The origin of the wrong idea that the nazis were lefties

[The Mikado]

The arrogance is in this thread is ing astounding. Instead of legitimate debate, just a bunch of junk comments. I probably should have known better considering the A-grade accuracy of most of the predictions on here for HRC last year.

I'd like to continue, but if it's just going to be a flood of junk then ing forget it.

Bye!

You do realize that you walked in here and started arguing with Al, a poster of some 15 years standing here, who has advanced degrees in History and is something of an expert in the topic you engaged him on, and when he walked all over you, you just walk away and pretend that you won the argument, right? You look ridiculous.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The arrogance is in this thread is ing astounding. Instead of legitimate debate, just a bunch of junk comments. I probably should have known better considering the A-grade accuracy of most of the predictions on here for HRC last year.

I'd like to continue, but if it's just going to be a flood of junk then ing forget it.

Bye!

[AtorBoltox]

The arrogance is in this thread is ing astounding. Instead of legitimate debate, just a bunch of junk comments. I probably should have known better considering the A-grade accuracy of most of the predictions on here for HRC last year.

I'd like to continue, but if it's just going to be a flood of junk then ing forget it.

Bye!

It is, on your part.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well now I know where the Socialist Louis XIV thing came from. Ironically, my response in that thread is fitting for here, "Not every 'state capitalist/Mercantilist' was a socialist."


Also Second post in the thread:

The funny thing about ideology is that all you have to do is redefine the metrics for right and left to re-label anyone you want. This is especially true for libertarians and those who have come into politics seeing everything as right versus left based on who supports big government and who supports limited government. This creates all manner of ill conceived groupings and explanations of historical events from the Nazis being left wing to the theory that the major parties in the US flipped at some defined date.

Adenauer used to claim the SDP was the heirs to Prussian Militarism and Nazism because it was statist.

It is rather difficult to separate factual historical analysis from one's own political bias. Marxists are the worst offenders of this, because they engage in extensive amounts of historical revisionism to make everything about class. While at the same time Marxists at least consider class elements and if you don't consider select historical events through that perspective you will neither understand conservatism, nor will you understand Germany.

Nazism combined several elements that were definitely conservative/reactionary policies in the context of German history. They were certainly militaristic (Prussian Militarism is hundreds of years old), they were economic nationalists (this dates from the 1830's and 1840's with the likes of Frederich List), they were anti-communist, and they sought to co-opt socialism as a means to facilitate power for a ruling elite (Bismarck's playbook through and through).

The classification of Nazism as left wing stems from classifying them based on their support for state control and growth in power of the state. It focuses 100% on what, defines said "what" as an "other" (this case, left wing) and then ignores the who, why and how of an event and therefore misses the target.

Especially the last paragraph. History is all about understanding the context of events and seeing it from the viewpoint of the time. The surest path to corrupting history is to 1) Ignore context and 2) engage in historical revisionism to fit your own ideological leanings. The irony is that libertarians are engaging in the same tactic as marxists, but instead of redefining based on class, everything is redefined based on the size of government.

Defining Socialism based on an actions alone, ignores the whole underpinnings of its existence. Socialism exists for a purpose, yes it starts with "use and expand government..." but the rest of it is just as critical to understand it, "to uplift the working and laboring classes". Granted not the textbook definition, but it makes the critical point.

When you strip history of purpose, of motivations, when you intentionally ignore the intent behind those actions, you are left with a dated, chronological list. If you want to deride state control, then just use the term statist which is far less specific then socialism, and can encompass big government from both the left and the right. That is far more credible then trying to make a case that Louis XIV is a socialist because his actions were similar to what socialists would use and I would note that is only applicable to few, select aspects. Socialists would not expel religious dissidents, socialists would not permit a dominant hereditary elite, etc etc.

For centuries the right was defined by a preservation of state control and state power in the form of the Monarchy, Church etc, and the left by opposition to that power. To try and distort that paradigm to super impose a modern political paradigm onto that period (which violates the first rule in my book of historical study), would by necessity, wreck any ability to objectively understand it.

The whole of human history is not defined by the struggle against government, just like the whole of human history is not defined by class struggle. Both did play major roles though.

[Edu]

Figures that a guy who claimed that Louis XIV had socialistic tendencies wouldn't have the balls to actually defend that nonsense.

[Anna Komnene]

I just thought I'd pitch in since I don't think anyone's mentioned it so far, but another example of a stark contrast between Nazis and Socialists is the role of women in their societies and their policies regarding women and marriage structures.

Communist countries like the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba prioritized upward mobility for women and relative gender equality. They wanted women participating in the workforce and in public life. If the workers were to control the means of production, it wouldn't make sense to bar half of the population from participating in that. While outcomes for women in the Soviet Union, etc weren't nearly as rosy as they liked to claim, women had higher levels of employment, civic engagement, higher wages, and more access than they had previously before the communists took power. The relative empowerment of women in their society was a source of pride for the Soviets, and they often liked to point out how they thought women were better off in their society than in the United States.

The Nazis, on the other hand, were extremely regressive on the role of women in society. They were very clear on their thoughts on the matter from the start, and one of the first policies they made as a marriage loan that encouraged young people to marry and could be paid off by having as many children as possible, thus relegating women from public life (where they had begun to occupy more standing during the Weimar Republic) to basically human baby-making machines during the Nazi period. This was not only reflected in the policies of the Nazis but also their propaganda and broader social message. It wasn't uncommon for the Nazi regime to talk about the role of women as mothers being essential and to rail against the idea of any freedom whatsoever for women.

It's not just about the size of the state apparatus but also the purpose. The Nazis used their state to encourage social conformity and required vast segments of their population to serve a specific purpose for the state (ie: making babies and raising them up to be good soldiers and/or future mothers/babymakers). That is pretty much the definition of fascism and the opposite of socialism. The goals of the Nazis and the Socialists couldn't be further apart when it came to how they viewed women and how they treated them in society.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The arrogance is in this thread is ing astounding. Instead of legitimate debate, just a bunch of junk comments. I probably should have known better considering the A-grade accuracy of most of the predictions on here for HRC last year.

I'd like to continue, but if it's just going to be a flood of junk then ing forget it.

Bye!

[HisGrace]

The arrogance is in this thread is ing astounding. Instead of legitimate debate, just a bunch of junk comments. I probably should have known better considering the A-grade accuracy of most of the predictions on here for HRC last year.

I'd like to continue, but if it's just going to be a flood of junk then ing forget it.

Bye!

Users have just stated facts and made arguments contradicting the idea that the Nazis should be considered left wing. Who cares if they're "arrogant"? I thought the modern right cared about "facts, not feelings"? If you disagree feel free to research the topic on your own to find out if anything said in this thread is wrong.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I'm sure Hitler is rolling in his fiery grave in deepest hottest Hell about how smug contrarian morons loudly proclaim his political project and its ideological descendents as being of the Socialist Left.

[The Mikado]

I'm sure Hitler is rolling in his fiery grave in deepest hottest Hell about how smug contrarian morons loudly proclaim his political project and its ideological descendents as being of the Socialist Left.

This is pretty key. Mussolini explicitly and messily left the Left due to his enthusiastic support of World War I against the Italian Socialists' hostility towards it, and Mussolini proudly burned all his bridges with his former comrades in the process. Hitler was never a leftist and hated them for life for what he saw was the Left's role in undermining the war effort in World War I by overthrowing the Imperial government in November 1918 and then launching its abortive subsequent revolution. Both of these people saw left wing politicians and organizations as their chief adversary (in Hitler's case, he thought that they were puppeteered by an international Jewish conspiracy, but whatever).

[vanguard96]

You're biased because the current concept of "economic rightism" as codified by Thatcher and Reagan did not really exist in the time. Hitler operated in the context of the Great Depression and World war 2, two situations which created an extraordinary amount of governmental power. But what Sibb is saying is that "government having a lot of power" or "lots of money being spent" is not a very useful indicator of left wing politics, otherwise you end up with patent absurdities (e.g. It would place the Democratic-Republicans to the right of Jefferson; it would class most powerful monarchs as socialist).

Left-wing economics especially then means redistribution of capital and power to the working classes. The Nazis had no interest in that.

So you're saying the spectrum is relative to the politics of the context? Sorry, but that's a bit too fluid and reductionist for my liking. I respectfully disagree; the Nazis are easy to categorise on a modern political scale and just because some of their actions contradict the notion of a left-wing party, doesn't disprove the idea that they were left-wing.

If that's not left-wing then I don't know what is.

I don't think you need to tell us that you don't now what left-wing means.

Cute.

Socialists and leftists have their own huge biases and blind spots and for the last 45-50 years have been keying on the fluid nature of truth as a means to justify their failed system. This is a classic example of post modernist politics.

Hence 'real socialism has never been tried' and the Western imperialists are typically to blame for pretty much anything else that is not blamed on a single accepted compromised figure like Stalin who they cannot make any excuses for. This is used to shift the blame from earlier figures like Trotsky and Lenin, and even Mao, Castro & Che for some. The amount of 'whataboutery' is immense. I mention the death tolls of their own people killed in the name of socialism - and they say 'but capitalism ...."

Of course, the views in earlier posts about 'economic rightism' ignore the 19th century liberal movement where for instance Frederic Bastiat was considered a part of the left wing in the French assembly but now would be considered right wing economically speaking if one wants to use the right and left terms.

In the 30's and 40's in particularly the two prevailing political views were socialism and nationalism. Individual rights largely took the backseat especially in regards to economic issues. In this maelstrom the views of figures of the times like Hayek, Mises, Rand, and others were very small islands in a sea of collectivism.

If one is inclined to be able to twist words as the left has continually done we could also contend that increased government support of companies with tax breaks, incentives, propping up of failing companies, award of special contracts and provisions, provision of monopoly power, and such is not 'crony capitalism' or 'capitalism' but instead 'bourgeois socialism' as Pareto mentioned in the late 1890's and can show disdain for it like we do for both 'proletarian socialism' and the New Left.

We can also see the public-private relations of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy in a limited sense bear a closer resemblance to the worst fears of where the US will head with its largest companies like Google, Boeing, Raytheon, and GE and their increasing participation in the advancement of US national security goals particularly as foreign wars and mass surveillance continue at these high levels. The Italian state was for its time not openly racist and there was a mutual admiration between FDR and Benito Mussolini. Fascist in and of itself does not mean racist.

[parochial boy]

^^ what?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You're biased because the current concept of "economic rightism" as codified by Thatcher and Reagan did not really exist in the time. Hitler operated in the context of the Great Depression and World war 2, two situations which created an extraordinary amount of governmental power. But what Sibb is saying is that "government having a lot of power" or "lots of money being spent" is not a very useful indicator of left wing politics, otherwise you end up with patent absurdities (e.g. It would place the Democratic-Republicans to the right of Jefferson; it would class most powerful monarchs as socialist).

Left-wing economics especially then means redistribution of capital and power to the working classes. The Nazis had no interest in that.

So you're saying the spectrum is relative to the politics of the context? Sorry, but that's a bit too fluid and reductionist for my liking. I respectfully disagree; the Nazis are easy to categorise on a modern political scale and just because some of their actions contradict the notion of a left-wing party, doesn't disprove the idea that they were left-wing.

If that's not left-wing then I don't know what is.

I don't think you need to tell us that you don't now what left-wing means.

Cute.

Socialists and leftists have their own huge biases and blind spots and for the last 45-50 years have been keying on the fluid nature of truth as a means to justify their failed system. This is a classic example of post modernist politics.

Hence 'real socialism has never been tried' and the Western imperialists are typically to blame for pretty much anything else that is not blamed on a single accepted compromised figure like Stalin who they cannot make any excuses for. This is used to shift the blame from earlier figures like Trotsky and Lenin, and even Mao, Castro & Che for some. The amount of 'whataboutery' is immense. I mention the death tolls of their own people killed in the name of socialism - and they say 'but capitalism ...."

Of course, the views in earlier posts about 'economic rightism' ignore the 19th century liberal movement where for instance Frederic Bastiat was considered a part of the left wing in the French assembly but now would be considered right wing economically speaking if one wants to use the right and left terms.

In the 30's and 40's in particularly the two prevailing political views were socialism and nationalism. Individual rights largely took the backseat especially in regards to economic issues. In this maelstrom the views of figures of the times like Hayek, Mises, Rand, and others were very small islands in a sea of collectivism.

If one is inclined to be able to twist words as the left has continually done we could also contend that increased government support of companies with tax breaks, incentives, propping up of failing companies, award of special contracts and provisions, provision of monopoly power, and such is not 'crony capitalism' or 'capitalism' but instead 'bourgeois socialism' as Pareto mentioned in the late 1890's and can show disdain for it like we do for both 'proletarian socialism' and the New Left.

We can also see the public-private relations of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy in a limited sense bear a closer resemblance to the worst fears of where the US will head with its largest companies like Google, Boeing, Raytheon, and GE and their increasing participation in the advancement of US national security goals particularly as foreign wars and mass surveillance continue at these high levels. The Italian state was for its time not openly racist and there was a mutual admiration between FDR and Benito Mussolini. Fascist in and of itself does not mean racist.

State Capitalism and State Socialism are also alternative words that come to mind to describe the same kind of state sponsored entities, monopolies, subsidies etc etc etc.

But the point of the thread if one wants to attack statism, then attack statism. That is far easier then trying to label every non-libertarian as a socialist, which leads to Hitler and I guess Louis XIV being labeled as socialist, which is pretty ridiculous.

I would also note on the matter of relativism. I think there are some moral values that are absolute, but at the same time like Truman quoted me in his signature, there are no angels in history. And taking an absolute standard leads one to throw them all in the trash, and that is bad because there are lessons to be drawn from historical figures. Relativism makes sense in the case of the Civil War period, because everyone was racist compared to today, you cannot take the critical lesson without judging actions in relation to the existing paradigm.

Libertarians often do this with Coolidge on protectionism and immigration and give him a free pass on those issues.

[vanguard96]

You're biased because the current concept of "economic rightism" as codified by Thatcher and Reagan did not really exist in the time. Hitler operated in the context of the Great Depression and World war 2, two situations which created an extraordinary amount of governmental power. But what Sibb is saying is that "government having a lot of power" or "lots of money being spent" is not a very useful indicator of left wing politics, otherwise you end up with patent absurdities (e.g. It would place the Democratic-Republicans to the right of Jefferson; it would class most powerful monarchs as socialist).

Left-wing economics especially then means redistribution of capital and power to the working classes. The Nazis had no interest in that.

So you're saying the spectrum is relative to the politics of the context? Sorry, but that's a bit too fluid and reductionist for my liking. I respectfully disagree; the Nazis are easy to categorise on a modern political scale and just because some of their actions contradict the notion of a left-wing party, doesn't disprove the idea that they were left-wing.

If that's not left-wing then I don't know what is.

I don't think you need to tell us that you don't now what left-wing means.

Cute.

Socialists and leftists have their own huge biases and blind spots and for the last 45-50 years have been keying on the fluid nature of truth as a means to justify their failed system. This is a classic example of post modernist politics.

Hence 'real socialism has never been tried' and the Western imperialists are typically to blame for pretty much anything else that is not blamed on a single accepted compromised figure like Stalin who they cannot make any excuses for. This is used to shift the blame from earlier figures like Trotsky and Lenin, and even Mao, Castro & Che for some. The amount of 'whataboutery' is immense. I mention the death tolls of their own people killed in the name of socialism - and they say 'but capitalism ...."

Of course, the views in earlier posts about 'economic rightism' ignore the 19th century liberal movement where for instance Frederic Bastiat was considered a part of the left wing in the French assembly but now would be considered right wing economically speaking if one wants to use the right and left terms.

In the 30's and 40's in particularly the two prevailing political views were socialism and nationalism. Individual rights largely took the backseat especially in regards to economic issues. In this maelstrom the views of figures of the times like Hayek, Mises, Rand, and others were very small islands in a sea of collectivism.

If one is inclined to be able to twist words as the left has continually done we could also contend that increased government support of companies with tax breaks, incentives, propping up of failing companies, award of special contracts and provisions, provision of monopoly power, and such is not 'crony capitalism' or 'capitalism' but instead 'bourgeois socialism' as Pareto mentioned in the late 1890's and can show disdain for it like we do for both 'proletarian socialism' and the New Left.

We can also see the public-private relations of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy in a limited sense bear a closer resemblance to the worst fears of where the US will head with its largest companies like Google, Boeing, Raytheon, and GE and their increasing participation in the advancement of US national security goals particularly as foreign wars and mass surveillance continue at these high levels. The Italian state was for its time not openly racist and there was a mutual admiration between FDR and Benito Mussolini. Fascist in and of itself does not mean racist.

State Capitalism and State Socialism are also alternative words that come to mind to describe the same kind of state sponsored entities, monopolies, subsidies etc etc etc.

But the point of the thread if one wants to attack statism, then attack statism. That is far easier then trying to label every non-libertarian as a socialist, which leads to Hitler and I guess Louis XIV being labeled as socialist, which is pretty ridiculous.

I would also note on the matter of relativism. I think there are some moral values that are absolute, but at the same time like Truman quoted me in his signature, there are no angels in history. And taking an absolute standard leads one to throw them all in the trash, and that is bad because there are lessons to be drawn from historical figures. Relativism makes sense in the case of the Civil War period, because everyone was racist compared to today, you cannot take the critical lesson without judging actions in relation to the existing paradigm.

Libertarians often do this with Coolidge on protectionism and immigration and give him a free pass on those issues.

Coolidge of course kept Hoover despite already showing interventionist tendencies as Treasury Secretary.
He's far from perfect in his handling of the Mississippi flood as well as some less than savory restrictions on Southern and Eastern European immigration numbers. However judging by the standards of the day he kept away from the KKK, improved recognition of native Americans and had dialogues with black business leaders.

When compared to Wilson, Harding, Hoover, and FDR he comes out pretty good overall.

And I did say "if"we're free to twist definitions around then in a worst case scenario what is happening could lead to a fascist government which does not necessarily mean ethnic cleansing...

It's not too late.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You're biased because the current concept of "economic rightism" as codified by Thatcher and Reagan did not really exist in the time. Hitler operated in the context of the Great Depression and World war 2, two situations which created an extraordinary amount of governmental power. But what Sibb is saying is that "government having a lot of power" or "lots of money being spent" is not a very useful indicator of left wing politics, otherwise you end up with patent absurdities (e.g. It would place the Democratic-Republicans to the right of Jefferson; it would class most powerful monarchs as socialist).

Left-wing economics especially then means redistribution of capital and power to the working classes. The Nazis had no interest in that.

So you're saying the spectrum is relative to the politics of the context? Sorry, but that's a bit too fluid and reductionist for my liking. I respectfully disagree; the Nazis are easy to categorise on a modern political scale and just because some of their actions contradict the notion of a left-wing party, doesn't disprove the idea that they were left-wing.

If that's not left-wing then I don't know what is.

I don't think you need to tell us that you don't now what left-wing means.

Cute.

Socialists and leftists have their own huge biases and blind spots and for the last 45-50 years have been keying on the fluid nature of truth as a means to justify their failed system. This is a classic example of post modernist politics.

Hence 'real socialism has never been tried' and the Western imperialists are typically to blame for pretty much anything else that is not blamed on a single accepted compromised figure like Stalin who they cannot make any excuses for. This is used to shift the blame from earlier figures like Trotsky and Lenin, and even Mao, Castro & Che for some. The amount of 'whataboutery' is immense. I mention the death tolls of their own people killed in the name of socialism - and they say 'but capitalism ...."

Of course, the views in earlier posts about 'economic rightism' ignore the 19th century liberal movement where for instance Frederic Bastiat was considered a part of the left wing in the French assembly but now would be considered right wing economically speaking if one wants to use the right and left terms.

In the 30's and 40's in particularly the two prevailing political views were socialism and nationalism. Individual rights largely took the backseat especially in regards to economic issues. In this maelstrom the views of figures of the times like Hayek, Mises, Rand, and others were very small islands in a sea of collectivism.

If one is inclined to be able to twist words as the left has continually done we could also contend that increased government support of companies with tax breaks, incentives, propping up of failing companies, award of special contracts and provisions, provision of monopoly power, and such is not 'crony capitalism' or 'capitalism' but instead 'bourgeois socialism' as Pareto mentioned in the late 1890's and can show disdain for it like we do for both 'proletarian socialism' and the New Left.

We can also see the public-private relations of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy in a limited sense bear a closer resemblance to the worst fears of where the US will head with its largest companies like Google, Boeing, Raytheon, and GE and their increasing participation in the advancement of US national security goals particularly as foreign wars and mass surveillance continue at these high levels. The Italian state was for its time not openly racist and there was a mutual admiration between FDR and Benito Mussolini. Fascist in and of itself does not mean racist.

State Capitalism and State Socialism are also alternative words that come to mind to describe the same kind of state sponsored entities, monopolies, subsidies etc etc etc.

But the point of the thread if one wants to attack statism, then attack statism. That is far easier then trying to label every non-libertarian as a socialist, which leads to Hitler and I guess Louis XIV being labeled as socialist, which is pretty ridiculous.

I would also note on the matter of relativism. I think there are some moral values that are absolute, but at the same time like Truman quoted me in his signature, there are no angels in history. And taking an absolute standard leads one to throw them all in the trash, and that is bad because there are lessons to be drawn from historical figures. Relativism makes sense in the case of the Civil War period, because everyone was racist compared to today, you cannot take the critical lesson without judging actions in relation to the existing paradigm.

Libertarians often do this with Coolidge on protectionism and immigration and give him a free pass on those issues.

Coolidge of course kept Hoover despite already showing interventionist tendencies as Treasury Secretary.
He's far from perfect in his handling of the Mississippi flood as well as some less than savory restrictions on Southern and Eastern European immigration numbers. However judging by the standards of the day he kept away from the KKK, improved recognition of native Americans and had dialogues with black business leaders.

When compared to Wilson, Harding, Hoover, and FDR he comes out pretty good overall.

And I did say "if"we're free to twist definitions around then in a worst case scenario what is happening could lead to a fascist government which does not necessarily mean ethnic cleansing...

It's not too late.

Yes and that is a relativist comparison in the context of history, hence the "Compared to".


Well there is always the danger when you concentrate wealth and power, that it can lead to corruption and worse. It is better to decentralize and split up power bastions, which our Constitution went to great lengths to try to do in terms of power. At the same time, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few Wall Street banks, is also dangerous and regulations that contribute to that should be abolished, and in a few select instances, the establishment of new ones to avoid such concentrations. Like perhaps and limit on the % of market share a single investment bank can have and greater enforcement of anti-trust laws. Though I doubt you would approve of the latter one, I think you would of the former. Banking is somewhat different from other industries, because bank failures can ripple through the economy.

[vanguard96]

You're biased because the current concept of "economic rightism" as codified by Thatcher and Reagan did not really exist in the time. Hitler operated in the context of the Great Depression and World war 2, two situations which created an extraordinary amount of governmental power. But what Sibb is saying is that "government having a lot of power" or "lots of money being spent" is not a very useful indicator of left wing politics, otherwise you end up with patent absurdities (e.g. It would place the Democratic-Republicans to the right of Jefferson; it would class most powerful monarchs as socialist).

Left-wing economics especially then means redistribution of capital and power to the working classes. The Nazis had no interest in that.

So you're saying the spectrum is relative to the politics of the context? Sorry, but that's a bit too fluid and reductionist for my liking. I respectfully disagree; the Nazis are easy to categorise on a modern political scale and just because some of their actions contradict the notion of a left-wing party, doesn't disprove the idea that they were left-wing.

If that's not left-wing then I don't know what is.

I don't think you need to tell us that you don't now what left-wing means.

Cute.

Socialists and leftists have their own huge biases and blind spots and for the last 45-50 years have been keying on the fluid nature of truth as a means to justify their failed system. This is a classic example of post modernist politics.

Hence 'real socialism has never been tried' and the Western imperialists are typically to blame for pretty much anything else that is not blamed on a single accepted compromised figure like Stalin who they cannot make any excuses for. This is used to shift the blame from earlier figures like Trotsky and Lenin, and even Mao, Castro & Che for some. The amount of 'whataboutery' is immense. I mention the death tolls of their own people killed in the name of socialism - and they say 'but capitalism ...."

Of course, the views in earlier posts about 'economic rightism' ignore the 19th century liberal movement where for instance Frederic Bastiat was considered a part of the left wing in the French assembly but now would be considered right wing economically speaking if one wants to use the right and left terms.

In the 30's and 40's in particularly the two prevailing political views were socialism and nationalism. Individual rights largely took the backseat especially in regards to economic issues. In this maelstrom the views of figures of the times like Hayek, Mises, Rand, and others were very small islands in a sea of collectivism.

If one is inclined to be able to twist words as the left has continually done we could also contend that increased government support of companies with tax breaks, incentives, propping up of failing companies, award of special contracts and provisions, provision of monopoly power, and such is not 'crony capitalism' or 'capitalism' but instead 'bourgeois socialism' as Pareto mentioned in the late 1890's and can show disdain for it like we do for both 'proletarian socialism' and the New Left.

We can also see the public-private relations of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy in a limited sense bear a closer resemblance to the worst fears of where the US will head with its largest companies like Google, Boeing, Raytheon, and GE and their increasing participation in the advancement of US national security goals particularly as foreign wars and mass surveillance continue at these high levels. The Italian state was for its time not openly racist and there was a mutual admiration between FDR and Benito Mussolini. Fascist in and of itself does not mean racist.

State Capitalism and State Socialism are also alternative words that come to mind to describe the same kind of state sponsored entities, monopolies, subsidies etc etc etc.

But the point of the thread if one wants to attack statism, then attack statism. That is far easier then trying to label every non-libertarian as a socialist, which leads to Hitler and I guess Louis XIV being labeled as socialist, which is pretty ridiculous.

I would also note on the matter of relativism. I think there are some moral values that are absolute, but at the same time like Truman quoted me in his signature, there are no angels in history. And taking an absolute standard leads one to throw them all in the trash, and that is bad because there are lessons to be drawn from historical figures. Relativism makes sense in the case of the Civil War period, because everyone was racist compared to today, you cannot take the critical lesson without judging actions in relation to the existing paradigm.

Libertarians often do this with Coolidge on protectionism and immigration and give him a free pass on those issues.

Coolidge of course kept Hoover despite already showing interventionist tendencies as Treasury Secretary.
He's far from perfect in his handling of the Mississippi flood as well as some less than savory restrictions on Southern and Eastern European immigration numbers. However judging by the standards of the day he kept away from the KKK, improved recognition of native Americans and had dialogues with black business leaders.

When compared to Wilson, Harding, Hoover, and FDR he comes out pretty good overall.

And I did say "if"we're free to twist definitions around then in a worst case scenario what is happening could lead to a fascist government which does not necessarily mean ethnic cleansing...

It's not too late.

Yes and that is a relativist comparison in the context of history, hence the "Compared to".


Well there is always the danger when you concentrate wealth and power, that it can lead to corruption and worse. It is better to decentralize and split up power bastions, which our Constitution went to great lengths to try to do in terms of power. At the same time, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few Wall Street banks, is also dangerous and regulations that contribute to that should be abolished, and in a few select instances, the establishment of new ones to avoid such concentrations. Like perhaps and limit on the % of market share a single investment bank can have and greater enforcement of anti-trust laws. Though I doubt you would approve of the latter one, I think you would of the former. Banking is somewhat different from other industries, because bank failures can ripple through the economy.

You are right I don't think setting a percentage limit would be ideal.

A lot of power is due to political favors & preferential treatment garnered through lobbying. It would be ideal to reduce its scope so that people object not only to Trump's Charlottesville stance and applaud business leaders not solely for leaving the presidential council but object also to the idea that these big corporations should be able to directly garner government favor.

Does anyone think those companies are going to work for small and midsize businesses when meeting the president?

FWIW with regard to the original topic of the thread, Tom Woods & Lew Rockwell on a recent Tom Woods podcast called Nazi Germany's economics a sort of hyper-Keynesian, third-way system. They didn't mention Hayek or Mises either.

I, for one find Rockwell too gloomy and doom-laden though obviously as a supporter of capitalism, I find his work in setting up the Mises Institute has been monumental, exposing a lot of historical writing dating back centuries - from across a broad spectrum of ideas from Ricardo, Smith, Locke, Mill, Bentham, Bastiat, Mises, Menger, Rothbard, and others. Whatever my views on his own stances are offset by the full library of free articles and e books from the original authors.

I like Tom Woods especially with Bob Murphy when they dissect Paul Krugman's platitudes in The NY Times. And he's got a good economic history perspective. Lately, especially on social media he has been very reactionary especially post-Charlottesville. Still, he's a largely positive voice in the liberty movement.

I am not a big fan of Hans Hermann Hoppe though who was a close follower of Murray Rothbard - so much so that he followed him to Vegas. He stands out for his strong position on freedom of disassociation to the point of forcible removal. It seems to attract people who do not seek out an exchange of ideas, let alone goods and services.

Seeing the people who are more provocative  types and Georgist single land use tax advocates or so-called "thick" libertarians argue is headache-inducing at times.

Seeing these squabbles I can understand the Objectivist / Ayn Rand Institute criticism of a lack of clarity of what libertarianism is.

But still I bristle at comments I see when someone cherrypicks one person's comments and say "that's why I am not a libertarian anymore". Would they say the same about Democrats or Republicans based on one person?