The Left Loses Ground...

[Jroc]

Stalin preached international socialism.
Hitler preached national socialism.
There was little difference between them.
Hitler's Germany provided a social safety net with cradle to grave benefits (granted, a lot of that he inherited from Bismark). His unions worked hand in hand with industry and government, creating a tight relationship among the three entities. He believed in state planning of the economy.
Hitler was popular with progressives in the US when he started out. Even the Blue Eagle of the NRA was taken from the Nazis.

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

What you dont know would fill the internet.
Hitler banned unions that were not the official approved one, the Nazi Party one.
I dont know what "ultra nationalism" is. Neither do you. His socialism was a national socialism, that socialism should be implemented in each country, rather than the Soviet kind which envisioned an international socialist regime. (Bonus question: What was the anthem of the Communism?)
Co operative management of the economy is exactly what Nazism was. You got that part right.
If anyone does not understand the differences, it is you.

NONE of that is socialism...

You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.


What is so hard to understand about ULTRA -nationalism...Hitler promoted a German racially homogeneous population : a state having ethnic purity.

Socialism is not liberal. Liberalism means private property rights, laissez faire economic policies,and individual liberty. Milton Friedman described himself as a liberal. William F Buckley did too.
Socialism is about state control over the economy. Socialism is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. Socialism is all about government control.
By your reasoning Japan is an ultra nationalist society. Hint: It isnt.

THIS Milton Friedman?

THIS William F. Buckley?

COMMUNISM is about state control over the economy. COMMUNISM is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. COMMUNISM is all about government control.

You ARE an idiot.

Basic economics lesson for you...You're not too bright are you?

 

[Jroc]

 

[Bfgrn]

Hitler sound EXACTLY like Mitt Romney and his 47%...

Hitler...a socialist who despised Marx...


The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;

2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;

3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.


The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.

And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

These three outrages against mankind, which we can recognize throughout all history as the true signs of decadence in folk groups and states, and whose most zealous propagandist is the international Jew, are the characteristic symptoms of the Marxism which is progressively gaining a hold on our folk. I say, our folk, for Marxism, while clearly defined and delineated as an organization, has, like a spiritual plague, taken hold of practically all our folk, though many are not aware of it. Once a folk has fallen prey to these vices, however, there can be no more talk of a "resurgence." And so in reality the stabilization of the existing state means only that our folk is slowly becoming accustomed to wholesale corruption and a general decline in standards. Indications of widespread degeneracy are hence innumerable and strike the eye of the attentive and upright observer from all spheres of activity. While our independent economy is being crushed, and our political foundations and even the folk's natural instincts are being destroyed, our art is becoming a laughingstock, our language warped, our soul corroded, and our general culture poisoned. The dwarfishness of the political leaders of our folk fits well into this general milieu, for it is a product of it.

And for this reason I reject the frivolous optimism shared by the mob and its present leaders.

Adolf Hitler The Road to Resurgence

 

[TemplarKormac]

When without argument, invoke Hitler. Reduction ad Hitlerum. Works every damn time.

Godwin is taking all of this to the bank.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The problem your argument presents is that it lacks any discernible depth.

Neither Friedman, nor Buckley were limited by colloquial expressions... when they referred to themselves as liberal, they did so in the true sense of the word, which as even you might guess, represents the pure antithesis of what you actually 'believe' the word means.

What the colloquial liberal 'believes' 'liberal' means, is a lie... a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to mislead the ignorant.

Liberal literally means the advocate of liberty.

The Liberal-ism they believe, contests liberty. It runs from it, rejecting the responsibilities that are essential to liberty.

Liberals are, in every sense of the word: Communists... children who need others to chronically fulfill your endless needs and, fools who believe that just because they reject the responsibilities that sustain freedom, that shouldn't mean they can't be free... .

In short, Liberals are delusional.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

What you dont know would fill the internet.
Hitler banned unions that were not the official approved one, the Nazi Party one.
I dont know what "ultra nationalism" is. Neither do you. His socialism was a national socialism, that socialism should be implemented in each country, rather than the Soviet kind which envisioned an international socialist regime. (Bonus question: What was the anthem of the Communism?)
Co operative management of the economy is exactly what Nazism was. You got that part right.
If anyone does not understand the differences, it is you.

NONE of that is socialism...

You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.


What is so hard to understand about ULTRA -nationalism...Hitler promoted a German racially homogeneous population : a state having ethnic purity.

Socialism is not liberal. Liberalism means private property rights, laissez faire economic policies,and individual liberty. Milton Friedman described himself as a liberal. William F Buckley did too.
Socialism is about state control over the economy. Socialism is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. Socialism is all about government control.
By your reasoning Japan is an ultra nationalist society. Hint: It isnt.

THIS Milton Friedman?

THIS William F. Buckley?

COMMUNISM is about state control over the economy. COMMUNISM is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. COMMUNISM is all about government control.

You ARE an idiot.

Basic economics lesson for you...You're not too bright are you?

Milton Friedman is your hero?

The Milton Friedman who supported the legalization of drugs and prostitution?

The Milton Friedman who supported gay rights and specifically supported same sex marriage?

The Milton Friedman who said "market forces ... accomplish wonderful things", they "cannot ensure a distribution of income that enables all citizens to meet basic economic needs"?

 

[Bfgrn]

When without argument, invoke Hitler. Reduction ad Hitlerum. Works every damn time.

Godwin is taking all of this to the bank.

Pay attention pea brain. Hitler has been part of the discussion for pages...

 

[Bfgrn]

The problem your argument presents is that it lacks any discernible depth.

Neither Friedman, nor Buckley were limited by colloquial expressions... when they referred to themselves as liberal, they did so in the true sense of the word, which as even you might guess, represents the pure antithesis of what you actually 'believe' the word means.

What the colloquial liberal 'believes' 'liberal' means, is a lie... a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to mislead the ignorant.

Liberal literally means the advocate of liberty.

The Liberal-ism they believe, contests liberty. It runs from it, rejecting the responsibilities that are essential to liberty.

Liberals are, in every sense of the word: Communists... children who need others to chronically fulfill your endless needs and, fools who believe that just because they reject the responsibilities that sustain freedom, that shouldn't mean they can't be free... .

In short, Liberals are delusional.

Here is a real classical liberal...

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Its late and I only scanned you post. I'll read it fully tomorrow. But in your final paragraph I recognized the thought of Hayek. And my opinion of it hasn't changed over the years.

Subsidies suck the life out of people... It undermines the spirit, and erodes any sense of responsibility.

Charity serves the interest of those in need and it promotes sound principle.

Dah... I should have saved this for the morning.

I'm out

 

[TemplarKormac]

When without argument, invoke Hitler. Reduction ad Hitlerum. Works every damn time.

Godwin is taking all of this to the bank.

Pay attention pea brain. Hitler has been part of the discussion for pages...

I know. Having commented on this thread previously, I see only the liberals invoking Hitler in their arguments.

Your second post:

.... battles will stop only if Christians abandon their historic faith on a truly national scale or if the Left decides that it is content to “live and let live”—to work, attend school, and share the public square with people who express moral disagreement and who work actively to promote a cultural return to traditional morality.


When it comes to the core of their faith, millions of Christians will echo, by word and deed, the words of Martin Luther: Here we stand. We can do no other."

"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Its late and I only scanned you post. I'll read it fully tomorrow. But in your final paragraph I recognized the thought of Hayek. And my opinion of it hasn't changed over the years.

Subsidies suck the life out of people... It undermines the spirit, and erodes any sense of responsibility.

Charity serves the interest of those in need and it promotes sound principle.

Dah... I should have saved this for the morning.

I'm out

Charity is a handout, if welfare is a handout.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ...

It's funny how regularly PC comes up with a thread a couple weeks or so after a news story and then proceeds to post something that was thoroughly debunked on this board back then.[/QUOTE]

 

[NYcarbineer]

When without argument, invoke Hitler. Reduction ad Hitlerum. Works every damn time.

Godwin is taking all of this to the bank.

Pay attention pea brain. Hitler has been part of the discussion for pages...

I know. Having commented on this thread previously, I see only the liberals invoking Hitler in their arguments.

Your second post:

.... battles will stop only if Christians abandon their historic faith on a truly national scale or if the Left decides that it is content to “live and let live”—to work, attend school, and share the public square with people who express moral disagreement and who work actively to promote a cultural return to traditional morality.


When it comes to the core of their faith, millions of Christians will echo, by word and deed, the words of Martin Luther: Here we stand. We can do no other."

"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

You haven't read the thread then.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem your argument presents is that it lacks any discernible depth.

Neither Friedman, nor Buckley were limited by colloquial expressions... when they referred to themselves as liberal, they did so in the true sense of the word, which as even you might guess, represents the pure antithesis of what you actually 'believe' the word means.

What the colloquial liberal 'believes' 'liberal' means, is a lie... a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to mislead the ignorant.

Liberal literally means the advocate of liberty.

The Liberal-ism they believe, contests liberty. It runs from it, rejecting the responsibilities that are essential to liberty.

Liberals are, in every sense of the word: Communists... children who need others to chronically fulfill your endless needs and, fools who believe that just because they reject the responsibilities that sustain freedom, that shouldn't mean they can't be free... .

In short, Liberals are delusional.

Old time liberals thought the private sector could protect society from government. The Industrial Revolution and its attendant horrors - of laissez-faire capitalism - proved them wrong.

Modern liberals think the government needs to try to protect society from the private sector. They are right.

 

[The Rabbi]

Stalin preached international socialism.
Hitler preached national socialism.
There was little difference between them.
Hitler's Germany provided a social safety net with cradle to grave benefits (granted, a lot of that he inherited from Bismark). His unions worked hand in hand with industry and government, creating a tight relationship among the three entities. He believed in state planning of the economy.
Hitler was popular with progressives in the US when he started out. Even the Blue Eagle of the NRA was taken from the Nazis.

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

What you dont know would fill the internet.
Hitler banned unions that were not the official approved one, the Nazi Party one.
I dont know what "ultra nationalism" is. Neither do you. His socialism was a national socialism, that socialism should be implemented in each country, rather than the Soviet kind which envisioned an international socialist regime. (Bonus question: What was the anthem of the Communism?)
Co operative management of the economy is exactly what Nazism was. You got that part right.
If anyone does not understand the differences, it is you.

NONE of that is socialism...

You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.


What is so hard to understand about ULTRA -nationalism...Hitler promoted a German racially homogeneous population : a state having ethnic purity.

Socialism is not liberal. Liberalism means private property rights, laissez faire economic policies,and individual liberty. Milton Friedman described himself as a liberal. William F Buckley did too.
Socialism is about state control over the economy. Socialism is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. Socialism is all about government control.
By your reasoning Japan is an ultra nationalist society. Hint: It isnt.

THIS Milton Friedman?

THIS William F. Buckley?

COMMUNISM is about state control over the economy. COMMUNISM is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. COMMUNISM is all about government control.

You ARE an idiot.

You prove my point for me and I'm the idiot? Don't think so.
Socialism and communism differ only on ownership of the means of production.

 

[bripat9643]

You left out socialism. Furthermore, Eugenics was a progressive creation.

That's pretty much the same agenda FDR had.

There was no 'socialism' in NAZI Germany...

Hitler worked with the industrialist of Germany and allowed a tremendous profit incentive to remain. The Nazis were a socialist party in name only. The State did not take over all the major factors of production in the German economy which is the hallmark trait of socialist state. In addition when Hitler did use government to control the economy he used his dictatorial powers and terror as the means of control. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt used the democratic process to allow more government control of the economy. Hitler could literally use the army to take over a business. Roosevelt used his Justice Department to break up trusts using the laws enacted by an elected legislature. There is a tremendous difference between the two....ref

You dont understand socialism. Or Nazism. Or a dozen other things. But that doesnt mean you can't spout an opinion about them.
It's what makes America great--idiots sounding off about shit they know nothing about.

Let's see..I provided proof, and you provided emotes and insults...

You claim Hitler was a 'progressive'...and bripat claims Hitler was a socialist...

Yet in 1927 Hitler wrote a pamphlet entitled The Road to Resurgence only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich.

Hitler expressly attacked Marxists, socialism and 'progressives', called for a 'meritocracy' and exalts 'individual personality'


excerpts:

The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;

2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;

3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.


The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.

And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

...


The National Socialist movement is no parliamentary party. It does not expect that questions involving the fate of the German nation could ever be resolved by majority rule. It is convinced that the spirit it advocates will one day become the spirit of that institution which is all that remains of the old army and, at the same time, the school for the future. The organisation of the military might of a folk, be it large or small, is always intimately connected with a doctrine of the value of individual personality, struggle, and patriotism. Unintentionally and unconsciously, to the extent that the official state becomes more and more corrupt in its folkish content, discredited by its personnel, and filled with pacifistic cowardice, the movement and the army will draw ever closer together.


In these seven years of progressive deformation of the German national body, a state within the state has slowly evolved which ideologically as well as politically will be the Prussia of the coming era.

Stalin preached international socialism.
Hitler preached national socialism.
There was little difference between them.
Hitler's Germany provided a social safety net with cradle to grave benefits (granted, a lot of that he inherited from Bismark). His unions worked hand in hand with industry and government, creating a tight relationship among the three entities. He believed in state planning of the economy.
Hitler was popular with progressives in the US when he started out. Even the Blue Eagle of the NRA was taken from the Nazis.

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism.

Your belief that the two things are mutually exclusive is totally unsupported.

He DESPISED Marxists.

No, actually, he didn't.

"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."

- Adolph Hitler -​

Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Stalin also banned trade unions and arrested union leaders.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...

Yeah, it always is a dictatorship. It's impossible to have government running the economy if it isn't a dictatorship. The idea that a dictatorship can't be socialist is a leftist conceit.

it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

The phrase "cooperative management of the economy" is vague and misleading. The kind of "cooperation" being referred to is the kind you give a mugger when he points a gun at you and tells you to hand over your wallet. If you don't agree with the schemes of the socialist state, then it uses guns to secure your "cooperation."

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

It's you that doesn't understand. No one who understands would ever endorse socialism.

 

[protectionist]

The problem your argument presents is that it lacks any discernible depth.

Neither Friedman, nor Buckley were limited by colloquial expressions... when they referred to themselves as liberal, they did so in the true sense of the word, which as even you might guess, represents the pure antithesis of what you actually 'believe' the word means.

What the colloquial liberal 'believes' 'liberal' means, is a lie... a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to mislead the ignorant.

Liberal literally means the advocate of liberty.

The Liberal-ism they believe, contests liberty. It runs from it, rejecting the responsibilities that are essential to liberty.

Liberals are, in every sense of the word: Communists... children who need others to chronically fulfill your endless needs and, fools who believe that just because they reject the responsibilities that sustain freedom, that shouldn't mean they can't be free... .

In short, Liberals are delusional.

Old time liberals thought the private sector could protect society from government. The Industrial Revolution and its attendant horrors - of laissez-faire capitalism - proved them wrong.

Modern liberals think the government needs to try to protect society from the private sector. They are right.

In some ways, conservatives think that also. Like police who are confounded by kids with toy guns that look real. I'm a conservative and I can think of dozens of good applications of business regulation (pharmaceuticals, automobiles, building construction codes, etc)

 

[bripat9643]

You dont understand socialism. Or Nazism. Or a dozen other things. But that doesnt mean you can't spout an opinion about them.
It's what makes America great--idiots sounding off about shit they know nothing about.

Let's see..I provided proof, and you provided emotes and insults...

You claim Hitler was a 'progressive'...and bripat claims Hitler was a socialist...

Yet in 1927 Hitler wrote a pamphlet entitled The Road to Resurgence only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich.

Hitler expressly attacked Marxists, socialism and 'progressives', called for a 'meritocracy' and exalts 'individual personality'


excerpts:

The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;

2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;

3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.


The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.

And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

...


The National Socialist movement is no parliamentary party. It does not expect that questions involving the fate of the German nation could ever be resolved by majority rule. It is convinced that the spirit it advocates will one day become the spirit of that institution which is all that remains of the old army and, at the same time, the school for the future. The organisation of the military might of a folk, be it large or small, is always intimately connected with a doctrine of the value of individual personality, struggle, and patriotism. Unintentionally and unconsciously, to the extent that the official state becomes more and more corrupt in its folkish content, discredited by its personnel, and filled with pacifistic cowardice, the movement and the army will draw ever closer together.


In these seven years of progressive deformation of the German national body, a state within the state has slowly evolved which ideologically as well as politically will be the Prussia of the coming era.

Stalin preached international socialism.
Hitler preached national socialism.
There was little difference between them.
Hitler's Germany provided a social safety net with cradle to grave benefits (granted, a lot of that he inherited from Bismark). His unions worked hand in hand with industry and government, creating a tight relationship among the three entities. He believed in state planning of the economy.
Hitler was popular with progressives in the US when he started out. Even the Blue Eagle of the NRA was taken from the Nazis.

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

What you dont know would fill the internet.
Hitler banned unions that were not the official approved one, the Nazi Party one.
I dont know what "ultra nationalism" is. Neither do you. His socialism was a national socialism, that socialism should be implemented in each country, rather than the Soviet kind which envisioned an international socialist regime. (Bonus question: What was the anthem of the Communism?)
Co operative management of the economy is exactly what Nazism was. You got that part right.
If anyone does not understand the differences, it is you.

NONE of that is socialism...

You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Now we know you've gone complete around the bend. Stalin was "right wing?" There's no point in arguing with someone as deluded as you. Of course, if you are going to defend socialism, then you have to jettison Soviet style socialism because it undermines all your claims. Unfortunately for you, there really is no other kind of socialism.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

The trouble with your schemes is that neither socialism or democracy work. They both end up causing the total collapse of society.

Communism is conservative.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Comments like that are the reason I love this forum!

Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

Socialism can never work precisely because it allows every numskull on the street who can't even name the vice president to have a say in running the economy. The vast majority of people are dolts who are barely able to feed themselves. The idea that such people are qualified to decide whether GM should build a new manufacturing plant is too absurd for words.

What is so hard to understand about ULTRA -nationalism...Hitler promoted a German racially homogeneous population : a state having ethnic purity.

How does that rule out socialism?

 

[bripat9643]

The problem your argument presents is that it lacks any discernible depth.

Neither Friedman, nor Buckley were limited by colloquial expressions... when they referred to themselves as liberal, they did so in the true sense of the word, which as even you might guess, represents the pure antithesis of what you actually 'believe' the word means.

What the colloquial liberal 'believes' 'liberal' means, is a lie... a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to mislead the ignorant.

Liberal literally means the advocate of liberty.

The Liberal-ism they believe, contests liberty. It runs from it, rejecting the responsibilities that are essential to liberty.

Liberals are, in every sense of the word: Communists... children who need others to chronically fulfill your endless needs and, fools who believe that just because they reject the responsibilities that sustain freedom, that shouldn't mean they can't be free... .

In short, Liberals are delusional.

Old time liberals thought the private sector could protect society from government. The Industrial Revolution and its attendant horrors - of laissez-faire capitalism - proved them wrong.

Modern liberals think the government needs to try to protect society from the private sector. They are right.

In some ways, conservatives think that also. Like police who are confounded by kids with toy guns that look real. I'm a conservative and I can think of dozens of good applications of business regulation (pharmaceuticals, automobiles, building construction codes, etc)

You are no conservative. You're a boot-licking liberal.

 

[The Rabbi]

Let's see..I provided proof, and you provided emotes and insults...

You claim Hitler was a 'progressive'...and bripat claims Hitler was a socialist...

Yet in 1927 Hitler wrote a pamphlet entitled The Road to Resurgence only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich.

Hitler expressly attacked Marxists, socialism and 'progressives', called for a 'meritocracy' and exalts 'individual personality'


excerpts:

The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;

2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;

3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.


The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.

And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

...


The National Socialist movement is no parliamentary party. It does not expect that questions involving the fate of the German nation could ever be resolved by majority rule. It is convinced that the spirit it advocates will one day become the spirit of that institution which is all that remains of the old army and, at the same time, the school for the future. The organisation of the military might of a folk, be it large or small, is always intimately connected with a doctrine of the value of individual personality, struggle, and patriotism. Unintentionally and unconsciously, to the extent that the official state becomes more and more corrupt in its folkish content, discredited by its personnel, and filled with pacifistic cowardice, the movement and the army will draw ever closer together.


In these seven years of progressive deformation of the German national body, a state within the state has slowly evolved which ideologically as well as politically will be the Prussia of the coming era.

Stalin preached international socialism.
Hitler preached national socialism.
There was little difference between them.
Hitler's Germany provided a social safety net with cradle to grave benefits (granted, a lot of that he inherited from Bismark). His unions worked hand in hand with industry and government, creating a tight relationship among the three entities. He believed in state planning of the economy.
Hitler was popular with progressives in the US when he started out. Even the Blue Eagle of the NRA was taken from the Nazis.

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

What you dont know would fill the internet.
Hitler banned unions that were not the official approved one, the Nazi Party one.
I dont know what "ultra nationalism" is. Neither do you. His socialism was a national socialism, that socialism should be implemented in each country, rather than the Soviet kind which envisioned an international socialist regime. (Bonus question: What was the anthem of the Communism?)
Co operative management of the economy is exactly what Nazism was. You got that part right.
If anyone does not understand the differences, it is you.

NONE of that is socialism...

You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Now we know you've gone complete around the bend. Stalin was "right wing?" There's no point in arguing with someone as deluded as you. Of course, if you are going to defend socialism, then you have to jettison Soviet style socialism because it undermines all your claims. Unfortunately for you, there really is no other kind of socialism.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

The trouble with your schemes is that neither socialism or democracy work. They both end up causing the total collapse of society.

Communism is conservative.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Comments like that are the reason I love this forum!

Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

Socialism can never work precisely because it allows every numskull on the street who can't even name the vice president to have a say in running the economy. The vast majority of people are dolts who are barely able to feed themselves. The idea that such people are qualified to decide whether GM should build a new manufacturing plant is too absurd for words.

What is so hard to understand about ULTRA -nationalism...Hitler promoted a German racially homogeneous population : a state having ethnic purity.

How does that rule out socialism?

It is sad to see someone so wedded to what he was taught in high school somewher unable to come to grips with contrary information.
Yes, Hitler was a Socialist. Yes, the Soviet Union was Socialist. The evidence exists in abundance. In fact Jonah Goldberg's book on liberal myths lays out exactly when liberals started referring to Hitler and his ilk as "right wing" and why. But morons like Bigfuckinggreenie will never read Goldberg's book. They wont read any book. They thrive on ignorance and support their ignorance by referring to websites that reinforce their wrong ideas and ignoring or dismissing any information to the contrary.