Right wing cultures in Star Trek
- Thread starter Peg Org
- Start date
You cannot seriously be suggesting that this is socialist policy.
Not wanting cancer is GOD-damned unAmerican!!!
Extremists of any kind are still extremists, the only difference between the Westboro Baptist church and others of likemind v Daesh/Taliban/Saudi state - the former does not have the political and military clout....yet.
The right to bear arms is as fundamental as the right to bear cancer....You cannot seriously be suggesting that this is socialist policy.
Traditionally, yet mine has never been near Germany and wouldn't have a clue what to do with a sheep unless it was presented with gravy.....
Last edited:
Look. The Nazis not Socialists. True Socialists suffered greatly under their regime. The called themselves Socialists because Socialism was a popular philosophy. People forget that there were dozens of self-proclaimed socialists in elected office here in the US (around the early 1900's). Contemporary liberalism/progressivism came into being intended to blunt that trend. All the Nazi (and later Soviet) appropriation of that sobriquet demonstrates is a familiarity with the 239th Rule of Acquisition: "Never be afraid to mislabel a product."
You cannot seriously be suggesting that this is socialist policy.
It was brought in by the Labour Government in the UK. I can never work out which side is which in the US. Until you get obvious about it with Presidents.
Yup. That and sandy bits.
It's also worth putting into historical context that there was actually at one time a genuinely socialist wing of the NSDAP (Nazi Party), who, after Hitler had consolidated his position as Chancellor following the Enabling Act, were literally stabbed in the back and eliminated from the party's infrastructure. Hitler used the socialist label and ideology as a means to grab power, and once he had attained his position as dictator, murdered the people who expected him to carry out a so-called "second revolution" which would have been the socialist phase of the Nazi Party's Machtergreifung, or seizure of power.
Social security legislation was introduced by Bismarck in Germany.
So obviously social security and welfare are conservative right-wing policies?
Do you realize how silly that kind of reasoning is?
Social security legislation was introduced by Bismarck in Germany.
So obviously social security and welfare are conservative right-wing policies?
Do you realize how silly that kind of reasoning is?
Hey. The Nazis used socialist in their name and in some areas acted that way...they just had rather nasty ideas about who was worthy to be in their society. It's a complex percolator of fish. The simple idea of right wing = Nazi is an easy to digest thing, but is not strictly true...go far enough left and you start going right again, the reverse is also true. Right and left in politics is too often attempted to be boiled down into goodies and baddies...it's far far more complex than that, as the USSR and Nazi Germany both exemplify, along with even the US itself...
The Nazis identified themself as socialist, and they were..in some ways. No monarchy, certain policies and ideology were definitely not monarchist or even capitalist...this does not suddenly make them into nice people. Hitler was a vegetarian, it's doesn't make them all evil by association.
I have, I just don't agree. It's an argument that is basically boiled down to 'oh those evil ones weren't really socialist, they just used the name and thought they were, cos it made them sound good' rather than accepting that they could be both socialist and evil, without one being a necessary condition for the other. They were nationalist. And socialist. And Evil bastards. Again..the three don't necessarily have to come as a set.
This is the crucial bit people either don't realise or choose to forget. Yes the Nazis had to rely on the support of socialist elements to consolidate their power base. A marriage of convenience does not equate to philosophical equivalence especially when the marriage, as you say, quite literally ended in murder.
Putting the word "socialist" in there was a tactic, a fob to attract the significant militant left active in mainstream politics at the time. Much the same applies to the token socialist policies they enacted, necessity ruled out over ideology.
Interesting thought though, that even the most extreme and politically successful right wing party in history, backed by a war machine such as the world had never seen, still needed to borrow from the left to make things work.
The Nazis didn't see themselves as socialists. In fact the socialists were the group that most opposed the Nazis and thus were persecuted in Nazi Germany.
The Nazis borrowed policies from many movements. That doesn't make them a conservative, a capitalist or a socialist movement. The differences are too significant.
"They called themselves socialists to get the support of actual socialists and to dupe people into thinking they were socialists."
"So they were socialists, then?"
"No. The actual socialists got mass murdered. By the Nazis."
"So you're saying the Nazis were socialists after all."
"So they were socialists, then?"
"No. The actual socialists got mass murdered. By the Nazis."
"So you're saying the Nazis were socialists after all."
Were those socialists or communist? The Nazis had a lot of punch ups with communists. As I said...I am no expert (I just spent a lot of time sitting next to an expert. Who had the TV remote.) There's also strong line of state owned or run things in Nazi Germany too...I mentioned the Volkswagen thing. So, if they had some highly visible policies and actions that would be accurately described as things socialists would do, and they literally identify themselves, in their name, as socialist...(though as m'lerned friend Gaby pointed out, they also got shot of a lot of their socialists once their little Caesar was in place.) then why are they not socialist? As you said, 'conservative' groups enacted some socialist policy, but never identified as such...so what is the clear line for the division? Is being both Nationalist and Socialist impossible? (The SNP in Scotland is both left wing and nationalist.) If it's simply a goodies and baddies argument...it's way too simple.
Just because, historically, some socialists have been evil nasty buggers, doesn't mean socialism hasn't got some good ideas in there. Just because some Monarchists, Capitalists, Republicans, Democrats, Christians, Muslims, Jews etc et al as nasaeum have historically been evil nasty buggers, doesn't mean they don't have some positives in their ideologies, so...why aren't the Nazis, who identify as socialist, socialist? It's a given they were evil nasty buggers, but is that what precludes them from holding an ideology we consider, for the most part, to be worthy? Even if they then pervert that worthiness.
Monsters come from within, there's no use pretending Hitler was anything other than human being. To imagine socialism could never birth to such a creature is to turn a blind eye to the monsters waiting to be born. The same is true of every single ideology in human history.
Not just communists. It was the Social-Democratic Party that opposed the Nazis. They were the only party to vote against the Enabling Act of 1933 (the Commies would have opposed it, too, but already got kicked out).
The Nazis hated Socialists.
Again I'm not sure why you would claim the Nazis were Socialists but not Capitalists or Conservatives? They borrowed policies from everybody but the core belief of the Nazi Party was something else, based on the ideas of Volk, race and antisemitism.
Those core beliefs have nothing to do with socialism so...
The core belief of socialism at the time was that everything is based on class, which is why it was inherently international. The core belief of Nazi ideology was that the Volk (nation/race) is all that matters, which is why it was inherently national.
It makes zero sense to equate the two even if a few policies are similar considering you will find similarities between all ideologies.
