cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/03/85)
I received a very intelligent reply to something I posted a few days ago that, by its assumptions, demonstrated that there is a definition problem that needs to be addressed. Below is my comment, and the reply. >By the way, can we all stop using that misleading abbreviation "Nazi"? It's >short for "National Socialist" in German, and a lot of modern day socialists >would like for people to forget what Hitler's economic policies were all about, >in the same way that they would like people to forget that "fascism" is >Italian for "collectivism". As much as you may like to pretend differently, >Hitler and Mussolini's movements were outgrowths of socialism. They were >called "right wing" because the conservatives throughout Europe have tended >towards variations of socialism and collectivism. "Right wing" in the American >tradition has NOTHING to do with the right wing traditions of Europe. The reply from rburns: I would strongly disagree on this point. The followers of Karl Marx and other State Socialist generally entered the Republican party in the 1800's. Karl even used to write articles for Republican newspapers. There was a lot of support among 'conservatives' in this country for early fascist including a lot of Republican Businessmen (one of the reasons Nelson Rockefellar got a reputation for being a liberal was he was anti-fascist early & leaked a lot of corporate documents top British Intelligence). Libertarianism as a conservative phenomena may be unique to the U.S. but it is a gross exageration to claim U.S. conservatives have now common roots with the Europeon variety. rburns has equated conservativism with "right wing" in American political lingo. This is understandable, since many of the people on the "right" is this country are also conservatives, in the sense of wishing to avoid change. Let's clear up some definitions. "Conservative" refers to a person who desires to avoid change. I have long suspected that conservatism in this sense transcends ideology and national boundaries; one of my friends gave me a book two years ago that largely confirmed. The book was _The Conservative Mind_. (No, the pages weren't blank.) This book defined conservatism as a desire to avoid rapid and disruptive change. While not an entirely absurd desire, there are frequently situations that require immediate rapid change (e.g. slavery, totalitarianism, institutionalized police brutality). The "Right" in American political history includes both sizeable numbers of people that now call themselves "libertarian", and people that call themselves "conservative". Many of the people on the right are truly conservatives, in that they fear rapid change, and have no sentiments necessarily in favor of individual freedom. However, many of the people that call themselves conservatives are in fact libertarians. Because they are older, and have grown comfortable with the word "conservative" they are reluctant to call themselves something else. Many also are irritated with the tendency of some libertarians to support both *social* equality, as well as *legal* equality to (take your pick) homosexuals, drug dealers, atheists. Throughout U.S. history, there have been conflicts between the two factions on the Right. The Republican Party in the years immediately before, during, and after the Civil War included substantial numbers of people who thought of themselves as socialists who were attracted to the "libertarian" ideas of the Party. However, after 1872, when the libertarian factions broke off to form the spectacularly unsuccessful Liberal Republican Party, the libertarians mostly sulked and stayed away from major party politics. This left the Republican Party in the hands of true conservatives, usually Big Business types who supported free enterprise as far as it directly benefited them, and supported regulation when it directly benefited them. When *I* say "Right" in the American tradition, I'm thinking of the libertarian and conservative-libertarian fusion factions. rburns clearly thinks of true conservatives (people like Jerry Falwell or Henry Ford). Hence the area of disagreement. One final point in a item already too long: Many of the people in this country that now call themselves conservatives are conservative Democrats, or come from a culture that prided itself on being Democrat, not Republican. These people are Southerners, a culture that has never been friendly to free enterprise or individual rights.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/05/85)
>/* cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) / 3:49 pm May 3, 1985 */ > . . . Many also are >irritated with the tendency of some libertarians to support both >*social* equality, as well as *legal* equality to (take your pick) >homosexuals, drug dealers, atheists. What do you mean by social equality as opposed to legal equality? Mike Sykora
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/12/85)
> > >/* cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) / 3:49 pm May 3, 1985 */ > > > . . . Many also are > >irritated with the tendency of some libertarians to support both > >*social* equality, as well as *legal* equality to (take your pick) > >homosexuals, drug dealers, atheists. > > What do you mean by social equality as opposed to legal equality? > > Mike Sykora In societies where individuals have freedom of action seperate from the actions of the government (there are a few left), individuals can express their repulsion the actions of another by refusing to participate in social interchange. Thus, if you disapprove of American corporations investing in South Africa, you boycott their products, and picket their facilities. If you are really clever, you buy stock in the company and put your feelings up to a vote of the stockholders at the next annual meeting (as has been done, off and on for years to GM). If you disapprove of tobacco or firearms, you express that disapproval by limiting your contact with people involved with those things. I would *never* associate myself in any social setting with a drug dealer, but I certainly don't think it should be subject to legal sanctions, other than civil responsibility for the purity and labelling of his product.
ec120bgt@sdcc3.UUCP (ANDREW VARE) (05/26/85)
In article <1340060@acf4.UUCP>, mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > > >/* cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) / 3:49 pm May 3, 1985 */ > > > . . . Many also are > >irritated with the tendency of some libertarians to support both > >*social* equality, as well as *legal* equality to (take your pick) > >homosexuals, drug dealers, atheists. > > What do you mean by social equality as opposed to legal equality? > > Mike Sykora We all know that our legal system lags development of social ideas by several years, so perhaps this is the reference he's hinting at. What's socially acceptable now may be viewed as such in 5 or 7 years by the courts. Andrew T. Vare