Of course, this is strictly a hypothesis on my part, albeit one backed up by similar demographic trends noted in other preindustrial cultures.

Matt Helm on February 27, 2007 at 1:16 PM

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

See section “Her betrothal to Joseph”; clearly no one knows Mary’s exact age for this–looks like 12 or 13.

Yea, that’s the way I learned it a few eons ago. But lately it seems a possibly more useful descripiton is running the spectrum from a centralized, collectivized, socialist left [which would include both Communism and the various fascisms - thus Hitler and Stalins’s emnity not being doctrinal, but rather territorial and even to some degree personal] over to a more individualized, free-market right.

I think “right-wing” was frequently applied to military dictatorships, no matter what the social organization / economic stripe.

I think I like the collectivist – free market description of the spectrum better, especially in describing the division on the American political scene.

eeyore on February 27, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Well more useful is subjective. And revisionist history when people make statements that Nazis were socialists. When did we stop teaching history in schools?

Easy there, little liberal. My my my, but you can be condescending, can’t you?

How about looking up “irony” while you have your dictionary out?

Nazism began with Hitler. (As your own link illustrates, the Workers party that AH joined had 25 members when he joined it). Read Mein Kempf, read any of Hitler’s speeches. Again, and for the last time, Hitler was wildly anti-Communist, anti-Socialist, anti-Bolsevik.

Try to follow the logic here: Nazism began with Hitler, Hitler was a fascist from the get-go, never a socialist, so the statement that Nazis were socialists before they were fascists is, well, it’s ludicrous.

Dhimmitude is voluntary.
–Bat Y’or [poorly quoted]

Hey, if the meaning is not clear, take it up with the folks at the American Heritage. I mean really, one expects clarity from a dictionary….LOL

honora on February 27, 2007 at 4:37 PM

As usuall, caught again shading the truth. American Heritage dictionary is what I posted, and Webster is what I posted. You posted a dictionary that is a social commentary dictionary, not an actual dictionary. You just can’t be honest.

Hitler controlled the economy, was bent on re-distribution of wealth, had social control. The Fascism came from the military complex he built up. But use whatever you want to define your party’s actions.

The irony is you do not refute your party and its physically aggressive response to conservatives. The attacks, on people and objects that reflect a free and open society.

What we are talking about is the intimidation of race, physical attacks, stopping of free speech and assembly that the party that you support thrusts upon conservatives.

You can call it the DNC, that may be more accurate.

…I have to ask myself what Edward R. Murrow would have said about that. What about Thomas Paine? He faced threats to life and freedom for publishing Common Sense and Age of Reason. Olympe de Gouges lost her life at the guillotine for speaking out for women’s rights during the Terror.

Matt Helm on February 27, 2007 at 11:59 AM

[emphasis mine]

Um, one of these things is not like the other.

Wow Franky, what a faaabulous garden you have

Weltner: “This just shows you the craziness of Zionists in America.”

Um…yeah, OK (slowly backing out of room). Uh…I’ll be, um, right back.

…the political spectrum is generally thought to go from far left (communist) thru socialist and other isms to the far right (fascism).
honora on February 27, 2007 at 5:12 PM

Yea, that’s the way I learned it a few eons ago. But lately it seems a possibly more useful descripiton is running the spectrum from a centralized, collectivized, socialist left [which would include both Communism and the various fascisms - thus Hitler and Stalins's emnity not being doctrinal, but rather territorial and even to some degree personal] over to a more individualized, free-market right.

I think “right-wing” was frequently applied to military dictatorships, no matter what the social organization / economic stripe.

I think I like the collectivist – free market description of the spectrum better, especially in describing the division on the American political scene.

Your serve honora.

That definition simply doesn’t align with the POV of some folks on this blog who insist that if it’s bad, it’s left, decades of political science be damned.

Not at ALL the point being made. You’re arguing that the nazi party was not socialist before it went fascist. I have no problem with the fact they changed and were against the communists. But again, we go ’round and ’round and you tapdance around the real topic of discussion and rail against pointless minutae that really hasn’t a great deal to do with the original discussion.

But done like a good little leftie, I suppose.

And Webster trumps your little dictionary.

Liberals, Leftists, Fascists, Nazi’s, Socialists, Marxists, all pretty much the same family. Some taller, some fatter, but they all share the same DNA.

Poor girl.

Elitist in the extreme. Not at all becoming, either.

Hey honora, watch this. I was mistaken about hitler taking the party over in 1933. That’s when the third reich started. He rose to become the leader of the very small group that was formed in 1919.

All this is just a distraction from the main point, which you stubbornly refuse to address, that the nazis were socialists before they were fascists, but that’s your MO. We’re used to it.

The party was socialist before it became fascist. That’s the only point I was trying to make. I think the liberals are going down the same path at the moment.

Here’s another link

From it:

The National Socialist party originated in the German Workers’ party, formed in Munich in 1919. At the time Hitler joined it in 1919, the German Workers’ party had a nominal membership of about 25, only 6 of whom were active in its discussions and lecture activities. Shortly after joining, Hitler became a leader of the group. At the first mass meeting of the German Workers’ party, held in Munich on February 24, 1920, Hitler read the party programme, which he had partly written; this consisted of 25 points comprising a mixture of exaggerated nationalistic demands, corruptions of socialist ideas, and racist and anti-Semitic doctrines. As the essential conditions for the realization of its aims, the party declared in point 25: “For modern society, a colossus with feet of clay, we shall create an unprecedented centralization which will unite all powers in the hands of the government. We shall create a hierarchical constitution, which will mechanically govern all movements of individuals.”

Stop tapdancing, get off the cross, and address the point.

I contend the left is making its way toward fascism. From your own definition, all that’s missing is that charismatic leader. And there’s no shortage of demagogues vying for that title, is there?

If memory serves, although the Nazis did leave property ownership in private hands, they did centrally dictate exactly what and how much would be produced.

eeyore on February 27, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Ok eeyore, you just can’t waltz into this and start being reasonable. Jeez!!

The issue here is simple: the political spectrum is generally thought to go from far left (communist) thru socialist and other isms to the far right (fascism). That definition simply doesn’t align with the POV of some folks on this blog who insist that if it’s bad, it’s left, decades of political science be damned.

The end result being this ludicrous attempt to maintain that Nazis were socialists, when in fact everyone knows (ok, I stand corrected, everyone nominally lucid) that Hitler and Mussolini were virulently anti-Communist/Socialist.

Oh history, all those dates…

Not true. The National Socialist German Workers Party began in 1920. Hitler took the party over in 1933.

Yeah, you’re right. Clarity just isn’t your strong suit, is it… LOL.

techno_barbarian on February 27, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Wrong. Ever hear of the Munich Putsch? When was that exactly? Jesus you can be dense. From Britannica.com:

German political party of National Socialism.

Founded in 1919 as the German Workers’ Party, it changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party when Adolf Hitler became leader (1920–21). The nickname Nazi was taken from the first word of its full name, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei.

Clarity indeed.

The Nazis (a name which they never used) aka the National Socialist German Workers Party came into being under Hitler in 1920. So I don’t understand your question–there was no “Nazi” party prior to Hitler.

Not true. The National Socialist German Workers Party began in 1920. Hitler took the party over in 1933.

Yeah, you’re right. Clarity just isn’t your strong suit, is it… LOL.