Thursday, February 2, 2012

Socialist Speak

If mass murder is Right Wing, why do Liberals wear these guys on their t-shirts?
I have finally deciphered a key bit of Socialistspeak, as it will be called in Would You Like Borders With That Socialism.

It does not matter how Left a Socialist regime was, if they were not Stalinists they are labeled Right Wing.  I know, I have said that before right here on this blog, but it deserves repeating.

When Castro eliminated unions, it was ignored.  Yet another thing in the memory hole.  Noticing a pattern yet?  When Mao Nationalized/Socialized unions (consolidated all into one union under Mao), it was hailed.  When the All-China Federation of Trade Unions was abolished in 1966, well good luck finding any comments, especially negative, online about that.  When Mussolini and his Parliament instituted milder measures, this is what is said about it now?
The trade unions were also deprived of any independence and were integrated into what was called the "corporative" system. The aim (never completely achieved), inspired by medieval guilds, was to place all Italians in various professional organizations or "corporations", all of which were under clandestine governmental control.
Is it the "clandestine" part that makes National/Yellow Socialist Mussolini  "Right Wing?"  You will never get a Socialist to admit that.  They just recite, as if their school teachers were infallible deities, that "Mussolini was a Fascist!" with the expectation that everybody agrees the Fascist party was "Right Wing."

The fact of the matter is, any provable measure used to call National Socialists "Right Wing" are all Socialist, authoritarian, totalitarian measures that are common among all Socialists, Red or Yellow.  It is also the opposite of laissez-faire/free-market measures.

Seriously, this is shaping up to be a mental disorder and Liberal Arts departments around the world are spreading the disease.  Witness what passes to be a scholarly critique of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism (order from link at the left), by none other than the George Mason University History News Network.  Full article at the link, I will examine one little bit here:

Professor Robert Paxton
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 - 14:27
The Scholarly Flaws of "Liberal Fascism"

Robert Paxton is emeritus professor of history at Columbia University. His latest book is Anatomy of Fascism (Vintage, 2005). 
Jonah Goldberg knows that making the Progressives, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and FDR the creators of an American fascism – indeed the only American fascism, for George Lincoln Rockwell and other overt American fascist or Nazi sympathizers are totally absent from this book – is a stretch, so he has created a new box: Liberal Fascism.
National Socialist George Lincoln Rockwell
True, Jonah left George Lincoln Rockwell out of his book (taking this on faith, my copy is not here with me at Starbucks at least GLR is not in the index), but I will not be leaving him out of my book.  It appears that Professor Paxton has written at least one book, so he should know that there is not an infinite amount of room to include every instance and example into one volume.  Current National Socialists are indeed Socialist, so was Rockwell, and they are open and proud about this fact, just as Hitler was.  Just listen to Hitler in this subtitled video:
The article really deserves a Fisking, but I will not bore you with that here.  A complete book on the topic of Yellow/National Socialism being a true flavor of Socialism could be written just off of this article.  Here is the main part I wanted to talk about here:
Communists voted with me, not against me.
Goldberg simply omits those parts of fascist history that fit badly with his demonstration. His method is to examine fascist rhetoric, but to ignore how fascist movements functioned in practice. Since the Nazis recruited their first mass following among the economic and social losers of Weimar Germany, they could sound anti-capitalist at the beginning.
Which is what they were throughout their existence. Which is why the Red Socialists (Communists) voted with them, on orders from Stalin.  Goldberg actually does go into NS policies at length, especially the health-food craze and their anti-smoking jihad.  I do not see how it is possible to read the book and miss this.
Goldberg makes a big thing of the early programs of the Nazi and Italian Fascist Parties, and publishes the Nazi Twenty-five Points as an appendix. A closer look would show that the Nazis’ anti-capitalism was a selective affair, opposed to international capital and finance capital, department stores and Jewish businesses, but nowhere opposed to private property per se or favorable to a transfer of all the means of production to public ownership.
Any honest look at the National Socialist Worker's Party Twenty-five Points shows that the party aims at taking the decision making in the means of production out of the hands of private ownership and have the government run things.  After they were elected, they delivered on those promises.  All National Socialist movements, then and now, promise to take the profits from private businesses and have the government tell the owners how to run them.  Hillary Rodham Clinton said the same things in her campaign against Barack Hussein Obama, and Obama delivered National Socialism to the energy, automobile and healthcare industries.
Note what The National Socialist German Worker's Party says about the arms industry in that very document.  It is the same thing that Mussolini said in his manifesto and it is a condensed version of Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party Platform.  This is not to say that it isn't full of racism and bigotry, it has that in spades too.  However, nobody can point to a free market item in the Twenty-five Points nor in Hitler's government.

He belongs on t-shirts next to Lenin
Here is another gem:
Having headlined the violent history of “liberalism,” Goldberg soft-pedals that of fascists, especially Mussolini. There are the ritual references to Auschwitz, but he denies that racial extermination is integral to Nazism by noting how many Progressive reformers fell for Eugenics in the early twentieth century.
NO! Goldberg never asserted any such thing, but it reveals the Leftist writer's bias of Professor Paxton. Goldberg, in print and on the stump, said that if you want to focus on genocide, then call that "Hitlerism" or something else, (I am comfortable with calling it Naziism myself) because the Nazis and the Vici were the only National Socialists (some call them fascists) doing that.  Yes, it had its roots in the earlier Eugenics movement, but the Italians and Spanish did not partake in it.  I will add that neither did the Greeks or Portuguese.  Maybe Professor Paxton regularly confuses Franco with Mussolini with Hitler with whomever was running Vici France.  Also, Goldberg addresses the Progressives as pre-fascist, he does not ignore it a bit.
His Mussolini – that lifelong “man of the left – is seen largely through the eyes of his many foolish American admirers. Che Guevara killed more people than Mussolini, he asserts (p. 194). This is possible only if one leaves out of the picture the murder of over a thousand Italian citizens by the squadristi who brought Mussolini to the brink of power in 1922, or of the Italians’ use of poison gas, forced displacement into camps, and aerial strafing against the populations of Libya and Ethiopia.
Finally, a detail I can use in my book that I was unaware of, but the pissing contest over who was a worse despot is pretty petty.  The throngs of Left Liberals who sport Che t-shirts should be evidence enough that murder is indeed a Liberal value.  Liberal Leftist Socialist Mussolini did it, and I will concede to Paxton that Che tried to eclipse it.  How is this any evidence at all that Mussolini was not a creature of the Left?

Soviet ally Nasser of Egypt used chemical weapons in Yemen throughout the 1960s and into 1970s, a history that is still easy to find.  Does that make the Soviets National Socialists of the 'Right Wing?'  Lenin murdered more people than Mussolini, Che and Fidel combined.  Is that what makes Lenin a person of the Left, his murders?  So Hitler murdered more than all for of the just mentioned people and Stalin beat that in just Ukrainians while Mao beat them all.  Seriously, the Leftists need to stop bringing up any murders in their 'evidence' against Yellow Socialism.

Face it Leftists, Mussolini and Hitler belong to you, not us.


  1. Mussolini and Hitler were both on the Right: Learn history.

    The speech you posted completely destroys your nonsense:

    "The economic effects that follow from every real and practical initiative benefit the people as a whole.... we must teach the German worker how indispensable are the inventor and business leader"(aka capitalist). "strikes and lockouts will no longer be tolerated"

    Mussolini and Hitler also privatized industry just like their rightwing heirs Reagan and Thatcher.

    Read about Hitler's allaince with big buisness you dunderhead: Krupp,Flick, Hugo Boss etc.

    1. "Mussolini and Hitler were both on the Right: Learn history."

      The only thing they were "Right" of was Stalin and Trotsky. They were even Left of FDR, who adored Mussolini and Stalin. There was not a free-market thing about any of them. Read their own manifestos and doctrines. People like you keep reciting this 1928 vintage Stalin party line of "fascism" in order to sell Totalitarian Communism (look it up at Marxists.Org).

      Your notion of "privatized" is hilarious. They nationalized industry. See the history of the Volkswagen corporation and learn something there too.

      Now, riddle me this one Eisenstein, how do dictators become the toadies of big business when they can jail and murder entire populations? Mussolini and Hitler both had "wars" on business, entire industries. One of significant note is Hitler's war on tobacco, that current prohibitionists translate and copy. Wow, some alliance, huh?

      While you are at it, look up "crony capitalism" which has a word you mysteriously left out of your comment.

    2. Also, if it is your notion that a government controlled labor market is "Right Wing" you really have your wings messed up. There is not a thing free-market about that.

      How did Lenin and Stalin handle strikes?