/lit/ - Literature

3/3

2/3

>>2173260
>Goldberg

I'll do you one better.

>books that I've seen being read by everybody on the bus and on trains

>>2173261

the contents of that are prob abhorrent but the title and the cover rule

>>2173274
holy shit that's on a whole new level.

have you read any of these books or is this a 'let's judge books by their covers' thread?

>>2173260
haha, that's the book where the dude said that the only reason historians called the WWII italians "fascist" is because they were aligned with liberal-fascist nazi germany

>>2173279
I've read bits and pieces of all of them. And they are all terrifyingly ignorant and manipulative.

>>2173283

"NAZIS WAS LIBURL" is the most terrifying neocon meme imo

This one can make me laugh though. (From my political folder.) Ph.D it says PFAH!

dum dum dum dum dum

>>2173304

Beck has such a punchable face.

I don't know if my generation is the "dumbest" but it seems like it's trying really hard to be.

You now realize that the people who read the books posted ITT probably think of themselves as intellectuals.

>>2173318
yeah but otoh fuck any boomer asshole talking shit about our generation

>>2173323
Who are you talking to?

If that were a question, I'd say no, I do not consider myself an "intellectual" But at least I'm smart enough to know which books are full-of-crap propaganda.

>>2173290
You know, haven taken high school history classes seriously, I always believed that I was enlightened in thinking that the answer between whether the Nazis were conservative or liberal was in the middle: you couldn't really use that terminology to describe them. they were the third way, after all.

And then I took a couple of European and specifically German history classes in college, and I realized, oh. there's no debate at all.

I had a similar revelation regarding the origins of the American Civil War. There's a saying I heard in undergrad that stuck with me: people completely uneducated about the war think it was about slavery, people who have a high school education think it was about states rights, and people with a college education know it was about fucking slavery. The compromise route for high school history textbooks kinda sucks, since they're compromising between historians and people who have a specific ideology they need validated.

>>2173338
I'm pretty sure everyone knows it was about slavery. They just sit and drool through high school history because a braindead moron could pass it.

What are Nazis though? I don't know shit about their ideas other than non-whites are bad and everyone is a tool of the state. I think.

1/4

>>2173290
>>2173338
Also, Jonah Goldberg is a dickhead. Fuck that guy, for real.

>>2173345
>I'm pretty sure everyone knows it was about slavery.

Unfortunately not! There's a surprising amount of people who will argue seriously that the Confederates were nobly defending states' rights and Southern culture and honor, and that slavery didn't enter into it. A frightening amount of people, really.

>What are Nazis though? I don't know shit about their ideas other than non-whites are bad and everyone is a tool of the state. I think.

Essentially, a strong focus on the nation and its distinct character; the state as the expression of the nation and everyone within as tools of the state to the greater good of the nation; a strong emphasis on force and violence and a generally militarist outlook; and a corporatist economic philosophy.

So, at base, strongly nationalistic and militaristic, combined with a state-managed corporate economic system.

>>2173353
Bro, if you can't find a better book to troll/attack liberals with than a book by a Nobel Prize-winning economist, you're hurting.

>>2173353
2/4

>>2173357
>a book by a Nobel Prize-winning economist
>Implying the Nobel Prize isn't politicised.
>Implying Krugman isn't a hack economist spruiking the broken window fallacy.

3/4

>>2173365

I am the 1%.

Thank you and good night.

>>2173353
>>2173360
>>2173365
>>2173373
>I am the 1%.
You're a millionaire?
You haven't a clue have you?
Go back to /pol/ and stay there.

>>2173345
>>2173354
>>2173260

I'm pretty sure all modern political ideologies, whether left or right, have some relation to nazism/fascism. Not the racist aspect, but the part that puts an emphasis on militarism and corporatism, and the interest the government has in educating and taking care of it's citizens for national security reasons.

So far:

>>2173353
Eminent economist, Nobel Prize-winning

>>2173360
Eminent linguist

>>2173365
This one I'm with you on

So you rage at any book you disagree with, even if it's a reasonable book written by an eminently qualified intellectual? You really think these are on the same level as Liberal Fascism by Jonah Fucking Goldberg?

>>2173376
>and the interest the government has in educating and taking care of it's citizens for national security reasons.
I think that was around longer than the Nazi party.

>>2173376
In the sense that all modern political systems have certain commonalities, there's a grain of truth to that statement. But in a more specific sense fascism as a political ideology is fairly distinct and - I presume you're trying to make some libertarian or anarchist anti-statist argument here - it's not really useful to throw them in the same category.

>>2173373
ok i get it you're right wing, here's your attention prize, now go jack off.

>>2173373
You're most likely just the 98%.

>>2173379
>Appeal to authority

These books are hardly lengthy dissertations that live up to the author's credentials. I read Don't Think of an Elephant and it was on the same level as pic related with injected partisanship - like that one chapter where Lakoff complains on and on about Republicans being stupid like he was in the audience of Real Time.

>>2173354
Man, I hope you are trolling.
The concepts of the Civil War being about slavery or state's rights are not mutually exclusive; there were a LOT of people involved in the war (and the lead up to it) and they had complex, differing, and conflicting motivations.
The Fascists, the Nazis, and the Falangists were all Third Ways and interestingly different from one another, let alone the false Left/Right dichotomy many think in.

>>2173385
>implying the author wasn't baiting.

Don't expect a free pass if you're just going to whine about Republicans.

He's a non-political book that fits in the subject.

>>2173384
The point I was making is that virtually all modern political ideologies can trace their statist and socialistic elements from fascism and that ever since WWII we are all a little bit fascist.

>>2173396
I was going to respond to you but married oldfag is more interesting, sorry bro.

>>2173398
The Civil War is obviously a complex and multi-faceted issue. There were many causes for the war and there were many reasons the participants thought they were fighting the war. However, I think one could safely say that the existence of slavery and an economic system built around it, and the Southern fear regarding the future of that institution, was central to politics leading up to the Civil War and to the causes for which it was fought. The narrative I'm objecting to here is one that wholly gets rid of slavery from the picture and glorifies the South, creating a simplistic good-evil narrative where the Confederacy are brave defenders of Southern virtue and political rectitude, opposed to the vile depredations of Northern industrialists. I hope you'd agree that such a worldview is simplistic and wrong, in addition to its use in justifying some kind of twisted politics?

The Fascist stuff I don't want to get into too much; I do agree that there are important distinctions between Fascism/National Socialism/Falangism and that understanding them simply as 'far right' is flawed. But they were clearly and distinctly parties of the right in the way that Europe at the time understood 'the right'.

>>2173405
I was the person who said that most people probably know that it was about slavery, and I do know that people in the south may believe they were heroes despite being taught otherwise in high school. I'm from California so I don't know what they teach in southern high schools, but I was taught that it was mainly based around slavery.

>>2173304
Beck is, simply put, the greatest argument for and example of, free speech alive today. Every word out of his mouth is aimed purely at vilifying Voltaire.

For me, probably the Game/female version of the Game. For six months after that book came out, every single person I knew thought they were a suave motherfucker who could pick up anything that moved. They... were not.

>>2173402
>wasn't aware that i was implying anything
>implyception

barf

>>2173405
I have several door-stoppers on the Civil War, so let's skip that.

Nazism was not right wing, nor left. For example, the quote from this thread about Nazi Germany
>strongly nationalistic and militaristic, combined with a state-managed corporate economic system
Is also an excellent descriptor of the Soviet Union of the same period with the removal of a single word
>strongly nationalistic and militaristic, combined with a state-managed economic system
members of the Nazi Party moved into the Communist Party (and vice versa) and back throughout the early years of the NDSP's rise - so much so that a joke was made that 'Nazi's are like a rare steak - brown on the outside, red on the inside'. Hitler's issues with the Communists were about power within the German system and the threat of the Soviet Union to his plans (after the alliance broke down).
This left/right only thinking just can't work in this context (let alone the Real World)

>>2173434
wow I did not know that about early Nazism.

>>2173439
Wanna' read some of the Nazi Party platform from 1920?

>We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

>The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

>We demand profit sharing in big business.

>In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

>The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

>[We] combat the...materialistic spirit withn and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good .

>>2173439
yeah they were called the brownshirts and they were mostly killed during the rohm putsch or "the night of the long knives"

basically these thuggish guys who were seen as personalizing the violence of the early nazi regime (they were the dudes who were fighting the communists in the streets) and who were killed in what was seen by the populace as an extremely noble move on Hitler's part

>>2173434
Well, yeah. They had the same political system when you get down to it, bro. Same shit, different name. They just needed someone to villify to gain and consolidate their power. Where you want to put them on the spectrum is your deal, but you have to put them on the same spot.

>>2173443

i know what your doing and its disingenuous and you should stop

>>2173452
He's telling people things about the Nazi party that they didn't know before. I don't see how that's disingenuous.

>>2173434
I mean, what you're saying is absolutely true. I'd say it's largely a consequence of the nature of politics in between-the-wars Europe and of the basically totalitarian nature of both Communist and National Socialist movements, which were the source of a large part of their appeal.

However, simply pointing out the (fairly well-known) state control and anti-business elements of early National Socialist and Fascist movements doesn't eliminate the fact that these parties largely drew their support from nationalists and petit bourgeois, with support from militarists and some industrialists. It also doesn't change the fact that the more left-leaning parts of the movement were generally purged or became less significant over time. Certainly, after the Night of Long Knives and the death of Röhm, left-wing elements within National Socialism were fairly unimportant.

National Socialism and Fascism are extreme parties of the right in the same sense in which Communism is an extreme party of the left. It's a huge oversimplification, but there is a lot of truth to it.

And finally I just wanted to say that I do respect you a lot & none of this is meant acrimoniously, I just think that (for all that it has distinct features and is a distinct and comprehensive political philosophy) Fascism is largely of the right. I don't say that to discredit the right - after all, Communism is equally a stain on the left.

>>2173450
Operation Hummingbird was in '34; the Nazis were still very Socialist after that! This is from '39:
>"Private property" as conceived under liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private proprerty" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard to the general interests...German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.

>>2173452
Now, how is repeating the Nazi Party platform 'disingenuous'?

>>2173455

sugesting they were egalitarian when they did all they could in power to fuck the social democrats in the ass and additionally their hardon for autarky makes posting this 1920 shit wicked nonrepresentative of naizism as a whole

>>2173455
It's kind of disingenuous

>>2173459
"All property is the common property of the state which is the ultimate representative of the nation & will use it for the glorification of the Aryan race" is different from "The state possesses all property to create the dictatorship of the proletariat." You're erasing real differences in ideology and belief, and the internal logic of these philosophies, in order to make them similar.

>>2173434
I dunno dude, the fact that the Nazis were one of dozens of far-right political movements that emerged out of the Weimar period, in direct opposition to the principles of modern liberalism, seeking to dismantle the socialist democracy, and citing Bolshevism as the greatest threat to the german people?

I mean the nazis were definitely conceived of by the people who lived during the period as being far-right. I mean, it's not like I'm saying "american republicans are nazis!" any more than I'm saying "american democrats are bolsheviks!" but I mean your viewpoint is the minority one in academia, you are aware of that, right?

>>2173464
He's just quoting their platform. He was telling more relevant stuff before that.

>>2173465
That's a very minute difference.

>>2173473
>That's a very minute difference.

Go back to 1932 and tell a Communist & a Nazi that.

>>2173458
Hmmmm.
See, I think the issue here is sloppy language. 'Fascism' doesn't mean 'politics from WWII I don't like'. The National Socialists were a pretty Left-leaning group until their demise (hence the name) and while I have had all sorts of people tell me the Rohm Putsch drove out the lefties, they never explain why the Nazis followed through on those campaign platforms years later and kept talking about traditionally-Leftist concepts as positive.
The Italian Fascists, though, were rather different - because they had a different ideology, thus different goals, etc. Lumping Falangists, Nazis, and Fascists together and saying 'they shared a politico-economic ideology' is an ENORMOUS error! As someone here mentioned, at that point toss in the Soviet Union, because it shares as much between them as they do without Stalin and his pals.

>>2173484

how do you reconcile calling them left leaning with all the shit about volk and the advocating traditional family roles and freaking the fuck out about jazz and modern art and hating bolshevism more than anything ever in the whole world

tl;dr your on wayyyyy less firm ground here than when you talk shit about the french revolution and should prboably stop posting?

>>2173491
don't forget the explicit rejection of egalitarianism, the foundation of liberalism

>>2173491
They were never left-leaning. They had left- and right-leaning beliefs.

>>2173484
They're identified together because they grouped themselves together. They influenced each other, they considered themselves of a kind, and they were political allies. They all agreed, too, that the Soviet Union was an enemy and that it was definitively not similar to them. Yes, I agree that there were significant differences in their ideologies. But they grouped themselves together. Not us.

Further, I don't see how you can call the Nazi's communal tendencies as 'of the left', since they're explicitly justified by reference to nationalism and the good of the folk. You can say they're not of the right if you want, I think I actually agree with you, but neither are they leftist. Government control of private property is not in and of itself leftist.

And again I respect you and this is said with admiration.

>>2173476
How about I tell some of the representatives of each party that had been members of the other the months before? Would that be OK?

Again, folks, my point is NOY that the Nazis were right wing or left wing, it is that restricting definitions of politics to this single axis is a fool's errand, especially when dealing with Fascism, NSDP, Falangism and, frankly, the Greens, the Social democrats and several other concepts, like Distributism.

IMO calling the Nazis right-wing OR left-wing is to miss the damn point.

>>2173498
But if you went back to the 1930s, most people you asked would say they were of the right. Obviously it's an imperfect system, and any ideological system is not going to fit neatly into the rubric. But as a question of practical politics, of the way they operated within the country, the Fascist and National Socialist parties were parties of the far right. People moved from one to the other, yes, but it wasn't because they were similar in views, it's because they were similarly extreme (I would argue, basically)

also distributism is awesome, just puttin that out there

>>2173491
So the Soviet Union did NOT hand out medals to women that had a lot of sons? The Soviets did NOT horribly persecute homosexuals for being deviants? The Soviets did NOT use incredibly nationalistic imagery before, during, and after WWII? etc., etc., etc

Also, check your reading comp - I didn't say they were lefties, or righties, I am saying such a concept in this context is too simplistic. They, themselves specifically rejected it unless it was politically advantageous, then they said whatever worked.

>>2173494
*sigh*
yeah, the Soviets and the Japanese modern Bushido movements were also explicitly allied with some or all of them, too - are they also 'far right' groups?

This is the problem - if you start the entire 'WWII totalitarian/autocratic systems that share certain outlooks were far-right phenomena' before too long you have the Soveit Union, Communist movements in the Balkans and other explicitly Communist/Socialist groups in the same basket, which kinda' points out some flaws in the process, I believe.
Sure, Falangists were originally a right-wing movement, but one that morphed rather rapidly into something else. The NDSP was an explicitly Leftist group that migrated to something else while maintaining a lot of the originally leftist concepts within its structure. Fascism was an effort to trump the left-right divide by appealing to elements of both.

Again, I'm just saying "It isn't as simple as left/right"; no more, no less

>>2173505
I am a pretty hardcore Distributist, myself. Check out the Distributist Review - I write for them sometimes

>>2173505
>but it wasn't because they were similar in views, it's because they were similarly extreme (I would argue, basically)

You just have to look at the type of people who actually did this. They're poor as shit working class people who are getting the worst end of the stick in a harsh political climate. They're basing their convictions on whoever gave them the most attractive speech that weekend. Honestly, using this as evidence that the two positions were politically similar is at best ignorant and at worst intellectually dishonest.

It's not like you had a bunch of petit-bourgeoisie guys switching back and forth

>>2173510
>*sigh*

good-night, /lit/erates.

>>2173510

oh, cmon son, conflating stalinism with leftist thought is like half a century out of date at least

like ive read bullocks hitler and stalin and it was wicked fascinating but still to try to argue that nazism in practice wasnt rightist as hell is just, like, come on dude

>>2173510
I'd argue that the Communists were totalitarian actually but I think totalitarianism is a form that governments and movements take on

I'm open to the argument that the left/right schema is overly simplistic, it definitely is. I just think that in this specific instance, National Socialism could without too much inaccuracy be described as a movement of the right, in terms of who supported it and what its most important beliefs are.

>>2173514
i will definitely check that out

>>2173524
Hold it; are you one of those guys that says that the Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, North Korea, the PRC, etc. are all right wing?