1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Were Nazis lefties?

Discussion in 'World History' started by Socrates99, Aug 16, 2018.

  1. HoloDoc

    HoloDoc Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,010
    Gender:
    Male
    Sociologists are good at sociology. That's not politics. I agree that the political compass is relatively arbitrary. How is your claim, that; "authoritarianism = right-wing" any different? The political compass is, quite literally, twice as sophisticated as a left-right axis, since it has twice as many axes. If you want to add a bunch more, I'm game, but I don't know which journal will publish it.

    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.

    This argument is better, but it still fails. While Hitler and Goering were more sophisticated, many other leading Nazis legitimately believed they were recreating Germany, not creating a new one. Nazism was explicitly based on anan imagined past. Communism never was. Fascism is not so clear, as it tends to differ from state to state.

    Only an idiot believes hierarchies aren't natural. If they weren't, they wouldn't exist. The same with normal. Inevitable? Maybe, but that kind of depends on the society in question. This is neither right nor left. This is simply historical fact. No society has ever developed that was not hierarchical, and most left-wing politics, except certain anarchists, believe in some form of hierarchy. As I said, you can't classify everyone right of Rosa Luxembourg as right-wing.

    Another strawman. Never said hierarchies were inevitable. If I'm condescending, it's because you deserve to be condescended to right now. And I never said that about left wing politics either; left wing politics is often in opposition to existing hierarchies. But it cannot be defined by them. If it is, political dissidents are left wing until they take power, when they suddenly shift right. Ridiculous.

    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.

    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.
     
  2. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,538
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    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.

    It's not, really.

    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.

    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?

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

    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.

    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 :dunno: feel free to check yourself.

    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...
     
  3. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,226
    Location:
    Scotland
    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 likes this.
  4. HoloDoc

    HoloDoc Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,010
    Gender:
    Male
    Political economy is economics.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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:

    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.

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

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,538
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I never claimed those things were aesthetic. I said specifically that the propaganda pose of the USSR was aesthetic.

    That definition does match the one in the wiki article.
     
  6. HoloDoc

    HoloDoc Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,010
    Gender:
    Male
    No it doesn't. It has some similarities, but is dramatically different in other ways.

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

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,538
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    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.
     
  8. HoloDoc

    HoloDoc Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,010
    Gender:
    Male
    This:

    is not the same as this:

    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.
     
  9. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,538
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    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.
     
  10. HoloDoc

    HoloDoc Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,010
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  11. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,538
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    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.

    Making fun of you = / = strawmanning

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

    HoloDoc Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,010
    Gender:
    Male
    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:

    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?

    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.
     
  13. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,538
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    The single words are literally hierarchy and equality. It absolutely does conform to the definition.
     
  14. HoloDoc

    HoloDoc Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,010
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  15. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,538
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    You need to choose between dismissing that definition as reductionist or saying that the wiki article differs from it.

    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.

    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.
     
  16. HoloDoc

    HoloDoc Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,010
    Gender:
    Male
    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.

    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.


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

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,819
    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 likes this.
  18. HoloDoc

    HoloDoc Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,010
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  19. caketastydelish

    caketastydelish triggering far-left sjw snowflakes

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    8,763
    Gender:
    Male
    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 likes this.
  20. HoloDoc

    HoloDoc Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,010
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     

Share This Page