I think the whole concept of right and left is false.74novaman wrote:Amen!!!baldeagle wrote:I think the classical way of defining political systems is completely wrong. Both communism and facism are totalitarian systems. So I think it is incorrect to call fascism a "right side" system and communism a "left side" system. I believe a better way of defining political systems is from anarchy on the right to totalitarianism on the left. Somewhere in the middle is where I would put democracy and to the right of that a republic (which is what America is supposed to be.)
During the 30s, the most common party switch to make in Germany was not from Communist to Social Democrat, or Nazi to Social Democrat, but Communist party to Nazi party and back. Why? because they had the same goals!
The attempts to paint the Nazis as far right wingers are incredibly off base. They and the communists wanted the exact same things...Authoritarian control of the govt.
I'm with bald eagle. To me, it is incredibly misleading and ignorant to paint the spectrum this way:
Anarchists-Communists-Democrats-Republicans-Nazis
If you're going to insist on linear, this is my take. From Authoritarian on the left to no govt on the right.
Communists/Nazis-Socialists-Democrats-Republicans-Libertarians-Anarchists
Though a 2 axis description is far more valuable. I love this guys explaination:
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=1644
Sorry for the rant, but Nazis as "right wingers" is one of my biggest pet peeves.
There are only two ways for humans to interact with one another: cooperation or coercion. You can either peacefully get along, agree and negotiate, do things voluntarily, and not force others or be forced. Or, you can initiate force, or the threat thereof, to get others to bend to your will, or have the same done to you. Whether that force is called totalitarian, or socialist, or communist, or fascist, or Tsarist, or collectivist, or cultural, or pious, or by a majority rule, or by any other name is of little consequence. I doubt the prisoners of the gulag comforted themselves by knowing that at least the concentration camps where they were enslaved and died were communist death camps rather than the fascist death camps a bit to the west (or the other communist ones farther east). The end result is the same.
So, when encountered with a social system, the key feature is the extent to which some are forced by others. Can individuals peacefully abstain from a particular policy without official punishment? Can I engage in activity with others when all parties involved do so voluntarily? Am I free to go?
Bringing up his reading list is interesting. In order to draw conclusions from it you would need to know his opinions on them, why he liked or didn't like them, etc. I'd hate to be judged on my bookshelf without being able to explain it, granted, it would be pretty hard to figure me out if that were to happen (plenty of polar opposites on my shelves).
I think it is clear that he was just a miserable wretch of a person and took it out on others. I don't think that the type of ideology he may hide behind is terribly important as it does not change the physical attacks he carried out on innocent others. Killing someone who does not want to die out of hatred is no different than doing so out of some sort of "love".
