site banner
ulyssessword  13d ago (text post)   1706 thread views

Canada Federal Election 2025

Today is the day!

Poll aggregator: https://338canada.com/

Live results: https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2025/results/

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If you mean the German National-Socialist party, calling them "the right" was a propaganda trick in 1930s and will remain so in 2030s.

The German right (in particular the DNVP, the Stahlhelm, Papen's right-wing faction of Zentrum and the clique of conservative aristocrats around Hindenburg) were broadly supportive of the NSDAP and actively enabled Hitler's rise to power. The German left (in particular the SDP) opposed it. I'm happy to admit that the relationship between the NSDAP and the KPD was more complex. But I think "the Nazis were right-wing" had a clear meaning in the context of 1930's Germany and that meaning is obviously correct given who was on which side. If you think you understand the politics of the NSDAP better than the German politicians of its time, then you need a better argument than "there is an S in NSDAP."

Mentioning them in the broader political context as the valid definition of the whole term

My position is that the CDU (and CSU in Bavaria) is "the right" in 21st century Germany. You disagree, and argue that "the right" should correctly refer to some other political tradition which rejects the CDU from a further-right perspective. The reason why no such political tradition has existed in Germany since 1945 is that "the right" in your sense discredited itself by being either proud supporters of or useful idiots for Hitler, and thus contributing to the utter ruination of Germany. It wasn't just Nazism that discredited itself in this way - it was the broader illiberal right including the DNVP, the Chamberlain-Halifax wing of the British Conservative party, throne-and-altar conservatives in Catholic Europe, and the militaristic conservatism of Quisling and Petain.

it certainly sounds like you're calling me a Nazi

I'm not calling you a Nazi - just as I wouldn't call Papen and Hugenberg Nazis, because they weren't. But they both did jail time after WW2 for collaborating with Nazis. I think that you are defining "the right" in a way which means anyone who is a reliable ally against Nazis doesn't qualify. I note that you explicitly endorsed the AfD, a group that was kicked out of the right-populist ID group in the European Parliament after its lead candidate defended the role of the SS in WW2, as an example of what you consider "the right". I think the AfD is lousy with Nazis (it isn't a Nazi party per se), and I think that someone who supports the AfD is sufficiently comfortable working with Nazis that they fall into the broad category of "right-wingers whose approach to politics should have been discredited by events leading up to 1945."

I never mentioned Farage (for the simple reason that his political power right now is microscopic, 4 seats out of 650?)

The proposition we were arguing about is "the right is over". Farage doesn't have power right now, but nobody paying attention to British politics thinks that Reform UK is "over". If you say that "the right is over" in the UK, you are implying that Reform UK isn't right-wing enough for you.

I think that you are defining "the right" in a way which means anyone who is a reliable ally against Nazis doesn't qualify

This is quite misleading - since there aren't any proper right-wing movements available in Germany, except maybe AfD, and AfD can not be a "reliable ally" to any other party due to the consistent policy of those parties to reject any cooperation with it, then it may be vacuously true, but that's exactly my point. Your explanation is "the right you're talking about are essentially Nazis and that's why there's no proper right in Germany" (which btw doesn't explain what happens with the rest of Europe?) - but that's completely untrue. It is possible to have a right-wing movement that does not include Nazis (at least not in any political way - an individual Nazi sympathizer of course can join any movement and it's impossible to prevent it in a free country) - it's just that in Europe there's a distinct lack of such movements that have any power or serious influence on the current politics. And this has nothing to do with Nazis or my definition of the right converging to Nazis (it does not). It's just that the population of Europe seems to be fine with the soft-left policies they are getting. They probably wouldn't be fine with full-scale hard-left communism, but the center of mass for the modern Left is not there, it's more around big-government woke welfare open-borders state with heavily regulated economy, still nominally allowing private ownership but within tightly controlled boundaries (and private speech and political participation within tightly controlled boundaries too). Europeans have the full right to like this package, but that's exactly why I am saying "the right is over" - because there are no serious offering outside this package on the political scene. And no, "that's because you want Nazis" is not a good answer to it - there can be a lot of potential offerings outside this package that do not include Nazis. They are just not available on the European political market.

nobody paying attention to British politics thinks that Reform UK is "over"

They are not "over" as the party still exists, but they don't have any power, so it's not "over" because it never was actually "in". Britain is a bit different case because it does have a functioning conservative party that is not in name only, and sometimes can implement policies - even though in many important aspects, again, there's not much departure from the same package there either.

throne-and-altar conservatives in Catholic Europe

What throne and altar conservatives were discredited by(or indeed relevant in) WWII? The Carlists in Spain probably would have picked Hitler over Churchill but they weren’t a relevant factor(indeed they were a minority party of a neutral power). There were clerical fascists in central Europe who collaborated but that is, literally, a different thing.

I think that someone who supports the AfD is sufficiently comfortable working with Nazis that they fall into the broad category of "right-wingers whose approach to politics should have been discredited by events leading up to 1945."

Do you feel the same way about left wingers who are comfortable working with communists?

Are there any left wingers at all that aren't comfortable working with communists? I mean, a while ago, there were real flaming anti-communists, even among prominent democrats. But among modern prominent democrats - are there any anti-communists at all? Are there any that at least are able to give proper recognition to the crimes committed by communist regimes in the last century and not just treat as "it was long time ago, let's not talk about it"?

The US House of Reps just in 2023 passed the resolution Denouncing the Horrors of Socialism with 109 Dems voting for it (86 against). Last year, the same House passed Crucial Communism Teaching Act which "makes optional educational materials available through the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation to help educate high school students about the dangers of communism and totalitarianism and how those systems are contrary to the founding principles of freedom and democracy in the United States" with even more Dem support.

Thanks, the first one looks good, even though I don't see a single D cosponsor, but at least the majority of Dems voted for it. One has to wonder though if it were about denouncing Nazis, would there be 86 congressmen saying "nah" and another 14 saying "I don't care so much I can't even form an opinion on this".

For the second one, it sounds like communism is so much dead the Congress feels they need to pass federal legislation to counter its influence in the schools (despite school programs traditionally being a local matter and not the federal Congressional matter). If it's politically dead the politicians certainly don't think so. But again, it is encouraging to see the majority of Dems voting for it.

Yes.

The trouble with the comparison is that communism is dead as a political force. The handful of self-identified communists are sanctimonious LARPers with no aspirations to power, whereas fascist sympathizers keep surfacing in positions of influence inside right-wing populist movements. The right-populists wants to engage in whataboutism so they don't have to talk about their neo-nazi problem, but there just isn't the kind of symmetry they're looking for. There's no equivalent neo-stalinist movement. The closest you get are pro-palestinian activists, who rather famously don't get along with mainstream left-wing politicians.

communism is dead as a political force

Nazism has been dead as a political force for much longer. And was active as a political force for much shorter period. And "the handful of self-identified Nazis" most definitely are "LARPers with no aspirations to power" (if by "aspirations" one means serious possibility and not wet dreams under the influence of drugs) - while communists are plentiful in our academic institutions, can easily find themselves at positions of power in smaller local governments, and that is without even peeling the veil under which DSA is hiding. Short of violent overthrowing of the government, if a politician supports virtually any part of Communist program, she may be considered a bit of a radical but not completely out of the acceptable in the polite society. If you can shut up about the glorious revolution for a bit, there's no barrier for a communist to participate in modern politics. You may not win the presidency (though watch AOC, who knows?) but you won't also be kicked out. Is it really dead or just temporarily laying in wait?

whereas fascist sympathizers keep surfacing in positions of influence inside right-wing populist movements

Here we have not one rhetoric tricks but several:

  1. "Sympathizers" - we move from self-identified Nazis to nebulous "fascist" (on the left, anybody to the right of Bernie is damn "fascist", including one's own landlord who demands paying rent with the delay of no more than three months!) and then from that to even more nebulous "sympathizer" - which is pure mind-reading.
  2. What is "position of influence"? A blog on instagram is a "position of influence". A soapbox in the middle of the street is a "position of influence". Is professor in the university a "position of influence"? We have a ton of communist professors, find me one self-identified Nazi professor. We have school teachers parading in shirts with the portrait of Gevara (notorious communist mass murderer) - can you point any teachers parading in a shirt with a portrait of Hitler? Or even Eichmann? What would happen if a prominent movie star declares herself a communist and what would happen if she declares herself a Nazi? Where are "positions of influence" here?
  3. Which "movements"? Are "groypers" a movement? Are 4chan trolls a "movement"? Are Andrew Tate followers a "movement"? Who knows, maybe. None of those has serious participation in national politics. Which "populist movements" under the serious ideological influence of Nazis can you name? Can they take over and burn down a whole city, and repeat it for months? Because I know movements on the left that can, and did.

but there just isn't the kind of symmetry they're looking for.

True, there isn't. "Neo-nazi problem" exists almost exclusively as a thing to accuse everybody on the right in, not as stand-alone political movement that is capable of anything more than moving the stale tiki torch inventory in the local hardware store. Violent leftist movement are capable of much, much more. And their political wing controls a lot of society's cultural and educational institutions. It's not even close to symmetry. That's why a former communist terrorist can be a respected professor and a mentor to the US President, and a former Nazi never could. Former KKK member probably could (did Byrd mentor anyone? don't remember) but he would end up in the same party as the Communist one.

The closest you get are pro-palestinian activists, who rather famously don't get along with mainstream left-wing politicians

The not getting along is rather one sided though. The militant left doesn't like the polite left, because they consider the latters to be wusses, hipocrites and pretenders (in which they might even be correct, even if for the wrong reasons) but the polite left would always cover for, enable and defend the militant left. And the antisemitism is just the "current thing" in fashion today (though antisemitism is never truly out of fashion on the left) but there's always some cause where violence, especially deniable violence, would be very useful to the Party. Be it protecting the Gaia, enforcing DEI, suppressing enemy speech or impeding enforcement of the laws the left doesn't like, there's always enough reason for political violence. And those who deploy this violence look very much like those whose existence you deny.

There's no equivalent neo-stalinist movement

Why it has to be Uncle Joe? Neo-Nazis have no choice, they had only one prominent figure. Communism has so many bloodthirsty tyrants or wannabe tyrants on record, one could choose freely among them, or proclaim all of those weren't true Communism, which has never been tried, and thus it all doesn't count.

Seemingly no. Just trying to see if this is a general principle or a justification for opposing the ‘far right’.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats