L
livingwordunity
Guest
You are going to have to provide an example of a capitalist society that is worse than Stalin’s USSR or North Korea. And, I know that you can’t without using the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy.
Is there any difference between a Communist and a Leftist?
- Status
O
O_S_C
Guest
I wasn’t really talking about specific state but about the fundamental structure and mechanisms of different modes of production. But I would say that nazi-germany was worse for example.
North Korea is a feudal society (rural Russia during Stalin was also feudal, but that was not the dominating mode of production), and that kind of society is of course also ungodly. But still I would say that capitalism is even better at promoting antagonism, inequality, division and other sins among people. Capitalism does not leave any room for spirituality, ethics or any values besides rational calculus of profit and growth when it comes to the fundamental workings of society. That is what forced through secularization and shoved religion into the peripheries of the private sphere.
But this I do not mean that there’s has not been any progress during the capitalist era. I sure do prefer to live here and now than during the medieval times, or in stalinist Russia for that sake.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Nazi Germany wasn’t capitalist. That’s why NAZI is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. I expect that you will respond with the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy. And Hitler wasn’t a Christian either. Although Hitler was born a Catholic, he abandoned his Catholicism. That’s how he had no problem with calling for the deaths of Catholic priests and nuns and why the swastika, the symbol on the NAZI party flag, is a symbol taken from a non-Christian religion (Hinduism).
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
There are some risks when we assign values to words that others do not share, particularly if we are operating within a Catholic view of the world and how we should act, and have to deal with the secular world’s definitions of those values. I suspect when two different people refer to concepts like “free enterprise” or “capitalism,” they often aren’t referring to the same two things.
Just ran across this quote that I like by R.A. Lafferty, an amazing writer who was also deeply orthodox Catholic, from his 1971 novel “The Flame is Green”.
“Things are set up as contraries that are not even in the same category. Listen to me: the opposite of radical is superficial, the opposite of liberal is stingy; the opposite of conservative is destructive. Thus I will describe myself as a radical conservative liberal; but certain of the tainted red fish will swear that there can be no such fish as that. Beware of those who use words to mean their opposites. At the same time have pity on them, for usually this trick is their only stock in trade.”
Just ran across this quote that I like by R.A. Lafferty, an amazing writer who was also deeply orthodox Catholic, from his 1971 novel “The Flame is Green”.
“Things are set up as contraries that are not even in the same category. Listen to me: the opposite of radical is superficial, the opposite of liberal is stingy; the opposite of conservative is destructive. Thus I will describe myself as a radical conservative liberal; but certain of the tainted red fish will swear that there can be no such fish as that. Beware of those who use words to mean their opposites. At the same time have pity on them, for usually this trick is their only stock in trade.”
L
livingwordunity
Guest
I think “Left” and “Right” have become universal terms for people with identical ideologies. For example, leftists in Australia, South America, Europe, Canada, America, etc. are all aggressively fighting for the same things which are unlimited abortions, so-called same-sex “marriage”, doctor assisted “suicide”, etc. And, the principles of communism and of communist/socialists hasn’t changed. This is clear when we read how it is described by our past popes. When Pope Pius XI talks about communism, the ideology and tactics he describes is exactly the same as communism/socialism today. The only thing that’s different are the names of the people and countries (since Russia is no longer communist).
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
I’d agree. My old PoliSci professor, an OSS vet, used to say that ideologies aren’t on a line with the far right and the far left safely at the opposite sides of the spectrum, and the “good” people at some point somewhere near the middle. The political continuum is just that - a circle - and the far right and far left meet at some daft point and share the same bugaboos - anti-Semitism, a desire for state control, and a philosophy ordered around the self - or more accurately, the selves of the ruling elite.
Both the fascist and the communists sprang from the same philosophical springs of Progressivism and Technocracy, and it wasn’t until the breakdown of the Nazi/Soviet pact that national socialism and international socialism began to be described as polar opposites. Both were originally thought to be movements of the Left. Clearly, they are more alike than dissimilar.
C
Cricket123
Guest
Really?
By this logic, North Korea is a democracy, since it is the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea.
Of course, that doesn’t fit with the recent conservative meme that the Nazis were leftists, usually arrived at along lines of reasoning like this:
- Right-wing good.
- Left-wing bad.
- Nazis bad.
- Nazis left-wing.
H
Hobbes42
Guest
National Socialist Germany could not be called left-ist or right-ist as it incorporated things both sides call their own into its platform.
Example-focus on nuclear family favored by right, state control of everything and a socialist safety net favored by left.
That being said, can we move back on to the topic? this ain’t about Nazis…
D
Darryl1958
Guest
What most American conservatives find objectionable about Nazism is the same thing that they find objectionable about communism actually.
It is the authoritarianism and the indifference to the individual and liberty that are repugnant for both, to the American conservative.
The collectivism of Nazism was based on racial identity. The collectivism of communism is global in scope. Both systems have not differed on their animosity to individual liberty. It is therefore not liberty or authoritarianism that makes Nazism repugnant to the left, but it is the racist foundation that they hate. Their war is not against race, but against class.
Socialism itself is a development of the German state and the the social welfare system instituted by the German conservative Bismark. It preceded Nazism, and it was never anything that the Nazis themselves objected to.
American conservatives, and at one time Americans in general, have always looked to liberty rather than the state to generate their wealth. The American left has changed, and they look to the European model of the welfare state as it has developed from the time of Bismark to become the American model as well.
It is the authoritarianism and the indifference to the individual and liberty that are repugnant for both, to the American conservative.
The collectivism of Nazism was based on racial identity. The collectivism of communism is global in scope. Both systems have not differed on their animosity to individual liberty. It is therefore not liberty or authoritarianism that makes Nazism repugnant to the left, but it is the racist foundation that they hate. Their war is not against race, but against class.
Socialism itself is a development of the German state and the the social welfare system instituted by the German conservative Bismark. It preceded Nazism, and it was never anything that the Nazis themselves objected to.
American conservatives, and at one time Americans in general, have always looked to liberty rather than the state to generate their wealth. The American left has changed, and they look to the European model of the welfare state as it has developed from the time of Bismark to become the American model as well.
C
Cricket123
Guest
Fair enough. To address the original question: is there any difference between a Communist and a Leftist?
In the American conservative alternate universe, where the words liberal, socialist, Democrat, progressive, communist, Marxist, leftist, fascist, and Nazi are used as virtual synonyms, no… there is no difference.
For those of us who live in a world where words have meaning, yes.
This is why the newest conservative boogeyman, “leftism,” is perfect: the word means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, and the hearer can interpret it in any way he likes. We can roughly define it as “anything we don’t like,” and it is so devoid of meaning there is nothing anyone can pin on you after.
In the American conservative alternate universe, where the words liberal, socialist, Democrat, progressive, communist, Marxist, leftist, fascist, and Nazi are used as virtual synonyms, no… there is no difference.
For those of us who live in a world where words have meaning, yes.
This is why the newest conservative boogeyman, “leftism,” is perfect: the word means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, and the hearer can interpret it in any way he likes. We can roughly define it as “anything we don’t like,” and it is so devoid of meaning there is nothing anyone can pin on you after.
J
JB_Dugan
Guest
Actually, Cricket, leftism and rightism are opposite ends of the American political spectrum.
Left…Middle…Right
On the far left we have Tyranny and on the far right we have Anarchy.
Those on the left promote the political philosophy that apologizes for and defends the Franklin Roosevelt approach to politics. That approach encourages people to organize around their economic interests and seek special favors from government at everyone else’s expense. They also believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need and the government will solve all problems.
As a rightest or staunch Conservative, I believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. I Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. My policies policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.
I would place myself at the far right side of the political spectrum, about as close to anarchy as one can get.
I would never consider the other direction because the Latin word for “left” is “SINISTER”.
C
Cricket123
Guest
Actually, JB, excepting the part where you state your personal beliefs, to which you are , of course, entitled… very little of this makes sense. Both “leftism” and “rightism” are equally meaningless terms. There are no such “isms” except to the extent that these are blanket terms to describe, more or less, anyone to the left (or right) of the speaker.Actually, Cricket, leftism and rightism are opposite ends of the American political spectrum.
Left…Middle…Right
On the far left we have Tyranny and on the far right we have Anarchy.
Those on the left promote the political philosophy that apologizes for and defends the Franklin Roosevelt approach to politics. That approach encourages people to organize around their economic interests and seek special favors from government at everyone else’s expense. They also believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need and the government will solve all problems.
As a rightest or staunch Conservative, I believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. I Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. My policies policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.
I would place myself at the far right side of the political spectrum, about as close to anarchy as one can get.
I would never consider the other direction because the Latin word for “left” is “SINISTER”.
You cannot imagine right-wing tyranny? Pinochet? The Ayatollahs?
Most anarchists are considered left-wing. Emma Goldman, perhaps? Although if you are using this in the sense of no government at all, that is different. That is not, however, what most anarchists advocate.
As I said earlier: some of us live in a world where words have meaning.
J
JB_Dugan
Guest
I was just trying to stick with the terms as set by the OP.
But I do agree with you about left & right. I prefer liberal and Conservative.
When I say “Anarchy” I mean a society without a publicly enforced government.
I view the Ayatollahs as ruthless TYRANNICAL leaders. Hardly Conservative.
Emma Goldman was a communist. Sure, she wanted to overthrow the government…but again she was certainty not a conservative.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
That’s a very interesting way of putting it. I can see the logic. But, American conservatives aren’t for taking it all the way to anarchy. Conservatives don’t want to get rid of government, we only want it to be small and benevolent. We don’t like it when the government gets into the business of eugenics and social engineering.
On the left are included the following groups:I would never consider the other direction because the Latin word for “left” is “SINISTER”.
Christian and non-Christian modernists, relativists, and communist/socialists
Atheists
Satanists
L
livingwordunity
Guest
They still complain when I call them “liberal” even though that’s what liberals call themselves and each other.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Left is simply the other side of right. It is a relative term. Anyone with a body knows the relationship between left and right.
The alternative universe of American conservatism have amply identified themselves. I think Dennis Prager has done this with the greatest simplicity and clarity with his American trinity of “liberty”, “e pluribus unom” and “in God we trust”. Every penny gives this message.
This is to say, the identification is in the American experience of liberty, which focuses on the American dream and individuals being allowed all the freedom that is possible to make it on their own, if they can. It is a meritocracy that is being valued here.
It is also the value of forging a nation out of a diversity of people, which is to say to see each other in terms of people cherishing that same goal of the American dream as defining the idenity of the American people, rather than the usual racial, ethnic or religious characteristics that ghettoize us from one another.
And it based on the value of seeing rights as emanating from God, rather than government or anything else man-made and therefore changeable.
If this is what the American right self-identifies with as their alternative reality, then if these ideas have meaning, and you agree with them, then you are on the right. It is just that simple.
If not, you are on the left. Once the right has been identified, the left is simply everything that is left over.
The left is simply the other side of the right. It could be extreme left, such as Communism, (which doesn’t seem too extreme except for anyone on the right here).
Otherwise, people on the near left would take up their arguments with those who advocate Marxism here, rather than sneering at the right as some kind of ‘alternate’ reality.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
The argument is never about the terms. It is the ideals that are rejected.They still complain when I call them “liberal” even though that’s what liberals call themselves and each other.
Those who want America to follow the European example of being a social democratic welfare state know well enough that the differences being proposed are real enough. The names are just means of communication. Alinskyites have a problem with clarity.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Liberalism, Leftism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, Modernism, Relativism, Emotionalism. It’s all the same beast.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
Obviously, not all Democrats are fascists.
It’s pretty self-evident that the Nazis were a left-wing socialist movement though.
Some specific issues in the 1920 Nazi Party Platform are clearly also obsessions with the American far Left, such as the end of inherited wealth and restriction of capital gains:
**11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.
- We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).
- We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.
- We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.**
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.
The left’s disdain for private property rights was shared by the Nazi party:
17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.
The “De-Schooling” movement of the left in the 1960s and the demand to lower tuitions to the poor was also a Nazi demand:
20. In order to make higher education—and thereby entry into leading positions— available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latter’s position or occupation.
The left’s demand that religious freedoms must be subservient to the state’s demands (which we are currently witnessing) was a prime goal of the Nazis, whose adoption of the “Positive Christianity” movement (an anemic perversion of Christianity that removed the Old Testament, jettisoned all orthopraxy and orthodoxy in the name of a forced syncretism between all German confessions, and used only the symbolism of Christianity while denying the Judaic roots of the Christian faith) attempted to subvert Christianity to state goals:
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race. The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination. It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that apermanent revival of our Nation can be achieved only from within, on the basis of: Public Interest before Private Interest.
Look at the goals they achieved, and ask yourself if the political left would agree with most of them:
- Almost complete nationalization of business.
- Had massive regulatory agencies policing every aspect of life.
- Government was allowed to takeover any business in violation of rules and or for the good of the state.
- Forced profit sharing with employees (set wages, maximum amount business owners or manager could make.)
- Outlawed all profits during wartime on war materials.
- Abolished all income not earned directly from work. (99% capital gains tax, 90% inheritance tax)
- Created a extremely progressive tax structure with 99% taxes for the rich.
- Strict labor laws in favor of the workers
- Insurance funded by the government through progressive tax rates
- Price Caps
- Price Controls
- Rent controls
- Laws against speculation for profit.
- Communal rent free living areas, free housing for the poor
- Free higher education
D
Darryl1958
Guest
That is interesting information. You make a good case for Nazis being leftist in its economic policy.
That is a fairly socialist agenda to be sure. It is probably pretty standard fare for Europe in general though.
I think though that anyone who self-identifies as a liberal, or a leftist, or a progressive, or not-on-th-right, or any other label or non-label that those on the left use for themselves,are correct in denying that Nazis are on the left. Equality is a foundational principle for those on the left, and racial nationalism was as integral to the Nazi system. Such racism directly contradicts a primary leftist value.
It really isn’t a value held by those on the right either though. Instead it represents the application of a biased science to pre-existing tribal European chauvinism.
As such, it is neither a left or a right value, but was a cultural feature of European society, especially in that era.
- Status