it). For example, Floyd Maywether and Connor McGregor are both lefties. As many other champion fighters being lefties disproportionately to the general population. The nazis however ended up getting their ass kicked in combat, so they probably weren’t lefties.

Funnily enough, in my fighting days I used to intentionally fight in a southpaw stance, in spite of being right-handed. No one expects a jab that hard. And it would confuse opponents to see me actually switch stance in mid-fight.

Conor McGregor might not be the best example though. He's always been a show pony and overhyped, as his recent butt-whoop in' illustrated.

 

[Hamilton321]

The truth is that all ideologies love to say that they oppose hierarchies, but they almost always end up establishing a new hierarchy or strengthening an existing portion of the hierarchy. Really people who say they oppose hierarchy just oppose a certain segment of the hierarchy. The left opposes corporate hierarchy, the right oppose governmental hierarchy except when it comes to the courts which they support because they are the least easy to liberalize. The Nazis were anti-hierarchical, but only when the old hierarchy got in the way of the new hierarchy they wanted to establish. Now the term Nazi is overused because people like to compare their opponents to Nazis because the vast majority of people do not like the Nazis and there is widespread ignorance about the Nazis. Even people with similar beliefs to the Nazis will often say that they disagree with the Nazis because they do not really know what the Nazis believed or wanted to accomplish.