It is true, of course, that in Germany before 1933 and in Italy before 1922 communists and Nazis or Fascists clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties. They competed for the support of the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. But their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common and whom they could not hope to convince, is the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist, and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits who are made of the right timber, although they have listened to false prophets, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom… F A Hayek
Excellent write up. For those who claim Fascism must be completely different because of hatred of other socialists, look at Islam. Shia hate Sunni and Ibadi. Ibadi hate Shia and Sunni. Sunni hate Ibadi and Shia. All 'Islam'. All consider all others to be infidels for their different interpretations.
True. Socialism, fascism, and communism believe the ‘government’ is god and owns everything. Direct opposite of a Constitutional Republic; we are not a democracy where the majority rules.
They lied. They lied, you idiot. They said what people wanted to hear. That’s why they claimed to be socialists. They were liars. Unless I assume you believe that Hitler only wanted part of Czechoslovakia.
But I don't think you know what the Right/Left paradigm comes from. Classical liberalism is NOT rightist whatsoever.
As a Trad Catholic, our historical consciousness extends 2000 years and as an armchair classicist, another 1000 years. It is Catholics that are tied to European history and circumstances. The Right/Left paradigm was coined in Catholic France during the French Revolution where the monarchists sat on the right and the Jacobins, Girondins, et. al., sat on the Left.
There are some still 5000 French Catholic Monarchists, Rightists in France. I doubt any of them are Classical liberals.
What you are doing is rewriting History--confusing language and redefining words/meanings. How does one in America read French history when he is told that Classical liberals are Rightists???
The Whole French Revolution, like the American Revolution was a rejection of class, caste, distinctions of rank, in essence the rejection of Hierarchy.
The Jacobins, Girondins were Democrats. The Left is all those that are for ideological democracy which was this supposed "modern republicanism".
Modern republicanism has no connection to either the Spartan or Roman Republics. Classical republicanism, as Aristotle noted, is Mixed government. Neither the modern American, French "republics" are Mixed governments.
Furthermore, Leftism is a modern moniker for the ancient heresy of Gnosticism. In the 40s, 50s, Prof, Eric Voegelin, a researcher into ancient Gnosticism came to the sudden realization that "All of modernity is Gnostic".
The American and French Revolutions, ideological democracy, is Gnostic. The American Founding Fathers were Gnostic.
Again, you come across another Historical event that destroys your perception of Rightism/Leftism--that of the Loyalists, the Monarchists that resisted the American Revolution. Those were Rightists in the truest sense of the word.
The Loyalists were the true conservatives and Rightists. Only Monarchists can be Rightist. The rejection of hierarchy, of monarchy is Leftist, is Gnostic.
Collectivism, the conviction that an individual exists to advance the goals of the group, redefines civil liberties (especially the US first amendment) as temporary, arbitrary gifts from the state. All wealth that individuals are allowed to keep is a gift from the state. Dissent/challenging the narrative is treason. The state organizes all of structures and institutions that allow the community to function. Whether the favored collective is the proletariat, the nation, a religion or race is irrelevant. The rejection of individual rights, market exchange, limited government and anything resembling meritocracy is absolute. Reality is constantly redefined by the ruling group.
I don't believe that collectivism is "wrong." I believe , historically, it has never worked. It has never raised poor people from poverty. It has never increased upward mobility or the standard of living for everyone. It has never protected civil liberties or based anything on merit, for the needs of the people. Am I wrong? Please give me some examples where sustained collectivism made like better for the people of the system.
The difference between socialism and fascism is that fascists do not need to own anything. They control everything.
"favored collective ... nation or race is irrelevant".
That is not Western Civilization or Culture. Western morality is Arete (virtue).
>>> “First among the claims of righteousness are our duties to the gods, then our duties to the spirits, then those to patrida (fatherland) and parents, then those to the departed; and among these claims is piety, which is either a part of righteousness or a concomitant of it.” (pseudo-Aristotle, Virtues & Vices. Loeb Classical Library. vol #285. v, 2)
We are to do our duty to our own particular Fatherland. God created us as herd animals. So your opinion is not well informed.
All ideologies of individualism is SOFT Genocide. And when one commits Soft Genocide within his own nation, he has committed Treason as well.
It is true, of course, that in Germany before 1933 and in Italy before 1922 communists and Nazis or Fascists clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties. They competed for the support of the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. But their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common and whom they could not hope to convince, is the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist, and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits who are made of the right timber, although they have listened to false prophets, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom… F A Hayek
Excellent write up. For those who claim Fascism must be completely different because of hatred of other socialists, look at Islam. Shia hate Sunni and Ibadi. Ibadi hate Shia and Sunni. Sunni hate Ibadi and Shia. All 'Islam'. All consider all others to be infidels for their different interpretations.
Noticeably absent from critiques of this spectrum is its adversarial relationship with Christianity.
True. Socialism, fascism, and communism believe the ‘government’ is god and owns everything. Direct opposite of a Constitutional Republic; we are not a democracy where the majority rules.
https://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6tz-Aly/e/B001H6RR84/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1
Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State
Yep. Adolph was a socialist.
They lied. They lied, you idiot. They said what people wanted to hear. That’s why they claimed to be socialists. They were liars. Unless I assume you believe that Hitler only wanted part of Czechoslovakia.
Yes, Hitler and Nazism was Socialist as well as Leftist.
Hitler was a Leftist; Nazism was Leftist
https://www.academia.edu/44391380/
But I don't think you know what the Right/Left paradigm comes from. Classical liberalism is NOT rightist whatsoever.
As a Trad Catholic, our historical consciousness extends 2000 years and as an armchair classicist, another 1000 years. It is Catholics that are tied to European history and circumstances. The Right/Left paradigm was coined in Catholic France during the French Revolution where the monarchists sat on the right and the Jacobins, Girondins, et. al., sat on the Left.
There are some still 5000 French Catholic Monarchists, Rightists in France. I doubt any of them are Classical liberals.
What you are doing is rewriting History--confusing language and redefining words/meanings. How does one in America read French history when he is told that Classical liberals are Rightists???
The Whole French Revolution, like the American Revolution was a rejection of class, caste, distinctions of rank, in essence the rejection of Hierarchy.
The Jacobins, Girondins were Democrats. The Left is all those that are for ideological democracy which was this supposed "modern republicanism".
Modern republicanism has no connection to either the Spartan or Roman Republics. Classical republicanism, as Aristotle noted, is Mixed government. Neither the modern American, French "republics" are Mixed governments.
Furthermore, Leftism is a modern moniker for the ancient heresy of Gnosticism. In the 40s, 50s, Prof, Eric Voegelin, a researcher into ancient Gnosticism came to the sudden realization that "All of modernity is Gnostic".
The American and French Revolutions, ideological democracy, is Gnostic. The American Founding Fathers were Gnostic.
Again, you come across another Historical event that destroys your perception of Rightism/Leftism--that of the Loyalists, the Monarchists that resisted the American Revolution. Those were Rightists in the truest sense of the word.
The Loyalists were the true conservatives and Rightists. Only Monarchists can be Rightist. The rejection of hierarchy, of monarchy is Leftist, is Gnostic.
Whether the label is fascism, Nazism or communism what they all share is their demand for devotion and submission to the state above all else.
In short: Absolute power and authority over every aspect of the lives of the citizenry.
That is the ultimate dream and goal of the Left, whatever label they may use today.
Collectivism, the conviction that an individual exists to advance the goals of the group, redefines civil liberties (especially the US first amendment) as temporary, arbitrary gifts from the state. All wealth that individuals are allowed to keep is a gift from the state. Dissent/challenging the narrative is treason. The state organizes all of structures and institutions that allow the community to function. Whether the favored collective is the proletariat, the nation, a religion or race is irrelevant. The rejection of individual rights, market exchange, limited government and anything resembling meritocracy is absolute. Reality is constantly redefined by the ruling group.
I don't believe that collectivism is "wrong." I believe , historically, it has never worked. It has never raised poor people from poverty. It has never increased upward mobility or the standard of living for everyone. It has never protected civil liberties or based anything on merit, for the needs of the people. Am I wrong? Please give me some examples where sustained collectivism made like better for the people of the system.
The difference between socialism and fascism is that fascists do not need to own anything. They control everything.
"favored collective ... nation or race is irrelevant".
That is not Western Civilization or Culture. Western morality is Arete (virtue).
>>> “First among the claims of righteousness are our duties to the gods, then our duties to the spirits, then those to patrida (fatherland) and parents, then those to the departed; and among these claims is piety, which is either a part of righteousness or a concomitant of it.” (pseudo-Aristotle, Virtues & Vices. Loeb Classical Library. vol #285. v, 2)
We are to do our duty to our own particular Fatherland. God created us as herd animals. So your opinion is not well informed.
All ideologies of individualism is SOFT Genocide. And when one commits Soft Genocide within his own nation, he has committed Treason as well.
What, exactly, is my opinion? What fact is cited to refute?
>>>"Collectivism, the conviction that an individual exists to advance the goals of the group,..."
That "Collectivism", working as a group is wrong. What do you think "DUTY to the Fatherland", but duty to the Collective called Race/Nation.
Well stated. Thank you!