Stone to rehablitate Hilter Stalin and Mao.

[Big Fitz]

It would be nice if YOU'd stop citing wiki-fucking-pedia as though whatever they vomit constitutes something legitmate.

It's disconcerting that people continue to allege that Wikipedia is an unreliable source based on a few incidents of edits to certain pages that happened back in 2003. The online encyclopedia has since then made it difficult to just drop in and change words willy-nilly, and whenever information has NOT been fully sourced, there is a disclaimer to that effect directly next to the entry.

Wikipedia remains the most comprehensive go-to place on the Internet when searching for something specific. If you don't like its entries, then I suggest you scroll down to the sources at the bottom of pages that are cited and use those as your verification.

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lol.
You used a wiki site to support your claims that wiki is a source of reliable information?

Wiki provides decent information for anything that is not debatable.

Anything that is debatable is crap from wiki. Fucking Obama's wiki site read like a fucking campaign ad.

I am dizzy with the circular logic here.

 

[EriktheRed]

His goal will be blur the distinction between America today and Nazi Germany .

I thought that's what Cons were trying to do these days.

What're "cons"? Convicts? There's a forum called the Flame Zone for you buddy. Try and get there before I get you, huh?

Gee, I dunno, with all the talk of the current Prez being like Hitler and seeing a lotta cons call Hillary Clinton "Hitlery"....

 

[B L Zeebub]

People aren't born in a test tube and then live in a completely sterile envinronment.

they stopped the project after they produced Titnah

 

[garyd]

Socialism is a state where in the Government controls the means of production the Government certainly did control the means of production in both Nazi Germany and in the Former Soviet Union.

Socialism and marxism are two quite different things. Socialism is merely a stepping stone in the Direction of Marxism according to Marx but no one has ever taken the final step for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has ever studied history. Socialism comes in two flavors Stalin and Hitler's which I would call the naked iron hand with out any pretense of nicety and the version practice in most of Western Europe in which the government tries to at least apply a little foreplay before they screw you.

 

[Sodafin]

.Socialism is merely a stepping stone in the Direction of Marxism Socialism comes in two flavors Stalin and Hitler's which I would

Gary -

If you don't know - and quite clearly this is a topic you know very little about - why not ask?

These are both completely incorrect statements, and posting them again and again isn't likely to impress or convince anyone except yourself. Or, you could check online and find out for yourself why you are wrong.

Is it really so important to you to keep up this pretence, rather than learn the facts?

Big Fitz -

I've poppped you on ignore mode. As you only seem to post spam, it saves me a bit of time.

 

[garyd]

Soda I know the facts. Socialism is an economic system in which the state controls the means of production. The means of production were controlled by the state in both Stalins Russian and Hitlers Germany The mechanisms by which this control was exercised may have varied slightly but that control existed none the less in both countries ergot both are socilaist states.

 

[Sodafin]

Soda I know the facts.

No, because if you know the facts you would also understand that Nazism and Fascism are both ring wing, and you would understand why.

You would understand that politics are rarely expressed on a continuum, and if they are anarchy appears on the far left, and fascism on the far right.

You would understand that socialism is not a step on the road to marxism, but that the latter is a manifestation or example of the former.

You would also know that while control of the means of production is a factor, it is not considered the be as determining a factor of whether a party is left or right as are the role of class, of the flow of capital, or even the role of nationalism.

I don't think there is any reason at all why people should know this stuff if you don't work in it, or aren't perhaps wildly interested in it - I just don't understand the value of posting the same pieces of clearly false information again and again and again.

If you have a question - ask, and I'll do my best to explain it for you, or at least refer you to books that can.

 

[garyd]

If you new where modern conservatismm actually lies you'd know it can't possible be a contiuum in that way.

Look at the parallels soda-
The soviet Union and Nazi Germany had in common the following:
A centrally planned economy
Government run health care
totalitarianism
Secret police
death camps

And that's just for openers:
The list of policy differences between the two would be much shorter. Why classify two states that are similar in every way but name and locations as differnt ends of the political spectrum when they are essentially identical in every way that matter?


Hell the list of differences between the two would be shorter and pretty much confined to the names of the leaders if you leave out geography.

 

[Sodafin]

Gary-

The issue you seem to be stuck on is this: all totalitarian societies share certain characteristics. (According to one famous model, they share 6 characteristics.) But these characteristics refer only to the mechanics of state - not to its fundamental beliefs.

This, however, does not make a society left or right, and a totalitarian society can be left or right.

Examples of leftist totalitarianism include Mao, Ceacescu and Xoxha.

Examples of rightist totalitarianism include Pinochet, Rios Montte and Cristiani.

What separates these societies are core fundamental values, in particular the role of class, the role of capital, and to a lesser extent the role of nationalism.

If you look at the above examples from this perspective, it is quite easy to see that Hitler's guiding principles had more in common with Pinochet than with Stalin; with whom he was in direct conflict in many areas.

The second key point one has to understand is that both extremes of totalitarianism ARE closer to each other than to the centre - hence the horseshoe model, which I linked earlier. That also then makes it all easier to understand.

It's a shame this thread is being spammed very heavily by a couple of illiterates, but I will come back and am happy to answer any questions or explain the issues in more detail if you are interested.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Gary-

The issue you seem to be stuck on is this: all totalitarian societies share certain characteristics. (According to one famous model, they share 6 characteristics.) But these characteristics refer only to the mechanics of state - not to its fundamental beliefs.

This, however, does not make a society left or right, and a totalitarian society can be left or right.

Examples of leftist totalitarianism include Mao, Ceacescu and Xoxha.

Examples of rightist totalitarianism include Pinochet, Rios Montte and Cristiani.

What separates these societies are core fundamental values, in particular the role of class, the role of capital, and to a lesser extent the role of nationalism.

If you look at the above examples from this perspective, it is quite easy to see that Hitler's guiding principles had more in common with Pinochet than with Stalin; with whom he was in direct conflict in many areas.

The second key point one has to understand is that both extremes of totalitarianism ARE closer to each other than to the centre - hence the horseshoe model, which I linked earlier. That also then makes it all easier to understand.

It's a shame this thread is being spammed very heavily by a couple of illiterates, but I will come back and am happy to answer any questions or explain the issues in more detail if you are interested.

you can argue this till the cows drop dead. and i appreciate your attempts.

but it is useless. most of those guys have only one thing in mind, and that is whitewashing the "right" by putting every asshole on the "left".

 

[Bfgrn]

Well, don't look now but a bunch of experts are trashing Stone's JFK on the History Channel. Common sense and facts tend to do that to things.

Yea Gunny, your beloved government would never lie to you...

Common sense and facts should prompt anyone to doubt the Warren Commission...

 

[Sodafin]

you can argue this till the cows drop dead. and i appreciate your attempts.

but it is useless. most of those guys have only one thing in mind, and that is whitewashing the "right" by putting every asshole on the "left".

You may be right, Eder!

But it is always nice to think people posting on discussion forums really are also genuinely interested in learning, even if in some cases people are more committed to bluffing and posturing than in being right!

Gary seems genuinely interested to me - whereas Big Fitz and Fitnah seem more about flag waving and chest beating.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Gary-

The issue you seem to be stuck on is this: all totalitarian societies share certain characteristics. (According to one famous model, they share 6 characteristics.) But these characteristics refer only to the mechanics of state - not to its fundamental beliefs.

This, however, does not make a society left or right, and a totalitarian society can be left or right.

Examples of leftist totalitarianism include Mao, Ceacescu and Xoxha.

Examples of rightist totalitarianism include Pinochet, Rios Montte and Cristiani.

What separates these societies are core fundamental values, in particular the role of class, the role of capital, and to a lesser extent the role of nationalism.

If you look at the above examples from this perspective, it is quite easy to see that Hitler's guiding principles had more in common with Pinochet than with Stalin; with whom he was in direct conflict in many areas.

The second key point one has to understand is that both extremes of totalitarianism ARE closer to each other than to the centre - hence the horseshoe model, which I linked earlier. That also then makes it all easier to understand.

It's a shame this thread is being spammed very heavily by a couple of illiterates, but I will come back and am happy to answer any questions or explain the issues in more detail if you are interested.

you can argue this till the cows drop dead. and i appreciate your attempts.

but it is useless. most of those guys have only one thing in mind, and that is whitewashing the "right" by putting every asshole on the "left".

You can label them left right or center the fact remains the Nazis and the progressives are cut from the same cloth.
There are no progressive conservatives.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4758sBZLC5k&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

timeline 1:10
HITLERITE'RIOT IN BERLIN.; Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler and Lenin.
Who was the speaker?
None other than Dr Goebbels
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstr...178AD95F418285F9&scp=1&sq=hitlerite+riot&st=p

 

[Big Fitz]

Gary-

The issue you seem to be stuck on is this: all totalitarian societies share certain characteristics. (According to one famous model, they share 6 characteristics.) But these characteristics refer only to the mechanics of state - not to its fundamental beliefs.

This, however, does not make a society left or right, and a totalitarian society can be left or right.

Examples of leftist totalitarianism include Mao, Ceacescu and Xoxha.

Examples of rightist totalitarianism include Pinochet, Rios Montte and Cristiani.

What separates these societies are core fundamental values, in particular the role of class, the role of capital, and to a lesser extent the role of nationalism.

If you look at the above examples from this perspective, it is quite easy to see that Hitler's guiding principles had more in common with Pinochet than with Stalin; with whom he was in direct conflict in many areas.

The second key point one has to understand is that both extremes of totalitarianism ARE closer to each other than to the centre - hence the horseshoe model, which I linked earlier. That also then makes it all easier to understand.

It's a shame this thread is being spammed very heavily by a couple of illiterates, but I will come back and am happy to answer any questions or explain the issues in more detail if you are interested.

Lotsa distinctions without meaning right there.

It's not an umbrella... it's a bumberchute!

 

[Big Fitz]

Gary-

The issue you seem to be stuck on is this: all totalitarian societies share certain characteristics. (According to one famous model, they share 6 characteristics.) But these characteristics refer only to the mechanics of state - not to its fundamental beliefs.

This, however, does not make a society left or right, and a totalitarian society can be left or right.

Examples of leftist totalitarianism include Mao, Ceacescu and Xoxha.

Examples of rightist totalitarianism include Pinochet, Rios Montte and Cristiani.

What separates these societies are core fundamental values, in particular the role of class, the role of capital, and to a lesser extent the role of nationalism.

If you look at the above examples from this perspective, it is quite easy to see that Hitler's guiding principles had more in common with Pinochet than with Stalin; with whom he was in direct conflict in many areas.

The second key point one has to understand is that both extremes of totalitarianism ARE closer to each other than to the centre - hence the horseshoe model, which I linked earlier. That also then makes it all easier to understand.

It's a shame this thread is being spammed very heavily by a couple of illiterates, but I will come back and am happy to answer any questions or explain the issues in more detail if you are interested.

Lotsa distinctions without meaning right there.

It's not an umbrella... it's a bumberchute!

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4758sBZLC5k&feature=player_embedded

timeline 1:10
HITLERITE'RIOT IN BERLIN.; Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler and Lenin.
Who was the speaker?
None other than Dr Goebbels
HITLERITE'RIOT IN BERLIN.; Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitl... - Free Preview - The New York Times

Hell if you cant trust the NYT circa 1930 who can you trust?

 

[garyd]

Sorry no the appropriate model has totaliatarianism at one end of the scale and anarchism at the other.

The closet thing we have to anarchism in this country is libertarianism which wants the least amont of government possible while maintianing an orderly and just society.

Governments exist solely to exert control over human behavior and make no mistake some behaviors need to be controlled . The more behaviors you seek to control the closer you get to totalitarianism.

The left with its desire to control far more behaviors than any one on the right considers either necessary or worthwhile thus the left is the end of the spectrum uponwhich totalitarianisms of what ever stripe must lie.

I am after all quite familiar with the horse shoe concept. Some would even go so far as to make it a circle. Hell I even bought into it myself 30 or so years ago. Then I began to read more and more history and the horse shoe/circle began to make less and less sense and seemed to me to be both completely illogical and holy unjustified by the facts.

 

[Sodafin]

Sorry no the appropriate model has totaliatarianism at one end of the scale and anarchism at the other.

.

No,it doesn't - and I have already posted links to the models.

Look, clearly you are far more interested here in lecturing than you are in actually gets the facts straight, in which case go right ahead.

If at some stage in the future you decide you are interested in this topic, pick up Arendt's "Origins of Totalitarianism". On the other hand - you may prefer believing she knows nothing and you know everything.

 

[garyd]

It is quite clear that many on the left choose for reasons of their own to except a modeled that is unacceptably flawed and in fact quite illogical. But if it's the only way you can live with your political choices well whatever floats your boat I guess. Get ouside that political straight jacket in which you've chosen to incarcerate your self read and think logically about something other than self justification which is the only reason to assume that Hiler was in any significant way different than Joe Stalin on any issue.

As i said I am quite familiar with the model you profess. And I find it illogical, and utterly unecessay and outside any pretense at historical fact. It is in fact little more than picking at nits.