Liberal fascism

[Pete7469]

Between Nutsack and Fakelawyer, the average IQ of leftists in this thread has dropped to single digits.

Marxist Professors have lied for decades about what Fascism is. But the big lie was dependent on ignorance and the suppression of information. That time has passed, and the big lie has collapsed.

Fascism is and always was a system with a centrally planned and managed economy based on collectivism with the state as the ultimate control of all assets, including people. Fascism is and always was an authoritarian system where privilege accrues for favored groups, and rights for individuals do not exist.

Even someone as stupid as Jillian ought to be able to grasp this,

If you start from the perspective of a bed wetting libturd, the fascists may look "right wing" compared to themselves. However anyone who isn't a moron rejects fascism as quickly as communism, because they understand they're merely different degrees of marxism.

Starting out from my perspective, GWB is a moonbat. Even Reagan was a bit too liberal. Between not throwing Ted Kennedy out of a helicopter for attempted collusion with the soviets, and passing the GCA of 86 as well as the amnesty for illegals plus not paying attention to who he picked for the courts, Reagan was not as great as he could have been.

Oh well. If the bed wetters hated him, he must have been a good guy.

Anyway....

Like most arguments, they lose out on facts. Adolph and Benito were all about collectivization. They were not free market guys. They allowed no dissent. The state was the master, the people were a resource.

 

[Faun]

While I would never say that my liberal friends are fascistic, the political left in this country certainly is. The idea that fascism can only come from the right is wrong. Ever hear of the Nazis? You know the National Socialist Party.

The left has really gotten hung up on the word fascist. As if the governing methods of the Soviets or Maoist were much different. In Nazi Germany when you spoke out against the govt the Gestapo took you away, in soviet East Germany if you spoke out against the govt the Stazi took you away. Big difference.

I read an article where the historian author said the difference between socialism and fascism were that socialism is global in outlook, fascism is national in outlook and often racial. The only other difference is that fascism has the facade of private ownership, you may own the steel mill but just like in socialism, the govt controls it.

And liberalism is not the opposite of fascism, a constitutional conservative is the closest thing I can think of to a polar opposite of fascism. Seperation of powers and states rights are not exactly the basis of fascism. Even my liberal friends have a bad habit of supporting the centralizing of power at the federal level. Fascists love that.

What was socialist about Nazi's?

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

"The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

Hitler and the socialist dream

Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.

Throwing around the word, "socialist," doesn't make them socialist any more than calling North Korea, "democratic," makes them democratic.There was little that was socialistic about them.

Socialism is where the people collectively, or the government, owns production and distribution of goods.

You yourself just acknowledged that private German citizens owned that. And despite your attempts to paint Nazi's as socialist because your article claims the government controlled businesses ... that is not the definition of socialism nor is there sufficient evidence to confirm that claim anyway.

They were nationalists, authoritarians, and racist -- rightwing traits.

 

[Faun]

While I would never say that my liberal friends are fascistic, the political left in this country certainly is. The idea that fascism can only come from the right is wrong. Ever hear of the Nazis? You know the National Socialist Party.

The left has really gotten hung up on the word fascist. As if the governing methods of the Soviets or Maoist were much different. In Nazi Germany when you spoke out against the govt the Gestapo took you away, in soviet East Germany if you spoke out against the govt the Stazi took you away. Big difference.

I read an article where the historian author said the difference between socialism and fascism were that socialism is global in outlook, fascism is national in outlook and often racial. The only other difference is that fascism has the facade of private ownership, you may own the steel mill but just like in socialism, the govt controls it.

And liberalism is not the opposite of fascism, a constitutional conservative is the closest thing I can think of to a polar opposite of fascism. Seperation of powers and states rights are not exactly the basis of fascism. Even my liberal friends have a bad habit of supporting the centralizing of power at the federal level. Fascists love that.

What was socialist about Nazi's?

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

"The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

Hitler and the socialist dream

Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.

The fact remains that companies remained capitalist and aristocrats prospered unless they were Jewish or protested Nazi policy. Of course they had to do what the Nazis wanted, and the great majority were happy to. Not socialists at all. They were all in concentration camps DUHHHH, dupe. This is all brand new GOP/dupe revisionism.

Brand new? Ludwig Von Mises died in 1973. As I said earlier, private ownership of the means of production in Nazi Germany was a facade.

Look at the 25 point National Socialist Program, hardly a ringing endorsement of capitalism.

National Socialist Program - Wikipedia

Hysterical....

A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood

... Hitler wasn't of German blood.

 

[Faun]

I've twisted nothing, if you have an issue with his take on Nazi Germany have at it.

The fact remains that both the "socialist" Soviets and the "fascist" Nazis were both authoritarian regimes that sought to control every aspect of society. Whether you are talking about the means of production, the political indoctrination of children in school, the inability to criticise the govt, control of the police and justice systems, control of who can and cannot hold public office, the absolute control of the economy, absolute control of the press, (I could go on) there is little difference between the Soviets and the Nazis.

You're conflating "control" of production with "ownership." The latter being required to qualify as socialism.

 

[regent]

I wonder if the majority of American people are as helpless with the definitions of fascism, socialism and communism as a percentage of posters on these boards? But even more surprising are the number of people that seem unable, or even helpless to find the correct definitions. I wonder what the problem is?

 

[francoHFW]

While I would never say that my liberal friends are fascistic, the political left in this country certainly is. The idea that fascism can only come from the right is wrong. Ever hear of the Nazis? You know the National Socialist Party.

The left has really gotten hung up on the word fascist. As if the governing methods of the Soviets or Maoist were much different. In Nazi Germany when you spoke out against the govt the Gestapo took you away, in soviet East Germany if you spoke out against the govt the Stazi took you away. Big difference.

I read an article where the historian author said the difference between socialism and fascism were that socialism is global in outlook, fascism is national in outlook and often racial. The only other difference is that fascism has the facade of private ownership, you may own the steel mill but just like in socialism, the govt controls it.

And liberalism is not the opposite of fascism, a constitutional conservative is the closest thing I can think of to a polar opposite of fascism. Seperation of powers and states rights are not exactly the basis of fascism. Even my liberal friends have a bad habit of supporting the centralizing of power at the federal level. Fascists love that.

What was socialist about Nazi's?

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

"The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

Hitler and the socialist dream

Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.

Throwing around the word, "socialist," doesn't make them socialist any more than calling North Korea, "democratic," makes them democratic.There was little that was socialistic about them.

Socialism is where the people collectively, or the government, owns production and distribution of goods.

You yourself just acknowledged that private German citizens owned that. And despite your attempts to paint Nazi's as socialist because your article claims the government controlled businesses ... that is not the definition of socialism nor is there sufficient evidence to confirm that claim anyway.

They were nationalists, authoritarians, and racist -- rightwing traits.

OK, but owned OR REGULATED- like it is in every modern country.
so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More

 

[baileyn45]

While I would never say that my liberal friends are fascistic, the political left in this country certainly is. The idea that fascism can only come from the right is wrong. Ever hear of the Nazis? You know the National Socialist Party.

The left has really gotten hung up on the word fascist. As if the governing methods of the Soviets or Maoist were much different. In Nazi Germany when you spoke out against the govt the Gestapo took you away, in soviet East Germany if you spoke out against the govt the Stazi took you away. Big difference.

I read an article where the historian author said the difference between socialism and fascism were that socialism is global in outlook, fascism is national in outlook and often racial. The only other difference is that fascism has the facade of private ownership, you may own the steel mill but just like in socialism, the govt controls it.

And liberalism is not the opposite of fascism, a constitutional conservative is the closest thing I can think of to a polar opposite of fascism. Seperation of powers and states rights are not exactly the basis of fascism. Even my liberal friends have a bad habit of supporting the centralizing of power at the federal level. Fascists love that.

What was socialist about Nazi's?

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

"The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

Hitler and the socialist dream

Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.

Throwing around the word, "socialist," doesn't make them socialist any more than calling North Korea, "democratic," makes them democratic.There was little that was socialistic about them.

Socialism is where the people collectively, or the government, owns production and distribution of goods.

You yourself just acknowledged that private German citizens owned that. And despite your attempts to paint Nazi's as socialist because your article claims the government controlled businesses ... that is not the definition of socialism nor is there sufficient evidence to confirm that claim anyway.

They were nationalists, authoritarians, and racist -- rightwing traits.

Private ownership was a facade in Nazi Germany. The govt controlled every aspect of production and distribution. Just like the soviets and maoists. The Nazis controlled the judicial system, the educational system, the press, pretty every aspect of society, just like the soviets and maoists.

I've aknowledgedthat fascists ties to nationalism and racism, it's what separates them from socialists. As far as authoritarian, I think the soviets, maoists, khmer rouge and pretty much every other socialist regime has established their authoritarian credentials quite well. Or do you think it was better to be executed by the Stazi as opposed to the Gestapo?

Oh and keep in mind I'm not the one that called the Nazis socialists, it's what they called themselves.

 

[francoHFW]

While I would never say that my liberal friends are fascistic, the political left in this country certainly is. The idea that fascism can only come from the right is wrong. Ever hear of the Nazis? You know the National Socialist Party.

The left has really gotten hung up on the word fascist. As if the governing methods of the Soviets or Maoist were much different. In Nazi Germany when you spoke out against the govt the Gestapo took you away, in soviet East Germany if you spoke out against the govt the Stazi took you away. Big difference.

I read an article where the historian author said the difference between socialism and fascism were that socialism is global in outlook, fascism is national in outlook and often racial. The only other difference is that fascism has the facade of private ownership, you may own the steel mill but just like in socialism, the govt controls it.

And liberalism is not the opposite of fascism, a constitutional conservative is the closest thing I can think of to a polar opposite of fascism. Seperation of powers and states rights are not exactly the basis of fascism. Even my liberal friends have a bad habit of supporting the centralizing of power at the federal level. Fascists love that.

What was socialist about Nazi's?

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

"The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

Hitler and the socialist dream

Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.

Throwing around the word, "socialist," doesn't make them socialist any more than calling North Korea, "democratic," makes them democratic.There was little that was socialistic about them.

Socialism is where the people collectively, or the government, owns production and distribution of goods.

You yourself just acknowledged that private German citizens owned that. And despite your attempts to paint Nazi's as socialist because your article claims the government controlled businesses ... that is not the definition of socialism nor is there sufficient evidence to confirm that claim anyway.

They were nationalists, authoritarians, and racist -- rightwing traits.

Private ownership was a facade in Nazi Germany. The govt controlled every aspect of production and distribution. Just like the soviets and maoists. The Nazis controlled the judicial system, the educational system, the press, pretty every aspect of society, just like the soviets and maoists.

I've aknowledgedthat fascists ties to nationalism and racism, it's what separates them from socialists. As far as authoritarian, I think the soviets, maoists, khmer rouge and pretty much every other socialist regime has established their authoritarian credentials quite well. Or do you think it was better to be executed by the Stazi as opposed to the Gestapo?

Oh and keep in mind I'm not the one that called the Nazis socialists, it's what they called themselves.

And you believe ALL RW lies lol.
[paste:font size="4"]LEARN MORE ABOUT TYPES OF GOVERNMENT

 

[Political Junky]

While I would never say that my liberal friends are fascistic, the political left in this country certainly is. The idea that fascism can only come from the right is wrong. Ever hear of the Nazis? You know the National Socialist Party.

The left has really gotten hung up on the word fascist. As if the governing methods of the Soviets or Maoist were much different. In Nazi Germany when you spoke out against the govt the Gestapo took you away, in soviet East Germany if you spoke out against the govt the Stazi took you away. Big difference.

I read an article where the historian author said the difference between socialism and fascism were that socialism is global in outlook, fascism is national in outlook and often racial. The only other difference is that fascism has the facade of private ownership, you may own the steel mill but just like in socialism, the govt controls it.

And liberalism is not the opposite of fascism, a constitutional conservative is the closest thing I can think of to a polar opposite of fascism. Seperation of powers and states rights are not exactly the basis of fascism. Even my liberal friends have a bad habit of supporting the centralizing of power at the federal level. Fascists love that.

What was socialist about Nazi's?

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

"The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

Hitler and the socialist dream

Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.

Throwing around the word, "socialist," doesn't make them socialist any more than calling North Korea, "democratic," makes them democratic.There was little that was socialistic about them.

Socialism is where the people collectively, or the government, owns production and distribution of goods.

You yourself just acknowledged that private German citizens owned that. And despite your attempts to paint Nazi's as socialist because your article claims the government controlled businesses ... that is not the definition of socialism nor is there sufficient evidence to confirm that claim anyway.

They were nationalists, authoritarians, and racist -- rightwing traits.

Private ownership was a facade in Nazi Germany. The govt controlled every aspect of production and distribution. Just like the soviets and maoists. The Nazis controlled the judicial system, the educational system, the press, pretty every aspect of society, just like the soviets and maoists.

I've aknowledgedthat fascists ties to nationalism and racism, it's what separates them from socialists. As far as authoritarian, I think the soviets, maoists, khmer rouge and pretty much every other socialist regime has established their authoritarian credentials quite well. Or do you think it was better to be executed by the Stazi as opposed to the Gestapo?

Oh and keep in mind I'm not the one that called the Nazis socialists, it's what they called themselves.

The Krupp family would giggle at your statement.

 

[baileyn45]

I've twisted nothing, if you have an issue with his take on Nazi Germany have at it.

The fact remains that both the "socialist" Soviets and the "fascist" Nazis were both authoritarian regimes that sought to control every aspect of society. Whether you are talking about the means of production, the political indoctrination of children in school, the inability to criticise the govt, control of the police and justice systems, control of who can and cannot hold public office, the absolute control of the economy, absolute control of the press, (I could go on) there is little difference between the Soviets and the Nazis.

You're conflating "control" of production with "ownership." The latter being required to qualify as socialism.

Again, private ownership in Nazi Germany was a facade.

 

[Political Junky]

I've twisted nothing, if you have an issue with his take on Nazi Germany have at it.

The fact remains that both the "socialist" Soviets and the "fascist" Nazis were both authoritarian regimes that sought to control every aspect of society. Whether you are talking about the means of production, the political indoctrination of children in school, the inability to criticise the govt, control of the police and justice systems, control of who can and cannot hold public office, the absolute control of the economy, absolute control of the press, (I could go on) there is little difference between the Soviets and the Nazis.

You're conflating "control" of production with "ownership." The latter being required to qualify as socialism.

Again, private ownership in Nazi Germany was a facade.

Bullshit

 

[baileyn45]

I've twisted nothing, if you have an issue with his take on Nazi Germany have at it.

The fact remains that both the "socialist" Soviets and the "fascist" Nazis were both authoritarian regimes that sought to control every aspect of society. Whether you are talking about the means of production, the political indoctrination of children in school, the inability to criticise the govt, control of the police and justice systems, control of who can and cannot hold public office, the absolute control of the economy, absolute control of the press, (I could go on) there is little difference between the Soviets and the Nazis.

You're conflating "control" of production with "ownership." The latter being required to qualify as socialism.

Again, private ownership in Nazi Germany was a facade.

Bullshit

I've twisted nothing, if you have an issue with his take on Nazi Germany have at it.

The fact remains that both the "socialist" Soviets and the "fascist" Nazis were both authoritarian regimes that sought to control every aspect of society. Whether you are talking about the means of production, the political indoctrination of children in school, the inability to criticise the govt, control of the police and justice systems, control of who can and cannot hold public office, the absolute control of the economy, absolute control of the press, (I could go on) there is little difference between the Soviets and the Nazis.

You're conflating "control" of production with "ownership." The latter being required to qualify as socialism.

Again, private ownership in Nazi Germany was a facade.

Bullshit

So you believe the owner of a steel company in Nazi Germany controlled what?

 

[francoHFW]

While I would never say that my liberal friends are fascistic, the political left in this country certainly is. The idea that fascism can only come from the right is wrong. Ever hear of the Nazis? You know the National Socialist Party.

The left has really gotten hung up on the word fascist. As if the governing methods of the Soviets or Maoist were much different. In Nazi Germany when you spoke out against the govt the Gestapo took you away, in soviet East Germany if you spoke out against the govt the Stazi took you away. Big difference.

I read an article where the historian author said the difference between socialism and fascism were that socialism is global in outlook, fascism is national in outlook and often racial. The only other difference is that fascism has the facade of private ownership, you may own the steel mill but just like in socialism, the govt controls it.

And liberalism is not the opposite of fascism, a constitutional conservative is the closest thing I can think of to a polar opposite of fascism. Seperation of powers and states rights are not exactly the basis of fascism. Even my liberal friends have a bad habit of supporting the centralizing of power at the federal level. Fascists love that.

What was socialist about Nazi's?

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

"The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

Hitler and the socialist dream

Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.

Throwing around the word, "socialist," doesn't make them socialist any more than calling North Korea, "democratic," makes them democratic.There was little that was socialistic about them.

Socialism is where the people collectively, or the government, owns production and distribution of goods.

You yourself just acknowledged that private German citizens owned that. And despite your attempts to paint Nazi's as socialist because your article claims the government controlled businesses ... that is not the definition of socialism nor is there sufficient evidence to confirm that claim anyway.

They were nationalists, authoritarians, and racist -- rightwing traits.

Private ownership was a facade in Nazi Germany. The govt controlled every aspect of production and distribution. Just like the soviets and maoists. The Nazis controlled the judicial system, the educational system, the press, pretty every aspect of society, just like the soviets and maoists.

I've aknowledgedthat fascists ties to nationalism and racism, it's what separates them from socialists. As far as authoritarian, I think the soviets, maoists, khmer rouge and pretty much every other socialist regime has established their authoritarian credentials quite well. Or do you think it was better to be executed by the Stazi as opposed to the Gestapo?

Oh and keep in mind I'm not the one that called the Nazis socialists, it's what they called themselves.

NAZI PROPAGANDA. They lied about everything. Much like the GOP lol.
They were still capitalists with contracts with the gov't if they were in war industries. All other businesses, restaurants, stores,factories DUH ran just like here- unless you were Jewish or fought the Nazis...Communism does away with ALL business owners and runs and OWNS ALL businesses. Socialists own a few industries - maybe energy, health, but other businesses are capitalist- with a good safety net. "We're all socialists now- Finland PM when ACA passed. Got it yet?

 

[francoHFW]

I've twisted nothing, if you have an issue with his take on Nazi Germany have at it.

The fact remains that both the "socialist" Soviets and the "fascist" Nazis were both authoritarian regimes that sought to control every aspect of society. Whether you are talking about the means of production, the political indoctrination of children in school, the inability to criticise the govt, control of the police and justice systems, control of who can and cannot hold public office, the absolute control of the economy, absolute control of the press, (I could go on) there is little difference between the Soviets and the Nazis.

You're conflating "control" of production with "ownership." The latter being required to qualify as socialism.

Again, private ownership in Nazi Germany was a facade.

Bullshit

I've twisted nothing, if you have an issue with his take on Nazi Germany have at it.

The fact remains that both the "socialist" Soviets and the "fascist" Nazis were both authoritarian regimes that sought to control every aspect of society. Whether you are talking about the means of production, the political indoctrination of children in school, the inability to criticise the govt, control of the police and justice systems, control of who can and cannot hold public office, the absolute control of the economy, absolute control of the press, (I could go on) there is little difference between the Soviets and the Nazis.

You're conflating "control" of production with "ownership." The latter being required to qualify as socialism.

Again, private ownership in Nazi Germany was a facade.

Bullshit

So you believe the owner of a steel company in Nazi Germany controlled what?

Everything BUT what the Nazis told them to do if they were in war production. Or they were feqed lol.

 

[Political Junky]

I've twisted nothing, if you have an issue with his take on Nazi Germany have at it.

The fact remains that both the "socialist" Soviets and the "fascist" Nazis were both authoritarian regimes that sought to control every aspect of society. Whether you are talking about the means of production, the political indoctrination of children in school, the inability to criticise the govt, control of the police and justice systems, control of who can and cannot hold public office, the absolute control of the economy, absolute control of the press, (I could go on) there is little difference between the Soviets and the Nazis.

You're conflating "control" of production with "ownership." The latter being required to qualify as socialism.

Again, private ownership in Nazi Germany was a facade.

Bullshit

I've twisted nothing, if you have an issue with his take on Nazi Germany have at it.

The fact remains that both the "socialist" Soviets and the "fascist" Nazis were both authoritarian regimes that sought to control every aspect of society. Whether you are talking about the means of production, the political indoctrination of children in school, the inability to criticise the govt, control of the police and justice systems, control of who can and cannot hold public office, the absolute control of the economy, absolute control of the press, (I could go on) there is little difference between the Soviets and the Nazis.

You're conflating "control" of production with "ownership." The latter being required to qualify as socialism.

Again, private ownership in Nazi Germany was a facade.

Bullshit

So you believe the owner of a steel company in Nazi Germany controlled what?

Many Krupps were convicted and served prison sentences for their actions.

 

[TheDude]

I just read this article about liberal fascism, and it seemed like something that belongs on a political discussion board.

Sorry, But Our Fight Against Liberal Fascism Has Only Just Begun - Kurt Schlichter

The guy who wrote this article gets it! This is totally how I think about lefties. It felt like I wrote the article myself, only it was better. I would love to hear what some of you think of this article. Comments?

"Liberalism" and "Fascism" are polar opposites, Dumbass. You can't put them together any more than you can put the two poles of a magnet together.

Whatever crapola you read is some Doublethink blogger playing your abject ignorance like a three-dollar banjo. Loudly.

Joke is on you. Today's liberals are CORRUPT and in decay. You can apply a name "liberal" to any act "fascism".

Really, today's left is more totalitarian.

 

[francoHFW]

I just read this article about liberal fascism, and it seemed like something that belongs on a political discussion board.

Sorry, But Our Fight Against Liberal Fascism Has Only Just Begun - Kurt Schlichter

The guy who wrote this article gets it! This is totally how I think about lefties. It felt like I wrote the article myself, only it was better. I would love to hear what some of you think of this article. Comments?

"Liberalism" and "Fascism" are polar opposites, Dumbass. You can't put them together any more than you can put the two poles of a magnet together.

Whatever crapola you read is some Doublethink blogger playing your abject ignorance like a three-dollar banjo. Loudly.

Joke is on you. Today's liberals are CORRUPT and in decay. You can apply a name "liberal" to any act "fascism".

Really, today's left is more totalitarian.

Hilariously ironic, dupe of greedy idiot billionaires...Why, because you had to buy guaranteed health insurance? Horrible.

 

[baileyn45]

While I would never say that my liberal friends are fascistic, the political left in this country certainly is. The idea that fascism can only come from the right is wrong. Ever hear of the Nazis? You know the National Socialist Party.

The left has really gotten hung up on the word fascist. As if the governing methods of the Soviets or Maoist were much different. In Nazi Germany when you spoke out against the govt the Gestapo took you away, in soviet East Germany if you spoke out against the govt the Stazi took you away. Big difference.

I read an article where the historian author said the difference between socialism and fascism were that socialism is global in outlook, fascism is national in outlook and often racial. The only other difference is that fascism has the facade of private ownership, you may own the steel mill but just like in socialism, the govt controls it.

And liberalism is not the opposite of fascism, a constitutional conservative is the closest thing I can think of to a polar opposite of fascism. Seperation of powers and states rights are not exactly the basis of fascism. Even my liberal friends have a bad habit of supporting the centralizing of power at the federal level. Fascists love that.

What was socialist about Nazi's?

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

"The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

Hitler and the socialist dream

Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.

Throwing around the word, "socialist," doesn't make them socialist any more than calling North Korea, "democratic," makes them democratic.There was little that was socialistic about them.

Socialism is where the people collectively, or the government, owns production and distribution of goods.

You yourself just acknowledged that private German citizens owned that. And despite your attempts to paint Nazi's as socialist because your article claims the government controlled businesses ... that is not the definition of socialism nor is there sufficient evidence to confirm that claim anyway.

They were nationalists, authoritarians, and racist -- rightwing traits.

Private ownership was a facade in Nazi Germany. The govt controlled every aspect of production and distribution. Just like the soviets and maoists. The Nazis controlled the judicial system, the educational system, the press, pretty every aspect of society, just like the soviets and maoists.

I've aknowledgedthat fascists ties to nationalism and racism, it's what separates them from socialists. As far as authoritarian, I think the soviets, maoists, khmer rouge and pretty much every other socialist regime has established their authoritarian credentials quite well. Or do you think it was better to be executed by the Stazi as opposed to the Gestapo?

Oh and keep in mind I'm not the one that called the Nazis socialists, it's what they called themselves.

NAZI PROPAGANDA. They lied about everything. Much like the GOP lol.
They were still capitalists with contracts with the gov't if they were in war industries. All other businesses, restaurants, stores,factories DUH ran just like here- unless you were Jewish or fought the Nazis...Communism does away with ALL business owners and runs and OWNS ALL businesses. Socialists own a few industries - maybe energy, health, but other businesses are capitalist- with a good safety net. "We're all socialists now- Finland PM when ACA passed. Got it yet?

Does this sound like a capitalist system...

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c9477.pdf

In neither the money nor the capital market did interest rates, anticipated profits or the entrepreneurial judgment of the individual industrialists and bankers have much to do with investment decisions. It was the government that determined the volume and composition of new capital investment and production, that allocated the raw materials and labor necessary for the execution of the investment and production plans, that became increasingly re- sponsible for the quantity and distribution of industrial and agricultural production - and all with an eye to the requirements of its military program

 

[francoHFW]

What was socialist about Nazi's?

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

"The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

Hitler and the socialist dream

Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.

Throwing around the word, "socialist," doesn't make them socialist any more than calling North Korea, "democratic," makes them democratic.There was little that was socialistic about them.

Socialism is where the people collectively, or the government, owns production and distribution of goods.

You yourself just acknowledged that private German citizens owned that. And despite your attempts to paint Nazi's as socialist because your article claims the government controlled businesses ... that is not the definition of socialism nor is there sufficient evidence to confirm that claim anyway.

They were nationalists, authoritarians, and racist -- rightwing traits.

Private ownership was a facade in Nazi Germany. The govt controlled every aspect of production and distribution. Just like the soviets and maoists. The Nazis controlled the judicial system, the educational system, the press, pretty every aspect of society, just like the soviets and maoists.

I've aknowledgedthat fascists ties to nationalism and racism, it's what separates them from socialists. As far as authoritarian, I think the soviets, maoists, khmer rouge and pretty much every other socialist regime has established their authoritarian credentials quite well. Or do you think it was better to be executed by the Stazi as opposed to the Gestapo?

Oh and keep in mind I'm not the one that called the Nazis socialists, it's what they called themselves.

NAZI PROPAGANDA. They lied about everything. Much like the GOP lol.
They were still capitalists with contracts with the gov't if they were in war industries. All other businesses, restaurants, stores,factories DUH ran just like here- unless you were Jewish or fought the Nazis...Communism does away with ALL business owners and runs and OWNS ALL businesses. Socialists own a few industries - maybe energy, health, but other businesses are capitalist- with a good safety net. "We're all socialists now- Finland PM when ACA passed. Got it yet?

Does this sound like a capitalist system...

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c9477.pdf

In neither the money nor the capital market did interest rates, anticipated profits or the entrepreneurial judgment of the individual industrialists and bankers have much to do with investment decisions. It was the government that determined the volume and composition of new capital investment and production, that allocated the raw materials and labor necessary for the execution of the investment and production plans, that became increasingly re- sponsible for the quantity and distribution of industrial and agricultural production - and all with an eye to the requirements of its military program

Nazi capitalism, yes. All to go to war...

 

[Faun]

While I would never say that my liberal friends are fascistic, the political left in this country certainly is. The idea that fascism can only come from the right is wrong. Ever hear of the Nazis? You know the National Socialist Party.

The left has really gotten hung up on the word fascist. As if the governing methods of the Soviets or Maoist were much different. In Nazi Germany when you spoke out against the govt the Gestapo took you away, in soviet East Germany if you spoke out against the govt the Stazi took you away. Big difference.

I read an article where the historian author said the difference between socialism and fascism were that socialism is global in outlook, fascism is national in outlook and often racial. The only other difference is that fascism has the facade of private ownership, you may own the steel mill but just like in socialism, the govt controls it.

And liberalism is not the opposite of fascism, a constitutional conservative is the closest thing I can think of to a polar opposite of fascism. Seperation of powers and states rights are not exactly the basis of fascism. Even my liberal friends have a bad habit of supporting the centralizing of power at the federal level. Fascists love that.

What was socialist about Nazi's?

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

"The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

Hitler and the socialist dream

Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.

Throwing around the word, "socialist," doesn't make them socialist any more than calling North Korea, "democratic," makes them democratic.There was little that was socialistic about them.

Socialism is where the people collectively, or the government, owns production and distribution of goods.

You yourself just acknowledged that private German citizens owned that. And despite your attempts to paint Nazi's as socialist because your article claims the government controlled businesses ... that is not the definition of socialism nor is there sufficient evidence to confirm that claim anyway.

They were nationalists, authoritarians, and racist -- rightwing traits.

Private ownership was a facade in Nazi Germany. The govt controlled every aspect of production and distribution. Just like the soviets and maoists. The Nazis controlled the judicial system, the educational system, the press, pretty every aspect of society, just like the soviets and maoists.

I've aknowledgedthat fascists ties to nationalism and racism, it's what separates them from socialists. As far as authoritarian, I think the soviets, maoists, khmer rouge and pretty much every other socialist regime has established their authoritarian credentials quite well. Or do you think it was better to be executed by the Stazi as opposed to the Gestapo?

Didn't we already go over this?

Socialism is defined by the people collectively, or the government, owning production and distribution of goods.

That twice now you admitted the Nazi's did not own production and its distribution.

Oh and keep in mind I'm not the one that called the Nazis socialists, it's what they called themselves.

That you're hiding now from your own posts is rather revealing. You're only posting and promoting articles making that claim and defending them.

And again, what they called themselves is meaningless. Again, North Korea calls themselves democratic. Are they? Of course not. And neither were the Nazi's socialist.