Does Liberal Mean "free"?

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's tough to swallow the idea that modern day conservative or liberal (minus what's required to be a catholic, for the purposes of this forum) encapsulates the truth as best possible.
people strive to objectivity. someone who is the cookie cutter... must consider their party to be the best objectivity they know of. yet, most political parties in time could not be the optimal objectivity, as there's only one truth and today's allegedly is optimal. to say... to claim... that today's party encapsulate that optimal objective pursuit, is a hard pill to swallow historically and statistically speaking, not to mention for all the substnative arguments that could be made against the polar ends.
those who reside towards the end... whether genuinely or as a matter of sheepishness... must live in a happy world though, where their beliefs in what's most objectively true is embodied in a modern day political party, of all the odds.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1570358' date='Jun 13 2008, 12:16 AM']those who reside towards the end... whether genuinely or as a matter of sheepishness... must live in a happy world though, where their beliefs in what's most objectively true is embodied in a modern day political party, of all the odds.[/quote]

Those are the kind of people who end up blowing up buildings or committing atrocities like genocide IMO. If you agree with everything a politician says...you've seriously got some soul-searching to do...

[Didymus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1570292' date='Jun 13 2008, 12:00 AM']In fact, Hitler studied Lenin's Communist revolution to get ideas on how to organize his own Nazi revolution.[/quote]

source?

[KnightofChrist]

They both studied Karl Marx, and while I recall Hitler's quotes praising Lenin, I can not find them.

[geauxsaints26]

I've heard Hitler praised and quoted Martin Luther quite often

[Alycin]

The word liberal has a lot of different meanings depending on it's contents.

IMO the only true freedom is freedom in Christ. Aside from that, it's all drivel.

If you give someone a liberal helping of pie, you are giving them a lot. A liberal helping of pie is like saying a generous helping of pie.

The liberal party (the majority anyway) often thinks that freedom is found in everyone being able to do what they want without boundaries... not murder or anything but things like marriage, jobs, sexual relationships, abortions, etc. They are for less restrictions... but they don't realize that that isn't actually "freeing" in the sense that it is good for the soul. God's laws are good for the soul, but to someone who doesn't understand it they would see it as being restricting... when really, it isn't.

(I re-read that and it didn't come out exactly how I wanted but that's as good as I can get.)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1570680' date='Jun 13 2008, 01:58 PM']source?[/quote]
Richard Pipes, [i]Russia under the Bolshevik Regime[/i] (New York, 1993) p. 259, as cited by Warren Carroll in [i]The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution[/i] (Front Royal, VA, 1995) p. 120-121.

Adolf Hitler wrote in a letter to Hermann Rauschning:[quote]I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. . . . I have learned from their methods. . . . The whole of National Socialism is based on it. Look at the workers' sports clubs, the industrial cells, the mass demonstrations, the propaganda leaflets written specifically for the comprehension of the masses; all of these methods of political struggle are essentially Marxist in origin. All I had to do is take over these methods and adapt them to our purpose.[/quote]

In a 1941 speech, Hitler declared, "Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same."

[CatherineM]

Marxism has lasted longer. I'm not sure how.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1572367' date='Jun 15 2008, 11:04 PM']Richard Pipes, [i]Russia under the Bolshevik Regime[/i] (New York, 1993) p. 259, as cited by Warren Carroll in [i]The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution[/i] (Front Royal, VA, 1995) p. 120-121.

Adolf Hitler wrote in a letter to Hermann Rauschning:

In a 1941 speech, Hitler declared, "Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same."[/quote]

thanks

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1570164' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:54 PM']Right reason invariably leads one down the Right path. [/quote]

Because soc is always right.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1570292' date='Jun 13 2008, 12:00 AM']I think the idea that Nazis were conservative (and conversely, that conservatives are Nazis, or Nazi-like) is one of the biggest lies of the Left.

The Nazis were only considered "Right" because they were fighting the Communists for power. They were not conservatives (German conservatives at the time were the monarchists, whom Hitler once said he considered a greater enemy than Communism). The most conservative parts of Germany (such as Bavaria) were the least supportive of Nazism.

While the Nazis (National Socialist German Workers Party) and the Communists were at war with each other, they were hardly opposite ideologies, but were far more similar than different. In fact, Hitler studied Lenin's Communist revolution to get ideas on how to organize his own Nazi revolution.
Both Communism and Nazism are godless, revolutionary, statist, totalitarian regimes.
Any serious student of history can see that they resembled each other far more than they were different.
Tweedledee battling Tweedledum.[/quote]

They only resembled each other so much because they were such polar opposites. Hitler actually DID help German buisnessmen (non Jewish, Aryan buisnessmen, but buisnessmen nonetheless) and improved the German economy greatly. Soviet communism did not. They resembled each other in how they treated their citizens, but not in other buisness related policies. The only way they were similar is that they were tyrannically paranoid dictatorships.

[quote name='geauxsaints26' post='1572260' date='Jun 15 2008, 08:31 PM']I've heard Hitler praised and quoted Martin Luther quite often [/quote]

Martin Luther was antisemitic, which made it very easy for the Nazis to say "look, the founder of Lutheranism knew how filthy the Jews were, we are just doing the work of God!"

[quote name='Socrates' post='1572367' date='Jun 15 2008, 11:04 PM']Richard Pipes, [i]Russia under the Bolshevik Regime[/i] (New York, 1993) p. 259, as cited by Warren Carroll in [i]The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution[/i] (Front Royal, VA, 1995) p. 120-121.

Adolf Hitler wrote in a letter to Hermann Rauschning:

In a 1941 speech, Hitler declared, "Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same."[/quote]

blah blah blah. That quote from his letter is discussing only brainwashing techniques, nothing to do with the real policies of the government. You sound like you are trying to make it seem that Hitler meant that all of his government's actions were based on Marxism. No.

Anyway if you want to get into what was truly "conservative" in Germany at the time (Bavaria is where Hitler first started gaining support, by the way... that is where his first rallies were, Munich was where the NAZI national headquarters were located, the Munich compact was signed in Munich (duh), and the eagle's nest was in the bavarian alps), then there was nothing more conservative than antisemitism. It has a long history in Germany, and the terms "liberal" and conservative" are relative to their times (as you so cleverly pointed out by mentioning the monarchists).

Soc, I have never once seen you call out anyone who was seen as right wing. Maybe you just need to accept that the "right" can be wrong sometimes, and that conservatives have the potential to be just as evil as liberals. Louis XIV of France wasn't exactly an angel, and what about Rasputin in Russia? As long as the monarchy was in power he thought he'd be home free. Probably the most conservative Russian man of the 20th century outside of the royal family itself. oh, but then you would call him liberal because he was "liberal" with his bedmates.

Liberal does not equal evil. Conservative does not equal good. It depends on what you are talking about specifically. In the US (and europe) today, conservatism is usually the more moral choice. Look at the middle east, however. RELATIVELY speaking, don't you think that some countries should be a little more liberal in their policies? It is certainly not liberal to force women to wear burkhas in public.

[Socrates]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1573660' date='Jun 17 2008, 02:59 AM']Because soc is always right.
They only resembled each other so much because they were such polar opposites. Hitler actually DID help German buisnessmen (non Jewish, Aryan buisnessmen, but buisnessmen nonetheless) and improved the German economy greatly. Soviet communism did not. They resembled each other in how they treated their citizens, but not in other buisness related policies. The only way they were similar is that they were tyrannically paranoid dictatorships.[/quote]
I honestly don't get the point of your snarky snotty tone here.
Does pointing out how Nazism and Communism are similar somehow offend you?

I didn't say Nazism and Communism are identical, simply that they resembled each other far more than they were different. They most certainly were NOT "polar opposites," as can be obvious by even a casual glance at their policies and methods.
Both were statist totalitarian dictatorships, in which all aspects of society - culture, family, religion, industry, etc. - were subordinated to an all-powerful centralized state.
While Hitler tended to emphasize anti-Semitism over socialism, once he gained control of the party, the National Socialist German Workers Party [i]was[/i] a socialist party, albeit not as strict in its socialism as the Communists.
Both Commies and Nazis employed Marxist-type rhetoric, claiming to represent the "Workers" against the exploitive capitalists (in typical anti-Semitic fashion, the Nazis identified these evil capitalists as Jews who were responsible for oppressing the German worker).
Both Commies and Nazis ruthlessly murdered entire groups of people deemed enemies of "the people" - whether by the Nazi "final solution" or the Stalinist "liquidation of the Kulacs."
Both ruthlessly persecuted any who opposed or were critical of the state in any way, and repressed or subordinated religion to strict state control.

As Germany was just coming out of the Great Depression, it is debatable how much Hitler was actually responsible for improving Germany's economy, though this was largely through militarization and work programs similar to FDR's.
But the truth remains that Hitler did [i]increase[/i] centralized government control over industry, and ended free trade. He was very much a "big-government" man, hardly the polar opposite of Communism.
Simply having more effective economic policy than the Soviets doesn't make the Nazis polar opposites of the Communists, even in purely economic areas. If the Nazis were economic polar opposites of the Communists, they would be [i]laissez faire[/i] free market capitalists, which they were not.

[quote]blah blah blah. That quote from his letter is discussing only brainwashing techniques, nothing to do with the real policies of the government. You sound like you are trying to make it seem that Hitler meant that all of his government's actions were based on Marxism. No.[/quote]
Hitler's words, not mine. It's dubious National Socialism would've existed without Marx and Lenin coming first. Nazism is Marxism's [mod]edit--language--hsm[/mod] child.

[quote]Anyway if you want to get into what was truly "conservative" in Germany at the time (Bavaria is where Hitler first started gaining support, by the way... that is where his first rallies were, Munich was where the NAZI national headquarters were located, the Munich compact was signed in Munich (duh), and the eagle's nest was in the bavarian alps), then there was nothing more conservative than antisemitism. It has a long history in Germany, and the terms "liberal" and conservative" are relative to their times (as you so cleverly pointed out by mentioning the monarchists).[/quote]
Where Hitler chose to have his headquarters is not relevant to my point. (Hell, if I was dictator of Germany, I'd have my headquarters in Bavaria too - beautiful country). The fact remains that Hitler had much less support in Bavaria and other parts of traditional southern Catholic Germany than in the protestant heavily secular north. This information was on a map which someone showed in another debate (about the "Hitler's Pope" nonsense) showing who voted for the Nazis in the election by region. (But right now, I'm too lazy to look it up - I'll let you do the homework.)

[quote]Soc, I have never once seen you call out anyone who was seen as right wing. Maybe you just need to accept that the "right" can be wrong sometimes, and that conservatives have the potential to be just as evil as liberals. Louis XIV of France wasn't exactly an angel, and what about Rasputin in Russia? As long as the monarchy was in power he thought he'd be home free. Probably the most conservative Russian man of the 20th century outside of the royal family itself. oh, but then you would call him liberal because he was "liberal" with his bedmates.[/quote]
Your point?
Louis XIV reigned before the terms "right" and "left" were invented in the French Revolution, and while no angel, was not exceptionally evil either, and can be considered no more "conservative" than any other French king. (In fact, he was known as an "enlightened despot").
And if doing royal women makes one a "conservative," yeah, whatever, sign me up!

[quote]Liberal does not equal evil. Conservative does not equal good. It depends on what you are talking about specifically. In the US (and europe) today, conservatism is usually the more moral choice. Look at the middle east, however. RELATIVELY speaking, don't you think that some countries should be a little more liberal in their policies? It is certainly not liberal to force women to wear burkhas in public.[/quote]
This still has little to do with my point about National Socialism being more similar than different to Communism. You have not invalidated any of my original points, simply tried to throw in some red herrings.

In the meantime, you might read up some more on your history, and also try learning some respect, little boy, before you post further.

Edited August 28, 2008 by homeschoolmom

[rkwright]

I will point out that modern germans refer to nazis as 'rechts' - rights. I would say generally, most (if not all) neo-nazi's are considered 'right wing' - not leftists.

[Alycin]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1574451' date='Jun 17 2008, 10:05 PM']I honestly don't get the point of your snarky snotty tone here.

In the meantime, you might read up some more on your history, and also try learning some respect, little boy, before you post further.[/quote]

Soc, I don't necessarily think you are wrong about your history in this thread, but I think it's kind of hypocritical to tell someone to learn respect and in then in the same breath speak to them with such condescension by referring to them as "little boy"...

Does it surprise you that someone would use an aggressive tone of voice towards you? I don't know if you realize it or not, but the large majority of your posts come off as rude and condescending. You may not mean to, though, and if you don't mean to, perhaps you should give others the same benefit of the doubt when you think their post comes off as having a certain tone to it.

[BG45]

Just remembered I had posted here, and people seem to have used any argument I would have. Thus, I wanted to say that I meant to reply at the time, but didn't. And now, I remain silent further in this thread out of Christian charity, realism, and integrity.

Nothing can be done to further the cause of the Lord by attacking fellow Christians beliefs. Because sometimes, as the rule of realism implies, Satan's greatest work is not to make us think he does not exist, but to make us think we are doing the Lord's work.