Here in the UK we have a right wing Government full of posh boys wrecking the place although they were preceded by a Labour Party that wheeled so far away from their left wing ideals that they lost 40% of their membership during their time in power.
What we face now is the three main parties representing big business's interests and none that care about working-class people and this is where film director Ken Loach's Left Unity Party hopes to step in.
Less than a year ago Ken Loach was lamenting the lack of a proper Left Wing party campaigning against austerity, wars and fighting for a fairer society and this weekend he put his money where his mouth is and the fruit of his labours were realised with the introduction of Britain's latest left wing party.
If it gains traction, and it already has a membership of over 10,000, it could make things interesting because we do need a genuine leftist party to either give the Labour Party a bit of a scare and drag them back to left after the Blair years or to usurp Labour as the apparent party of the left.
It could always backfire and split the Labour vote and we could be heading towards another five years of Conservative nasty party politics and nobody wants that, or shouldn't want that if they have a shred of humanity about them.
The problem isn't that the left lacks supporters as it doesn't, but that it has never gathered around a single party so we end up with The Communists, Socialist Workers Party, the Green Party, Occupied, The Labour Party and a plethora of other parties tugging splintering the support.
Maybe, if Left Unity can amalgamate the supporters into a broad left wing party, it may be able to pull it off and become a force in British politics.
If it can learn to avoid the pit-falls of other left-wing parties that have unsuccessfully attempted to bring together the left and becomes the choice of Party for those who want to defend workers rights, oppose privatisation of the essentials, oppose austerity, protect the NHS and education, take on the bankers and financial institutions ruining the economy, oppose wars of aggression, reform the economy to protect the most vulnerable in society and above all make society fairer, then it is a welcome addition worth a look at.
If it becomes a short term fad that fizzles out under the weight of a egotistical leader then us on the left will be waiting a lot longer for a real party to put our cross beside and hoping that Ed Milliband is taking notes and move the Labour Party back to its original roots of a party of the people.
Lucy,
ReplyDeletewith all due respect Hitler:
1. fiercely advocated socialism
2. financed the war machine by seizing assets from the wealthy
3. reduced unemployment by creating government programs
4. did not eat meat and followed a strict vegetarian diet
5. did not believe in God, harshly criticized the catholic church and was fundamentally opposed to Christianity
In spite of all the romantic views of Hitler, in today's world, he would be labled a leftist
q
I hope that a History book is on your list for Santa this year q.
ReplyDeleteWith respect back at you, the Communist hating, meat gnawing fuhrer who spent his military career telling people he was doing Gods work was not a leftist, he was one of your god bothering right wing types unless fascism has become a left wing ideology while nobody was looking. You also have Thatcher and GW Bush don't forget.
As with that infuential musician that you didnt agree with we dont want facts to get in the way...
ReplyDeleteQ
He was certainly a facsist but he was a left wing facsist
ReplyDeleteQ
A left wing fascist? Have you been hitting the eggnog already? My right wing Communist friends will love this.
ReplyDeleteCommunism is right wing? Each to their own ability, each to their own need isnt a leftist? Castro is right wing? Chavez was right wing? Really?
ReplyDeleteQ
Q: I’m a bit disappointed. I thought the old ‘Hitler was a socialist’ thing would have been beneath you. Invoking this tired old meme instantly tells you much about the person doing it, and nothing at all about Hitler. It tells me that you associate statism and authoritarianism only with the left, when we know there have been many examples (apart from the Third Reich) of right-wing statist dictators throughout history e.g. Amin, Franco, Suharto, Batista, Pinochet, Abacha, the Duvaliers, Kabila, etc, etc, etc.
ReplyDeleteThere’s a strong argument that says the extremes of the political spectrum start to resemble one another, and that’s fair enough. I think that’s right. But to say he ‘advocated socialism’ or was a leftist is just plain wrong. In Mein Kampf he goes on & on (and on & on, what a tiresome book) about protective private property and private initiative and the power of profit motive… As a result, socialists were his sworn enemies. Well, one of them.
In any case, what Hitler really was, was an outlier. Using his real or assumed place on the political spectrum as any kind of tool to gain the upper hand in (‘He’s over here on the spectrum, which makes everyone else over there wrong”) is pretty tasteless, tacky, and ultimately meaningless.
Lucy: I have to admire your optimism for an electable far left party in the UK, bearing in mind that even Ed Miliband seems far too left wing for most of the country!
I can't believe that stab at sarcasm went over your head q.
ReplyDeleteIt did start off as a dig at Ryan Giggs but then i had a moment of indecision whether he played left wing or right wing so replaced the opening line with Hitler & his pals.
Cheezy, i don't know how far left this new party will place itself, the other side of the current Labour Party would be ideal as not far enough left to scare people away but far enough to be an alternative to Labour. One of the founders is Roger Lloyd-Pack, Trigger from Only Fools and seeing him just reminds me of that Del Boy quote, Why'd they call him Trigger? cos looks like an horse and the Gandhi, he made 1 great film and you never heard from him again.
dont i always miss lucy
ReplyDeleteq
Q: I’m a bit disappointed. I thought the old ‘Hitler was a socialist’ thing would have been beneath you. Invoking this tired old meme instantly tells you much about the person doing it, and nothing at all about Hitler. It tells me that you associate statism and authoritarianism only with the left
ReplyDelete>> then I’m disappointed in you cheezy because I did not communicate that anywhere. I didn’t say fascism is only the domain of the left. I said hitler is a leftist fascist in dissent with lucy who said implied that fascism was the domain of the far right and then globbed Bush with Hitler. On a side note, Obama has abused democracy in America more than Bush with his use of executive orders. Other left fascists include castro, mao, stalin <<
There’s a strong argument that says the extremes of the political spectrum start to resemble one another, and that’s fair enough. I think that’s right. But to say he ‘advocated socialism’ or was a leftist is just plain wrong. In Mein Kampf he goes on & on (and on & on, what a tiresome book) about protective private property and private initiative and the power of profit motive… As a result, socialists were his sworn enemies. Well, one of them.
>> my understanding is that he wanted power and did what was needed to eliminate competition including fellow socialists. His book is one source. Some credible historians say he wrote it when being blunt and honest would harm his plans and he used it to deceive. Other sources say behind the scenes (personal letters and such he took a much different stand) and had the ambitions and beliefs I noted to lucy <<
q
but then it is stuff i studied in the 70's. perhaps i mis recall
ReplyDeleteq
Who's your favourite Hitler scholar? I think you might want to re-read Bullock or Fest or (best of all, IMO) Kershaw. None of the greats regard Hitler as having had an even remotely socialistic view of the world.
ReplyDeleteAlso, reading Mein Kampf itself would disabuse you of the notion that he ever 'advocated' socialism. Almost the entire book is a denunciation of what he regarded as the twin evils of the world - Marxism/Socialism and Judaism. To put it extremely mildly, Hitler did not consider socialists his 'fellows'!!
Interpreting the Third Reich is still a 'live' issue in academic circles; however it's more about issues like- was the Holocaust intentional or functional?, what of the Germanist theory? as well as the validity of the 'Sonderweg' contries i.e. following their own course of capitalism/democray distinct from elsewhere.
i.e. The Hitler = Socialist advocates don't really feaure in serious dicussions on this matter.
I regard the 'Hitler was a socialist' meme as an unfortunate side-effect of our internet age (like many other un-evidenced/ product of our internet age, when any Tom/Dick/Harry can basically make shit up and whoever wants to believe it can believe it. And when what Tom/Dick/Harry has written reinforces the existing views and prejudices of thousands & thousands of people, they can become quite popular.
Sorry, that was me. Didn't mean to be Anonymous :)
ReplyDeleteI dont know why the right have to try and make out Hitler was a lefty, not only woefully ignorant and worthy of mockery but it isnt as if there are a lack of murderous tyrants to choose from on the lefts side.
ReplyDeletecheezy
ReplyDelete1, i was responding to lucy classifying bush in the same category as hitler -again. Obama is not a psychopathic freak like hitler, but he is a closer fit to hitler than bush from a beliefs perspective.
2, lucy often calls out the rightists that were fascists but never the leftists. One occurrence does not mean anything, but repeated occurrences imply she sees fascists as right only, when it is actually both extremes.
3, the traits below are common positions of the left (though they are obviously generalizations and come with the associated faults of generalizations). To me a fascist is someone that uses violence to enforce their views, especially on their own people – regardless of their views. From what i remember, hitler had these traits, and in my view was a leftist:
< advocate socialism
< seize assets from the wealthy
< reduce unemployment by creating government programs
< eat a vegetarian diet
< advocate atheism and oppose organized religion
4, you focused on one trait. There were 4 other traits rarely found among people of the right...
5, i did not write or imply that fascism is leftist only. I wrote that hitler was. Though i think the most modern fascists are left: mao, stalin, castro, hitler
6, I studied Hitler long ago in the 70’s. I don’t recall any of the authors. It was part of a political science class in college. I read some stuff a few years ago at the Army Officers Club library in D.C. ago, but stumbled upon the book, not looking for it. I’m not a Hitler scholar and don’t know the authors you cited.
7, i found this quote including “ANTI-CAPTALISM” attributed to Kershaw (author you noted). But, the quote came before mein kampf was written:
“While monitoring the activities of the DAP, Hitler was attracted to the founder Anton Drexler's antisemitic, nationalist, ANTI-CAPITALIST...” Source: Kershaw, Ian (2008). Hitler: A Biography. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
q
A nony mouse, q sometimes goes off on these flghts of fancy. Baffling certainly but entertaining.
ReplyDeleteq, i simply put together a list of right wingers, Hitler, Bush, Farage and Thatcher, all famous well known right wingers (ok, maybe not Farage outside of UK but he was a last minute substitute for Ryan Giggs as previously explained). What you read into it was in your own mind.
Was just a way in to the post about a new left wing party for me, didn't think you had succumbed to the wrongheaded notion that the meat eating bible thumper was a lefty. Bush is a meat eating bible thumper also as i recall but not sure about Nigel Farage or Ryan Giggs.
Except hitler is left wing with mao and stalin.
ReplyDeleteDamn you lefties murdered a lot of citizens in the name of equalty.
Q
As i said, baffling but entertaining.
ReplyDeleteMan, they taught some weird shit in schools in the 1970s...
ReplyDeleteIf this is where eating fondue and wearing kaftans and listening to the Osmonds got you, I'm glad I'm a child of the 80s ;-)
Q: As we're discussing the ideology of the actual regime, then you might want to read Kershaw's 'The Nazi Dictatorship' to find out about the ideology of the Third Reich during their rise to power and then from '33 to '45... (rather than the period before Adolf's solitary ball dropped, and when his Charlie Chaplin moustache was embarrassingly wispy).
ReplyDeleteHis basic thesis is that the Third Reich was a radical fascist regime because it:
* appealed to nationalism
* despised the ideas of equality and commonality
* sought alliances with other fascist regimes in Italy and Spain, and arrayed themselves (ideologically and strategically) against left wing regimes
* was obsessed with the differences between nations & races (rather than between classes of people, which is the hallmark of socialism).
It's notable though that Kershaw mainly argues against the totalitarian explanation, probably because the 'Nazism = socialism' argument has no merit so isn't really worthy of his time.
cheezy the quote i provided was from kershaw, not out of context. once again lucy doesn't let data or logic get in the way, you base your opinions on data and logic but from one viewpoint, i base mine on a different viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteq
OK, but...
ReplyDelete* Being 'anti-capitalist' doesn't necessarily make one a socialist. * If you state that a person 'advocated socialism' then the evidence you should bring to the table should be a quote where they, y'know, advocated socialism.
* And as you yourself said, it's pre-Mein Kampf anyway, which itself was a long time before the Nazis came to power. So where's the relevance to what came later? I liked Motley Crue when I was younger. Surely I'm not going to be held to account for this today?
OK, but...
ReplyDelete* Being 'anti-capitalist' doesn't necessarily make one a socialist. * If you state that a person 'advocated socialism' then the evidence you should bring to the table should be a quote where they, y'know, advocated socialism.
* And as you yourself said, it's pre-Mein Kampf anyway, which itself was a long time before the Nazis came to power. So where's the relevance to what came later?
I quite liked Motley Crue when I was a callow youth. Surely I'm not going to be held to account for this today?
Frankly, the socialist theory is pure propaganda. I'm not surprised it's thriving in the era of WWW-misinformation, but I'm pretty shocked and disgusted that it got trotted out in American schools.
It's pretty staggering really... I mean, it's not like there aren't a large number of good arguments you can deploy against socialism anyway... without having to make stuff up.
Cheesy,
ReplyDeleteGranted, being anti-capitalist does not mean socialist, but that doesn’t leave much… Government’s have an economic approach, intentional or not. If not capitalist, that leaves anarchy, socialism, and communism (per Marx, mature socialism). What else is left besides an almost infinite and arbitrary variety of rather-arbitrary-mixes? Hence, my logic: Hitler made multiple anti-capitalist statements + Hitler was leader of a German socialist party = some form of socialism.
In my view he was so deceptive, manipulative, and erratic one is left to interpret what he really favored. So, which one was the manipulation: Mien Kampf, the comments before MK, or all of the above?
Since you are clearly more educated than me on this topic (and since I’m not going to go research this topic), I ask you: “Had the warring ended and he and Germany survived, what type of economic approach would he have advocated in Germany? Socialist, Capitalist, a funky-mix, something else?”
Q
PS - The stuff that Lucy says, “Hitler and fascists are far right”, is what mandatory el-hi schooling teaches. In the early 70’s, long before the WWW, i was exposed to other views of Hitler at Texas State University (where LBJ studied). TSU was and is a left leaning university (as universities should be). At the time TSU’s professors of history, political science, and economics were predominantly from LBJ’s presidential administration.
Lucy says stuff like that because if Lucy said anything else she would be wrong so Lucy doesn't say it.
ReplyDeletesarcastic "riiiiiiiiight". or in your case, not right, sarcastic corrrrrrrrrrrrect...
ReplyDeleteq
Congrats, you don't usually get sarcasm or the subtle jokes or in this case the irrelevant bits at the start of the post that are just there so i can enter into the post at a different angle to everyone else.
ReplyDeleteMaybe i should start writing from the second paragraph.
"Had the warring ended and he and Germany survived, what type of economic approach would he have advocated in Germany? Socialist, Capitalist, a funky-mix, something else?"
ReplyDeleteInteresting question. Most of his statements indicate that he despised despised socialism & Marxism, but he wasn't fully into capitalism at all times either (particularly the type dominated by Jews, or any other type he couldn't control).
Basically, throughout his rise and fall, he deployed economic policy as a mere tool to pursue his other goals, and these could change with political expedience. Early in the Third Reich there were tax cuts and other efforts to stimulate small business and retail, but after 1936 a more interventionist state indicate (with 20/20 hindsight) a nation gearing up for war.
Bottom line is that I don't think Hitler was much of an economist, and I suspect that, had the regime persisted into a post-WW2 world (and isn't it good it didn't?), and Hitler had attained his other goals, he would have gladly delegated this role to one of his Cabinet, so long as the general direction of policy reflected his 'survival of the fittest' worldview.
Overall though, I think that ideologues of today (both left and right) should not use him as an example of why 'the other side' is wrong in discussions like this. For very obvious reasons, it's entirely uninstructive and always adds more heat than light. I mean, Glenn Beck does this sort of thing. Surely that should be indication enough that it's braindead?
cheezy, dude, that isn't an answer.
ReplyDeleteObama isn't much of an economist either, yet he is crushing our economy using 1930 manufacturing era economic methods in 2010 because his advisors are worried more about making everyone equal than they are about a good economy...
ok, it is an answer but dude put a stake in the ground... I mean, you are so adamant that I'm wrong, then you go all wishy washy.
q
I thought I'd said it a few times already. But here goes again, tally ho:
ReplyDeleteHitler. Wasn't. A. Socialist.
And what's Obama got to do with it?
ReplyDeleteThis must be an example of Godwin's law in reverse. If you mention Obama in any discussion of Hitler then you lose :)