Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[2aguy]

Actually, he banned socialism. Get over it.

He banned communism....the other brand of socialism, the international brand that lost the fight for Germany to the national socialists....

Nice try at hiding the truth.....again...why would I trust what you have to say about the lesser known dictatorships...

Concede defeat to someone as clueless about the nature of socialism....never.....

 

[Saigon]

Weasel -

No one is disputing the meaning if capitalism. At least, not that I have seen.

Corporations in Germany were privately owned and often share listed - therefore it was a capitalist scoiety by your own definition.

There are entire books on the topic - which you refuse to read.

Spare us the endless C&Ps and start answering the questions you have dodged for days. Why do tou keep running away?

Capitalists control their own capital, as i posted. Play your little girl games elsewhere, asshole.

Yes, so did they in Germany.

You didn't know that? Do you want proof?

This will mean you have been proven wrong, of course.

 

[2aguy]

Iceweasal....that is a great piece....sadly....it hits the truth and they won't accept that...happy thanksgiving....

 

[Saigon]

Actually, he banned socialism. Get over it.

He banned communism....the other brand of socialism, the international brand that lost the fight for Germany to the national socialists....

Nice try at hiding the truth.....again...why would I trust what you have to say about the lesser known dictatorships...

Concede defeat to someone as clueless about the nature of socialism....never.....

No, he banned socialism. Go and check, or I can post the evidence.

So you've also been proven wrong, haven't you?

 

[Saigon]

Bill & weasel

Still waiting for you guys to answer your questions or concede defeat.

Stop dodging. Post honestly.

 

[Iceweasel]

Weasel -

No one is disputing the meaning if capitalism. At least, not that I have seen.

Corporations in Germany were privately owned and often share listed - therefore it was a capitalist scoiety by your own definition.

There are entire books on the topic - which you refuse to read.

Spare us the endless C&Ps and start answering the questions you have dodged for days. Why do tou keep running away?

Capitalists control their own capital, as i posted. Play your little girl games elsewhere, asshole.

Yes, so did they in Germany.

You didn't know that? Do you want proof?

This will mean you have been proven wrong, of course.

No they did not control their own businesses. It was all under the control of the Reich. I posted it numerous times. You play little girl games and troll in a thread you started.

I said that you can't back up your shit and you proved it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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?

To say that corporations in Nazi Germany weren't totally free is a bit breath taking. They were free to serve the Fatherland and not a hell of a lot more. Those that played ball did very well but that is hardly capitalism or right wing or conservative.

No, big govt/small govt is a US interpretation of left and right. No one else actually bothers with this interpretation.

What does it matter what other people do? All you're saying is that their definition of left/right is idiotic and contradictory. If it doesn't mean government control of the economy vs. economic freedom, then what doesn't mean? Whenever leftists are asked to define the term, they give no answer or they give a muddled mass of contradictions. Racism doesn't make an ideology "right-wing." Neither does nationalism. The only criteria that makes any sense is the economic spectrum of government control vs. economic freedom.

Yes, the definitions of left and right are loose, very loose. They started as something which defined two groups and where they sat. However we need labels for things and far left and far right have become labels for some kind of extreme government that does certain things.

We could explain Nazism and Communism in Germany and Russia in full every time we want to describe it, but it's easier to use a simple label.

But the fact is, it is a simple form. We know Nazism was more complex. Like I've said it was mostly Extreme and Mostly right.

I'm left wing, but i support things that are on the right, hence why I'm more center left than anything else. I'm also closer to Libertarianism than whatever is on the other side of that spectrum.

There problem here is the debate has changed from being what is far left and far right to "Hitler was a Socialist" when he clearly wasn't.

Often one thing doesn't make something left wing or right wing, as I said, I support some traditionally right wing policies. Does that make me right wing? No it doesn't.

So you have to put things into perspective.

Hitler clearly was a socialist, and your post is just so much blather. It explained nothing and proved nothing. All you did is admit the leftwing definition is an infinitely malleable, incoherent mass of shit that doesn't mean a damn thing. It's purely an attempt to illegitimately lump Nazis into the same bin as the American right wing, and only the numskulls are fooled.

 

[Meathead]

Hitler was anti-capitalist and a socialist. Get over it.

Actually, he banned socialism. Get over it.

He banned a lot of things, including socialist parties for the same reason the Soviets banned independent unions. Take some time from your black&white world and see if you can figure it out.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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?

To say that corporations in Nazi Germany weren't totally free is a bit breath taking. They were free to serve the Fatherland and not a hell of a lot more. Those that played ball did very well but that is hardly capitalism or right wing or conservative.

No, big govt/small govt is a US interpretation of left and right. No one else actually bothers with this interpretation.

It's actually a world-wide standard, only the leftwing professors in Europe do everything they can to muddy up the issue by brining in all sorts of irrelevancies like nationalism and racism. American pinko professors do the same thing, but they haven't polluted the waters as much.

Only we're being told that the American Big govt/small govt is an essential issue here, when the rest of the world doesn't bother with these terms much.

Nationalism and Racism are a part of what can make something extreme. You can have left wing Nationalism and left wing racism. The point being that a definition of left or right is going to come down to lots of factors coming together.

The KKK is not necessarily right wing because of its racism, however many far right groups are inherently racist.

You have to have an open mind to be able to see this sort of thing. If you want it black and white on a piece of paper what is exactly far left or far right then you'll be disappointed.

Whether it's "extreme" isn't the issue. Whether it's left or right is the issue. I fail to see how the presence of nationalism makes an ideology "extreme." "nationalism" is just a pejorative term for patriotism. If we approve of a person's politics, we call him a patriot. If we don't, then we call him a "nationalist." "Racism" also doesn't make an ideology "extreme." FDR was a racist. So was Woodrow Wilson. So was Abraham Lincoln, but none of your Komrades in here would ever thing of calling those politicians "extreme."

"Having an open mind" is another way of saying you have to be gullible. Your spiel is nothing but bullshit propaganda. It doesn't hold together logically. You contradict yourself, as does the liberal understanding of the "left-right" yardstick. It's propaganda, not science. It's bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

But the dead socialists of 30's Germany will not be amused...lol.

Indeed. I am sure the socialists who died in Auschwitz would be surprised to hear that they were living in a socialist country - especially given socialism was banned at the time.

Can anyone think of a single occassion in history when a government has banned its own ideology?

The flaw in this argument has already been explained. Yet you keep trotting it out, just as you keep trotting out every other argument that has already been exploded.

 

[bripat9643]

Westwall -

Back up or withdraw you claim. Commit to posting honestly. Then I'll answer your question. Claro?

When are you going to commit to posting honestly?

 

[bripat9643]

Pinochet is such a great example here, because the right wing cannot deny that is right wing, and yet the links too Fascism are SO obvious.

The only problem on this thread has been that Bill and Weasel appear never to have heard of the man...

I admit Pinochet is right wing, but he was no fascist. He actually believed in capitalism, not handing out monopolies and government contracts to his cronies.

 

[Iceweasel]

Mises Daily Mises Institute
Once this program had begun, the dynamic to which Mises called attention developed in inexorable fashion: one intervention led to another, until the entire economy was brought under government control. Businesses who were reluctant to follow the plans of the New Order had to be forced into line. One law allowed the government to impose compulsory cartels. By 1936, the Four Year Plan, headed by Hermann Goering, changed the nature of the German economy.

On 18 October [1936] Goering was given Hitler's formal authorization as general plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan. On the following days he presented decrees empowering him to take responsibility for virtually every aspect of economic policy, including control of the business media. (Tooze, pp. 223–24.)

Of course, under a system of planning, international trade must be subject to strict control. The accretion of interventionist measures to which Mises called attention operated in this area also:

The German economy, like any modern economy, could not do without imports of food and raw materials. To pay for these it needed to export. And if this flow of goods was obstructed by protectionism and beggar-my-neighbour devaluations, this left Germany no option but to resort to ever greater state control of imports and exports, which in turn necessitated a range of other interventions. (Tooze, p.113.)

 

[bripat9643]

So, not a lot to add here -

I do think it is extremely difficult for Billc and Iceweasel to get this topic; largely because of extremely, staggeringly poor general knowledge, but also because of their willnigness to lie and their assumption that everyone else does to. When you dismiss 60+ years of recorded history as lies, you have nothing left to learn from - except extremist blogs.

For BriPat I think the issue is more sheer extremism - as someone only two steps removed from Hitler politically, it is very hard to see the man as anything but a lot further away from Military Conservatvism than he really is. And yet - BriPat has praised Pinochet in the past....a man only one step removed from Hitler.

Pinochet died a war criminal.

No he didn't. He was accused of something, but it never went to trial. Furthermore, the Chilean government violated their Constitution when they attempted to prosecute him.

 

[bripat9643]

Weasel -

No one is disputing the meaning if capitalism. At least, not that I have seen.

Corporations in Germany were privately owned and often share listed - therefore it was a capitalist scoiety by your own definition.

There are entire books on the topic - which you refuse to read.

Spare us the endless C&Ps and start answering the questions you have dodged for days. Why do tou keep running away?

Capitalists control their own capital, as i posted. Play your little girl games elsewhere, asshole.

Yes, so did they in Germany.

You didn't know that? Do you want proof?

This will mean you have been proven wrong, of course.

No they didn't control their capital. The government made all the decisions regarding the use of their capitalism. Either you're an ignorant fool or just a lying jackass.

Please feel free to provide any proof you have. So far you have been singularly lacking in that regard.

 

[bripat9643]

Hitler was anti-capitalist and a socialist. Get over it.

Actually, he banned socialism. Get over it.

Actually not. You simply refuse to admit the facts.

 

[Iceweasel]

No they didn't control their capital. The government made all the decisions regarding the use of their capitalism. Either you're an ignorant fool or just a lying jackass.

Please feel free to provide any proof you have. So far you have been singularly lacking in that regard.

He just wants to play games so I'm going with 'lying jackass'.

 

[bripat9643]

No they didn't control their capital. The government made all the decisions regarding the use of their capitalism. Either you're an ignorant fool or just a lying jackass.

Please feel free to provide any proof you have. So far you have been singularly lacking in that regard.

He just wants to play games so I'm going with 'lying jackass'.

What else can he do? He's been thoroughly obliterated.

 

[Saigon]

Ok, so now we can at least wind some of the topics up.

Iceweasel claimed that fascism was left wing, but when provided with the names of SIX right-wing fascist regimes, he refused to discuss the issue and conceded defeat.

So that issue is now settled beyond any reasonable doubt, I think.

 

[Saigon]

Bill claimed that right-wing dictatorships could not exist, but when presented with the names of EIGHT right-wing dictatorships, he conceded defeat.

So that issue I think we can also call settled.