X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:43:58 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      Re: free-market
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              11, 93 10:49 am

Ramon pisze:
>>
>>   right (r!t) Politics. a conservative or reactionary position, party, etc.
>>
>>   con.ser.va.tive (ken sur've tiv) adj. 2. tending to preserve established
>> institutions, etc.; opposed to change.

>>
>>   left 2.[often L-] Politics. a radical or liberal position, party, etc.
>>
>>   lib.er.al (lib'er el) 5. n. favoring reform or progress
>>
>>                            -Webster's New World Dictionary of
>>                             the American Language (1980)
>>
>>         Do you see, dear Caius, why according to THESE definitions (a) the
>> Nazis are considered both rightist and fascists;

Accordind to THESE definitions Nazis are neither conservatives or reactionary.

Do you suggest that the Nazis want/wanted preserve (???!) any institutions
As I remember Nazis were opposed to established institutions like The Church
and economy based on private ownership. In the Nazi prosons were both the
right (represented by land-owners and military staff) and the left (Communists
and socialists).

When you comparare the history of Soviet Union, very similar fight of leftist
faction happend there. And there were much more vivtims. But we still call
them leftist.

According to THESE definitions, Hitler was the best leftist, because he had
implemented the best *radical* reforms possible, killing several million
people. Ask those who managed to escape Nazi gemany, how radical were the
NSDAP gangs.

>> (b) Moscow hard-line
>> communists are frequently labeled as "conservatives";

Conservatism is not preserving values and institutions, but rather preserving
THE values and THE institutions. Communism in Russia is based on permanent
revolution, so there are no values to be preserved, no ideology to defend.

Of course the communist hard-liners want to preserve their jobs, but that is
in no way, conservatism.

>> and (c) where in the
>> late XVIII century liberals were espousing the rise of the bourgeoisie and
>> a free market as REFORMIST policies, it is now the REACTIONARIES who want
>> to go back to the laisez-faire ideal world?

Yes, it was a woderfull world where economy was based on really free market
and private rights and society on moral values. And the conservatives said:
"It already good, do not change it". And the liberals "Maybe we can change that,
or maybe that a bit".

There was no controversy over existense of free-market.
There is no controversy over need of free-market, today. Both conservatives and
libertarians want to implement that REACTIONARY policy, although they may
differ in other issues. That is called rightism, and I am goign to use it in
its proper meaning.


>> Of course, from our leftist
>> point of view, right-wing thinkers appear to have a deficient or distorted
>> knowledge of history because they don't seem to remember the unrest and
>> chaos that the huge inequalities brought about by an unrestricted free
>> market. These blatant injustices were the cause of the movement of
>> progressives toward the defense of an equalizing role for the State.

And the leftists try to forget that most of those injustices were brought into
existence by the State. Perheps the progressives had good intentions, but
on this world RESULTS are more important than INTENTIONS.

>>  - Ramon

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU