Rep vs. Dem Differences

The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right. It is
only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of history.

I suggest you refer to Hayek's ROAD TO SERFDOM for the origins of fascism and
it's collectivist, left wing roots.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Wdtabor wrote:

The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right. It
is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of
history.

And what was East Germany's actual name?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message =
online.com...
Wdtabor wrote:
=20
The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left =
wing
philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political =
right. It
is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of
history.
=20
And what was East Germany's actual name?
=20
- Andrew
=20

Deutsche Demokratische Republik... or German Democratic Republic.

Jerry

jawilljr wrote:


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Wdtabor wrote:

The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right.
It is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of
history.

And what was East Germany's actual name?

- Andrew


Deutsche Demokratische Republik... or German Democratic Republic.

So it was a democracy?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
jawilljr wrote:


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Wdtabor wrote:

The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left
wing
philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political
right.
It is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of
history.

And what was East Germany's actual name?

- Andrew


Deutsche Demokratische Republik... or German Democratic Republic.

So it was a democracy?


Yes and everyone had a vote. The limiting factor was the candidates.

And what was East Germany's actual name?

Deutsche Demokratische Republik... or German Democratic Republic.

So it was a democracy?

Yes and everyone had a vote. The limiting factor was the candidates.

Kinda like the US of A.
Who REALLY picks the candidates?
A couple guys in a back room somewhere.
Money, advertising, and handlers prop up a stooge that will allow them
to carry on, business as usual.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Wdtabor wrote:

The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right. It
is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of
history.

And what was East Germany's actual name?


The Nazis actually were socialists, however. Almost all major industries
were nationalized and, like all socialist states must do in the end, the
Nazis ultimately resorted to slave labor. After all, if you remove the
economic incentive to work harder or more efficiently and suppress
individual expression, then you are left with only physical force to make
people work. Socialism's failure is never the fault of the government, of
course. Hitler blamed first the Jews, but after he had killed nearly all of
the Jews he simply committed suicide himself, blaming the German people as
not being worthy of him.

As for the German Democratic Republic, I am reminded of Mortimer Adler's
assertion that socialism was the democratization of economic power. Just as
democracy theoretically equalizes political power among men, so socialism is
supposed to equalize economic power. From this viewpoint socialism is the
economic expression of democracy.

Of course, neither democracy nor socialism equalize anything.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 at 12:42:48 in message
ne.com, Andrew Gideon
wrote:
Wdtabor wrote:

The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right. It
is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of
history.

And what was East Germany's actual name?

Always seems to me that there is no adequate definition of left and
right in politics. There are certain policies that seem to be associated
with one or the other but there are significant variations in even that
classification. Mostly they are just insults that one party throws at
another.

Sometimes I feel it is a circle and left and right meet around the back
of the circle anyway. Any definition that I try seems to present my own
ideas in the most favourable way. :-{

Fashions change; once the cry of the British Labour party was 'No Means
Testing' for benefits. Now there are more means tests on income for
benefits than ever.

The only thing I have tried as a separation is that the left always
believes in centralised control and planning and the right sometimes
does!

Left and Right can also be attempted as a definition as a distinction
between the left who believe that 'most people do not understand their
own best interests' and the right who believe 'most people do understand
their own best interests'. :-)

That usual collapses as well.

It seems to me that labels such as socialist, fascist, dictator,
liberal, national, peoples. communist, monarchy democrat, republican and
despot only give a very slight clue to a regime. They can be combined in
almost any way you choose.

Most important is probably a structure of a nation that limits the
power of different factions.

In some cases communism has gone directly to a form of monarchy! In
others a popular revolution has finished up with an Emperor..
--
David CL Francis

David CL Francis wrote:

Always seems to me that there is no adequate definition of left and
right in politics.

There is a group that is trying to introduce a second dimension to
political descriptions:

http://www.politicalcompass.org

In essence, they suggest using left - right strictly to describe the
economic policies, and they superimpose a second dimension that measures
the degree of authoritarianism. Therefore, you can have authoritarian
or libertarian governments at either extreme of the economic spectrum.

The above web site also has an interesting test, where you can evaluate
your own views to see how they would fit into their definition, and
compare the result to many past and current political leaders.

In article , James Robinson
writes:


Always seems to me that there is no adequate definition of left and
right in politics.

There is a group that is trying to introduce a second dimension to
political descriptions:

http://www.politicalcompass.org


I don't like that one very much. It is adpated from a British model that has
cultural baises built in. Among other things, racism/zenophobia is counted as a
conservative/libertarian trait.

The one at LP.org is better.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG