Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And both were true....the Jews in international socialism became victims of the anti semite stalin...who was a socialist....karl marx and engels hated jews as well.....hmmmm...wasn't marx a Jew?
This is gibberish.
Please try to post in proper sentences.
Are Stalin and Mao considered left wingers or are they also Conservative right wingers?
If you're going to lie, go for it all
And yet you dummies still haven't produced any actual documented historical evidence to support your half wit attempts to overturn history.
Were Stalin and Mao Left Wingers?
Obviously.
Are Stalin and Mao considered left wingers or are they also Conservative right wingers?
If you're going to lie, go for it all
And yet you dummies still haven't produced any actual documented historical evidence to support your half wit attempts to overturn history.
Were Stalin and Mao Left Wingers?
Obviously.
So why didn't Uncle Adolf make the cut? He was a Progressive Mass murderer too
Are Stalin and Mao considered left wingers or are they also Conservative right wingers?
If you're going to lie, go for it all
And yet you dummies still haven't produced any actual documented historical evidence to support your half wit attempts to overturn history.
Were Stalin and Mao Left Wingers?
Obviously.
So why didn't Uncle Adolf make the cut? He was a Progressive Mass murderer too
Oh look. another new right wing definition for my list. What is a Progressive Mass Murderer? And how do they differ from Regressive Mass Murderers?
And yet you dummies still haven't produced any actual documented historical evidence to support your half wit attempts to overturn history.
Were Stalin and Mao Left Wingers?
Obviously.
So why didn't Uncle Adolf make the cut? He was a Progressive Mass murderer too
Oh look. another new right wing definition for my list. What is a Progressive Mass Murderer? And how do they differ from Regressive Mass Murderers?
Stalin and Mao were Progressives, as were all of history's mass murderers. They are people who get control of an unarmed populace and cannot tolerate dissent or criticism
And both were true....the Jews in international socialism became victims of the anti semite stalin...who was a socialist....karl marx and engels hated jews as well.....hmmmm...wasn't marx a Jew?
This is gibberish.
Please try to post in proper sentences.
Their alleged opinions are the unfortunate results of an internet based education.
And it's a swingandamiss!The fact that Communism and the various brands of socialism have some aspects in comon with fascism are in the area of economics. Fascism is actually a type of capitalism where the government's chosen vendors are granted access to the public consumers and no bid government contracts eliminating most if not all competition. That in effect starves the companies that don't have the governments favorite status. It gives power to approved vendors. It obligates both parties political support for candidates and those incumbants that remain in office. Fascism is the ultimate sweetheat buisness deal between government and business.
One recent case in point is the Halliburton company's sweetheat deal to supply goods and services for the recent Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. That arrangement was/is PURE Fascism.
Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
If the owners aren't making the decisions it is NOT capitalism.
And if the government went with the lowest bid to serve our troops overseas, and it went wrong, what do you think the fallout would be? Halliburton was chosen for their track record of being capable of doing the job in wildly unknowable situations.
Actually dummy it is derives from the latin meaning bundle of sticks it was coined by the socialist Mussolini as meaning stronger together then apart. It is collective nonsense of you progressives to a tee. Own it.Guys...this is how dumb the "intellectuals" are as they try to lie about "fascism." Notice how they all say they can't really define it
And back to lying.
Fascism is defined in detail in the OP. And questions you have about that definition - ask.
I have cited around 20 books and authors during the thread. You could also read them, but then you are anti-books, right? Because books are socialist, right?
My god man....is this really the best you can do?
OK, thanks for that. People with an ax to grind tend to latch onto words and there is an effort to make capitalism the scourge of mankind and equate it with oppression. I think it's just the opposite.I could have worded my statement better. Correction: Fascism is SIMILAR to Capitalism in that it defines a type of means of a government's purchasing goods and services. I retract the words "Fascism is actually a type of capitalism"
Also, as I said, you're asking questions which are not great questions. Find a right wing german historian who say this one specific thing. You didn't ever ask yourself whether any right wing german historian would even have reason to say this.
I never said to find one specific thing and what you found supports my argument...it doesn't dispute it...
Did Hitler say he was left wing? Is this recorded?
hitler doesn't have to say he was left wing, everything he did points out he was left wing....so don't try to put that on me hitler took control of the German economy....he socialized it....just like all the other lefties....and socialists
You seem to be of the opinion that if no right wing german historian doesn't call Hitler right wing then he wasn't, but Hiter doesn't need to say anything? It's like you'll take scraps as amazing evidence for your view point and anything anyone else says is complete nonsense no matter how good it is if it goes against your point. \
You say Hitler didn't oppose Marxists because of the international agenda of Socialists (when it was actually Communists, not Socialists who wanted to do away with nation states), yet, the quote actually points to Hitler not liking these people and their views because they would do away with ethnic Nationalism, Germanic Nationalism etc.
He hated Jews, but what I posted also does NOT contain reference to Jews, yet you claim it PROVES your view that Hitler saw Communists only as Jews, and not as destroyers of ethnic Nationalism. HOW?
Yes, in russia, a socialist country you had party members...then everyone else...a hierarchy that wasn't a traditional russian heirarchy....but in Germany....there was more leveling in the society again...leftwing....
Right in that production was mostly private, extreme in that the govt controlled things and the businesses had to do what Hitler wanted.
No matter how you try to massage this, the nazis controlled every aspect of the economy, they owned everything but they just didn't say they owned everything like the communists did....which confuses you guys....A big powerful, centralized government is left wing....
Even things like antisemitism were traditional right wing policies in Europe at the time, similar to slavery/segregation in the US at the same time. This is about equality again.
The communists hated the Jews....
Are you serious...the communists hated the Jews too....marx hated Jews and he was a Jew...have you ever read what he and engels said about the Jews...and what needed to be done to them....
Or how about what marx thought about those people who were to primitive to "catch up" to the struggle....the primitives who would never make the grade under communism.....?
Right in that it was Nationalism, extreme in that it was attempting to gain this through emphasizing mythology, Germanic nationalism, taking the Aryan thing and promoti
Really...the soviet union didn't use nationalism...or the chinese....come on guys...you are trying too hard....
Marxism doesn't destroy nationalism, far from it.If you actually bothered to read properly what was written, it says Hitler rejected Socialism and Communism because it destroyed the natural unity of the people. ie, this is NATIONALISM.
You guys sadly lack the ability to be rational.....your view of Gitmo proves it....Gitmo exists because the prisoners there are unlawful enemy combatants....and in any other war...before political correctness took over, they very well could have been executed on the battlefield....since they are not covered by the Geneva convention....
They are at Gitmo because they do not fight for a nation state who would take them back at the end of hositilities...and they would go back to their normal lives....since they are illegal, enemy combatants, there is no nation state to give them back to...and they will just go back to kill again if they are released...and since they were captured on foriegn soil....they aren't U.S. citizens and have no place in U.S. prisons...since they were captured in combat....not law breaking.....
He hated Jews, but what I posted also does NOT contain reference to Jews, yet you claim it PROVES your view that Hitler saw Communists only as Jews, and not as destroyers of ethnic Nationalism. HOW?
No....not only as Jews....not what I said....but he knew marx was a Jew and other members of the party were Jews and he sort of hated all Jews....and any group that let the Jews in was going to be opposed by hitler and his socialists....
Because he didn't like the international nature of communism....he started his own brand of socialism...
Because the communists let Jews into their group he hated the communists....
There are a lot of posts here, I will clear up your misconceptions as we go....
I thought the TEA party was the far right because they wanted more free markets and less government. Now, it's big government and crony capitalism that is far right. What does that make the TEA party? Leftists?People could and did profit from the Nazi era. It wasn't totally free market, then again the US isn't totally free market either, most companies have to pay tax (though some seem to get money from the govt and pay nothing) and have to abide by laws and regulations.
In Nazi Germany this was MORE EXTREME (hence why it's called FAR-right) however it wasn't much different except the extremity.
Marxism doesn't destroy nationalism, far from it.If you actually bothered to read properly what was written, it says Hitler rejected Socialism and Communism because it destroyed the natural unity of the people. ie, this is NATIONALISM.
Marx Engels and Lenin on the national question Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal
Nations and history
In his introduction to the Penguin collection of Marx's writings, The Revolutions of 1848, David Fernbach accuses Marx and Engels—Engels in particular—of a "general great-nation chauvinism" based, he claims, on "the major miscalculation that the smaller peoples of Europe were doomed by the logic of history, and had irrevocably lost their autonomy".
Is this the case? Marx and Engels supported the national struggles of the German, Italian, Polish and Hungarian peoples—the so-called "great historic nations"—because each had developed to the stage where their struggle for national unity and independence from the reactionary powers was politically viable and progressive. Their victory would hasten the demise of feudalism and speed the arrival of socialism.
Hitler and the socialist dream - Arts and Entertainment - The Independent
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources.
His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone's disciple. That led to an odd and paradoxical alliance between modern historians and the mind of a dead dictator. Many recent analysts have fastidiously refused to study the mind of Hitler; and they accept, as unquestioningly as many Nazis did in the 1930s, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism has become a term of abuse is unlikely to analyse it profoundly.
His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history!
His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.
