X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:32:54 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: On Rightism,
              A Reply to the Notion that Nazis Aren't Rightists...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              SMITH" at Dec 16, 92 7:29 pm

VALENTINE M. SMITH pisze:
>>
>> >If you want to call something, somebody, an organisation, a
>> >government RIGHTIST just have in mind these two opinions:
>>
>> >1) Free market economy = no government intervention
>>
>> Under the rightist regimes of Hitler, Pinochet, Mussolini, and
>> Franco, there was no government intervention?

What I am always speaking and writing, there WAS govt intervention in the
economy under regimes of Hitler, Mussollini and Stalin. That's why we
CANNOT call them rightist. We'd rather call them leftist.

Pinochet an Franco have suspended political rights, but allowed economical
freedom to choose your work and the good you are willing to purchase.

If I had to choose:

1) PERFECT political freedom (right to vote, speak etc) and
   NO economic freedom ( all money is grabed and distributed by the govt)

2) NO political freedom
   PERFECT economic freedom (low poll-tax spent on army and police)

I would prefer to earn and spend my money myself. It would give me more
freedom.


Caius.




>> of the police to suppress all opposition? What does one call
>> preferred treatment, as both Hitler and Franco did with various
>> corporate interests (most notably, the relationship of the Nazi
>> regime with airplane and defense production, with Messerschmitt and
>> Krupp) - does that not subvert "free trade?" I contend that the "free
>> market economy" is a myth - ALL countries, all spectrums of regime,
>> "interfere" with their economies with subsidies, preferred treatment,
>> or tariffs (at the least, I'm no economist).
>>
>> >2) Strong government in for(g?)e?ing relations and in providing
>> >security to citizens.
>>
>> I assume you meant "forging," and I would contend that Hitler, and to
>> a lesser degree, the other three examples, "forged relations" by terror
>> and murder, as did their left counter-parts in the Soviet Union, and
>> in the later "East Bloc" states. The "security" the Nazis gave their
>> citizenry was a two-edged sword - yes, there was nigh unto full
>> employment. No, the people had no security from the terror
>> apparatuses of all these states.
>>
>> >Killing people is by no means rightist!!
>>
>> No, it is not. But, "rightists" are not excluded from murder, as the
>> case cited above, as many a history book in the West have damned both
>> the Nazis and Communists of doing - all groups, from "Shining Path,"
>> the Peruvian leftists, to the "rightist" (very conservative)
>> Hezbollah in Iran and Lebanon. There is a large spectrum on the
>> right, and while you personally as an admitted rightist (as are many
>> others on this list, with a wide variety of beliefs) are probably not
>> a killer, that does not preclude that the neo-Nazi "rightists" (a
>> term used by almost all American national media, from many American and
>> European newspapers, notable Germans like Grass and Kohl) could be or
>> are killers, and that their predecessors, the Nazis, definitely
>> killed a lot of people, in the most blatent kind of state
>> interference possible.
>>
>> >Caius. Extreme Right.
>>
>> A claim not necessarily to be proud of (that from an avowed moderate
>> "centrist").
>>
>> Caius ( =Grzegorz Albinowski )                  Internet : caius@ii.uj.edu.pl
>>
>> Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:19:53 +0100 (MET)
>> From: Grzegorz Albinowski <caius%II.UJ.EDU.PL@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
>> Subject: Re:
>>
>> MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET pisze:
>> >>
>> >> Dear Caius,
>> >>   I think you should know that while rightists have the same rights
>> >> and freedoms as the rest of us,
>>
>> >Agreed. We all have the same rights and freedoms (at least we should
>> >have).
>>
>> Often, in the past both extreme right and left regimes both have
>> denied this desired reality.
>>
>> >> they are definitely NOT normal.
>>
>> >Why not? I can't understand your point. What "rightist" do you speak
>> >of?
>>
>> I assume Michael was talking of the Nazis, who were all kinds of ilk
>> - murderers, racists, anti-Semites, homosexuals, thieves, oppressors,
>> conquerors, exploiters of women, and aggressors (and that's just a
>> few of the "not normal," -or out and out evil- things "rightists" did
>> in the "good old days.")
>>
>> >> (Care to define your terms, chum?)
>> >> Provisionally Cordially,
>> >> Michael
>>
>> >Caius.
>>
>> Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:53:23 +0100 (MET)
>> From: Grzegorz Albinowski <caius%II.UJ.EDU.PL@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
>> Subject: RE: rightist
>>
>> >>jimmy donal wales pisze:
>>
>> >> I want to warn you to be careful with your quantifiers.  The statement
>> >> that 'this terminology has been accepted only by the leftist media'
>> >> is simply false.  I am not a member of the media, and I am not a
>> >> leftist.  Yet, I accept the terminology. "only" is a powerful word,
>> >> use it wisely.
>>
>> >Thank you for pointing out the logical error.
>>
>> >The correction: (on calling Nazis rightist)
>>
>> >"this terminology has been accepted only by the leftist media and some
>> > of those who listen to the media stated"
>>
>> Well, to put it bluntly, I think you're full of crap. A good chunk of
>> my reading is from very center-oriented histories (or are you going
>> to call all historians "liberal," and tar them with the same
>> simplistic generalization you offer above?), and from fairly
>> scholarly publications such as "Foreign Affairs" and "World Press
>> Review," which also call Nazis and neo-Nazis "rightists." Yes, I
>> listen to media considered "liberal," but I also read across a wide
>> span of publication of no particular political persuasion at all. I
>> would, as Jimbo did above, STILL question your use of the word
>> "only." It sounds like your "prejudice" as a "rightist" does not
>> allow you to see certain facts very well.
>>
>> >Better?
>>
>> No, since it still is scapegoating, "blaming" the "leftist media" for
>> not agreeing with your pre-conceived notion of what a rightist is and
>> isn't. This was a classic Nazi technique, who also blamed the
>> "leftists" and Jews for Germany's ills, and ended up murdering a
>> large number of their left opponents. (Stalin did this in the
>> opposite direction, "blaming" the "Trotskyists" and "right
>> deviationists" for the USSR's ills, and murdered a great many of
>> THEM!)
>>
>> >I just CANNOT accept putting the "rightist" label to everything that
>> >the media dislike. The same people put the "conservative" label to
>> >the Soviet communist hard-liners, that have quite opposite views.
>>
>> Well, I'm NOT the "media," but one lone scholar, and I put a
>> "rightist" label on only that clearly identified by a wide consensus
>> as being "rightist." The "conservative" label on hard-line Communists
>> comes from their yearning for the past, their wish for strong,
>> dictatorial and authoritarian leadership, and their resistance to
>> change, considered by MOST sensible political analysts as traits
>> indigenous to "classic conservatism."
>>
>> >You can call a computer "an egg", "a w ooboodoo", "a foobar" or
>> >something else but this does not change the fact what it actuall(y)
>> >is.
>>
>> Well, in calling the Nazis and neo-Nazis "rightist," I believe I'm
>> calling them what they are, nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>> >Caius.
>>
>> Date: 16 Dec 1992 15:54:14 -0500 (EST)
>> From: MMORSE%YORKVM1.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu
>> Subject: RE: NORNAL
>>
>> >Given the recent spate of postings, perhaps we can agree on this
>> >definition: a rightist is someone who doesn't believe in irony,
>> >and insists on the right not to define his/her terms.
>>
>> >HMMMmmmmmm.....
>>
>> I would at least agree on the latter - it would appear that
>> "rightists" will more often offer rhetoric than reasonable dialogue,
>> and refuse to talk terms that are "generally accepted" by scholars
>> all over the world. A thought to this would be that Orthodox Jews,
>> among the most conservative of people one could find, would agree
>> that Nazis and neo-Nazis are "rightist," and the "rightest" LePen in
>> France would agree that the Nazis were "rightists," though he would
>> say his anti-foreign stance is not like the anti-Jew, anti-Slav
>> stance of the Nazis.
>>
>> >MWM
>>
>> I will not touch the horribly simplistic "labelling post" that
>> "Caius" offered earlier today, that kind of stereo-typing is very
>> dangerous. But, I defy you to find me a scholarly or media source of
>> any kind that would deny that Nazis and neo-Nazis are rightists,
>> excluding propaganda. If you are like the other "rightists" on this
>> list, you will offer opinion and rhetoric, but few to no facts.
>>
>> VMS
>>


signoff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caius ( =Grzegorz Albinowski )                  Internet : caius@ii.uj.edu.pl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics