How we know Hitler was right wing.

[buckeye45_73]

Communism was anti jewish just like facism..

Jesus wept.....if you don't know - why not ask? You can not just make up historical fact!!

Trotsky was Jewish, genius. So were dozens of the inner circle of the communist party from 1915 - 1935. Lenin actively sought out and worked with Jews, who despised the anti-Semitic Tsar, and were keen to join any party that would rid them of the Tsar. Lenin saw communism as being a society of one country, but many peoples, and no racism or heirarchy between those peoples.

It was only when the leadership passed from Lenin to Stalin that the USSR became anti-Semitic, and Jews began to be purged from the leadership during the mid-1930's.

actually look at the results of the practice

So how much time have you spent in the former Soviet states?

excuse me? Didnt Stalin have Trotsky killed? But you just answered it.... Again in practicle terms, Stalinist Russia was eerily similar to Hitler, now are you saying that Stalin was a facist? My whole point is they were regimes that were lead by despots, who indescriminatly killed any perceived political threat (even under Lennin), and were run by bs artists. Please tell me MAJOR differences. Not procedure or philosphical differences, differences that were aparent and manidfested themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

Communism was anti jewish just like facism..

Jesus wept.....if you don't know - why not ask? You can not just make up historical fact!!

Trotsky was Jewish, genius. So were dozens of the inner circle of the communist party from 1915 - 1935. Lenin actively sought out and worked with Jews, who despised the anti-Semitic Tsar, and were keen to join any party that would rid them of the Tsar. Lenin saw communism as being a society of one country, but many peoples, and no racism or heirarchy between those peoples.

It was only when the leadership passed from Lenin to Stalin that the USSR became anti-Semitic, and Jews began to be purged from the leadership during the mid-1930's.

Karl Marx was a notorious anti-Semite

 

[bripat9643]

Power plants are capital, so you haven't supported your case.

No, power plants are infrastructure.

Capital refers to MONEY, and by extension to business.

ROFL! That's the problem with debating economic illiterates. In economic terms, power plants, factories, dams and office buildings are all capital. Money is simply worthless scraps of paper we use to keep track of who owns what.

Even Karl Marx would correctly identify a power plant as belonging to the economic category "capital."

Try reading a book on economics rather than the propaganda put out by your humbug pinko history professors.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Power plants are capital, so you haven't supported your case.

No, power plants are infrastructure.

Capital refers to MONEY, and by extension to business.

Hitler was right-wing

Stalin and Mao were left-wing

Does that make Stalin a better person?

The only difference between the two is there position on Marxism vs Capitalism

Thank you, that's what I've been trying to say.....and this chart kind of sums it up.

 

[Saigon]

ROFL! That's the problem with debating economic illiterates. In economic terms, power plants, factories, dams and office buildings are all capital. Money is simply worthless scraps of paper we use to keep track of who owns what.

No, power plants and factories are infrastructure or fixed assets, not capital as such. Of course infrastructure has economic value, but that does not mean that it is usually considered capital per se.

In this context, capital generally refers to money, and by extension to business, capitalism and so forth.

Capitalist societies are not so-called because they have a lot of medical equipment or dams - they are so-called because they utilise private capital and private business to drive the economy. That is the point here.

infrastructure:

1. An underlying base or foundation especially for an organization or system.
2. The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons.

infrastructure - definition of infrastructure by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! That's the problem with debating economic illiterates. In economic terms, power plants, factories, dams and office buildings are all capital. Money is simply worthless scraps of paper we use to keep track of who owns what.

No, power plants and factories are infrastructure or fixed assets, not capital as such. Of course infrastructure has economic value, but that does not mean that it is usually considered capital per se.

That may be the view of humbug pinko historians, but economists look at it defferently. Economists divide up the factors of production into three categories: land, labor and capital. Power plants belong in the later category. Any other definition of the term "capital" is non-economic and most likely purely for propaganda purposes.

In this context, capital generally refers to money, and by extension to business, capitalism and so forth.

In what context, the economic illiterate context? You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about. give up while you're behind.

infrastructure:

1. An underlying base or foundation especially for an organization or system.
2. The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons.

infrastructure - definition of infrastructure by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

"infrastructure" is not an economic category and is therefor irrelevant to this discussion.

Capital (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In economics, capital goods, or real capital are already-produced durable goods that are used in production of goods or services. The capital goods are not significantly consumed, though they may depreciate in the production process. Capital is distinct from land in that capital must itself be produced by human labor before it can be a factor of production. At any moment in time, total physical capital may be referred to as the capital stock (which is not to be confused with the capital stock of a business entity.) In a fundamental sense, capital consists of any produced thing that can enhance a person's power to perform economically useful work—a stone or an arrow is capital for a caveman who can use it as a hunting instrument, and roads are capital for inhabitants of a city. Capital is an input in the production function. Homes and personal autos are not capital but are instead durable goods because they are not used in a production effort.

However, I noticed upon further reading that Marx does agree with your definition of the term.

And you claimed you aren't a leftist?

 

[there4eyeM]

What is it that leads certain people to think that Marx represents communism? Just because he wrote about his concepts of it? That doesn't make him personify the ideology. This is all the more true about Lenin and Stalin, who were authoritarian centralist, simply using Marx's arguments as a vehicle to power. That is why they are no different than Hitler from power mad, ego-centric extremists.

 

[Saigon]

What is it that leads certain people to think that Marx represents communism? Just because he wrote about his concepts of it? That doesn't make him personify the ideology. This is all the more true about Lenin and Stalin, who were authoritarian centralist, simply using Marx's arguments as a vehicle to power. That is why they are no different than Hitler from power mad, ego-centric extremists.

Certainly Marx does not represent communism anymore so than Lenin or Mao do, but Marx's definitions of left-wing terminology and goals are difficult to deny.

He is the grandfather of left-wing ideology, and most communist or socialist societies trace their roots back to his thinking at some level.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

At the risk of stating the obvious, this discussion is about politics.

Capitalism is used here as a political term, not an economic one.

The use of capital within a political system, and the link between 'capital' and 'capitalism' as terms, should be clear to everyone, I think.

Go back to my post #1072 and #1075 and have another go at understanding the point if you like.

Again:

Right wing ideologies such as fascism promote the role of capital, investment and private business.

Left wing ideologies such as communism seek to limit or even remove the role of capital entirely.

This does NOT mean that communist societies do not have any infrastructure - the question is HOW that infrastructure is PAID for.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Power plants are capital, so you haven't supported your case.

No, power plants are infrastructure.

Capital refers to MONEY, and by extension to business.

ROFL! That's the problem with debating economic illiterates. In economic terms, power plants, factories, dams and office buildings are all capital. Money is simply worthless scraps of paper we use to keep track of who owns what.

Even Karl Marx would correctly identify a power plant as belonging to the economic category "capital."

Try reading a book on economics rather than the propaganda put out by your humbug pinko history professors.

Obama's has the same grasp on economies, that's how you get 8% UE for 5 straight years

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BriPat -

At the risk of stating the obvious, this discussion is about politics.

Capitalism is used here as a political term, not an economic one.

The use of capital within a political system, and the link between 'capital' and 'capitalism' as terms, should be clear to everyone, I think.

Go back to my post #1072 and #1075 and have another go at understanding the point if you like.

Again:

Right wing ideologies such as fascism promote the role of capital, investment and private business.

Left wing ideologies such as communism seek to limit or even remove the role of capital entirely.

This does NOT mean that communist societies do not have any infrastructure - the question is HOW that infrastructure is PAID for.

^ Clueless. Totally clueless.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you see how "Progressives" Love and defend their dictators?

 

[editec]

The primary difference between FASCISM and SOCIALISM is:

WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF PRODUCTION?

The question of LEFT or RIGHT is basically a canard question brought to us by people who do not understand political science.

 

[Saigon]

Do you see how "Progressives" Love and defend their dictators?

No, I don't see that anywhere on this thread, and neither do you or you'd have given an example.

Honestly, what do you achieve with this endless braindead spamming?

 

[Pogo]

What is it that leads certain people to think that Marx represents communism? Just because he wrote about his concepts of it? That doesn't make him personify the ideology. This is all the more true about Lenin and Stalin, who were authoritarian centralist, simply using Marx's arguments as a vehicle to power. That is why they are no different than Hitler from power mad, ego-centric extremists.

Certainly Marx does not represent communism anymore so than Lenin or Mao do, but Marx's definitions of left-wing terminology and goals are difficult to deny.

He is the grandfather of left-wing ideology, and most communist or socialist societies trace their roots back to his thinking at some level.

Hmm-- between these two I've got to agree with the first thought by There4EyeM. Certainly what we call "left wing ideology" existed before Marx did. He may be held as a famous benchmark author who summed up one channel of ideas, but that doesn't make him the Creator. The basic ideas run back to biblical times and beyond. We may cite Marx as a kind of "origin" out of convenient or lazy thought but it's a little like treating Henry Ford as the inventor of the car; many others preceded him in the development of the idea.

 

[Pogo]

Do you see how "Progressives" Love and defend their dictators?

No, I don't see that anywhere on this thread, and neither do you or you'd have given an example.

Honestly, what do you achieve with this endless braindead spamming?

Frank seems to offer little but gainsaying, trolling and oh yeah the weather.

 

[Pogo]

so lets do a checklist shall we
facism-autocratic communism-autocratic
facism-racist communsim-racist
facism-militaristic comunism-militaristic
facism-allowed private property communism-no private property

1-f0r-4 with a scratch single and three strikeouts.

Nothing about communism is inherently "autocratic", "racist" or "militaristic". They're simply not related. You could at the pure end find "no" private property, but the rest of what you have here is a set of feeble association fallacies using cherrypicked samples from a really bad example.

"Autocratic" communism à la USSR, was an inherent paradox. Communism is centred on community, which means the masses -- not top-down.

"Racism" is anathema in a society built on egalitarianism. The maxim "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs" works against racism.

And communism, as an economic structure, simply has no more relationship to the military than a fish has to a bicycle.

What you've done there is taken three features from the perversion of communism that was the USSR, ignoring vital influential factors such as that land's inherent cultural/historica bent to authoritarianism and imperialism (which begets militarism, not to mention its size); such as the racial/religious contradictions already articulated by Saigon, projecting Stalin's personal faults onto his government and by extension an entire philosophy it claimed to be based on.

Much like, once again reading the official name of North Korea, the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and concluding from the name that it must be a democracy. It's hopelessly simplistic to take everybody's word for what they are at face value because either we're too lazy to look big picture or because it suits a simplistic agenda. Same thing with picking out the word "socialism" from the name of the NSDAP and concluding you've figured it all out without having to read historical background.

By this logic your house and driveway must be filled with the products of everything ever advertised, since they've all claimed to be things that you need.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you see how "Progressives" Love and defend their dictators?

No, I don't see that anywhere on this thread, and neither do you or you'd have given an example.

Honestly, what do you achieve with this endless braindead spamming?

I give you a lot of credit for being able to embarrass yourself nearly nonstop on every topic yet continue to post

 

[bripat9643]

What is it that leads certain people to think that Marx represents communism? Just because he wrote about his concepts of it? That doesn't make him personify the ideology. This is all the more true about Lenin and Stalin, who were authoritarian centralist, simply using Marx's arguments as a vehicle to power. That is why they are no different than Hitler from power mad, ego-centric extremists.

So you think communism is really a good thing? Is that what you're trying to say?

 

[bripat9643]

Do you see how "Progressives" Love and defend their dictators?

No, I don't see that anywhere on this thread, and neither do you or you'd have given an example.

Honestly, what do you achieve with this endless braindead spamming?

I give you a lot of credit for being able to embarrass yourself nearly nonstop on every topic yet continue to post

I nearly busted my gut when he claimed a power plant wasn't capital.