Right wing cultures in Star Trek

[Spot261]

So, when we're the various nationalisation programs put into effect? I know some prominent industrialist were already close to the party, even before they became the de facto state.

Some industry had in fact already fell into state hands prior to the Reich, specifically those which were failing in the economic climate, but as that was (as I understand it) a trend in many countries at the time.

@{ Emilia } could doubtless fill in the gaps better than I could but state sponsorship and/or takeovers of several industries key to the upcoming war effort grew exponentially throughout the latter half of the 1930s, leading many at the time to foresee exactly the model you propose, especially given Hitler's seeming antipathy to free markets. Steelworks and motor manufacture (as apparently you already know) BUT heavy restrictions were put into place regarding civilian motor vehicle manufacture, freeing up resources for military expenditure.

Throughout this period the unions were effectively eliminated, in many cases violently, with most forms of industrial action being outlawed. Their state controlled replacement the DAF did in fact promise good working conditions but only on the promise of absolute allegiance, often with the added proviso that gaining employment without membership became increasingly difficult as many nationalised industries began requiring membership as a precondition for employment.

You see the pattern? Policies which superficially look pretty much like socialism were put into place, but as a pretext for dictatorship. Peacetime rights were ensured, but only for those who were loyal, whilst industries were nationalised in preparation for wartime re-purposing. All throughout this period military spending rose at an even faster rate than public sponsorship, all laying the groundwork for building the war machine.

 

[Thestral]

The ruling families of Britain, going back a thousand years, are basically Norman in origin...then all the ruling houses of Europe are usually related somewhere along the line, unless they stopped bothering with Monarchy's. Even then, you will find some families are still very much in power. The Us and Them in the UK, is still seen on national lines, sometimes buried, but it all stems from an invasion a thousand years ago that put one group in power, and despite various transmutations and falling and rising in favour, they are still there, for the most part.

The Tudors were Welsh. The Stuarts were Scottish (and Breton before that), briefly interrupted by a Dutchman. The Hanoverians and Windsors were/are German. The UK hasn't ever had a "Norman" monarch, nor England since the 1500s.

ETA: I mean, leaving aside the silliness of that at all. What's next, lecturing about the importance of Aquitaine in modern geopolitics, or the House of Rurik?

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

The House of Windsor is in reality the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha).

 

[jaime]

The Tudors were Welsh. The Stuarts were Scottish (and Breton before that), briefly interrupted by a Dutchman. The Hanoverians and Windsors were/are German. The UK hasn't ever had a "Norman" monarch, nor England since the 1500s.

ETA: I mean, leaving aside the silliness of that at all. What's next, lecturing about the importance of Aquitaine in modern geopolitics, or the House of Rurik?

Yes, I talk about that myself in other areas, but the families that become the ruling bunch are still quite often ones that came over in 1066. No I am not saying this is a big thing, but it's something that still has a sort of cultural baggage and turns up from time to time. Nationalists of all directions on the political spectrum have little bits of history they cling to. Robin Hood...Boudicca....The Bruce....Wallace...Cromwell.
Something mês it would be nice if people could just move on.

 

[Spot261]

Don't forget Glyn Dwr, or Arthur.......

 

[jaime]

Don't forget Glyn Dwr, or Arthur.......

Exactly. Fun as myth, legend, and even as History, but once they get elevated to a sort of....rallying cry...it just becomes strange. Sorry I couldn't think of any of the decent Celtic ones at the time..I was away from the bookshelf lol.

 

[{ Emilia }]

@{ Emilia } could doubtless fill in the gaps better than I could but state sponsorship and/or takeovers of several industries key to the upcoming war effort grew exponentially throughout the latter half of the 1930s, leading many at the time to foresee exactly the model you propose, especially given Hitler's seeming antipathy to free markets.

That isn't even that clear-cut. It's fair to say Hitler wasn't a fan of liberal capitalism and didn't like the free market but nationalization of companies was not particularly common. The economy for the most part stayed private.
What seemed like nationalization at first, wasn't really that. It was taking businesses from Jews and then giving them to "German" entrepreneurs (the so-called Arisierung des Wirtschaftslebens (Aryanisation of economic life).

The Nazi government didn't socialize companies and turn them into cooperatives. In fact, almost everything stayed private-run but of course, as happens in dictatorships preparing for war, was told to shift production to war-relevant goods. Which is why companies like Daimler eventually had to stop producing civilian cars. But the companies weren't owned by the government or "the people", they were still privately-owned for the most part and many people got pretty rich initially. It's not like the Nazis owned companies like IG Farben (the world's most important chemical and pharmaceutical company at the time. Initially hated by the Nazis but then "aryanized", it became an important government contractor. Today's Bayer and BASF are some of its successors.).

To a degree, I think, the misconception about socialist economic policies stems from the fact that they were part of the Nazi program from 1920 (the "25 points") which they never bothered to change/update. But by the 1930s they had almost completely abandoned the economic parts of it.

That's not to say that there weren't also some state-owned companies but that's true for most countries.

 

[Spot261]

See? Better than my effort

 

[publiusr]

Got an example for the radical left? I'd love to know which policy idea you consider radical leftism.

To be fair--the anti-fa movement. No DNC ralley was ever disrupted. Plenty of mixed nuts all over. UNABOMBER, Rudolf, etc.

I'd say that the Gideons had a right-wing culture. Their culture led to extreme problems, and to solve them they chose to apply an... extreme solution.

Besides Section 31--you had these guys:
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/New_Essentialists

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Besides Section 31--you had these guys:
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/New_Essentialists

Yep. I agree, both of them are right wing.

 

[E-DUB]

I think that the so-called "antifa movement" is a whole-cloth invention of the right-wing blogosphere. But it will serve its purpose as the perpetrators of a horrific act of domestic terrorism, which will then be uses as justification to crack down on anybody to the left of Attila the Hun.

Like the guy said in the movie, "The question isn't are you paranoid, the question is are you paranoid enough?"

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I think that the so-called "antifa movement" is a whole-cloth invention of the right-wing blogosphere. But it will serve its purpose as the perpetrators of a horrific act of domestic terrorism, which will then be uses as justification to crack down on anybody to the left of Attila the Hun.

Like the guy said in the movie, "The question isn't are you paranoid, the question is are you paranoid enough?"

Antifa is not mythical; they're legit. They confront (and sometimes beat up) fascists.

That isn't even that clear-cut. It's fair to say Hitler wasn't a fan of liberal capitalism and didn't like the free market but nationalization of companies was not particularly common. The economy for the most part stayed private.
What seemed like nationalization at first, wasn't really that. It was taking businesses from Jews and then giving them to "German" entrepreneurs (the so-called Arisierung des Wirtschaftslebens (Aryanisation of economic life).

The Nazi government didn't socialize companies and turn them into cooperatives. In fact, almost everything stayed private-run but of course, as happens in dictatorships preparing for war, was told to shift production to war-relevant goods. Which is why companies like Daimler eventually had to stop producing civilian cars. But the companies weren't owned by the government or "the people", they were still privately-owned for the most part and many people got pretty rich initially. It's not like the Nazis owned companies like IG Farben (the world's most important chemical and pharmaceutical company at the time. Initially hated by the Nazis but then "aryanized", it became an important government contractor. Today's Bayer and BASF are some of its successors.).

To a degree, I think, the misconception about socialist economic policies stems from the fact that they were part of the Nazi program from 1920 (the "25 points") which they never bothered to change/update. But by the 1930s they had almost completely abandoned the economic parts of it.

That's not to say that there weren't also some state-owned companies but that's true for most countries.

Stumbled across an image this morning that puts it all hilariously succinctly:

 

[E-DUB]

I don't deny that there are stupid people doing stupid stuff, such is ever the case. What I do deny is that they're anywhere close to something that could be properly described as a "movement".