News of News - The Fifth Power
The U.S. imposed new sanctions on senior leaders of Myanmar’s military junta on Monday—the eve of the one-year anniversary of their overthrow of the country’s democratically elected government and imprisonment of its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.
The U.S., joined by the U.K., and Canada, announced sanctions on officials who helped prosecute Aung San Suu Kyi, the head of the National League for Democracy. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate was arrested in the Feb. 1, 2021 coup. Myanmar courts have sentenced her to a total of six years in prison as of Jan. 10—but she faces additional charges.
Was Hitler or the Nazis left-wing or right-wing? Generally, the vast majority of people classify Hitler as right-wing due to his extreme racial and nationalist policies and his authoritarian rule. However, a significant number of people still argue that Hitler was left-wing. This article aims to demonstrate, from three perspectives, that Hitler was left-wing. These three perspectives are:
- From a purely logical perspective
- From the perspective of ideological evolution
- From the Nazis’ own declarations
1. From a purely logical perspective
Let us begin by discussing a scenario: Both left-wing and right-wing individuals eat food. Can the act of “eating food” be used as a determinant to classify someone as left-wing or right-wing?
1). If you believe it can, there is no need to continue reading this article.
2). If you believe it cannot, why not?
This article agrees with the latter. In mathematics, when calculating ratios between two numbers, common factors are canceled out. For example, 12/8=3/2, where 4, being a common factor of 12 and 8, is ignored during the calculation.
Similarly, when studying history, we observe that characteristics like racism, nationalism, and authoritarianism have appeared multiple times in both widely recognized left-wing and right-wing nations or groups. For example:
- Left-wing examples: The racial and nationalist policies in the mid-to-late 20th century, such as the Soviet Union’s promotion of national liberation movements in Asia and Africa.
- Right-wing examples: Racist and nationalist incidents often triggered by conflicts over interests, borders, or occasional disputes between nations or ethnic groups.
As for authoritarianism, it has appeared in both left-wing and right-wing regimes in the 20th century.
It is worth noting that we should not conclude, “Although he was previously left-wing, his execution of racist and nationalist policies or his authoritarian rule made him ‘turn into’ right-wing.” If we think this way, we are essentially defining right-wing as “bad people”: “This leftist has become bad, so he must be right-wing.” This would render the discussion meaningless.
Thus, even though many people believe that racism, nationalism, and authoritarianism are characteristics of the right wing, we can still disagree with this view. We believe that these characteristics should be excluded from the factors that distinguish left-wing from right-wing. If these traits are not excluded, one could similarly use “eating food” as a common trait to differentiate between left and right, which is clearly illogical.
What are the key factors for distinguishing left-wing and right-wing?
After thoroughly studying a wealth of historical materials and the development of ideologies in the 19th and 20th centuries, we conclude:
- The most critical distinguishing factor is inclination:
- Groups inclined toward a large government, relying on government power to solve social problems and expanding government control over society and the economy, are left-wing.
- Groups inclined toward a small government, emphasizing self-governance, limiting government power, and restricting government control over society and the economy, are right-wing.
- It is worth noting that anarchists, due to their inclination toward the complete elimination of government power and their pursuit of a perfect society, are classified as left-wing. However, anarchists generally avoid identifying themselves as left-wing because they associate the right wing with racism, nationalism, and authoritarianism.
Classifying left-wing and right-wing is inherently complex because individuals are complex. Some people agree with certain left-wing viewpoints while also agreeing with certain right-wing ones. Instead of examining every individual trait, we should focus on the overall inclination of a person, group, or institution to determine whether they lean more toward the left or the right.
2. From the Perspective of the Ideological Evolution of Leftism
According to historical records, the terms “left-wing” and “right-wing” originated during the French Revolution. By the mid-19th century, Marxism, with its support for proletarian revolutions, inherited the designation of “left-wing.”
From that point on, the concept of “left-wing” came to encompass ideas such as challenging the existing order, opposing traditional hierarchies, and advocating for the interests of disadvantaged groups against those of dominant groups.
Conversely, “right-wing” came to represent a reluctance to change the existing order, support for maintaining traditional hierarchies, and the protection of the vested interests of dominant groups.
Due to the moral connotations that the public has attached to “left” and “right,” along with the instinctive sympathy that most people have for disadvantaged groups, it has become widely believed that “left is good” and “right is bad.” Furthermore, many people extend this belief to assume that “as long as the bad is removed, the world will become a better place.”
Additionally, when people apply this way of thinking to analyzing the relationship between employees and employers, they generally perceive employees as the disadvantaged group and employers as the dominant group. As a result, from the 19th to the 20th century, a wave of leftist revolutions swept across many countries worldwide. Leftist revolutionaries called on the working class to seize government power, viewing former employers as enemies—imprisoning them or even carrying out mass executions. This was the essence of the socialist (communist) revolutions that took place in Eastern Europe and East Asia during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Since these revolutions completely eradicated the “employer” class, there were no longer independent, market-driven organizers of social production in these societies. Instead, the government became the sole organizer of production and the only employer for ordinary citizens. As a result, the working population lost any ability to negotiate with this single, monopolistic employer. At the same time, social production suffered massive disruptions, leading to some of the most devastating famines in history—such as those in Ukraine and China.
It is worth noting that as leftist social movements developed, internal divisions also emerged within the left by the late 19th century. In Germany and several other continental European countries, some leftist social activists believed that preserving national interests was necessary, while others argued that all “oppressed groups in all countries” should unite beyond national borders to provide a unified solution for the entire world. The former group called themselves “National Socialists,” while the latter identified as “Internationalists.”
By the 20th century, some leftist social activists compromised with social realities, believing that preserving traditions to some extent was necessary and that gradual, moderate social reforms were the best way to achieve a “better world.” Meanwhile, others held the view that the existing order should be overthrown immediately, unconditionally, and violently, starting from scratch to build an entirely new world based on the envisioned ideals of a “better future.” The former became known as “Democratic Socialism,” while the latter was known as “Leninism.”
By the mid-to-late 20th century, traditional “right-wing parties” had almost disappeared in Europe. Even nominally right-wing parties could generally be classified as “Democratic Socialists.” In contrast, both the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S. were, relative to European political parties, still traditional right-wing parties—with the Democratic Party being closer to European parties than the Republican Party.
However, this situation began to change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The welfare systems in Western and Northern Europe had indeed resolved many social issues, which inspired a wave of Democratic Socialists among the American public, media, and elite circles. However, since the conflict between employers and employees was no longer a pressing issue, they instead identified other “oppressed groups” in society, such as sexual minorities and racial minorities. Driven by the moral mission of leftist social activists to fight for the rights of disadvantaged groups, they turned their efforts toward overturning the existing order to ensure that sexual minorities and racial minorities could “rise to power” in society.
Anything that is considered good is a double-edged sword—there is no such thing as something that brings only benefits without side effects.
As the socialist movement surged in North America, many policies promoted by left-wing social activists faced backlash from traditional right-wing groups, particularly supporters of the U.S. Republican Party. This discontent led to the Tea Party movement, the rise of Donald Trump, and ultimately his re-election at the end of 2024.
The moral impulse of the left was met with a counterattack from the right. The right-wing argued that European-style welfare policies had significantly weakened economic activity, suppressed entrepreneurial spirit, and sapped the vitality of economic and technological progress. Additionally, they believed that the rights claims of sexual minorities and racial minorities had infringed upon the rights of others.
In contrast, the left-wing viewed right-wing resistance as being driven by racism, patriarchy, and anti-scientific motives.
Recently, a gesture made by Elon Musk during a rally has sparked widespread social debate about whether it resembled a Nazi salute. Many left-wing commentators speculated that Musk deliberately used this gesture to show support for Nazism, and CNN analyzed the incident on its program. Meanwhile, right-wing commentators refuted the suspicions and accusations made by the left.
In this article, we acknowledge the right of all individuals and media to express their views on this matter. However, we aim to provide an analysis of this incident to offer readers a different perspective on the issue. Our focus is: Using Behavioral Analysis to Identify “Bad Actors” and Its Parallels with Stasi Practices.
1. Behavioral Analysis and Freedom of Expression
It’s entirely within the rights of individuals or media to analyze or question the actions of public figures, especially when these actions are connected to sensitive historical contexts. However, such analyses should be grounded in facts and rationality, rather than preconceived biases or political agendas.
2. The Risk of Behavioral Surveillance: A Stasi Parallel
Behavioral analysis, if taken too far, can resemble the practices of the Stasi (East German secret police), who scrutinized every action and word of citizens to identify “potential threats.” Modern society faces similar risks when social media behavior and gestures are overanalyzed:
- Over-interpretation: Innocuous gestures or words may be exaggerated into intentional signals.
- Intent Assumption: Inferring someone’s intent based solely on behavior can lead to unfair accusations.
- Public Pressure: Individuals subjected to such scrutiny often find it difficult to defend themselves fairly.
3. Complexity of Symbols and History
The Nazi salute is a historically sensitive symbol tied to immense societal trauma. It’s understandable that any gesture resembling it would spark concern or outrage. However, it’s important to distinguish between deliberate mimicry and unintentional resemblance:
- Public figures like Elon Musk do bear greater responsibility to avoid ambiguous gestures.
- Without concrete evidence of intent, there’s a danger of turning scrutiny into baseless accusations.
4. Media’s Role
Media outlets like CNN have the right to analyze such controversies but also bear a responsibility to present balanced perspectives rather than inflaming division or amplifying speculation.
5. Conclusion
Using behavioral analysis to identify “bad actors” can sometimes verge on modern-day Stasi-like practices, fostering unnecessary societal tensions. Regarding Elon Musk’s gesture, the following points are crucial:
- Encourage rational, fact-based discussions over emotional or politically charged reactions.
- Avoid jumping to conclusions about intent without evidence.
- Balance the public’s right to critique with a fair and measured approach to interpretation.
In a modern society sensitive to historical trauma and symbolism, caution and fairness are essential to prevent the escalation of misunderstanding into social division.
In this article, we do not aim to support or oppose any side. Our purpose is to caution everyone: using behavioral analysis to identify “bad actors” is a Stasi-style method of social control. While every individual has the full right to evaluate and analyze, citizens’ behavior should not be subject to such scrutiny and examination. When a society begins to rely on behavioral analysis to find “bad actors,” it has already started down the path of a Stasi model. This model, commonly employed in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and other socialist states to prevent subversion, represents a form of societal governance that must be avoided at all costs.
Many people often refer to dictatorship and totalitarianism, but do they truly understand the differences between these two concepts? Let’s explain.
In both dictatorship and totalitarianism, the people don’t get to choose their leaders, and power is taken by force or control. In a dictatorship, one person or a small group holds all the power and makes decisions without letting the people have a say. Although they control the government, people might still have some freedom in their personal lives, as long as they don’t speak out against the leader.
Totalitarianism, on the other hand, takes control much further. The government doesn’t just run the country; it controls almost every part of people’s lives—where they work, what they believe, and even what they say or think. In both systems, freedom is taken away, but totalitarianism is much more extreme, trying to control everything. Neither system is good for the people because they’re forced to live under these rules without any choice.
An important difference between the two is whether the system tolerates “wrong” ideas. In a dictatorship, as long as people don’t challenge the leader, their thoughts don’t matter much. But in totalitarianism, people are forced to believe the “correct” ideas in every part of life. If you hold an incorrect idea, you are cancelled. Totalitarianism often starts with good intentions—the belief that if everyone thinks the right way, society will become perfect. But politics is not like science, where there’s always a clear right or wrong answer. It’s more like negotiation, where people’s needs differ, and the goal is to find a balance, like buyers and sellers agreeing on a price.
Another important thing to understand is that just because a leader is tough or even a bad person doesn’t mean they are—or want to be—a dictator. Similarly, just because a leader is gentle or seems like a good person doesn’t mean they will promote freedom and democracy. Throughout history, we’ve seen many leaders with good ideas and intentions accidentally lead to totalitarianism. In fact, good people with good intentions are sometimes more likely to pursue totalitarianism. They get upset when bad things happen in society and want a complete solution to stop all of it. But in trying to create a “perfect” world, they can end up taking away people’s freedoms, forcing them to think and act in certain ways to avoid bad things.
Freedom of speech depends on freedom of thought. If people aren’t allowed to think freely—even if their ideas are “wrong”—how can they speak freely? And without that, how can they be part of a democracy? Free thinking is even more important than free speech, and holding ideas that others might consider “incorrect” is a fundamental human right. These ideas should be debated, not canceled. People have the right to share their thoughts, even if others disagree, and just like in a marketplace, the value of these ideas will be decided over time.
