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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (241686)	3/25/2002 11:08:45 AM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

E, re: "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." This is a small point, but I don't believe that in the 1930's there were any "democratic socialist countries". Of course, by the 50's there were a lot of "Democratic Socialist Republics", but I don't think they are what you mean either.

To: E who wrote (241686)	3/25/2002 11:12:47 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You are missing the forest for the trees. There is no significant difference between 20th century totalitarian movements: Russia, Germany, Italy, China, Clinton/Gore. The left draws false distinctions because Hitler didn't murder the industrialists first-like Lenin did. That's entirely emotional on their part-Lenin couldn't be all bad, because he hung the Bourgesoie first. But Hitler had a use for them, and forced most into the party instead. The totalitarian pattern was followed by all except Clinton/Gore, which was precluded, because the constitutional system threw them out of power before they could manifest themselves: 1) Rise to power on fraud-lying about what your "ideal" world would look like. 2) Purge the elements of your own party who are no longer useful after power is seized. 3) When the laws of economics fail to adhere to your flawed world view, imprison or murder the scapegoats. 4) Transition from an unworkable vision into greater and greater corruption, eventually fading away, or disappearing in counter-revolution. The surviving Nazi's had no economic beliefs at all. They were a pure war party. After initial successes in war, they found new enemies, because they understood that they would fail at peacetime leadership (which is dominated by economics). Having started enough new wars in 1941, they were destroyed by a terrified but united world. It saved us the trouble of having to watch them fade away, drowned in their own corruption, as we did with the Soviet Union. The totalitarian pattern repeated itself with every one of these cancerous regimes in that century. the Chicoms will be the last to fade, but will, for the same reasons...

To: E who wrote (241686)	3/25/2002 1:03:59 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 769667

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 Government control over the corporations is more socialist then conservative. If "right wing" is taken to mean a more extreme version of conservatism then I don't think the Nazis where right wing. If by "right wing" you mean a dictatorship that is/was not communist then the Nazis where right wing. So if you want to say the nazis where right wing, I would ask; what does the term "right wing" mean to you? Nazism loved the corporations and wealth-accumulation with a passion. They loved wealth accumulation if it was in service of the state. They didn't support really free markets, or freedom in that many other areas either. Also while many conservatives support free markets, loving free markets is not the equivalent of loving corporations. 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. Any dictatorship resists democratization and freedom of expression. If that is how you define right wing then the term "right wing" becomes a synonym with the word "dictatorship". If you ask was the Nazi regime a dictatorship then I would answer yes, but I don't think that is a controversial point, and it certainly would make the term "right wing dictatorship" rather redundant. It would also mean that Stalin and Mao and Castro where or are "right wing", which IMO twists the word far beyond its normal usage. 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 Even if we assume this is true, how is it relevant. Many conservative Christian groups have sympathy for Israel, does not mean that conservative Christians are Jewish and/or Israeli? The National "Socialist" Adolf Hitler threw all the members of the German Socialist party in jail as soon as he had the power to do it, and eradicated them as a political entity. And Stalin "purged" Trotsky. Was Trotsky not a communist? Your point here doesn't really mean anything. Any group seeking dictatorial power will purge many other groups, even ones who have similar ideologies. Tim