Do you think there are more left-wing or right-wing truthers in the U.S.?

[specific_name]

Truthers tend to be anti-Federal government, not anarchists. States Rights conservatives are far from being anarchists.

How did this whole anarchism is right wing business get started? It's absolutely false. The right wing in the 19th century was comprised of monarchists, nationalists and by the 20th century also fascists. Later classical liberals, previously on the left, are more often identified with the right in the last 30-40 years.

The whole left-right paradigm gets kind of weird when applied to American politics in 19th century or even the early 20th. The major parties were both largely liberal (small l), compared to the originally dichotomy at the time of the French Revolution they would all be left. Only some of the Southern Democrats began to take on qualities of right by the time of late 19th century, but this was alongside socialist rhetoric. History is confusing like that, you need to think backwards and not impose current issues onto 1930's Germany parliamentary politics....otherwise we end up with the above description of Hitler as a decent running mate for Mondale.

p.s. the nazis did not have their base in labor, the KPD - the German Communist Party occupied the far left position and was in the Wiemar years, a popular party.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Right-wing, at least in the context of American politics, might be anti-government, but I see anarchists as more left-wing.

The left wing is more authoritarian than the right, at least in a historical sense; thus, the right wing is close to anarchism. The Founding Fathers were probably considered close to anarchists in their day because their ideal government was only one step ahead of anarchy (i.e. as little government as humanly possible).

     The left-wing, in the historical sense, advocates for radical if not revolutionary change, whereas the right-wing advocates for gradual change if any at all. With that in mind, most anarchists throughout history have identified with the left-wing, even though many totalitarians have also done so. To say that anarchism is of the right-wing has little or no basis in reality outside of the American political paradigm.

And we're discussing the American political paradigm.

     But you brought up Mussolini & Hitler, neither of whom were American. It seems to me that you are confused about which paradigm you're talking about.

[The Mikado]

It's wroth pointing out that both Mussolini and Hitler considered their positions as right wing.  Mussolini wasn't an ex-communist for no reason.

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

Right-wing, at least in the context of American politics, might be anti-government, but I see anarchists as more left-wing.

The left wing is more authoritarian than the right, at least in a historical sense; thus, the right wing is close to anarchism. The Founding Fathers were probably considered close to anarchists in their day because their ideal government was only one step ahead of anarchy (i.e. as little government as humanly possible).

     The left-wing, in the historical sense, advocates for radical if not revolutionary change, whereas the right-wing advocates for gradual change if any at all. With that in mind, most anarchists throughout history have identified with the left-wing, even though many totalitarians have also done so. To say that anarchism is of the right-wing has little or no basis in reality outside of the American political paradigm.

faceplam

[Verily]

Right-wing, at least in the context of American politics, might be anti-government, but I see anarchists as more left-wing.

The left wing is more authoritarian than the right, at least in a historical sense; thus, the right wing is close to anarchism. The Founding Fathers were probably considered close to anarchists in their day because their ideal government was only one step ahead of anarchy (i.e. as little government as humanly possible).

I'd actually expect someone to say that historically, the Left was more Libertarian than the Right.

Look at what Mussolini and Hitler did during their primes. Their major support bases were labor unions. They enacted universal health-care, fought for higher wages, and encouraged profit sharing among large corporations (i.e. "spreading the wealth around"). Also, Hitler was a strong proponent of animal rights.

Whoa, revisionism! The labor unions were Hitler's staunchest enemies (except the genuine Communists). Not sure on Mussolini; Italian politics are so bizarre and fragmented that he probably had some on his side. But certainly labor was as anti-fascist as you could be in the 1920s and 30s.

[feeblepizza]

I did not say that anarchism is right wing, I said that our founders were just one step ahead of anarchists by supporting as little government as is humanly possible.

[The Mikado]

Right-wing, at least in the context of American politics, might be anti-government, but I see anarchists as more left-wing.

The left wing is more authoritarian than the right, at least in a historical sense; thus, the right wing is close to anarchism. The Founding Fathers were probably considered close to anarchists in their day because their ideal government was only one step ahead of anarchy (i.e. as little government as humanly possible).

I'd actually expect someone to say that historically, the Left was more Libertarian than the Right.

Look at what Mussolini and Hitler did during their primes. Their major support bases were labor unions. They enacted universal health-care, fought for higher wages, and encouraged profit sharing among large corporations (i.e. "spreading the wealth around"). Also, Hitler was a strong proponent of animal rights.

Whoa, revisionism! The labor unions were Hitler's staunchest enemies (except the genuine Communists). Not sure on Mussolini; Italian politics are so bizarre and fragmented that he probably had some on his side. But certainly labor was as anti-fascist as you could be in the 1920s and 30s.

Mussolini's blackshirts forcibly disrupted labor meetings and beat the s**t out of socialist organizers.  He was no friend of labor.

[Gustaf]

I would say that the gulf between Communism and Fascism was actually a lot smaller than that between Social Democracy and Fascism. Make of that what you will.

[Sibboleth]

Look at what Mussolini and Hitler did during their primes. Their major support bases were labor unions.

...

...

...

Do you know who some of the first victims of the Nazi regime were? It's not hard to find out, so I think you should do that.

People like you disgust me. Nasty little pricks who abuse history - and defame the victims of fascist dictatorships - in order to justify their pathetic, pallid and utterly hollow political beliefs. It's far too common amongst the more moronic tendencies within the American Right, of which you are a particularly stupid example. I don't care if you're a ten year old with the intelligence of a brain-damaged chicken; there is simply no excuse for this sort of behavior.

[Sibboleth]

I would say that the gulf between Communism and Fascism was actually a lot smaller than that between Social Democracy and Fascism. Make of that what you will.

Still stealing arguments from Hannah Arendt, I see

[President Mitt]

A person having the support of some union workers is not the same as having the support of labor unions.

[feeblepizza]

I would say that the gulf between Communism and Fascism was actually a lot smaller than that between Social Democracy and Fascism. Make of that what you will.

The gulf between communism and fascism is very small indeed. Hitler wanted communists to join the Nazi Party because communism was more appealing than fascism.

[Gustaf]

I would say that the gulf between Communism and Fascism was actually a lot smaller than that between Social Democracy and Fascism. Make of that what you will.

Still stealing arguments from Hannah Arendt, I see

The woman who hung out with Heidegger? I know very little about her, so at least not consciously.

If I were to source this feeling it probably comes mostly from my dad and the Social Democratic culture he grew up in.

[Gustaf]

I would say that the gulf between Communism and Fascism was actually a lot smaller than that between Social Democracy and Fascism. Make of that what you will.

The gulf between communism and fascism is very small indeed. Hitler wanted communists to join the Nazi Party because communism was more appealing than fascism.

I didn't say very small.

Qualitatively, I'd say it goes something like Nazism - Conservatism - Communism - Liberalism - Social  Democracy (all terms in European context of course).

But I've always been of the opinion that National Socialism was rather distinctly different from all the other ideologies and isn't really a natural bedmate of any of them.

(for instance I think Hitler wanted everyone to join the Nazi party, except for the üntermensch. That is partly why they were so successful - at least rhetorically they weren't stuck in the bitter class divide of traditional politics. And before someone asks I'm making all of this up, so it might well be wrong)

[Insula Dei]

I would say that the gulf between Communism and Fascism was actually a lot smaller than that between Social Democracy and Fascism. Make of that what you will.

Still stealing arguments from Hannah Arendt, I see

The woman who hung out with Heidegger?

Poor Hannah, still only 'Heidegger's girlfriend'. And then you're wondering who's keeping the sisters down?

Though, yes, your point isn't one that's restricted to Arendt's work. I see it all the time. A marxist ( a term that's preferrable to the vagueness of 'communism', which could easily apply to Gracchus Babeuf or someone as well), of course, would argue that it fascism is, in fact, a logical extension of liberalism.

[Insula Dei]

Oh, and as for feeblepizza, what Al said plus the fact that I still think you should be banned for the GusChiggins stunt.

[The Mikado]

While the word Communist could apply to pre-Marxist communists like Babeuf or Saint-Simon or even Robert Owen (under the derogatory label "utopian communism"), from the second half of the 19th century on, non-Marxist communism is far less associated with the word communist.

[Gustaf]

I would say that the gulf between Communism and Fascism was actually a lot smaller than that between Social Democracy and Fascism. Make of that what you will.

Still stealing arguments from Hannah Arendt, I see

The woman who hung out with Heidegger?

Poor Hannah, still only 'Heidegger's girlfriend'. And then you're wondering who's keeping the sisters down?

Though, yes, your point isn't one that's restricted to Arendt's work. I see it all the time. A marxist ( a term that's preferrable to the vagueness of 'communism', which could easily apply to Gracchus Babeuf or someone as well), of course, would argue that it fascism is, in fact, a logical extension of liberalism.

I was using male domination techniques.

Actually, it was more to underline how unfamiliar I am with her. I know the name, but then mostly from what I read about Heidegger.

[Sibboleth]

The woman who hung out with Heidegger? I know very little about her, so at least not consciously.

Sorry, it's a little joke Arendt gets referenced all the time in a lot of humanities works in English and often without much reason. And one of the things she's best known for in that sort of context (other than that phrase) would be her stuff on Totalitarianism. Therefore...

[feeblepizza]

Oh, and as for feeblepizza, what Al said plus the fact that I still think you should be banned for the GusChiggins stunt.

Once again, not my fault.

[Sibboleth]

Any chance of you making an effort to defend your position? Or to admit that you were very, very, very wrong?

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Oh, and as for feeblepizza, what Al said plus the fact that I still think you should be banned for the GusChiggins stunt.

Once again, not my fault.

Didn't you admit you were actually amused with your friend behavior (such as using "n" word)? As amused that you encouraged him to continue?

Oh, you also made a sock during your temporary ban. Sock as poor it was discovered instantly.

Part of maturity, you're lacking of, is ability to admit your wrongdoings.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Look at what Mussolini and Hitler did during their primes. Their major support bases were labor unions.

...

...

...

Do you know who some of the first victims of the Nazi regime were? It's not hard to find out, so I think you should do that.

People like you disgust me. Nasty little pricks who abuse history - and defame the victims of fascist dictatorships - in order to justify their pathetic, pallid and utterly hollow political beliefs. It's far too common amongst the more moronic tendencies within the American Right, of which you are a particularly stupid example. I don't care if you're a ten year old with the intelligence of a brain-damaged chicken; there is simply no excuse for this sort of behavior.

Why isn't stupidity a bannable offense? WHY?!

[JewCon]

Depends.  Is your definition of "Truther" related only to 9/11 conspiracy?

When Bush was president I'm sure more left-wingers subscribed to that thinking than right.  Just like right wingers now subscribe as "birthers".  The fringe element seems to depend on who's president.  If it smears the right, then left will be the majority.  If it smears left, then right will be the majority.  So goes partisan bickering..

this.

[phk]

Depends.  Is your definition of "Truther" related only to 9/11 conspiracy?

When Bush was president I'm sure more left-wingers subscribed to that thinking than right.  Just like right wingers now subscribe as "birthers".  The fringe element seems to depend on who's president.  If it smears the right, then left will be the majority.  If it smears left, then right will be the majority.  So goes partisan bickering..

this.