[AdmiralRalwood]

Leave the drive-by rhetorical sniping out of this, please.

I'd much rather you left the constant rhetorical ignorance-vomit out of HLP entirely, rather than dragging down the average quality of a discussion in a subforum which already has an abysmally low average discussion quality. I could waste my time doing a point-by-point rebuttal of your entire post, but

I also have better things I could be doing with my time

and

nothing anyone says in this thread will make the slightest dent in his delusions.

So I'll just end with letting you argue against yourself:

No, fascism is left-wing, as characterized by its founders, by its origins, by its philosophy, and by its allies.

There's a difference between propaganda and philosophy.

[The E]

Yes, let's take a look at the party program.

But let's also take a look how much of that program was ever put into practice, shall we? Because judging a political philosophy by its ideals is one thing, but the real test is what happens when said ideals meet reality.

1. We demand the union of all Germans, on the basis of the right of the self-determination of peoples, to form a Great Germany.

Ironically, this is actually a liberal progressive position in German history. In this case, given that it also fits in with the fascist principle of one people, one state, I'd rate it as neutral.
 

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations, and abolition of the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

Also a neutral position, however it should be noted that this was an anti-left (or, more accurately, anti-establishment) position at the time.

3. We demand land and territory for the nourishment of our people and for settling our surplus population.

Fascist, in context.

4. None but members of the nation may be citizens of the State. None but those of German blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation.

Very fascist.

5. Anyone who is not a citizen of the State may live in Germany only as a guest and must be regarded as being subject to the Alien Laws.

Also fascist.

6. The right of voting on the leadership and laws of the State is to be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand, therefore, that all official positions, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, the provinces, or the small communities, shall be held by citizens of the State alone. We oppose the corrupt parliamentary custom of filling posts merely with a view to party considerations, and without reference to character or ability.

In context, highly fascist (Note that the Nazis had much more restrictive criteria for who is and isn't a citizen than Weimar ever did).

7. We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of the citizens of the State. If it is not possible to nourish the entire population of the State, foreign nationals must be excluded from the Reich.

Again, fascist position. Everything the state does is to further the welfare of the state, with the assumption that this will better the lives of the people. This is a collectivist position, not a socialist one.

8. All further non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany subsequently to August 2, 1914, shall be required forthwith to depart from the Reich.

Nationalist as ****.

9. All citizens of the State shall possess equal rights and duties.

Not an inherently socialist position, is it, given that it is shared across many modern political philosophies.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen of the State to perform mental or physical work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the community and must be for the general good.

Collectivist, not socialist. The socialist position is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"; this is framed as "from everyone for the state, from the state to everyone", which is a different thing.

11. Abolition of incomes unearned by work. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST.

This is a socialist position. You will note that it is the first one that is unequivocally socialist, communist even, in this list.

12. In view of the enormous sacrifice of life and property demanded of a nation by every war, personal enrichment through war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand, therefore, the total confiscation of all war profits.

Again, a collectivist position, but note the wording: It is the nation that suffers from this, not the people.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been amalgamated.

Technically a communist position, but a) the businesses would be subordinated to the state, not the workers and b) This only happened to businesses which were ran by jews. Funny how that worked out.

14. We demand that there shall be profit sharing in the great industries.
15. We demand a generous development of provision for old age.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, immediate communalization of the large department stores and their lease at a low rate to small traders, and that the most careful consideration shall be shown to all small traders in purveying to the State, the provinces, or smaller communities.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the confiscation without compensation of land for communal purposes, the abolition of interest on land mortgages, and prohibition of all speculation in land.
18. We demand ruthless war upon all those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Sordid criminals against the nation, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

I'm just going to skip through this part. Points 11 through 18 are the economic portion of the NSDAP party program, and were never put into practice. After Hitler was released from his incarceration in 1924, he started to look for funding from capitalist and industrialist circles; these points were quietly dropped from the actual party program shortly thereafter. Some of them made it into law, but enforcement only happened when it was politically acceptable (read: when there was a jew in need of killing)

19. We demand that the Roman law, which serves the materialistic world order, shall be replaced by a German common law.

Also never happened.

20. With the aim of opening to every capable and industrious German the possibility of higher education and consequent advancement to leading positions, the State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education. The curriculum of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. Directly the mind begins to develop the schools must aim at teaching the pupil to understand the idea of the State. We demand the education of specially gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
21. The State must apply itself to raising the standard of health in the nation by protecting mothers and infants, prohibiting child labor, and increasing bodily efficiency by legally obligatory gymnastics and sports, and by extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of the young.

Collectivist, not socialist (I'm seeing a pattern here...)

22. We demand the abolition of mercenary troops and the formation of a national army.
23. We demand legal warfare against conscious political lies and their dissemination in the press. In order to facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand that: (a) all editors, and their co-workers, of newspapers employing the German language must be members of the nation; (b) special permission from the State shall be necessary before non-German newspapers may appear (these need not necessarily be printed in the German language); ( c ) non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and the penalty for contravention of the shall be suppression of any such newspaper, and immediate deportation of the non-German involved It must be forbidden to publish newspapers which are damaging to the national welfare. We demand the legal prosecution of all tendencies in art and literature which exert a destructive influence on our national life and the closing of institutions which militate against the above-mentioned requirements.

Skipping through these, these were either irrelevant (mercenaries), or a pretext to deal with unwanted journalists and artists.

24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the moral and ethical feelings of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent recovery from within only on the principle: THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST

More fascist-flavoured collectivism.

25. That all the foregoing requirements may be realized we demand the creation of a strong, central national authority; unconditional authority of the central legislative body over the entire Reich and its organizations in general; and the formation of diets and vocational chambers for the purpose of executing the general laws promulgated by the Reich in the various States of the Confederation. The leaders of the Party swear to proceed regardless of consequences - if necessary at the sacrifice of their lives - toward the fulfillment of the foregoing Points.

So very fascist.

So, by my count, most of the points in this program are either outright fascist/nationalist, or collectivist. I think the issue is that you believe collectivist to be synonymous with socialist; this is a category error. It's as wrong as saying that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the same religion.

Anyway, historically speaking, the points that come the closest to communist positions (the whole economy section) were also the ones least relevant in actual practice, with most of them heavily deemphasized in party propaganda long before 1933.

This I certainly agree with.  The left/right spectrum, or indeed any one spectrum, must necessarily be a simplification.

So, if you know this, why do you keep saying that Fascism is left-wing, thereby associating modern liberals and progressives with it?

I can only repeat myself here: Making a connection between Fascism and Left-Wing politics (especially with contemporary Left-wing politics) requires so much ignorance of history and so much misunderstanding of political philosophy that anyone who does it is either woefully underqualified to have an opinion on the subject or is actively lying about it to make a point.

So by this logic we can assume that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is exactly what it says on the box, then?

There's a difference between propaganda and philosophy.

Yes, there is. It would help if you started to recognize this. The NSDAP party program was pure propaganda. The fascist manifesto you quote was also quickly left behind by Mussolini, and there never was any real attempt to put the socialist-seeming positions therein into practice.

[Bryan See]

There is yet another reason why we need to write open letters there to get out a word against Donald Trump, saying he's not one of us. He wants to be an irreplaceable Free World leader besides Russia's President Vladimir Putin, who, as Mikhail Khodorkovsky said on CNN, acts such so Putin has said that these people behind the plans to replace him "are already irretrievably disconnected from Russia" and "from what is going on here". And, as the murdered Boris Nemtsov put it, he chose eternal power, filled with arbitrariness and corruption. I fear this may apply to replacing Trump.

Trump is totally against free exchange of ideas (as shown on this site), and new people like myself. And that could be the reason why Trump repeatedly praised Putin - he wants to keep out young people and stall technological progress forever by turning America into a fascist, geronto-kleptocractic state. He is a neo-Luddite, and will create a very powerful social movement that's anti-technology, a development which could potentially prevent humans reaching milestones like landing an astronaut on Mars.

[Phantom Hoover]

Aesaar and Phantom Hoover: Leave the drive-by rhetorical sniping out of this, please.

Let me just check for a minute... no, I haven't contracted terminal encephalopathy and I'm not going to take orders from a delusional idiot about what I can and can't say about his forum sophistry.

[Phantom Hoover]

You would do as well trying to reason with Judge Floro.

...actually Judge Floro can be reasoned with, to a limited degree.

Very true; Judge Floro actually spoke in earnest, whereas Goober just tries to throw Latin fallacy names at you.

[karajorma]

PH, keep this civil or you won't be able to participate any more.


Goober, you quoted the manifesto despite already being told numerous times that the socialist claims by facists were most propaganda.

But more important than what someone says, it what they did. And you're going to have a hard time proving that the Nazi Party did more left wing things than right or centrist things.

[MP-Ryan]

Going to leave the fascism thing because its very evident you're impervious to reason on this subject and The E is ably handling it now anyway.

2. I did read the article, and the 24% statistic is not incorrect, just grossly misleading.  The usual unemployment rate is subject to all sorts of modifications depending on how many people you actually count in the workforce and how they are employed.  That's why a much better metric is the employment-to-population ratio.

The rest of that article similarly uses sleight of hand to paint a rosy picture when the true picture is considerably bleaker.  Debt-to-GDP, as I cited, is a better metric than straight GDP, as the article did.  The article's claim that jobs lost in one sector can be made up elsewhere is without basis because jobs are not fungible: a factory worker cannot magically become a doctor, lawyer, or hedge fund manager.

2.  No, but employment types shift over time regardless.  The sleight-of-hand versus true picture remark remains unproven; you've yet to present any kind of data other than a puff piece by Pat Buchanan.  Want to try?  Moreover, the CFR piece appears to be a better evaluation of the benefits and pitfalls of NAFTA, which nonetheless concludes a net benefit to the United States.

3.  We're really going to argue about the definition of argument from authority now, after I actually quoted the damn thing?  No.  No we're not.  Carry on however you like; your sources are not credible and I frankly no longer care about how you present a response to that unless you feel like coming up with better ones.

And historical facts are not affected by an "ahistorical opinion".  A historical event either did or did not occur.  Reality is not subjective.

Let me spell this out:  you, and that author, are forming an opinion that fasicism is a left-wing political ideology based on a particular selection of historical facts, interpreted to fit a particular narrative and ignoring the historical context in which those facts occurred.

4. Now you're committing the fallacy of arguing from your own authority.  You may be highly knowledgeable about the legal field but that does not make you correct -- not to mention that different lawyers often come to different conclusions about the same evidence.  (In fact, they are paid to do so.)

In this case, the FBI's own statement is definitive:

"there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

"we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government."

"there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information"

The FBI's recommendation not to bring charges contradicts its own statement that there is evidence to support doing so.  The evidence supports gross negligence and perjury, at the very least.  Actually producing a conviction is for the trial to determine, but one cannot possibly say that there are no grounds to file charges.

No, it doesn't.  Evidence can minimally exist and yet not meet the elements for criminal prosecution; if you knew anything about the interpretation or enforcement of criminal law you would know this.  It happens all the time.  One of the primary considerations of any potential prosecution is whether the evidence meets all of the elements of the offence [it doesn't], whether the evidence is sufficient to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt [it doesn't], whether the prosecution has any reasonable chance of success [it doesn't].  There are other factors as well. You are not a lawyer.  You are not a law enforcement officer.  You have absolutely no apparent experience in this area.  The people who do have determined that there are no reasonable grounds to support a prosecution, prosecution is NOT warranted, and would NOT be successful in the circumstances.  If you want to argue with them, I suggest you find some legal grounds to do so.  Right now, you are Random Dude On The Internet Who Thinks People Who Actually Know What They Are Talking About Are Wrong Because.  Presenting my interpretation is not a fallatial argument from my own authority, it is an argument based on the combination of my experience and education in this area, which happens to agree with the position taken by both the FBI and the US DoJ.  To recap, in the context of the HLP discussion on this matter, we have the opinion of Goober versus the combined education and experience of the FBI, the US DoJ, and the agreement of otherwise-inconsequential-to-the-matter MP-Ryan.

5. a) The problems with modern economists are enough to occupy another topic entirely; suffice it to say that the actual as opposed to theoretical effects remain to be seen.  Additionally, economic impact should not be the sole metric for judging an economic policy; political and social impacts must be taken into account as well. b) Re military engagements: Yes, you said this already. c) The libel law conversation was entirely in the context of newspapers printing stories about Trump that he didn't like, and he even said in that conversation that he'd have to consult with his lawyers.

Trump is going to make America Great Again by enacting economic policies that put the United States into a recession. That's a novel argument.

I am still waiting to hear how the economic impact, potential lives lost, and disruption to the military command structure by Trump's assertions about handling ISIS will make American lives better, particularly as all but the slimmest fraction of American lives taken since the emergence of ISIS have been by homegrown terrorists, or people who had legally immigrated years beforehand.

That Trump said he'd open up libel laws because newspapers were printing stories he didn't like isn't concerning?  I'd find that very concerning.  I'd find it downright terrifying that a candidate for the leadership of my country's first reaction and reaction that he publicly stated to somebody saying something he didn't like was to suggest that he would tinker with the first and most important amendment to the Constitution of my country.  You want to trust the nuclear launch button to a man so insecure and infantile that his first response to literally any criticism is either a personal attack or a direct abuse of your Constitution (see also:  torture, Muslim ban, attack of judge due to heritage, etc), while he responds to any slight compliment, no matter who the source (e.g. Putin), with fawning admiration.

[LaineyBugsDaddy]

PH, keep this civil or you won't be able to participate any more.


Goober, you quoted the manifesto despite already being told numerous times that the socialist claims by facists were most propaganda.

But more important than what someone says, it what they did. And you're going to have a hard time proving that the Nazi Party did more left wing things than right or centrist things.

Kind of like how despite the name of the ruling party of the USSR said it was Communist, the name of the country (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and the actions of its government plopped it squarely on being a totalitarian socialist nation, complete with living down to the fact of, to paraphrase Orwell's Animal Farm, everybody is equal to everybody else, but some are more equal than others.

[Aesaar]

There's a difference between propaganda and philosophy.

Oh I know this one!
Philosophy = supports Goober's position
Propaganda = doesn't support Goober's position

God guys why don't you know this.

Aesaar and Phantom Hoover: Leave the drive-by rhetorical sniping out of this, please.

no

[Buff Skeleton]

Aesaar and Phantom Hoover: Leave the drive-by rhetorical sniping out of this, please.

no

[The E]

There's a difference between propaganda and philosophy.

Oh I know this one!
Philosophy = supports Goober's position
Propaganda = doesn't support Goober's position

God guys why don't you know this.

Aesaar and Phantom Hoover: Leave the drive-by rhetorical sniping out of this, please.

no

That's it. You no longer get to complain that GD is the worst when you're actively making it worse.

[Bobboau]

oh, you don't understand, it's ok when he does it, cause when he does it he's saying something important, and more importantly he's Right, unlike the other side which is just filled with a bunch of backwards hate filled throwbacks who are all Wrong.

[Phantom Hoover]

It could be worse, we could be like The E stuck in endless righteous quoteslice wars with right-wing idiots because you think it's politer than just calling a spade a spade.

[Bobboau]

calling a spade a spade.

given your political positions, lol

[Phantom Hoover]

Do go on.

[The E]

Speaking of making the culture here worse, same goes for you, PH.

[Bobboau]

Do go on.

you are... familiar with the history of that expression right?

[Phantom Hoover]

I don't see what a late 90s Radio 4 comedy has to do with anything.

Speaking of making the culture here worse, same goes for you, PH.

And you're making it better by constantly feeding Goober's Gish gallop? Please. The only difference between what you and Goober are posting and me and Aesaar is that we're not dressing up our ****posts in rhetorical theatre.

[Bobboau]

In America it is considered racist by some is all.
"Spade" is a racial epithet and so that phrase got associated with that.
I found it mildly funny that you would choose that particular phrase, and now we have spent far too much time on it.

[The E]

And you're making it better by constantly feeding Goober's Gish gallop? Please. The only difference between what you and Goober are posting and me and Aesaar is that we're not dressing up our ****posts in rhetorical theatre.

If I have to choose between posting something halfway informed and factual, and your kind of argumentation, I know what I prefer. Snark and blowing off steam has its place, but that place is, IMHO, not here.

All I'm hearing from you and Aesaar and others is how terrible GD is. If it is such a terrible place, why do you insist on making it worse? Why do you not do the intelligent thing and either try to make it better, or stay away entirely?