Is obama a socilist, or a fascist?

[Polk]

And this too:

There are right wing fascism (Hitler) and left wing fascism (Stalin).

Fascism is simply totalitarianism – a severe police state. And that can operate under any economic system.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." — Adolf Hitler, May 1, 1927

It might be an over-simplification, but to the absolute left is ultra-Socialism which can manifest itself as Fascism or Communism. To the absolute right is Anarchism. Complete government control over citizens and property vs. zero control over citizens and property.

That's not really accurate. You're getting level of government control mixed up with government's role in the economy. Fascism and communism aren't "ultra-Socialism", they're both forms of which envision a large role for the state, but for very different ends (dictatorship of the workers in communist, maximizing the profits of major industry in fascism). There are also visions of a minimal/no state on both the right (anarcho-capitalism) and left (anarcho-syndicalism).

OMG- really? Communism was the natural evolution of Socialism- Just as Fascism is- The State has to take ever more control as it becomes ever more responsible to its doctrine.

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” — Adolf Hitler, from speech delivered on May 1, 1927


“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. [And in fact, Both movements were "revolutionary socialist ideologies." Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

great article

It's a terrible article because it's built on a false premise. Far from "attacking conservatives", other parties of the German right were the closest allies of the Nazi regime in the Weimar period. You also show this obsession with words over deeds. Hitler was very critical of capitalism in his early rhetoric, but in practice he served the interest of large German corporations and greatly aided them. In fact, one of the emerging areas of research in economic history is that German business pushed for the Second World War in at attempt to create captive markets in what they saw as an increasingly globalized world.

 

[Polk]

I'll tell you another thinker (beyond Marx) who gets a lot of unfair criticism. Malthus. People look at his theory and say it's completely bogus because the world hasn't progressed in that way. What they miss is that it progressed in exactly that way in the 5,000 or so years of recorded history at the time of his writing.

 

[Listening]

Liberal Fascism is pure drivel. Fascism is rightist, is totalitarian corporatism.

He's a center right socialist, which is democratic and intelligent, NOT Marxist in the least. Pub dupes!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Foxfyre]

That's not really accurate. You're getting level of government control mixed up with government's role in the economy. Fascism and communism aren't "ultra-Socialism", they're both forms of which envision a large role for the state, but for very different ends (dictatorship of the workers in communist, maximizing the profits of major industry in fascism). There are also visions of a minimal/no state on both the right (anarcho-capitalism) and left (anarcho-syndicalism).

OMG- really? Communism was the natural evolution of Socialism- Just as Fascism is- The State has to take ever more control as it becomes ever more responsible to its doctrine.

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” — Adolf Hitler, from speech delivered on May 1, 1927


“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. [And in fact, Both movements were "revolutionary socialist ideologies." Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

great article

It's a terrible article because it's built on a false premise. Far from "attacking conservatives", other parties of the German right were the closest allies of the Nazi regime in the Weimar period. You also show this obsession with words over deeds. Hitler was very critical of capitalism in his early rhetoric, but in practice he served the interest of large German corporations and greatly aided them. In fact, one of the emerging areas of research in economic history is that German business pushed for the Second World War in at attempt to create captive markets in what they saw as an increasingly globalized world.

Well everything I've read suggests that Hitler went after the conservatives of his time--those who resisted letting go of the status quo which is the definition of conservatism in Europe at that time. (Not so in America at this time.)

But you are correct in an earlier post that Marx was infatuated with the French Revolution that he mentioned often. And if you read the works of Mably, Morelly, Babeuf, and other communist leaning philosophers of that period, you get a glimpse into the seeds of Marxism that Marx and Engles developed. It is too bad that they were not influenced by the writings of such as John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, some who were contemporaries of the French Revolution philosophers but took a very different view.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OMG- really? Communism was the natural evolution of Socialism- Just as Fascism is- The State has to take ever more control as it becomes ever more responsible to its doctrine.

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” — Adolf Hitler, from speech delivered on May 1, 1927


“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. [And in fact, Both movements were "revolutionary socialist ideologies." Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

great article

It's a terrible article because it's built on a false premise. Far from "attacking conservatives", other parties of the German right were the closest allies of the Nazi regime in the Weimar period. You also show this obsession with words over deeds. Hitler was very critical of capitalism in his early rhetoric, but in practice he served the interest of large German corporations and greatly aided them. In fact, one of the emerging areas of research in economic history is that German business pushed for the Second World War in at attempt to create captive markets in what they saw as an increasingly globalized world.

Well everything I've read suggests that Hitler went after the conservatives of his time--those who resisted letting go of the status quo which is the definition of conservatism in Europe at that time. (Not so in America at this time.)

But you are correct in an earlier post that Marx was infatuated with the French Revolution that he mentioned often. And if you read the works of Mably, Morelly, Babeuf, and other communist leaning philosophers of that period, you get a glimpse into the seeds of Marxism that Marx and Engles developed. It is too bad that they were not influenced by the writings of such as John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, some who were contemporaries of the French Revolution philosophers but took a very different view.

Read "http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=qhq" about "Hitler's revolution: AD 1933-1934." It explains how he manipulated the right to eliminate the left, then eliminated everyone who opposed him after he became dictator.

 

[Contumacious]

. You also show this obsession with words over deeds. Hitler was very critical of capitalism in his early rhetoric, but in practice he served the interest of large German corporations and greatly aided them. In fact, one of the emerging areas of research in economic history is that German business pushed for the Second World War in at attempt to create captive markets in what they saw as an increasingly globalized world.

Aiding Corporations which assisted him in the war effort does not make his system Capitalist. He merely recognized that socialism sucks and bureaucrats can not manufacture anything worth a damn.

Krupp Industries employed workers conscripted by the Nazi regime from across Europe. These workers were initially paid, but as Nazi fortunes declined they were kept as slave workers.[citation needed] They were abused, beaten, and starved by the thousands, as detailed in the book The Arms of Krupp.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

. You also show this obsession with words over deeds. Hitler was very critical of capitalism in his early rhetoric, but in practice he served the interest of large German corporations and greatly aided them. In fact, one of the emerging areas of research in economic history is that German business pushed for the Second World War in at attempt to create captive markets in what they saw as an increasingly globalized world.

Aiding Corporations which assisted him in the war effort does not make his system Capitalist. He merely recognized that socialism sucks and bureaucrats can not manufacture anything worth a damn.

Krupp Industries employed workers conscripted by the Nazi regime from across Europe.These workers were initially paid, but as Nazi fortunes declined they were kept as slave workers.[citation needed] They were abused, beaten, and starved by the thousands, as detailed in the book The Arms of Krupp..

Thank you. He was a dictator before anything else.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Obama is a socialist--

Nope, but you are a fool.

obama is a member and was supported by the Chicago New Party. stop being a partisan idiot.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's a terrible article because it's built on a false premise. Far from "attacking conservatives", other parties of the German right were the closest allies of the Nazi regime in the Weimar period. You also show this obsession with words over deeds. Hitler was very critical of capitalism in his early rhetoric, but in practice he served the interest of large German corporations and greatly aided them. In fact, one of the emerging areas of research in economic history is that German business pushed for the Second World War in at attempt to create captive markets in what they saw as an increasingly globalized world.

Well everything I've read suggests that Hitler went after the conservatives of his time--those who resisted letting go of the status quo which is the definition of conservatism in Europe at that time. (Not so in America at this time.)

But you are correct in an earlier post that Marx was infatuated with the French Revolution that he mentioned often. And if you read the works of Mably, Morelly, Babeuf, and other communist leaning philosophers of that period, you get a glimpse into the seeds of Marxism that Marx and Engles developed. It is too bad that they were not influenced by the writings of such as John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, some who were contemporaries of the French Revolution philosophers but took a very different view.

Read "http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=qhq" about "Hitler's revolution: AD 1933-1934." It explains how he manipulated the right to eliminate the left, then eliminated everyone who opposed him after he became dictator.

But first YOU look up the deinitions of left and right as they were defined in Germany and most of the rest of western Europe at that time.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nope, but you are a fool.

obama is a member and was supported by the Chicago New Party. stop being a partisan idiot.

Excellent find. I am surprised so few who have dug into Obama's past are so unaware of that. Starting with his political career being kicked off in the living room of avowed leftist socialist militant William Ayers, there is quite a bit of information out there. Of coruse the mainstream media won't make anybody in their readership aware of such things that are so damning or at least really raise eyebrows:

As noted, a picture of Obama was published on the cover of the New Party News pamphlet back in 1996, serving as a small sliver of evidence that he had potential ties with the political party. Now, in a new piece for National Review, Stanley Kurtz is claiming that Obama’s ties to the controversial group were extensive — and corroborated — by recently uncovered documents.

It was also in 1996 that Kurtz says Obama formally joined the New Party. Interestingly, this is the same year that he appeared on the cover of the group’s pamphlet, which can be seen here:

Kurts goes on to share the background surrounding what happened when the commentator first brought to light Obama’s alleged ties to this third, seemingly radical political party:

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

New Documents Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the ‘New Party’ | TheBlaze.com

 

[Rocko]

He's a Marxist/socialist with a little fascist sprinkled in. In other words he's a Democrat.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

obama is a member and was supported by the Chicago New Party. stop being a partisan idiot.

Excellent find. I am surprised so few who have dug into Obama's past are so unaware of that. Starting with his political career being kicked off in the living room of avowed leftist socialist militant William Ayers, there is quite a bit of information out there. Of coruse the mainstream media won't make anybody in their readership aware of such things that are so damning or at least really raise eyebrows:

As noted, a picture of Obama was published on the cover of the New Party News pamphlet back in 1996, serving as a small sliver of evidence that he had potential ties with the political party. Now, in a new piece for National Review, Stanley Kurtz is claiming that Obama’s ties to the controversial group were extensive — and corroborated — by recently uncovered documents.

It was also in 1996 that Kurtz says Obama formally joined the New Party. Interestingly, this is the same year that he appeared on the cover of the group’s pamphlet, which can be seen here:

Kurts goes on to share the background surrounding what happened when the commentator first brought to light Obama’s alleged ties to this third, seemingly radical political party:

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

New Documents Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the ‘New Party’ | TheBlaze.com

That should end the debate as to whether obama is a socialist or a fascist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well everything I've read suggests that Hitler went after the conservatives of his time--those who resisted letting go of the status quo which is the definition of conservatism in Europe at that time. (Not so in America at this time.)

But you are correct in an earlier post that Marx was infatuated with the French Revolution that he mentioned often. And if you read the works of Mably, Morelly, Babeuf, and other communist leaning philosophers of that period, you get a glimpse into the seeds of Marxism that Marx and Engles developed. It is too bad that they were not influenced by the writings of such as John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, some who were contemporaries of the French Revolution philosophers but took a very different view.

Read "http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=qhq" about "Hitler's revolution: AD 1933-1934." It explains how he manipulated the right to eliminate the left, then eliminated everyone who opposed him after he became dictator.

But first YOU look up the deinitions of left and right as they were defined in Germany and most of the rest of western Europe at that time.

But first read the above, for they are very clear historically and narratively.

We are closer than you think.

 

[thanatos144]

Slayer has a verse that fits Liberals.

"Close your eyes and forget your name,
step out of yourself and let your thoughts drain
as you go insane go insane"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slayer has a verse that fits Liberals.

"Close your eyes and forget your name,
step out of yourself and let your thoughts drain
as you go insane go insane"

Excellent lyrical description of the extremists of the far right and the far left: insanity.

 

[thanatos144]

Slayer has a verse that fits Liberals.

"Close your eyes and forget your name,
step out of yourself and let your thoughts drain
as you go insane go insane"

Excellent lyrical description of the extremists of the far right and the far left: insanity.

I think it fits you perfectly.

 

[The T]

obama is a member and was supported by the Chicago New Party. stop being a partisan idiot.

Excellent find. I am surprised so few who have dug into Obama's past are so unaware of that. Starting with his political career being kicked off in the living room of avowed leftist socialist militant William Ayers, there is quite a bit of information out there. Of coruse the mainstream media won't make anybody in their readership aware of such things that are so damning or at least really raise eyebrows:

As noted, a picture of Obama was published on the cover of the New Party News pamphlet back in 1996, serving as a small sliver of evidence that he had potential ties with the political party. Now, in a new piece for National Review, Stanley Kurtz is claiming that Obama’s ties to the controversial group were extensive — and corroborated — by recently uncovered documents.

It was also in 1996 that Kurtz says Obama formally joined the New Party. Interestingly, this is the same year that he appeared on the cover of the group’s pamphlet, which can be seen here:

Kurts goes on to share the background surrounding what happened when the commentator first brought to light Obama’s alleged ties to this third, seemingly radical political party:

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

New Documents Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the ‘New Party’ | TheBlaze.com

IF the Leftists here wish to NOT acknowledge Obama's lying and afiliations? Could it be said that THEY are of like mind and LIARS as well?

 

[JakeStarkey]

To you extremists, those to the right center and center left seem insane.

It fits extremists such as yourself as a glove.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Slayer has a verse that fits Liberals.

Excellent lyrical description of the extremists of the far right and the far left: insanity.

I think it fits you perfectly.

 

[The T]

Well everything I've read suggests that Hitler went after the conservatives of his time--those who resisted letting go of the status quo which is the definition of conservatism in Europe at that time. (Not so in America at this time.)

But you are correct in an earlier post that Marx was infatuated with the French Revolution that he mentioned often. And if you read the works of Mably, Morelly, Babeuf, and other communist leaning philosophers of that period, you get a glimpse into the seeds of Marxism that Marx and Engles developed. It is too bad that they were not influenced by the writings of such as John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, some who were contemporaries of the French Revolution philosophers but took a very different view.

Read "http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=qhq" about "Hitler's revolution: AD 1933-1934." It explains how he manipulated the right to eliminate the left, then eliminated everyone who opposed him after he became dictator.

But first YOU look up the deinitions of left and right as they were defined in Germany and most of the rest of western Europe at that time.

Weimar Republic comes to mind as left from the LOSS of WWI by Germany...was imposed ON germany...and with WEAK leardership was left inept...and gave rise to asswipes like HITLER...