Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (67633)	12/20/1999 9:47:00 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

The bottom line is this: socialism, whatever its form, is based on mysticism (even the Soviet Socialist state had an underpinning of mysticism). Socialism also foments the twisted idea that the right of the state is supreme to the right of the individual. As all citizens have a lien upon each individual in a socialist society, no one has rights that supercede the state's. Whether fascism or communism, they are just two sides to the same tarnished coin. Father Terrence

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (67633)	12/20/1999 11:08:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Charley, 1) I don't agree with Confucius entirely. It is sometimes true that "when words lose their meanings, people lose their liberties." That is only when words have a specific meaning to begin with. The terms "right" and "left" originally only designated who sat on which side of the legislative chamber. In every country, and in every era, different kinds of people have sat on the opposite sides of the aisle. 2) Good historians generally don't "take sides," but attempt to understand them all. Not that they do not have any political views of their own, but projecting them backwards is a no-no. In other words, a historian whose current views are "rightist" (whatever that means now) is not going to try to label every figure of the past that he does not approve of as a leftist. And vice versa, of course. What particular scholars who specialize in fascism, to be specific, "seek to muddy the waters rather than seek the truth," as you put it? And why would you even become a historian, for that matter, if you find history "inconvenient"? (Speaking as a historian myself, I find it "interesting.") 2) By "early 20th century" I mean 1900-1930. And if you limit the "Right" to those who were still lamenting the passing of the Hapsburgs, you won't find much on the Right except for the Austrian Christian Socialists. (The term "socialist" was not patented by the Left, btw.) I personally would include in the (continental) European Right such movements as Action Francaise, Codreanu's Iron Guard in Romania, Carlism in Spain, etc. One characteristic that almost all these right-wing movements shared was, unfortunately, anti-Semitism. But I would have to add that anti-Semitism was not purely a right-wing phenomenon; inasmuch as the Jew was often identified with capitalism, the Left was not free of anti-Semitism, either. It was just not quite as pronounced on the Left. 3) I doubt that talk of Blood and the Folk originated in Bohemia. This was a fashionable subject in Germany, for example, long before the 20th century even opened. Think of Richard Wagner! 4) Re your question: I don't think movements that seek to overturn old orders and erect new orders can properly be called rightist, can they? There is an excellent book of essays, The European Right, edited by Hans Rogger and Eugen Weber, that addresses that question, among others. (The answer, basically, is yes -- if you realize that the Right is not homogeneous.) I especially recommend Weber's essay on France, which, as I recall, not only discusses and defines the varieties of Rightism, but also the interrelationship, and sometimes interpenetration, of Right and Left. Joan

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (67633)	12/21/1999 5:48:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Here's something from a real socialist. bnl.com

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (67633)	12/21/1999 8:45:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

Originally the Right was defined by its position on the Ancien Regime. Reactionaries wanted to reinstitute it; conservatives wanted to reform it; liberal wanted to replace it with a Republic, but with some respect and compensation for those displaced; and "Jacobins" wanted a clean slate, the smashing of the aristocracy and the Church, and declaration of the Republic. The rise of ethnic nationalism confused the issues, but was originally most associated with Jacobinism, by way of Rousseau. In Rousseau, the General Will is not determined through electoral politics, but through a kind of divination by the leaders of the underlying consensus, and of the people's needs. Thus, Robespierre embodied "The Republic" for a period of time, intuitively acting on its behalf, until himself struck down by the guillotine. Obviously, such a conception of "organic democracy" is enhanced if the people are of one blood, and therefore presumed to have a deep identity. Thus, the origins of fascism are, indeed, on the Left. However, as socialism rather than republicanism came to define the terms, and therefore everything rotated on the axis of "Egalitarianism", ethnic nationalism and its off-spring were moved Right, since they showed a certain hostility to ethnic minorities within their borders, encouraged rivalry with other nations, and accepted the class system, in some form, as natural, purporting to solve class conflict through the adjudication of interests within the context of organic democracy. Anyone who accepts that the Left is primarily characterized by egalitarianism in this century accepts the placement of fascism on the extreme Right.....

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (67633)	12/21/1999 9:13:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

Part Two: It occurred to me that I could clarify a couple of other things that have been discussed before by carrying this foreword. Burke, as you know, is the "Godfather" of American conservatism. His Thoughts on the French Revolution essentially contrasted the Jacobin attempt to toss out everything that did not fit their blueprint, which convulsed the society and led to the continual snicker- snack of the guillotine, with the British way of evolutionary change, which had rescued Britain from protracted warfare. By taking into account the customs and allegiances of large sectors of society, and avoiding giving unnecessary offense or causing confusion, the British had managed to muddle through since the bad days of the Commonwealth, with the Parliament becoming ever more ascendant, and the citizenry admired for their liberties throughout Europe, yet without a return to bloodshed. Respect for tradition, coupled with a willingness to reform cautiously and with respect for the sensibilities of those affected: that became the defining stance of Anglo- American conservatism.........