The Galloping Beaver has a great post that explains, in detail, the timelines and FACTS around how we ended up in Afghanistan, and more to the point, why we have to STAY.
“…If Canada were to suddenly withdraw because Canadians at home are getting squeamish, those who would have us do that should be aware that Canada would be forever viewed as an unreliable ally; not by the US, but by NATO. Canada relies on collective defence treaties to keep defence affordable. Withdrawl would result in no treaties, no collective defence and a huge price to pay in going it alone…”
It’s also cross-posted at The Torch.
UPDATE: Ooops, I forgot to h/t Cerebrus. Sorry about that.
I salute our new concern for civility. Thanx to all concerned.
Fascism=socialism is a new wrinkle to me. I will have to explore this angle further, and reserve comment until then. But I can point out two anomalies:
1. The only party to vote in the Reichstag against the enabling legislation giving the government of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party absolute power was the Social Democratic Party of Germany. The SPD then was prohibited, and its deputies largely wound up in concentration camps for their trouble, as did all socialists who could be identified as such.
2. The other major part of the cohort of political prisoners consisted of Communists.
Is it not strange that the German fascist socialists considered the archetypal socialists – domestic and international communists – the arch enemy to be imprisoned and destroyed at every opportunity, including war on the Sovier Union in 1941?
As I said, I reserve judgment until I know more. But perhaps I can voice the suspicion that this is another case of labels poorly fitting reality, and that one should be careful in defining and assigning “isms.”
Sasktaxpayer says the USA failed in Afghanistan.
Somebody better tell the Afghani President.
Uh, I think the USA actually won that war in five weeks (possibly a new record).
The Canadian Armed Force was a close (and effective) partner to the USA because of 9/11, a direct attack on Canadas’ closest ally.
high unemployment ? wtf ? theres ten thousand job openings just a bit west of saskatchewan .
I guess it is okay here if libs call President Bush a chimp or a fool etc.
They can call others juvenile or uncivil.
But IMHO, those who look at the atrocities and the starvation and the executions of 100 million people in the 20th century and still defend socialism are bozos (and worse).
Agitfact:
As I have said a few times above, while Fascists and Communists are both leftist, they differ on a very important point: their view of the scope of the revolution – the former see it as essentially national, while the latter see it as essentially international. They are not identical, but they are, however, both leftist.
As far as the persecution and prosecution by the Nazis of international communists (national, or purely domestic communists are Fascists) is concerned, it does not prove that Fascists are rightists or leftists, anymore than the fact that it is primarily conservatives in the US that are in favor of fighting the War on Terror proves that Al Quaeda is leftist. The argument is a non sequitur. The fact is, the Nazis persecuted and prosecuted everyone who disagreed with them in any way, even minor ones.
You have to look at the platforms of the movements, i.e., what policies they are advocating, and judge from there. Thirteen of the fourteen points of the Nazi party platform posted above are clearly leftist: ‘state guaranteed employment; the primary obligation to work for the good of the whole; abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes; the total confiscation of all war profits; the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts); a division of profits of all heavy industries; an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare; immediate communalization of the great warehouses; the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land; struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest; national education program; state health care; unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general.’
Now it is certainly debateable which party, communist or fascist, is more left than the other, but the fact is that they are both on the left side of the political spectrum. For example, socialism calls for the ‘nationalization’, meaning the ‘socialization’, of industries, property, etc. So in some sense, socialism is inherently national in character, which would seem to imply that fascism is more left than communism. That said, socialism is founded upon ideas which are held to be universal in their applicability, which would imply that the revolution of the proletariat is global, and in turn would make communism more left than fascism. When I say ‘more left’ I mean ‘more accurately representing socialism in its ideal form.’
MSYB, read your reply, but give me a day or so to do some digging. After all, putting fascism on the “left” is a major revision of where it’s been before. Right now I’m confused as to what is left, right – and real.
MSYB: “you have to look at the platform of the movements i.e.what policies they are advocating and judge from there.” That’s where your argument falls apart. You have to judge from what they do on the ground, Harper’s Conservative Party platform on the one hand, and their policy, on the other, for a contemporary example. The philosophical debate of where ideology falls on the spectrum is a non issue.
kelj:
No, the argument hangs together just fine as it is. I did not say that you never look at, or ignore actions. In fact, I expressly addressed the issue of red-on-red fighting, i.e., the conflict between communists and fascists. Given that the revolution is considered a moral imperative by both, their conflicting and incompatible interpretations of its scope will inevitably lead, not only to conflict, but to viewing the other ideology as immoral, even downright evil.
To explain further, for fascists the socialist revolution is necessarily confined to a particular society, a particular people – in the case of the Nazis, the Aryans – i.e., fascism is inherently ethnocentric or culturally specific (the exclusionary distinction may be racial or cultural or a mixture of both – perhaps even religious, as in ‘Islamofascism’ – although I’m not entirely comfortable using fascist in this context as I don’t see anything particularly leftist about them, I’d prefer something like, theocratic totalitarianism). Communists, on the other hand, view class conflict as a global phenomenon – i.e., it is the bourgeois v. the proletariat simply: no distinctions of culture, religion, race, etc. That they fought each other so intensely can be explained by a little bit of common sense: fights within families are quite often much more intense, because much more personal.
Even looking at the actions of the Nazis, which ones were properly speaking characteristic of the right side of the political spectrum? Racism is certainly found among the adherents of all ideologies. Wars have been started by people from all over the political spectrum as well. Genocide is also widespread, even though the four most famous perpetrators (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot) all have one thing in common – the inspiration of socialism. Economic nationalism, a.k.a. protectionism, is characteristic of the left, although it is not exclusive to them.
All that said, you cannot divorce political action from political rhetoric, the latter is a subset of the former. Further, actions are always informed by theory; political actions by political ideology. Ideas are an important part of politics, they are not a non issue – e.g., where would socialism be without Marx, or liberalism without Locke? Often the greatest thoughts are the greatest actions, even in political life; ideas inspire people to act, especially ideas about Justice.
I don’t see what you are getting at with the Conservative Party (I’m assuming you are referring to the Emerson floor-crossing incident). Even if a party deviates from their principles, it does not imply that they abandone them completely (and I would agree that this does represent a deviation from conservative principles in regard to party turncoats – personally I would have preferred to see him sit as a backbencher for at least 6 months).
Memo: Att: Willy Graham, Liberal ex-Min-Def-Can.
Willy, please get these gys outta there. You know what to do, Willy, eh? Pull a string, Willy; getem out.
Send thems alll to Hands Islands via UN; Willy, please, do somesing, quick. RSVP, Willy.
AP, aka MSM, says thems guys is “edgy”; getems out ASAP.
Advice to the edgy troopers: Shoot first; ask questions after. +
Cdn troops return to site of axe-attack
SHINKAY, Afghanistan (CP) – Armoured columns of edgy Canadian troops rumbled Sunday into the town where an axe-wielding teenager nearly killed a Canadian soldier. +
via cnews
�Fascism = national socialism = the left�
Well, MSYB, I have tried to come to grips with this equation. I did not realize that a search of �socialism=fascism� on technorati.com, for instance, would give me no less than 11 pages of links to blogs where this subject has been discussed. After hitting 6 pages of those links I gave up because the argumentation was becoming more and more circular � lot�s of opinion and links to other blogs, but no evidence to chew on.
I have a four volume German encyclopedia (Brockhaus) published between 1936 and 1938, which is a good source on what the Third Reich was and thought itself to be. Vol. 4 (1938) has just the dissertation I was looking for, �Sozialismus�, its forms from utopian to scientific, a definition of �German socialism,� and how it differed from Marxism/Bolshevism.
In a nutshell, National Socialism is a movement that organizes the individual and society on the basis of fundamental values determined by race, history, geography and providence (as in divine providence.) The value of the individual is determined no longer by heredity, station or wealth, but solely by his contribution to society. National Socialism opposes Marxism because of the latter�s internationalism, materialism and egalitarianism.
If we do a quick decision matrix using the NS fundamental values as criteria, we come up with:
Criterion Socialism Nat. Soc. Conservatism
(the Left) (Fascism) (the Right)
Race – x x
History – x x
Geography – x x
Providence – x x
Therefore, Fascism = conservatism = the Right. Fascism does not = socialism does not = the Left.
Not quite the desired result, but proof that it depends on how you stack the deck. Select your criteria, and you can prove anything. As you know, there even are websites detailing 14 reasons why the USA is a fascist country!
Personally, I tend to the conclusion that Fascism = national socialism = the left = right-wing propaganda. I would define a fascist not by how he advertises himself, but what he does. How the Third (or Twelve-Year) Reich developed, had precious little to do with the platform of 25 February 1920.
MSYB, I�m not trying to get your goat. I merely urge caution on all of us in how we treat and argue with each other. Tossing about assertions backed only by invective aint’t it. I would hate to hear Goebbels and Streicher laughing in hades.
An afterthought: why are neo-nazis classified as right-wing extremists in Germany?
Sorry the program mangled the matrix. It should show that race, history, geography and providence play no role in socialism (“-” against the criteria under that column), and are features in fascism and conservatism (“x” against the criteria under those columns.) Neither tried to pull a fast one nor to obfuscate, but fell victim to software limitations.
harpers in afghanistan damn hes sneaky
Agitfact:
“MSYB, I�m not trying to get your goat. ”
Well thank God! I have to sell him later this month to make ends meet. Got to pay rent, you know.
“I would hate to hear Goebbels and Streicher laughing in hades.”
I think everyone here agrees that the Nazis were Evil sons o’ b…… and that they are certainly not laughing, but rather burning in hell as we speak. In fact, that is probably why neither side of the political spectrum wishes to find them on their side.
That said, however, the proper classification of political ideologies is no laughing matter, especially since the improper classification of fascism as conservative has allowed leftist to argue the moral equivalence of left and right, and thus allowed them to avoid facing the moral depravity of communism in practice. I’ve never heard anyone praise the inner virtues of Nazism, and rightly so, but you hear all the time about the virtues of communism. I’ve always wondered at this, especially at how academics readily heap such praise upon them. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard: “communism has never been properly implemented” – I’ve never heard the same said about fascism.
But, to address your arguments:
Generally speaking your description of the difference between fascism and communism is correct, and accords with the distinction that I repeated a few times above, so I’m glad to see that we agree on at least some of the differences between fascist and communist thought. For clarity’s sake I’ll summarize what I think you meant in the “In a nutshell” paragraph: fascists and communists are opposed insofar as the revolution is seen in particular national terms for the former (hence the role of race, culture, geography, religion, and anything else you may wish to add), and in universal international terms for the latter (hence its non-discriminatory nature).
But, such a difference does not then imply that one is on the left and one on the right. To give a contemporary example. Insofar as neo-conservatives believe that the US can be a moral force in the world they are internationalist in their foreign policy approach: this outlook is characteristic of the Bush doctrine of regime change. Paleo-conservatives, on the other hand, take a more traditionally realist, isolationist, even nationalist approach: when you have to take action, it is only because it is in the national interest, and so all you do is kick ass, take names, then get the hell out and let the natives clean up the mess. While admittedly these are characatures, the examples demonstrate that the internationalist/nationalist difference is not one that determines whether a political ideology is socialist or conservative. (And as a side note, this also demonstrates the absurdity of characterizing the US as a fascist country given that fascism is nationalist and the Bush doctrine is internationalist.)
That said, however, your matrix has a couple of mistakes.
First, History does play a role in socialism. In fact, the nature of Marx’s dialectic is explicitly historical. According to Marx’s theory, the means of production at any given time will determine the form of social organization, and thus the character of class conflict. This implies that as the former changes throughout history, so too will the character of the latter two. Further, there is a necessary historical trajectory though which this development moves – generally speaking and highly condensed: feudalism, industrial capitalism, and then socialism/communism. This final stage of History, or End of History, is the result of the proletariat overthrowing their bourgeois masters thereby establishing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and corresponds with the gradual dissipation of government, which results from the needs of all being meet, i.e., eliminating the source of conflict. This is one of the reasons why Marx’s theory is often characterized as ‘historical materialism.’
The fact of the matter is that historical determinism is more typically associated with progressive, i.e., leftist, thought, not with conservative thought – which in its most extreme form is actually reactionary: the blind adherence to the status quo, not to the Spirit of History (to use Hegel’s phrase). So at least on this account your decision matrix is incorrect, a reliance on History is found on the Left, and in Fascism, but not on the Right.
Second, Providence for the Nazis really had more to do with Historical predestination, with being ‘the chosen people of History.’ It really had nothing to do with Christianity or any genuine sense of the Divine. Like in all other totalitarian ideologies, there is no room for God in fascism, there is only room for the Party, its leader, and its ideal of the State – the leadership cult of fascism (Mussolini and Hitler) is directly paralleled in that of communism (Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il). In many ways, the leader of the Party replaces God in totalitarian ideology (this fact was beautifully captured by Orwell in “1984,” i.e., Big Brother).
So, while Divine Providence typically does play a role in conservative thought, I would not say that it does in the case of fascism, but rather that Providence in fascism is another manifestation of the role of History. (This is another one of the reasons why I hesitate to use the word ‘Islamofascism,’ preferring ‘theocratic totalitarianism.’) Thus, I’d likely remove the ‘Providence’ row of the matrix, but this could be seen as nitpicking.
In the final analysis, however, you do not disagree with the classification of fascism as a leftist political ideology, but simply wish to characterize their propaganda as conservative, which might well be reasonable, but I’d first like to see a discourse analysis before I decided either way.
Finally, and in response to your last question, I would assume, at first glance, that the reason neo-Nazis in Germany are classified as extreme right is because Nazis are classified as extreme right – this misclassification is ubiquitous in Western historical education. That said, one would have to examine their political platform, since it is always possible that they are free-market racists.
MYSB,
1. Re. Goebbels and Streicher laughing – because
their propaganda methods are alive and well and in daily use by their conquerors.
2. Improper classification of fascism – precisely. The Right is trying to realign the traditional theoretical political spectrum as a progaganda weapon against the Left. I missed the start of the redefining moment. Was it the start of the Bush Administration by any chance?
3. Proper implementation of Communism – depends on your definition of communism: Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyite or Stalinist version? As to inner virtues, to me ‘isms don’t have any, consisting only of words of greater or lesser relevance and meaning – and danger.
4. Differentiation of fascism and communism – I merely paraphrased what the Brockhaus said. I can think of a few other difference in theory and practice.
5. Nationalist vs. internationalist – depending on use, possibly a false dichotomy. The nationalist Hitler conquered Europe and bled to death trying to conquer the SU. (Great “pre-emptive war” that one, someone might have warned the States off using that term.) Again, to my mind, its not what the ideology says, nor even how you use it as a rationale – it’s what you do that defines what you are. Nations (incl. the USA)act out of interest, using ideology for window dressing. The last sentence of “Mein Kampf” would be right up Bush’s alley.
6. The history criterion – I don’t consider Marx’s dialectic historical; I consider it to be ficticious, and I don’t have much use for determinism either, so no Hegelian/Marxist/ Engelian dialectic from me. Could we agree that socialism, where practiced, is trying to change if not escape its local history, whereas fascism glorifies it and tries to implement the historically grown, perceived manifest destiny? I think the history criterion is relevant.
7. Providence – the German used is “Vorsehung”, which has nothing to do with history and everything to do with God. NS military belt buckles carried the motto “God with us”, not “History with us.” I’m not sure that God has much room in western non-fascist countries either, except in the form of lip service, in which case they would be positively fascist.
8. Fascism as a leftist political ideology – so far I see no reason to agree with you on that point. You know, when something has been considered to walk like a duck and talk like a duck for 50 years, it well might be a duck.
Is anyone still interested in this “dialectic,” or should we merely agree to disagree, and get back to Afghanistan?
Agitfact:
Sorry, I misread your equation. My mistake.
“Differentiation of fascism and communism – I merely paraphrased what the Brockhaus said.”
You did not present it as such, you presented it as your view, as the product of your own research efforts. Besides, its your source and I demonstrated how it accords with what I have been saying.
“I can think of a few other difference in theory and practice.”
Don’t simply assert it, do it – on your own criteria it’s not what you say that matters but what you do that does (nice quote of the new Batman movie by the way).
“The history criterion – I don’t consider Marx’s dialectic historical”
Well, on this point you’re simply mistaken, any reading of Marx shows that. On the point of it being fictious, you may well be correct, that is, if it is not true – but in no way have you demonstrated that.
“I think the history criterion is relevant.”
Reasons?
“Providence – the German used is “Vorsehung”, which has nothing to do with history and everything to do with God.”
It it is much more deterministic, and the Nazis redefined it from any Christian sense of the word. Historical determination is much closer in meaning than Divine Providence. See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorsehung
“Is anyone still interested in this”
Probably not. It’s quite a ways down the front post-page now.
“or should we merely agree to disagree, and get back to Afghanistan?”
Sure, why not, I can live with that. One of the great things about freedom is the freedom both to argue if you want to and not to argue if you don’t want to.
MSYB: No matter how you parse it theologically, the Mac Paps were there in ’36, ahead of the pack, putting their money where their mouths were, unlike these latter day armchair chickenhawks, all gung ho behind the security of their open mouth mikes( Gormley), their blogs,etc. These are the true free riders. Egregious as Emerson’s crossing was, I was refering to something much deeper, much more fundamental regarding the Conservatives. For example, the Conservatives have put the kibosh on a fickle Liberal commitment to advance a tiny step down the road to enlightenment thru the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana and give every indication of embracing the big government, jackboot to the throat approach that is the War on Drugs (some drugs) so favoured in the Land of the Free. This is not a deviation from principles of equality of all Canadians, Freedom of the individual, Non-interventionist government,etc., it grinds them into the dust. How can Harper credibly preach freedom internationally under such circumstances. The platform is meaningless. You can only judge a movement by it’s actions.