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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4631)	3/25/2002 10:39:53 AM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

New subject, I think. (I haven't been reading here.) There's a discussion going on on GWB about whether Nazism was right wing or socialist. I just posted this to Laz there. Anybody want to join in? You can follow the links back if the subject interests you. Message 17241372 <The Nazi economic system, as it developed, was a hybrid. It had welfare features associated with socialism, but it was, in essence, corporatist, ie, based on government empowerment and co-optation/control of the great corporations, freed of the annoyance of trade unions. Private individuals of the right ethnicity were enabled to amass enormous fortunes. Inheritance was made impartible to encourage the accumulation of great personal wealth. It was protectionist, autarkist, and, like totalitarian communist countries (Russia, China, No. Vietnam, Pol Pot, the usual suspects), it destroyed all internal sources of democratic opposition. Autocratic right wing regimes shared a set of politically repressive policies with their totalitarian communist counterparts, practices or policies that they did not share with democratic socialist countries. Nazism loved the corporations and wealth-accumulation with a passion. The Nazi "concern" for the masses was designed to harness them as slaves to the imperial and militaristic ambitions of the right wing Hitler regime. -- "right wing" regimes, as opposed to socialist or populist regimes, are defined by their special solicitude for the owners of capital, the vested interests, the historical winners in the economic struggle. Right wing regimes manifest characteristic hostility to the processes of democratization, ie expansion of the suffrage, freedom of organization, freedom of expression, on the part of the non-winners especially. Although in the beginning, people like FDR, Churchill, and George Bernard Shaw patted Hitler on the back for his anti-depression economics, it was the right wing of the U.S. Republican Party which contained by far the largest reservoir of Hitler sympathizers up to the declaration of WW II. (Unfortunately, I won't be able to argue with you today, but I think I'll post a link to this discussion on SMBR; maybe somebody will!)>

To: Lane3 who wrote (4631)	3/25/2002 11:21:19 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I also read the whole article. it contained the essential ideas of "shaping," rather than reacting to, the rest of the world, and of preventing the rise of other superpowers. Its tone is one of skepticism about diplomatic partnerships I can see how preventing new countries from becoming serious rivals would be in America's interest, but I can also see the actions needed to push the idea may not be in America's interest, or that the interest might not be enough to justify the action. . Sovereignty entails obligations. One is not to massacre your own people. Another is not to support terrorism in any way. If a government fails to meet these obligations, then it forfeits some of the normal advantages of sovereignty, including the right to be left alone inside your own territory. Other governments, including the United States, gain the right to intervene. This idea isn't a new one. Particuarly the terrorism part. Countries, like people, have a right to self defense. If Country A shelters terrorists that attack country B, then country B might have to attack country A to defend itself. The other idea, of an obligation "not to massacre your own people" and a right of other nations to intervene if you do, isn't new either but it is against traditional notions of sovereignty. I can see these interventions causing as many problems as they resolve, but on the other hand if there was, for example, a new Cambodian killing fields situation, I can't say I would find an attempt to stop it to be morally wrong. I think that due to practical and other considerations we should limit such interventions to situations where we can make a big difference with relatively little difficulty, or where at least one of these factors (big difference, small difficulty) is present and there is another compelling reason to intervene. Tim