I just watched this Glenn Beck segment and it looks fine to me, but I dont trust Beck so I would like to read opinions on it. Are the facts taken out of conetxt or grosesly manipulated? Is it accurate? Is it leaving out important details?
I didn’t watch the entire thing and all I can encourage you to do is read several books on Nazi Germany instead of getting an abbreviated version from Glenn Beck and Fox News. However, you should note that Beck is indeed a NeoCon and there is virtually little difference between NeoCons and National Socialists. It just depends on whose weltanschauung (worldview) you may prefer at the end of the day. That’s what I love about Beck, there’s always this dark irony behind whatever he is saying.
If you’re going to tune into someone on Fox, watch Freedom Watch instead.
No, I dont watch Fox. I just watch Youtube. And yes, I am subscribed to a Youtube channel that posts Freedom Watch.
I wanted to know how accurate it was, because it fits my idea that both were colectivists regimes, but I did not though they were so similar ideologically.
It was pretty accurate I think.
There is a full documentary ‘The Soviet Story’ that came out in 2008.
The Soviet Story is a 2008 documentary film about Soviet Communism and Soviet-German collaboration before 1941 written and directed by Edvīns Šnore and sponsored by the UEN Group in the European Parliament.
The film features interviews with western and Russian historians such as Norman Davies and Boris Sokolov, Russian writer Viktor Suvorov, Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, members of the European Parliament and the participants, as well as the victims of Soviet terror.
The film argues that there were close philosophical, political and organizational connections between the Nazi and Soviet systems before and during the early stages of World War II.[1] It highlights the Great Purge as well as the Great Famine, Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, Katyn massacre, Gestapo-NKVD collaboration, Soviet mass deportations and medical experiments in the GULAG.
The media section of mises.org has talks by Woods and Hoppe on Nazism. Just go to the media section and search Nazi.
It is obviously nonsensical from the beginning. There are only so many ways to build a totalitarian state and only so many things to do with it so naturally they are going to be eerie similarities, but to suggest totalitarianism is solely the domain of the left and that therefore every totalitarian is a leftist is absurd.
NeoCons and National Socialists.
Are different in many, many ways. The NeoCons are a splinter of the democratic movement, while the NSDAP was a splinter of democratic tactics and reactionary ideology, mingled together with socialist, racialist and syndicalist views. NeoCons do, of course, have some elements in common with the NSDAP. But NeoCons are internationalists (i.e., pro-American democratic empire) which the NSDAP was very anti-internationalist and anti-democratic.
The NSDAP was a lot more ‘right wing’ than the NeoCons, a lot more assertively nationalistic and traditionalist (yes, even considering their socialistic elements). The NeoCons are basically the ‘right’ branch of the Progressives and National Socialists, whatever their other faults, were never Proggies.
It depends how you define the Left. If among its basic elements is collectivism, then totalitarianism must be a creature of the Left.
I don’t mean to provoke an ongoing argument here, but I think you vastly underestimate how nationalistic todays NeoCons are. I would say they are even more rabid now than they have been in the past 10 years, which is pretty damn scary if you ask me.
In their minds National Security > Everything else.
With them though National Security is such a loose term it just about includes everything!
The whole left vs. right dichotomy is fallacious. Rather then argue about what Hitler was, it would be wiser to show that this dichotomy is nothing but a political illusion.
This is absolutely right. Engaging in “left and right” talk is to be tricked into playing a game about what kinds of things the state should force people to do, instead of worrying about if there should be a state in the first place. National Socialists are not Neoconservatives, but trying to figure out which is more right-wing is a fools game.
And if I define the right as a slice of cheese then maybe I can put it in my sandwich and eat it.
No, it is not. Right is the alignment of historicity, social order and culture. Left is the alignment of mobocracy, anarchism and revolution. If it seems like an ‘illusion’ to you it is because 1) all major parties in the world today are left-wing parties, 2) Americans as a rule view all Rightism as Nazism (and this includes Libertarians) and would not know it if it hit them in the face and, 3) Libertarians have a peculiar notion of politics that they inherit from a mixture of social anarchism and classical liberalism, which itself is the origin of the modern left.
Hitler was right-wing (mostly) and Marx was left wing (Stalin was right wing in disguise as a lefty). Differences in objective and core theory are differences, even if (due to their hyperstatism and Hitler’s adoption of leftist tactics) they have little to differentiate them in the sphere that libertarians are interested in, i.e. whether it conforms to some propertarian legal order. But propertarian legal orders, I am sorry to inform you, are not the entirety of politics or social organization. They are but a small result of it, and they origins lie in right-wing political movements.
By natural alignment I would be on the right, but as I take political philosophy to be a parlor game I prefer the term ‘reactionary’.
Stalin was actually from the moderate spectrum of the Soviet Party. And in the USSR it happened to be the left wing of the party that was most inclined toward allowing liberty.
Hitler viewed himself as a moderate, as well. He thought he possessed the best of the left and the right; he had a social conscious, which the right lacked, as well as a national conscious, which the left lacked.
He was exactly what national socialist implies, a socialist and nationalist. Communism, which is international socialism, is thus antithetical to national socialism.
He was what every American moderate thinks of himself as.
These sort of superficial classification of the alleged different philosophical and political doctrines is convincing only to the ignoramus who actually believes there is a difference between all of those different views that you mentioned.
The science of human action reveals that there really is just 2 methods by which individuals can socially interact; By voluntary means or by coercion. There really is nothing more to it. The rest is just about different degrees between freedom and coercive controls. All those different things you mentioned are just different artworks for the same thing. Same person, different tie.
Liberté is a self-hating socialist/modern day liberal.
No offense to her, but sometimes her posts turn my brain into a pretzel. I can’t tell where she is coming from half of the time.
I feel like the confused NPCs in Metal Gear Solid whenever something random occurs.
Every form of classification could be called superficial, they certainly all are arbitrary. It is possible to look at various dichotomies of trends and preferences across history that have nothing to do with a libertarian view of property; in fact, it would seem a prudent thing to do if one seeks an in depth and honest look at social behavior and actions throughout history.
That being said, with the possible exception of maybe a period of British governance, I personally find it very difficult to label things touched by the Western ideology along Liberte’s line of thought since the Reformation seemed to let out bat shit insanity that has snowballed and shows no sign of slowing down.
I mean Athenian democracy, mob rule and dictators vs aristocrats/republicans; it does not seem to be the same game.
There’s a very good Mises Seminar available on iTunes U called the ‘Economics of Fascism’, which covers the economics and philosophical aspects of the fascist ideal, obviously. Hans Hermann-Hoppe’s lecture is particularly interesting. Equally fascinating is a talk by Erik von Kulht-Leddin in the ‘Individual Lectures’ series that Liberte might get a kick out of listening to, since he considers himself an anti-democratic reactionary of sorts. In it he also mentions Mises’s stint in Mussolini’s Italy and his (albeit short-lived) admiration for the regime being a better alternative to the bolshevik hell in the east.
Right, exactly.
But Glenn Beck can’t go there (and say that all violent monopolism is bad) because he is one of them, and has been a strong advocate of it in the past.