: Sorry, Gee, but IN THIS CONTEXT the quote is in fact meaningful. The point was made that 1) Hitlker did not believe in individualism, 2) neither does 'the left', 3) therefore Hitler is a leftist.Therefore Hitler was 'anti-individual' or 'pro-collectivist'. Lets leave left/right out of it a moment. Hitler evidently believed in subjugation of the individual to the nation / race. If you can show premise #2 to be false please do (or point to MDGs post please)
: Second of all, remember when you yourslef used the reductio ad Hitlerum argument against Barry, saying that "You advocate vanguardism, so did Hitler, ergo...." something like that.
Something not quite like that. I said that small vangaurd parties can fail to represent 'the people' in the same way that the Nazi party did. That the danger is not exempted from 'leftist' vangaurd parties. There was no 'therefore...must' conclusion drawn, but reminding one of the danger was relavent.
: the idea of a categorical ethic seems appealing,
Sure, the context however cannot be the whims of the current majority - the context must be reality and reason. Consider law - where law is not bound by rule it is not bound by facts (reality) and becomes a matter of political sway rather than an appraisal of what is.
: In other words, there is a difference between pushing an old woman in front of a car (malevolent fascism) and pushing her away from the car. (benevolent socialism). You can't subsume both under the same rubric of pushing people around.
Thats a very favourable analogy to draw. One can say that in socialism everyone is pushed around *against* their own judgement and that it is that which is wrong - lest you start subscribing to one of despotisms cornerstones - of seeking ends without regard to means.
None.
