Fascism

Do you trust President-elect Trumps words & his duty to put our country as his #1 priority?


  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .
So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?
No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.
 
So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?
No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.
Capitalism is the epitome of small government kiddo.....

Defense is enumerated in the big instruction manual.....it's a function of Liberty....so....

And hitlers government was monsterous....as would be expected of left wing fascist governments having nothing to do with capitalism....
 
Not accepting the results of a democratic election is fascism, as is political correctness.
How many times have we heard about Obama "He is not my president?"

and Trump himself said he was unsure he would accept the election results if he lost

:rofl:

you people cannot win with that douche as your leader
Don't know RAG. I don't recall people saying he's not their president. It's a fascist streak on the left that leads to that meme
Liar!!!

or worse

Senile!

:D
 
Capitalism is the epitome of small government kiddo.....

Defense is enumerated in the big instruction manual.....it's a function of Liberty....so....
Wrong dude. Capitalism is an economic system, a Constitutional Federal Republic is form of government as is fascism.
 
Capitalism is the epitome of small government kiddo.....

Defense is enumerated in the big instruction manual.....it's a function of Liberty....so....
Wrong dude. Capitalism is an economic system, a Constitutional Federal Republic is form of government as is fascism.
The people who invented fascism claim it's an economic system. If it's not an economic system, then what basis do you use to place it on the left/right political spectrum which is based on what kind of economic system you support?
 
National SOcialism. He was certainly that. Very much hated by the NObility.
DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?

:wtf:

You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist
The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.


The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.
 
National SOcialism. He was certainly that. Very much hated by the NObility.
DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?

:wtf:

You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist
The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.


The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.
No shit....that's not even open for debate....

Fascism depends on socialism to control the people of industry (owners and workers)....without socialism, fascism can't exist....

And that my friend, is left wing....
 
So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?
No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.
Wrong. You are bucking the odds of eventually getting something correct. Big business does very well under oppressive left wing control. Go learn some history. The right here has ALWAYS favored the free market. Big business can accommodate government regulation and laws. They can afford a team of lawyers. Small business can't.

"What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude."

That's the most ill informed comment I've seen in a while. There was nothing small about the Nazi's government and not much freedom for corporations. You can't begin to support that nonsense.
 
National SOcialism. He was certainly that. Very much hated by the NObility.
DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?

:wtf:

You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist
The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.


The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.
No shit....that's not even open for debate....

Fascism depends on socialism to control the people of industry (owners and workers)....without socialism, fascism can't exist....

And that my friend, is left wing....

Fascism controls the people through authoritarianism and nationalism. Not socialism.
 
So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?
No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.


Wrong. You are bucking the odds of eventually getting something correct. Big business does very well under oppressive left wing control. Go learn some history. The right here has ALWAYS favored the free market. Big business can accommodate government regulation and laws. They can afford a team of lawyers. Small business can't.

I don't think that is right either.

Big business does well under both systems.

The right constantly states the virtues of free market competition but free market competition eventually results in huge monopolies that effectively lock out the small business' and reduce competition.

Likewise, operating under burdonsome regulations favors big business' becuase, like you say they can afford lawyers and afford to accommodate the regulations that small business' can't. But they also do better because they have the money to effectively lobby congress for regulations that favor THEM rather than small competitors. A good example is the farm industry.
 
National SOcialism. He was certainly that. Very much hated by the NObility.
DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?

:wtf:

You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist
The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.


The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

Hitler said he was a socialist, but he hated socialism? Where do you get this crap?

And as I said, socialism is CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNING. As I've repeatedly said, fascism is where industry is technically in private hands, but all business decisions must follow government economic objectives and all major decisions must be approved by government.

There is a car in your neighbor's driveway. It has a title in your name. The keys are in your neighbor's house and you can only drive the car where your neighbor directs you to drive it, like getting their groceries and picking up their kids from school.

Who's car is it ... really ???

You're a servant to your neighbor, the car is theirs. That is fascism. The only difference between that and socialism is that the title is in your neighbor's name. You're still a servant. That difference is irrelevant.

Fascism = socialism. Hitler knew that, you don't. Those damned government schools ...
 
So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?
No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.


Wrong. You are bucking the odds of eventually getting something correct. Big business does very well under oppressive left wing control. Go learn some history. The right here has ALWAYS favored the free market. Big business can accommodate government regulation and laws. They can afford a team of lawyers. Small business can't.

I don't think that is right either.

Big business does well under both systems.

The right constantly states the virtues of free market competition but free market competition eventually results in huge monopolies that effectively lock out the small business' and reduce competition.

Likewise, operating under burdonsome regulations favors big business' becuase, like you say they can afford lawyers and afford to accommodate the regulations that small business' can't. But they also do better because they have the money to effectively lobby congress for regulations that favor THEM rather than small competitors. A good example is the farm industry.
Capitalism doesn't exist under fascism...so....

Your use of big is an irrelevant liberal talking point associated with some type of emotional argument, so it's ignored.....
 
National SOcialism. He was certainly that. Very much hated by the NObility.
DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?

:wtf:

You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist
The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.


The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

Hitler said he was a socialist, but he hated socialism? Where do you get this crap?

I provided sources.

North Korea says it's a "Democratic" Republic. Is it?

And as I said, socialism is CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNING. As I've repeatedly said, fascism is where industry is technically in private hands, but all business decisions must follow government economic objectives and all major decisions must be approved by government.

And that is why it is fascism NOT socialism. Socialism is anti-private ownership. That is a KEY tenet. Not just government control, but private ownership.

There is a car in your neighbor's driveway. It has a title in your name. The keys are in your neighbor's house and you can only drive the car where your neighbor directs you to drive it, like getting their groceries and picking up their kids from school.

Who's car is it ... really ???

Bad analogy.

It's about the degree of government regulation/control. For example: You have a car, you own the car, but you can't drive it without a valid license. Fascism takes that control further but doesn't own it.

You're a servant to your neighbor, the car is theirs. That is fascism. The only difference between that and socialism is that the title is in your neighbor's name. You're still a servant. That difference is irrelevant.

Fascism = socialism. Hitler knew that, you don't. Those damned government schools ...

The difference is VERY relevent - private ownership of property and industry vs. no private ownership. You also are completely excluding the other defining characteristics of fascism and socialism - they aren't only economic systems.
 
So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?
No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Total bullshit. Hitler did not make the German government smaller. He vastly expanded it. He took away all the latitude for capitalists. Your theories are based on total fantasies about what actually occurred.

Also, right wingers do not "support big business." That's a deliberate distortion of what they support. What they support is preventing government from interfering with business, whatever its size. What they especially oppose is government playing favorites with business, which is what douche bag left wingers endorse.
 
DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?

:wtf:

You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist
The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.


The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.
No shit....that's not even open for debate....

Fascism depends on socialism to control the people of industry (owners and workers)....without socialism, fascism can't exist....

And that my friend, is left wing....

Fascism controls the people through authoritarianism and nationalism. Not socialism.
Whatever type of socialism works....fascism will use....
 
DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?

:wtf:

You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist
The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.


The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

Hitler said he was a socialist, but he hated socialism? Where do you get this crap?

I provided sources.

North Korea says it's a "Democratic" Republic. Is it?

And as I said, socialism is CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNING. As I've repeatedly said, fascism is where industry is technically in private hands, but all business decisions must follow government economic objectives and all major decisions must be approved by government.

And that is why it is fascism NOT socialism. Socialism is anti-private ownership. That is a KEY tenet. Not just government control, but private ownership.

There is a car in your neighbor's driveway. It has a title in your name. The keys are in your neighbor's house and you can only drive the car where your neighbor directs you to drive it, like getting their groceries and picking up their kids from school.

Who's car is it ... really ???

Bad analogy.

It's about the degree of government regulation/control. For example: You have a car, you own the car, but you can't drive it without a valid license. Fascism takes that control further but doesn't own it.

You're a servant to your neighbor, the car is theirs. That is fascism. The only difference between that and socialism is that the title is in your neighbor's name. You're still a servant. That difference is irrelevant.

Fascism = socialism. Hitler knew that, you don't. Those damned government schools ...

The difference is VERY relevent - private ownership of property and industry vs. no private ownership. You also are completely excluding the other defining characteristics of fascism and socialism - they aren't only economic systems.
I said my turds are gold bars....they're not?
 
.....I also have a Master's Degree from SFSU. Do I now win the pissing contest, or does dogshit claim victory.?
If you are truly that educated, then you should be familiar with the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. I have an MS in International Relations from Troy University. What does that mean other than accomplishing a program of education? Nothing if I cannot back up any discussion on this forum with facts.

I am familiar with the appeal to authority fallacy; the author of the 14-points has a Doctorate in Political Science, which obviates your implied criticism of my point as a logical fallacy. In fact, as I have posted ad nausea, Rense was the first link to pop up when I googled the 14-points, and not making a habit of viewing of hate web sites, I would not and did not know that Rense is an anti Semite.

No one has yet commented on the 14-points used as tools used by demagogues and despots to achieve and maintain power. As you have a Master's in IR, you must have studied the means and methods used to maintain their power by the military and psychological and quasi legal means.
 
.....I also have a Master's Degree from SFSU. Do I now win the pissing contest, or does dogshit claim victory.?
If you are truly that educated, then you should be familiar with the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. I have an MS in International Relations from Troy University. What does that mean other than accomplishing a program of education? Nothing if I cannot back up any discussion on this forum with facts.

I am familiar with the appeal to authority fallacy; the author of the 14-points has a Doctorate in Political Science, which obviates your implied criticism of my point as a logical fallacy. In fact, as I have posted ad nausea, Rense was the first link to pop up when I googled the 14-points, and not making a habit of viewing of hate web sites, I would not and did not know that Rense is an anti Semite.

No one has yet commented on the 14-points used as tools used by demagogues and despots to achieve and maintain power. As you have a Master's in IR, you must have studied the means and methods used to maintain their power by the military and psychological and quasi legal means.
Your opinions on this matter are worthless....
 

Forum List

Back
Top