Right Winger as the same equivalent affiliation as it is used to label the GOP in America?The Nazi's (fascists) were far Right Wingers.......just helping you with your comparison.
I'm familiar with those definitions, Bru, associating 'national' and 'authoritarian' with the right. However, that would make the USSR and Red China right wing--which clearly they are not. So national and authoritarian can describe both left and the right. What defines right against left is limited government over large government; employment and industry controlled by the private sector and natural market forces over government control of industry and management of market forces; individual rights over group rights. By these criteria the Nazis were wholly on the left.
Liberals opposed homosexuality in those days. Obama and Clinton were against gay marriage just a few years ago.
That is YOUR conclusion. Not necessarily how scholars have concluded. And I take an opposing opinion to yours as well. Difference is, I am willing to admit my position is opinion on a conclusion made by others.
The difference is the Nazis operated as a socialist regime in many ways. The distinguishing characteristic between the communists and the fascists is the racial animus.
Ok, but where is my error(s) in both demonstrating nationalism and socialism are not distinguishing characteristics and defining right against left?
Your error is in the narrow beliefs of nationalism and socialism as the only things that defines right and left. You don't have to believe in socialism and have left wing beliefs. Same goes for the other scenario.
What? I specifically said nationalism (as well as authoritarianism) is not a distinguishing characteristic. I then went on to list several distinguishing characteristics. What left-wing beliefs are not socialist?
Fascists were not right-wing. The most you could say is fascism is a combination of left and right, and that is only if you classify nationalism and authoritarian as right-wing. I think it's fairly simple to demonstrate those two traits are found in both left and right states.
Its okay if you refuse to read the link and choose ignorance. You obviously cannot debate the point so I am wrong because random other people say so. Good night fool. Another ignorant rant from you.
That's not remotely true. Look, what distinguished the right and left in the late 19th and early 20th century is the former was aristocratic/democratic and the latter was socialist. Post-WWII saw the move in Western Europe to "democratic socialism". Now right and left are capitalist/conservative vs. socialist/liberal.
You should check The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. They look at it differently.
I have no idea why you keep referencing liberalism because that is irrelevant. The Nazi's were socialist. Not only in name but in practice as my earlier link proved. I realized when I posted the link that you would not read it so I was wasting my time.
I read it. Like most of your logic in this and most threads it was irrelevant to the point. Nazis were socialist. Left winged socialist. You cannot change facts.
Both articles are highly flawed. The first relies solely on association. This is a logical fallacy. Because some capitalists like the Nazis that doesn't mean that the Nazis were capitalists, nor does it mean that those capitalists agreed with everything about the Nazis. Saying the Nazis were not socialist because they imprisoned and killed socialists is like saying 16th century Catholics are not Christians because they imprisoned and killed Protestant Christians. Brothers sometimes disagreed to the point of death. The first murder was Cain killing Abel.
From a bystander's position only, I have yet to read anything posted in this thread that would lead me to change my opinion that Cajuneer and Dave are winning this debate. I may not even be in agreement with them currently, but from an argument's stand point, they are waxing the floor with you MountaineerWV
Yes..... both those extremely flawed . They fit in with the libs revisionist historians,academicians and think tanks. This sentence from your reply sums up what the articles attempt to do; "The latter article attempts to associate extreme nationalism with the right." The next revision we can expect is that Democrats are not and never were racists.
This is a case of argumentum ad verecundiam, appeal to authority. Argument is sound and valid because of the merits of the argument or it is not because it is unsound or invalid or both. Who says it doesn't make it a good argument.
Also your sources are a math professor, a blogger, and Wikipedia. I'll now swing the coup de gras.