Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 November 24

= November 24 =

Why is nazi Germany considered right-wing
If Nazi stands for national socialist, then why is it considered to be the far right wing opposite of communism, which is considered left wing?Uncle dan is home (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Short answer: they hijacked the term socialism. Long answer, from Nazism: "The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of a new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good" and to accept the priority of political interests in economic organisation." The characteristics of the regime are those associated with the right-wing of politics - see Right-wing politics. hth --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The Nazis were strongly anti-communist and opposed any truly socialist movements. Their term "national socialism" was an attempt at hijacking the term when they really just meant "fascism." This is covered in the Nazism article, if you read it. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's like if a political party that opposed private property advocated "collective capitalism," just on the opposite political side. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of the question you asked a while ago about Neonazis and conservatism. And similar to that situation, I should start by saying that Nazism (our articles goes into great detail) does not neatly fall on a modern, Amerocentric right-left spectrum. They were pro-religious freedom (unless they hated your religion), but against homosexuality. They supported the creation of a welfare state, but hated the entire concept of intranational class struggle. The neatest way that Nazism falls into the realm of far-right politics is the insistence that everything they're doing is based on some imagined historical tradition. That is, they are trying to go backwards, not forwards. You may be interested in the horseshoe theory of politics, which posits that the far-right has more similarities to the far-left than it does to the ordinary right. Rational Wiki has a more extensive article on this concept. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? *This* is the ordinary right now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * These things happen. People's Republics were not for the people, Democratic People's Republics were not democratic or people's, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was the Lesser East Asia Exploitation Sphere, Work Sets You Free was fatal slave labor, the Italian Social Republic was a non-socialist annexation, the Grand Old Party is newer than its rival, National Socialism had only the slightest similarities with socialism, Juche is not Juche, traditional anarchism is close to but not actually anarchy (especially what they think would happen), the Republic of China doesn't possess any China, Japan's Liberal Democratic Party is conservative, Australia's Liberal Party is conservative, Newfoundland was last found in the 1400s, Virginia goes further west than West Virginia, East Elmhurst is north of Elmhurst, the West India Company was 10,000 miles from India, Inner Mongolia is not in Mongolia, West New York is in New Jersey, Pennsylvania Station is New York's Amtrak stop, Boston Road is in the Bronx, the Polo Grounds was a baseball stadium, the New York football teams are in New Jersey, Grand Central Station is peripheral and Terminal, Red Square is spindly, Herald Square is triangular, Times Square is a hexagon, and the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor Empire. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And the Affordable Care Act isn't... - Nunh-huh 08:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say that in general, the naming of US bills is one of the two original forms of comedy the US created (the other, of course, is The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson). "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In general, if the name of the bill actually corresponds to its contents, it's an oversight. If it's an acronym, it's an outright lie. - Nunh-huh 11:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder if British bookie(s) let you bet on when the Make America Great Again Bill will pass? Will they all be called that? (Make Health Care Great Again Bill, Make Coal Great Again Bill, Make Taxes Great Again Bill, Make Cigarette Laws Great Again Bill, Make Defense Great Again Bill, Make the Budget Great Again Bill, Make Farms Great Again Bill, Make Asylum Great Again Bill, Make Hate Crime Laws Great Again Bill, Make Libel Laws Great Again Bill, Make the Constitution Great Again Bill...) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's completely insane! It's so insane I think it might truly happen... - Nunh-huh 06:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The north side of my town faced east and the east was facing south. —Tamfang (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

"If I tell you the world is ruled by a handful of capitalists, then I belong to the extreme left. But if I tell you all these capitalists are Jewish, then I belong to the extreme right". Quoted and attributed from memory to an anonymous Russian anarchist. — Kpalion(talk) 10:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * For how it acquired the term "socialism", look into Strasserism (and both forms of it). The Nazis arose at a time when first they had to compete with a left wing, in offering a bread and jobs solution to attract a hungry Germany, and then later in competing against it to wipe it out as an alternative competition. So early period Nazis were happy to present themselves as "socialist", meaning that they would be attractive to "the working man". Later, mid-period Nazis wished to distinguish themselves from this already-labelled left-wing and so they portrayed themselves as a right wing instead, something that was new for populist political parties. Previously the "right wing" had been a British model of "us and them", as Labour vs. Tory simple class distinctions within a democracy. The working classes would always be left wing because to be right wing was to support the upper classes, against your own obvious class interests. Working class politcal struggles had so far been either "against the owners" in a simple Marxist role, or as internecine splits within the working class left. I think Germany was the first place to offer a right wing, democratic (at the time), working class party which portrayed itself as a diametrically opposite political alternative to working class left wings. Such parties are still popular today, cf. Trump.
 * At the same time, the dictatorial and militaristic strand within the Nazi party, that exemplified by Hitler himself, as opposed to its populist politics, had always been simply outright fascist. When Hitler became the sole fuhrer of the Nazi party (he took it over, he hadn't created it himself) and other leaders (like the Strassers) were reduced to either toadying acolytes or ousted, then it became the simple right wing fascist party that we'd now recognise, and the "socialist" label became the part looking out of place. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the Nazis weren't conservatives in the previously accepted sense of the word; they wanted nothing to do with the monarchy, the aristocracy or the church, and although they wanted the financial and industrial giants on their side, they didn't let the needs of the business community affect their policy making. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * for the last sentence! You might want to take a look at e.g. IG Farben. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that was remiss of me.
 * 1. Business and Politics in Europe, 1900–1970: Essays in Honour of Alice Teichova edited by Terry Gourvish (p. 174): "National Socialism suspended the normal operation of the capitalist system rather than operating it on behalf of 'industrial monopolists'. The emphasis was on national service, not individual gain. 'The regulating principle', wrote one Nazi economist, 'is not profitability but a victory at arms [Waffensieg]'."
 * 2. The Historiography of the Holocaust edited by D. Stone (p. 146): "Although National Socialists used some some traditional business organisations early on, their overall aim was to restructure companies and commercial attitudes to turn businesses away from the pursuit of individual profit and towards the good of the whole (the state and the Volk) as defined by the party."
 * Nobody is denying that many industrial concerns prospered because of the Nazis, my point was that it was never a Nazi ideological aim to make them prosperous, thus differentiating themselves from traditional conservatives. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'd probably be a bit more cynical, seeing it more as a difference between official ideology and actual practice, but I get your point. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I take your point too. The truth seems to be that they exploited each other shamelessly for their own ends. Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * So? Hitler became a de facto king, high-ranking Nazis became the aristocracy and Nazi paganism was becoming the church. They just didn't call it that (Führer not king or emperor, their words for high-ranking Nazi not duke/baron..). Not too different from the old throne usurpations. And pogroms weren't new. Blaming the Jews wasn't new, genocide wasn't new, state racism wasn't new. Absolute monarchy is authoritarian, Nazism is authoritarian. Kinder, Küche, Kirche. Seems pretty damn conservative to me. By necessity if you're going to make Germany great again you can't be economically far right. (The business community did fuck-all to end the Depression) That's one of the flaws of capitalism - when a Great Depression happens there's no one to restart the economy by simply forcing the employers to rehire the country again till the economy can stay up without central planning. It's a bit like the prisoners dilemma. The right is varying amounts of Darwinism/preservation or creation of a caste order (i.e. Aryan>African>Jew) and the left is varying amounts of egalitarianism/encouraging the reduction of inequality so in that case Nazism is about as right wing as possible ("it is the birthright of the genetically superior White Master Race to exterminate the subhumans"). Nazism is rightism for the race. Ultranationalism is rightism for the country. No rules capitalism with possibly employee-affecting drugs and porn banned (porn addiction) is rightism for businesses. Libertarianism with all drugs allowed is rightism for the individual. Theocracy is rightism for the religious. Monarchism is rightism for, um, whoever prefers that. Australia's far more right wing on monarchism than less liberal America so I suspect what you're used to determines how much of the population prefers monarchism. These are incompatible and cannot coexist but the underlying theme is "some people are better than others and that's the way it should be" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

US federal cabinet nominees by president-elect
Images such as File:20081211 TD ROLLOUT-1136.jpg and news stories about "Trump nominates X for cabinet position" remind me of something I've wondered for a long time. When the incumbent US president's successor is elected (whether because he defeated the incumbent or because the incumbent wasn't running), the president-elect soon begins announcing his nominations for various high positions, long before he actually takes office on 20 January. How "official" are these announcements? Obviously the position of president-elect has no constitutional powers (especially at this point, since the electors haven't yet voted), so I've thought of several alternate explanations for how the process works, with the current folks' names for simplicity: Which of these (if any) is roughly accurate? Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump announces that he's going to nominate X, so in order to make things work smoothly, Obama nominates that person to start that position on 20 January, and the nomination is considered as soon as the relevant Senate committee has time
 * Trump announces that he's going to nominate X, so that person is officially nominated on or soon after 20 January, and the relevant Senate committee then adds that person's nomination to the calendar for hearings
 * Trump announces that he's going to nominate X, so the relevant Senate committee adds that person to the calendar for immediate hearings. That way, once the official nomination is made on 20 January, they can just vote without taking the time for post-nomination hearings.
 * Option 2 is normally what happens. Why would Obama ever take action on his successor's nominee? Most of his cabinet nominees were sworn in on the afternoon of 20th or during the following week. Hillary Clinton was the exception for the Obama cabinet as the confirmation hearings were the week prior - her nomination required a reduction in the SOS salary to get around the ineligibility clause. Xenon54 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, Option 3 is the better answer. Senate committees have independent investigatory authority, and hence can open hearings any time after the new Congress opens in early January.  The official nomination doesn't occur until the new President is sworn in, and in general the full Senate vote can not occur until at least one day after the nomination, but the relevant committee can choose to hold hearings early at their discretion.  In 2009, after Obama was elected for his first term, Senate confirmation hearings were held for 11 of 15 Senate confirmable cabinet positions before Obama took office on Jan 20.: Secretary of Agriculture (Jan 14), Attorney General (Jan 15), Sec. of Education (Jan 13), Sec. of Energy (Jan 13), Sec. of Health & Human Services (Jan 8), Sec. of Homeland Security (Jan 15), Sec. of HUD (Jan 13), Sec. of Interior (Jan 15), Sec. of Labor (Jan 9), Sec. of State (Jan 13), and Sec. of Veteran Affairs (Jan 14).  Of these 8 of the 11 were confirmed during the first week after Obama took office.  Dragons flight (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Where did you get the dates on the hearings?  And on the "why would Obama" question, I imagined a mix of convenience and courtesy: barring a sudden withdrawal decision by Trump (which Obama could resolve by firing the person before he took office; no Tenure of Office Act), a nomination by Obama of someone to take office after he's out of office won't have any immediate effect (as long as he's in office, it won't affect the country one way or the other) and that person's guaranteed to get the nomination soon afterward anyway.  Plus, every incoming president announces nominations before taking office, so presumably there's a traditional way of handling these things, and if Bush II had nominated Obama's appointees to take offices post-20 January, I thought perhaps Obama might do the same for Trump's appointees.  Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Democratic North Dakota primary result 2016 by county


Which counties did Bernie Sanders win during the primaries? because the map for Democratic primary North Dakota didn't show the counties that were green but the US map of Democratic Party primaries results by counties did show for North Dakota but it was confusing. Donmust90 (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the files that I've placed to the right, and the fact that no counties are marked on the state map? I'm guessing that someone was planning to mark the counties on the ND map but forgot.  Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Donmust90 (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just now downloaded the North Dakota map and discovered that it's text-editable (i.e. changing six specific characters, all easily identified, will change a county's color), but then I noticed that the boundaries on the national map do not reflect county boundaries, comparable to what's done with Alaska and Kansas. As such, I cannot update this map.  We'll have to find county-level data on voting before updating this map.  Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I just found out that the North Dakota on the US map is actually the map of North Dakota Legislative Assembly House of Representative districts. Donmust90 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Root Causes of Sudan's Civil Wars (African Issues)
Hello. I am destubbing Josephine Apieu Jenaro Aken and the article references:
 * Root Causes of Sudan's Civil Wars (African Issues) by Douglas H. Johnson (Paperback – 16 Jan 2003) ISBN 0-85255-392-7

Problem is, I have a copy of the book with me, but I can not find her name or her husband Dominic Dim Deng in the index. I've looked, and I can't find either of them in the book. I am focusing on destubbing Josephine Apieu Jenaro Aken but her husband's wiki article also cites the same reference.

Are they both included in the book and i've missed it? Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As you've maybe noticed, that book was in there from the get-go. I'm guessing that it was placed as a background-reading item on the whole conflict, not as something that would provide specific data on Josephine.  Dominic's article got the book in this series of edits by the same IP address on 22 January 2011, and again it's seemingly just for background reading on the whole conflict.  Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. I wasn't sure. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)