[quote]
In fact Democracy does not mean - as many seem to think it does -
the rule of the majority. This is only part of what it means. It also means
that the rights and liberties of minorities must equally be respected.[/quote]

demo - people
cracy - rule

Democracy means rule of the people by the people for the people. Anything else is not democracy. That includes monarchy - "constitutional" or otherwise.

[quote]
In Britain we have developed a system of Parliamentary Democracy, but this system also includes an hereditary Head of State. This may at first seem a contradiction,[/quote]

It's not just a contradiction at first, it is also last and always a contradiction. If the people rule by choosing representatives and a head of state, or perhaps through other channels selected and controlled by them then that is a democracy. If the head of state or any other part of the apparatus is not selected by them and, more importantly, capable of being removed by them then that is not a democracy. No amount of waffle about the "guarantor of the people’s liberty" changes that basic fact - unless of course that guarantor is chosen by the people in some way.

Parliamentary Democracy is not pure democracy - as I pointed out this does not exist and in fact never has. Ancient Athens was not a 'pure Democracy'. I suppose democracy is all about compromise within a basic framework. Within any state it is impossible to reconcile diametrically opposed views - BigC and I are but one example, and I am sure if either were given absolute power over the other it would result in murder !

The British system of Parliamentary Democracy is not perfect (no system is) and it has come to a stage where it needs to be reformed, but it is worth pointing out that it is one of the most enduring. Also the American model is largely based upon it - Anthony Burgess called the US system 'a Tudor monarchy with telephones' !! However even that model is not perfect - there is the distortion of election to office in the criminal justice system. This is something BigC, for example, would not accept.

One of the things pointed out by the 1997 election victory was the dictatorship of the Commons. I think it was Clare Short who said Labour could have introduced a bill for the murder of the first born and rammed it through. Even if thrown out in the Lords it could have been re-introduced using the Parliament Act and then there was only one person who could have stopped it: Her Majesty. There is a serious point in all of this, as was perhaps demonstrated by the 42 day row. There is an attitude- actually arrogance - from Ministers and also members of the Commons that whatever they want they must have. You hear them on Telly denouncing the Lords if they block something, but that is the right of the Lords !! 

So how would I reform the UK system ? First, I would have an elected House of Lords and I would restore the old powers (pre 1911) to that house. I would also make it almost impossible for that house to be dissolved by any government, thus ensuring that both houses were never elected together. I would also reform the Commons, so both houses were elected at different times and in different ways. I would reform the relationship between the cabinet and the privy council, removing from the Prime Minister many of his patronage powers which distort the system - some I would restore to the privy council. I think i would also bring home many of the powers taken away by the EU. The EU is a profoundly anti-democratic body and it has done more to suck the life blood from domestic politics than anything else. I might also be tempted to have a new Bill of Rights. This would prevent any government from encroaching upon our rights. And all that is just for starters !!   

[quote] a shockingly dangerous idea in the way that socialism is today. [/quote]

Yes well it is rather a surprise that anyone can believe in such an evil ideology as Socialism, which has, in all its various mutations, been responsible for the deaths of probably in excess of 100 million people in the 20th century.  

By 'Pure' Democracy I mean that all offices of the state are for election; that all law is subject to review or it is directly agreed to by the citizens. This would of course run counter to any 'liberal'. The case I usually site is that of Capital Punishment. Were the people to have a say or a 'veto' on the actions of the legislators they would never have abolished hanging and would even today bring it back. CP distorts the US criminal justice system (you can't get elected in various places in the US if you don't support it), and yet because it has the support of the people it must surely be 'democratic'. Another example is the EU. Brown/Blair et all dare not ask us about the Lisbon Treaty because we would tell them to get stuffed, just as the Irish have done. The fact that they promised they would ask for our view and have now refused to do so shows what little regard they have for the people and what value they place in the will of the people. The EU is not interested in democracy and never has been and is actually anti-democratic in nature.   

[quote] The sub-prime mortgage scam is a classic example of a kleptocracy at work: financial institutions using bad loans to acquire property then being baled out by their pals in government when the scam goes wrong. [/quote] 

I think you need to examine the exact sequence of events that lead to the sub-prime 'scam', as you call it. The actions of Congress to give you a hint.  

[quote] ...the financial institutions took advantage, they loaned money to people who could not pay it back in order to procure the property put up as security. [/quote]

Except most lenders LOSE money on foreclosed properties, most of which are worth less than the loan value. Some security!   Nor do the borrowers bear any share of the blame for entering into a contract they could not afford, right?  They took on interest-only mortgages, gambling that prices would continue to rise.  This was a case of lending industry greed fueling personal greed, with neither using any common sense. 

I suppose you'd like a law to prohibit this along with other forms of gambling and save individuals from themselves.  Let's eliminate all semblance of individual responsibility.  Thanks but, no thanks. 

I disagree with ALL bailouts.  Let the market correct itself and let the stupid be accountable for their stupidity.  Well, I feel better now.  Unfortunately, as a pragmatist, I realize that some bailouts are unavoidable.

[quote]  It isn't fair that the taxpayer is on the hook to rescue Fannie and Freddie while top executives of the mortgage giants keep their multimillion-dollar-a-year jobs. There's something wrong in a world where former chief executives like Stanley O'Neal of Merrill Lynch (MER) and Charles Prince of Citigroup (C) lose billions of dollars of shareholder money and helped create the credit crunch, yet they reaped so much on the way out that they'll never have to worry about paying a health-care bill or stay up late at night fretting about finding work.

That said, none of this means the bailout is a mistake. "My own view is that the world isn't fair," says Zvi Bodie, finance professor at Boston University. "But would it be fair to put the economy into a deep recession or depression? I don't think so."

There's the rub. If the monetary and fiscal authorities are right in their judgment that the risk of an economic plunge of frightening proportions is real, then the Herculean actions they're taking are fair to all of us. What's more, if innovation is the core dynamic in a capitalist economy, the engine of growth and higher living standards, then there will be booms and busts, especially during periods of rapid technological change. It's in the nature of the beast. Like it or not, limiting the downside damage when the boom goes bust is a critical part of the monetary authorities job.

Take the searing experience of the Great Depression. The 1920s was an era of remarkable technological and organizational innovation. Eventually, as happens in a capitalist system, the boom went bust. Yet the downturn morphed into the Great Depression, an economic calamity of momentous proportions. What happened? The Fed didn't do its job, according to Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz's A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960.

Shoring Up the Money Supply

In essence, the authors argued that the Great Depression stemmed from a decline in the money supply. The public lost confidence in banks. Depositors wanted their money back. The money supply contracted. Bank deposits weren't being used to expand credit and economic activity but to meet the public's panicked need for cash. Incomes fell, economic activity plummeted, more banks went out of business, yet the Fed refused to break the cycle of fear by acting as lender of last resort.

"[T]he experience was a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces," write Friedman and Schwartz. "The drastic decline in the quantity of money during those years, and the occurrence of a banking panic of unprecedented severity, were not the inevitable consequences of other economic changes." [/quote]

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2008/pi2008084_564875.htm?chan=investing_investing+index+page_top+stories

[quote] As I said, Democracy meant the same to ill informed reactionaries as
socialism does today. The topic has changed. The reactionaries remain
the same. [/quote]

Oh did I get the tally wrong ? 200 million perhaps ? or 300 million ? Do enlighten us all. Like most of the Fascist Left your reply is always that X was not a Socialist, or Y was never a Marxist. What you actually mean is he or she wasn't Your type of Socialist or Marxist. There is no difference between your attitude and that of an Al Queda thug. 'You can murder a Shia because they are not Muslims;  you can kill a Christian because they are infidels. . . ' The perverted logic is just the same.

No matter how you want to dress it up Socialism in its many mutations was responsible for mass murder on an unimaginable scale. How you can believe in this evil, blood soaked and bankrupt ideology is to be wondered at.  

Adolf Hitler was a Socialist. He is one of your own dear.

Hitler was undoutedly a Socialist. He said so himself ! As did Gerbbels. Read Mein Kampf (a very boring book) and some of the literature of the Nazi Party and you soon discover this.

What he wasn't was YOUR kind of Socialist and just as he would have had you murdered, so you would have had him murdered. It is the way of the Left.

You can try and gloss over it as much as you want, but the fact remains. It explains why the struggle between the Nazis and other sections of the Left was so bitter and so deep. It is like you see now in the Islamic world: Sunni hates Shias because they are not their type of Muslim, so they do not regard them as Muslims at all. The same applies to the Nazis and the rest of the Left.  

Hitler wasn't a Christian. He actually persecuted the Christian Church. But he was a Socialist, just like you. As was Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and every other ghastly tyrant of the 20th Century.  Quite how you can believe in this evil ideology called Socialism, which has never worked, can never work and leads inevitably to tyranny and oppression is frankly amazing.  

Go read Nazi party doctrine. You will see Hitler was a Socialist just like you. The Fascist Left, like you, never admit the truth. 

[quote]Go read Nazi party doctrine. You will see Hitler was a Socialist just like you. The Fascist Left, like you, never admit the truth.[/quote]

Owly

I'm here to debate. Present some evidence. So far you have only offered ridiculous made up figures and a standard of rhetoric which wouldn't pass muster in a kindergarten debating circle. Refer to Iron Mike's offerings if you want to know how it's done.

Chris

Thank you for providing the quote. I read this horrible piece of filth once about twenty years ago and didn't really fancy looking for it again. I recall several references to protecting christendom and European civilisation against barbarism (who does that remind me of?) but not much about surplus value, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall or workers' control. Not much of a socialist really.

Owly
[quote]You are not really here to 'debate' or you would be more willing to enter into a debate, [/quote]

I have made several debating points. You have answered none of them. Chris has provided you with a quote from Mein kampf which makes it clear Hitler was a Christian. You have ignored this.

You have not made one single debating point. You have just repeated the same utterly absurd claim like a mantra without offering one single shred of evidence to support it.  Unless you consider one of your fellow reactionary's blogs to be a source.  It is even more incoherent than Mein Kampf itself.  It's most startling ommission is the Spanish Civil War when the left of Europe and America sent volunteers to fight against Franco.  The church of course recruited volunteers to fight for Franco along with "volunteers" from Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

[quote]but you seldom are unless it be on your own terms[/quote]

I have asked you this before without reply. What exactly are my "own terms"?

Either back up your ridiculous utterings with facts, figures or at least coherent rhetoric or shut up. This is a debating forum, not a repetition of unsupported dogma forum.

BigC,

As a Far Left Fascist one does not expect you to see, much less, understand
reality. If you stopped throwing personal insults at all and sundry and
actually read the article, the link for which I posted, you might (pretty slim
chance I admit) learn something. The article will make uncomfortable reading
for you because it challenges what you think you know, but it is interesting
that you dismiss it as a ‘reactionary blog’, when actually it is a long
referenced article.  

You believe Hitler and the Nazis were of 'the right' for no other reasons
than it suits your own political beliefs and because you have been told they
were. The reality is very different. Just to underline the point here is a
quote from the man himself, which could have been written by you -: 

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic
economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and
property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined
to destroy this system under all conditions"

The other great 'lie' is that the left (here in the UK) opposed the
Nazis and it was only the Conservatives who appeased Hitler. Again this is
untrue. Atlee voted against the Naval Estimates in 1935 and George Lansbury was
an ardent pacifist. Chamberlain was wrong, but for all his faults he bought us
time during which we were able to rearm, but this was always opposed by the left.  

Pope Pius VI Feb. 15, 1775 - Aug. 29, 1799I

Pope Pius XII Mar. 2, 1939 - Oct. 9, 1958

And it was the Hitler Youth, not the Nazi Youth.  

Owly.

Thank you for the joke. Calling me a Far Left Fascist then suggesting a I refrain from throwing personal insults takes irony to levels I never imagined to be possible.

I shall now debate your points:

[quote]The article will make uncomfortable reading
for you because it challenges what you think you know, but it is interesting
that you dismiss it as a ‘reactionary blog’, when actually it is a long
referenced article. [/quote]

Sorry to dissapoint you Owly but it does not make me feel uncomfortable at all.

It is a collection of imputations by tenuous association eg Hitler believed in animal rights, animal rights are (wrongly) percieved as being left wing, therefore Hitler was left wing. Some elements of the early American progressive movement advocated eugenics - therefore all of the US progressive movement from FDR to George Mcgovern and beyond were Nazis! Of course the killer here is that NONE of these people were socialists at all.

The attempt to paint Marx (a jew) as an anti-semite is a little more subtle. A discussion of the article in question can be found in many places but this is as good as any: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/corr-m13.shtml. I will be charitable and assume that John J Ray is too stupid to have understood what Marx was saying. The alternative is that he was deliberately misrepresenting it - surely not!

When I was googling this stuff I came across this http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm , also a blog but also "long referenced". It discusses most of the points which your reactionary friend makes.

I have already dealt with the point about Hitler's rhetoric : a point more eloquently supported by IM's biblical quote.

[quote]The other great 'lie' is that the left (here in the UK) opposed the
Nazis and it was only the Conservatives who appeased Hitler. Again this is
untrue. Atlee voted against the Naval Estimates in 1935 and George Lansbury was an ardent pacifist. Chamberlain was wrong, but for all his faults he bought us time during which we were able to rearm, but this was always opposed by the left.[/quote]

It is not a lie to say that the left opposed Hitler - as the few surviving members of the International Brigades would be able to verify. The disarmament movement petered out in the late 1930s when it became obvious (partly because of Spain) that Hitler needed to be opposed. Conflating appeasement and disarmament is simply dishonest - they are not the same things at all.

I look forward to your refutations of my arguments - There's a fist time for everything.

[quote]see your point. But I would argue that when it comes to categorizing people, what they say is far less relevant than what they do.[agreed BC]  Hiltler's actions were contrary to his professed Christian faith, but entirely consistent with his professed Socialist ideology. You disagree? [/quote]

Yes. Entirely. There's a good discussion of it here http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

[quote] Quote:
I look forward to your refutations of my arguments - There's a fist time for everything.
How curious. I thought the Scots were known for their thrift and the Irish known for pugilism. Have I got that wrong too? [/quote]

I shouldn't like to comment on the characteristics of my fellow Celts. However, I would add that the Welsh are known for their bad spelling!

BC: I read the essay you provided, but "saying it ain't so" is not good enough. Try this essay which quotes the party platform in no uncertain Socialist terms. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1143131/posts [quote] Let us start by considering political party programmes or "platforms" of Hitler's day:

Take this description of a political programme: A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists".

And this description of a political movement as having a 'revolutionary creative will' which had 'no fixed aim, no permanency, only eternal change'

And this policy manifesto:

9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good. Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

So who put that manifesto forward and who was responsible for the summary quotes given before that? Was it the US Democrats, the British Labour Party, the Canadian Liberals, some European Social Democratic party? No. The manifesto is an extract from the (February 25th., 1920) 25 point plan of the National Socialist German Workers Party and was written by the leader of that party: Adolf Hitler.

And the preceding summary quotes were also from him (See towards the end of Mein Kampf and O'Sullivan, 1983. p. 138). [/quote]

[quote] Chris: What if Hitler wasn't brought up in a culture and a religion that hated Jews?...Did Christianity contribute to one of the greatest atrocities in human history? [/quote] 

 If Hitler professed Christianity, but did not live his faith and further acknowledged it as a means of political manipulation, then we must agree that he was not a Christian and Christianity cannot be tarred with the guilt of one of the greatest atrocities in human history.

[quote] The reference to Christ notwithstanding, he was not personally a Christian, regarding the Catholicism he was baptized into as an irrational superstition. In fact he admired Islam more than Christianity, and he and his policies were highly respected by many of the Muslims of his day.

He and his associates had a special distaste for the Catholic Church and, given a choice, preferred modern liberalized Protestantism, taking the view that the best form of Christianity would be one that forsook the traditional other-worldly focus on personal salvation and accommodated itself to the requirements of a program for social justice to be implemented by the state.

They also considered the possibility that Christianity might eventually have to be abandoned altogether in favor of a return to paganism, a worldview many of them saw as more humane and truer to the heritage of their people. For he and his associates believed strongly that a people's ethnic and racial heritage was what mattered most. Some endorsed a kind of cultural relativism according to which what is true or false and right or wrong in some sense depends on one's ethnic worldview, and especially on what best promotes the well-being of one's ethnic group. [/quote]

Mike
You are going back on your own argument:
[quote]But I would argue that when it comes to categorizing people, what they say is far less relevant than what they do [/quote]

The Nazi party's attempts to appear socialist PRIOR to attaining power are no more relevant than it's attempts to identify itself as the defender of Christianity. It didn't DO those things when it attained power.

About the only remotely collectivist act was the subordination of (still privately owned) business to the state. But the UK and the US also did this during the war.

[quote]He and his associates had a special distaste for the Catholic Church and, given a choice, preferred modern liberalized Protestantism, taking the view that the best form of Christianity would be one that forsook the traditional other-worldly focus on personal salvation and accommodated itself to the requirements of a program for social justice to be implemented by the state. [/quote]

This particular paragraph (quoted from Fesser) is particularly indicative of the poor scholarship of the piece. You cannot speak of the religious views of "he and his associates" as if there was a unified Nazi religious view. Far from having a "distaste for the Catholic Church", Hitler admired it and through an agreement drawn up with Vatican diplomat Eugenio Pacelli (later Pious XII), took control of it. Rather like Henry VIII of England, he had all Catholic bishops make an oath to the him. In 1933 a conference of Germany's Catholic bishops actually endorsed the policy of Lebensraum which was ultimately to lead to the extermination of 6 million Jews and was intended to have exterminated a further 40 million Slavs.

What's more the little resistance to Hitler that came from Christians was from Lutheran Pastors - not from the Catholic Church which was completely content with his stewardship and his intentions.  That's why the Wehrmachts's "padres" were Catholic priests.

In fact, this is an updated version of the piece that Owly offered. It's interesting that in this version he has dropped the clumsy attempt to smear Marx with anti-semitism.Also interesting that (after a clumsy attempt to rubbish Kangas) he accepts that Hitler was not in fact a Marxist.

All we are left with in fact is a superficial similarity between Hitler and SOME parts of the VERY EARLY American  "Progressivist" movement which not only was not "Socialist" at all but is also often cited by US leftists for it's similarities to fascism. So we've really just come full circle haven't we?

I think the obsession with Hitler and the left is really a self denial smoke screen on the part of the US right. In the late 1970s traditional paternal conservatism in the US and the UK was supplanted by the vicious reactionary ideology espoused by people like Keith Joseph in the UK and William F Buckley in the US. The philosophical underpin of this new ideology is the work of Leo Strauss. Broken down mercilessly his view was that society works best when the strong and clever (the wise) exploit the weak and stupid (the herd) and that this process when left to work unimpeded works to the benefit of everyone - the market in fact. The basis of fascism, to take the argument one step further, is the view that the nature dictates that the strong rule the weak. Snap!

And that's what you find impossible to accept. It is in fact modern "conservatism" which is moving toward fascism. Socialism has no similarity to it whatsoever.

While I would agree that the essay - the link to which Iposted - required a bloody good edit it does make a lot of interesting pointsdrawing directly on Nazi ideology and philosophy. You have failed to even studymuch less understand what was laid out for you in the essay. If you study whatwere the guiding principles of the Nazi Party, to be found in the 1920 “Twenty-FivePoint Programme”, some of which IM has pasted up, they demanded‘…that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for itscitizens… the abolition of all incomes unearned by work… the ruthlessconfiscation of all war profits… the nationalization of all businesses whichhave been formed into corporations… profit-sharing in large enterprises…extensive development of insurance for old-age… land reform suitable to ournational requirements… ‘

Unlike the communists, or indeed you, the Nazis did notrequire the ownership of the means of production and exchange. What they didwas ‘control’ these means, so the owners (of private property) were left withthe title deeds but no control and effectively became part of a command andcontrol economy, much as was the case in Stalin’s Russia. "To be asocialist", Goebbels said, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialismis sacrificing the individual to the whole", sentiments with which I amsure you would concur. That was the essence of the Nazi state. In power Hitlerwas actually very lazy and the Nazi state was chaotic to say the least. Heoften appointed two people to do almost the same job, with the inevitableresult that the fought each other. Similarly ‘Gauleiters’ had huge latitude onhow they administered their domains, so there was never much consistency. It isarguable that had Hitler spent more time on consolidating he would have takenmore of the economy into state ownership. It is also now argued that the UKshould not have made the guarantee to Poland, but that is another argument.      

By the standard and understanding of the day the Nazi'swere undoubtedly of the Left. The Nazis are often referred to as ‘Fascists’,but this is technically incorrect. Mussolini was a Fascist – the word isderived from the Latin ‘fascia’, meaning the bundle of rods with axe headswhich represented the authority of the Senate in Ancient Rome and was his partysymbol – but he was originally a communist and again a study of his actionsshows he was far more a socialist than a conservative. As I said before theywere not of the Left in your perception, but anyone who fails to share yourviews and ideology is of necessity not a Socialist. It’s a classic piece ofdenial. 

On a wider picture – the point of this really – the questionhas to be asked as to why does Left ideology always produce totalitariantyranny ? All the major tyrannies of the 20th century had theirroots in Left ideology, so the question is why are they so murderous ?  

[quote] The idea that Rommel, Von Runstedt or Kesselringwould fight for a socialist is utterly laughable. [/quote]

I think I am right in saying that all of these individualswere career soldiers, having served the Kaiser. They may have been Nazis butwithout a deal of googling, I can’t be sure, but it is fair to say that theyhad all taken an Oath of loyalty to Hitler. Rommel might (but I say only‘might’) have broken his Oath, but the others never did. After the July 1944Bomb Plot General Von Runstedt joined Keitel on the Army Court of Honour, whichexpelled many officers enabling them to be tried by the People’s Court beforeFreisler: many paid with their lives.  

As to the current Pope you would have been on firmer groundto have pointed out that he was head of the Sacred College for the Doctrine ofthe Faith. ie ‘The Inquisition’.

Great thread... for BigC that is. Thank you for so effectively dismissing these drab and repetitive assertions. You must be exhausted.

I'd buy you a libation, but they have not yet added that feature to the internet.

Chris, Perhaps you're missing my point. If I claim Buddhism as my rationale for commiting mass murder and leverage that claim in my rallying cry to gain support, but Buddhist dogma is clearly contrary to my actions, should Buddhism be held accountable for my actions? Hitler can claim the authority of Christianity, but his actions were not Christian. This invalidates his claim and absolves Christianity of responsibility for Hitler's actions.