tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190326263026916588.post3416066796045647091..comments2024-03-04T21:50:12.306+11:00Comments on Upon Hope: Nazism, why we are not Nazi'sMark Moncrieffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07988061141727262837noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190326263026916588.post-34840329733819204132013-08-01T14:44:59.863+10:002013-08-01T14:44:59.863+10:00Surely this problem of categorisation goes away if...Surely this problem of categorisation goes away if you recognise that the job of a political taxonomist is sort out belief systems according to their politcal impact and not their ecnomic nicieties.<br /><br />Therefore, the place one falls on the left/right scale depends upon the degree of staism in one's beliefs. At the extreme left is the totalitarian who believes that the state is all and the individual is nothing. On the extreme right is the true anarchist (not the faux 'anarchists' of 19th century Rusia or 20th century Spain who were just totalitarians by another name) who believes that the individual is king.<br /><br />On that scale Mr Hitler and Mr Stalin stand far to the left, despite that one believed in the dictatorship of the german volk and one of the proletariat. Both saw the State as all encompassing. <br /><br />Now many observers argue that the Coomunists and the Nazis can't be both on the left, because they hated each other more than they hated the western democracies. My answer to that is that of course they hated each intensely, because they were both trawling in the same waters and suggesting very similar statist solutions. Coke fights much harder against Pepsi than it does against tea, but both fizzy drinks would regard themselves as distinct from each other. SUch it was with communism and fascism.<br /><br />Rococo LiberalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com