Why must some right wingers insist in calling an anti-socialist fascist a "socialist?"

[westwall]

Hitler tried to ERADICATE socialism and communism. He even set up gangs to attack socialists in the street.
He focused on race NOT class.
Hell, his pan-german theories couldnt survive with socialism.
He tried to dismantle trade unions, was pro-industry ETC ETC ETC
Why? What purpose is there to sound like such a moron?

Hitler wanted to be dictator; what he called his Party is inconsequential.

Yup. The same applies to Stalin, Mussolini, and Tojo. They were all basically the same.

 

[westwall]

I guess I'm a bit confused, are we talking about Fascism and Nazism as they were in the 1930s or are we talking about Fascism as it exists today in America. Cuz I don't think it's the same thing, maybe we need to start with a definition of what we're talking about. The terms 'fascist' and 'socialist' get tossed around a lot, I suspect that many times we are talking about different meanings to the same terms.

For starters, I would say that a fascist is someone who believes in total gov't control of pretty much everything; such a person wants to constrain our thoughts and actions to only those in agreement with the gov't meme by regulation or force if necessary. Religion, education, social and economic policy, etc. must all be aligned with the gov'ts objectives and non-conformity is not an option.

One might think that fascism would be diametrically opposed to fascism, and yet I see modern American progressive liberalism as having ALL of these characteristics. Socialism means gov't ownership or control of the economy, well that is basically what the lib/dems have been striving for since the days if FDR, the 1930s. Oddly enough, the Antifa movement in the US opposes domination and oppression and yet the very ideas they hate are what they're fighting for. They're just too dumb to realize it.

They are the same.....the socialists are trying to get clear of the word fascism, because the mass murder of the German and italian socialists was where the world could see them. The mass murder by the international socialists, murdered more people in more countries around the world, but they had a cheering section here in the west and the bodies were buried where it was harder to see them.

I'm starting to evolve
Benito basically created fascism. He was a socialist to begin with, apparently. That was just a way to manipulate the masses. Just Like Hitler. The sad thing is, I knew that. I just didn't realize it.
its seems like the most intelligent thing to do is lump them together. Branching out only serves the totalitarians agenda.
Hitler was a "fascist" however I'm not going to use that terminology anymore. Matter of fact, I'm just going to use statist/authoritarian or nothing at all.
Basically, no matter what "branch" its all the same.
Except for maybe the ridiculous utopian wet dream that communism will eventually dissolve the state LOL
You either love freedom or you love govt. The details don't mean shit.
Thanks for getting me to thinking. Even if you don't agree with the above

westwall 2aguy

That is odd....I have never had someone who was on your side of that debate change their mind....

TNHarley is a thinker. A rare bird these days.

 

[TNHarley]

I guess I'm a bit confused, are we talking about Fascism and Nazism as they were in the 1930s or are we talking about Fascism as it exists today in America. Cuz I don't think it's the same thing, maybe we need to start with a definition of what we're talking about. The terms 'fascist' and 'socialist' get tossed around a lot, I suspect that many times we are talking about different meanings to the same terms.

For starters, I would say that a fascist is someone who believes in total gov't control of pretty much everything; such a person wants to constrain our thoughts and actions to only those in agreement with the gov't meme by regulation or force if necessary. Religion, education, social and economic policy, etc. must all be aligned with the gov'ts objectives and non-conformity is not an option.

One might think that fascism would be diametrically opposed to fascism, and yet I see modern American progressive liberalism as having ALL of these characteristics. Socialism means gov't ownership or control of the economy, well that is basically what the lib/dems have been striving for since the days if FDR, the 1930s. Oddly enough, the Antifa movement in the US opposes domination and oppression and yet the very ideas they hate are what they're fighting for. They're just too dumb to realize it.

They are the same.....the socialists are trying to get clear of the word fascism, because the mass murder of the German and italian socialists was where the world could see them. The mass murder by the international socialists, murdered more people in more countries around the world, but they had a cheering section here in the west and the bodies were buried where it was harder to see them.

I'm starting to evolve
Benito basically created fascism. He was a socialist to begin with, apparently. That was just a way to manipulate the masses. Just Like Hitler. The sad thing is, I knew that. I just didn't realize it.
its seems like the most intelligent thing to do is lump them together. Branching out only serves the totalitarians agenda.
Hitler was a "fascist" however I'm not going to use that terminology anymore. Matter of fact, I'm just going to use statist/authoritarian or nothing at all.
Basically, no matter what "branch" its all the same.
Except for maybe the ridiculous utopian wet dream that communism will eventually dissolve the state LOL
You either love freedom or you love govt. The details don't mean shit.
Thanks for getting me to thinking. Even if you don't agree with the above

westwall 2aguy

That is odd....I have never had someone who was on your side of that debate change their mind....

I dont have an agenda and im not allergic to logic

 

[Tehon]

And then the fascists took over the corporations and dictated to them what, how, how much, and who to offer jobs to.

When did the fascists take over the corporations? Which corporations? All of them or just some?

It is my understanding that the first four years of Mussolini's rule he practiced a liberal capitalist economic system. And then he started incorporating syndicalism.

All of them. If you were a German national you could not do business unless you were a member of the Nazi Party. Even Oscar Schindler of Schindlers list fame, was a member. They even controlled the little companies that made the medals for the soldiers. They were one of the most heavily regulated industries out there. It is astonishing to look at the multitude of regulations they enacted, almost all of which harmed industry, and all while they were waging a world war.

That is all irrelevant to my point. I'm not concerned with how political decisions affect efficiency. My point is that the fundamental capitalist relationship between the employee and the employer is unaltered. The employer still maintains control of the surplus value from the production of commodities, ergo capitalism.

 

[there4eyeM]

Totalitarians are essentially all the same. Those who put the state at the center of human existence are all essentially the same. Those that realize humans are at the center of existence are essentially correct.

 

[Tehon]

Hitler tried to ERADICATE socialism and communism. He even set up gangs to attack socialists in the street.
He focused on race NOT class.
Hell, his pan-german theories couldnt survive with socialism.
He tried to dismantle trade unions, was pro-industry ETC ETC ETC
Why? What purpose is there to sound like such a moron?

Actually he was pro socialism, but the communist at the time threatened his power, which is close to socialism. He enacted many socialist policies (while saying they weren't socialist policies), that Bernie admittedly would love to pass in today's America. The simple truth is there isn't a huge difference between socialism and fascism. They both require heavy governmental control, both heavily regulate industries... I mean if a government still retains great control of say a "private" car company, or a state ran "public" car company...is that much different from socialism? Same methods, same end results, just wearing different masks. Hitler wanted power, hitler went after those who threatened that power, hitler rose to power by praising and passing socialist policies, when the communist threatened his power, he attacked them and anything close to them (socialist) to send a message. Yes hitler was also nationalistic, but who says you can't also be a socialist? Look at our president now, he's both a nationalist and socialist. I'm not saying he's the next hitler, BC I don't think he is, but he definitely loves both nationalism and socialism. Really, what are the differences between the methods of fascism and socialism? Not very different. This is why I'm not the biggest fan of the European political spectrum, because far right and far left look way too similar, with way too much government control....and they both turn out bad for their citizens and the nations around them.

I mean if a government still retains great control of say a "private" car company, or a state ran "public" car company...is that much different from socialism?

That is known as state capitalism and yes it is different from socialism. What you have described is a system that retains all the qualities of the capitalist mode of production which the socialists wish to abolish. You have only traded one hierarchical mode of production for another. You have not altered the conditions of the workers in regards to the produce of their labor.

What you just described is an oxymoron, on the level of a rainforest desert. Can't have a desert along with lush vegetation dependent on very frequent rain. There is no such thing as state run capitalism...they are diametrically opposed. Once the state takes control, it is no longer capitalism, and it's more like what I described as fascism...which is essentially socialism by a different name. There's interventionism, this is also not to be confused with capitalism. Then there's socialism, which is direct government control, or fascism which is indirect but control non the less.

There is no such thing as state run capitalism

Why not? If you replace the private owner of a business and the state takes control does the state not fulfill the same role as the private owner? Does the worker still have to report to the boss in the morning? Whether the boss is a private owner or a bureaucrat would matter little to the worker. Socialism is about freeing the worker from his condition of exploitation by the private system, not being shackled to a system run by state bureaucrats.

The Economist ran a story that suggests there is such a thing as state capitalism. And in it they describe a little about it and how popular it is these days.
The rise of state capitalism

Because capitalism is based on FREE MARKETS, markets cannot be free when the state takes over, it goes against the actual definition of capitalism. Capitalism is outside of the state. Which is why I called it an oxymoron.

"an economic system in which a country’s businesses and industry are controlled and run for profit by private owners rather than by the government"

You, nor this author do not understand what capitalism actually is. What you two are describing is actually socialism, just not full blown hardcore socialism, but still socialism.

The market is a socioeconomic construct used to distribute commodities that predates the capitalist mode of production. It acts independently from the mode of production, capitalist or socialist, doesn't matter, it still works to distribute goods and services. The degree to which it is free of government intervention is a political matter that is decided by the society of which the market serves.

Because capitalism is based on FREE MARKETS

A meaningless cliche of the indoctrinated.

 

[sakinago]

Actually he was pro socialism, but the communist at the time threatened his power, which is close to socialism. He enacted many socialist policies (while saying they weren't socialist policies), that Bernie admittedly would love to pass in today's America. The simple truth is there isn't a huge difference between socialism and fascism. They both require heavy governmental control, both heavily regulate industries... I mean if a government still retains great control of say a "private" car company, or a state ran "public" car company...is that much different from socialism? Same methods, same end results, just wearing different masks. Hitler wanted power, hitler went after those who threatened that power, hitler rose to power by praising and passing socialist policies, when the communist threatened his power, he attacked them and anything close to them (socialist) to send a message. Yes hitler was also nationalistic, but who says you can't also be a socialist? Look at our president now, he's both a nationalist and socialist. I'm not saying he's the next hitler, BC I don't think he is, but he definitely loves both nationalism and socialism. Really, what are the differences between the methods of fascism and socialism? Not very different. This is why I'm not the biggest fan of the European political spectrum, because far right and far left look way too similar, with way too much government control....and they both turn out bad for their citizens and the nations around them.

I mean if a government still retains great control of say a "private" car company, or a state ran "public" car company...is that much different from socialism?

That is known as state capitalism and yes it is different from socialism. What you have described is a system that retains all the qualities of the capitalist mode of production which the socialists wish to abolish. You have only traded one hierarchical mode of production for another. You have not altered the conditions of the workers in regards to the produce of their labor.

What you just described is an oxymoron, on the level of a rainforest desert. Can't have a desert along with lush vegetation dependent on very frequent rain. There is no such thing as state run capitalism...they are diametrically opposed. Once the state takes control, it is no longer capitalism, and it's more like what I described as fascism...which is essentially socialism by a different name. There's interventionism, this is also not to be confused with capitalism. Then there's socialism, which is direct government control, or fascism which is indirect but control non the less.

There is no such thing as state run capitalism

Why not? If you replace the private owner of a business and the state takes control does the state not fulfill the same role as the private owner? Does the worker still have to report to the boss in the morning? Whether the boss is a private owner or a bureaucrat would matter little to the worker. Socialism is about freeing the worker from his condition of exploitation by the private system, not being shackled to a system run by state bureaucrats.

The Economist ran a story that suggests there is such a thing as state capitalism. And in it they describe a little about it and how popular it is these days.
The rise of state capitalism

Because capitalism is based on FREE MARKETS, markets cannot be free when the state takes over, it goes against the actual definition of capitalism. Capitalism is outside of the state. Which is why I called it an oxymoron.

"an economic system in which a country’s businesses and industry are controlled and run for profit by private owners rather than by the government"

You, nor this author do not understand what capitalism actually is. What you two are describing is actually socialism, just not full blown hardcore socialism, but still socialism.

The market is a socioeconomic construct used to distribute commodities that predates the capitalist mode of production. It acts independently from the mode of production, capitalist or socialist, doesn't matter, it still works to distribute goods and services. The degree to which it is free of government intervention is a political matter that is decided by the society of which the market serves.

Because capitalism is based on FREE MARKETS

A meaningless cliche of the indoctrinated.

Meaningless cliche? It's the definition haha. A definition is not indoctrination. I'm guessing your definition of capitalism is rich CEOs buying politicians, and a struggling lower class. Look up the definition yourself. I've posted it twice now. And you're whole lecture on markets was either non-sensical, or utterly redundant. Capitalism is very very little to no state intervention into said markets. What we have now is not capitalism. It may be closer to capitalism than some other countries, but it still isn't capitalism, it's cronyism or interventionism. Not capitalism, nor has it been for a long time. You can't make up definitions to fit your world view. Capitalism=markets free from the state, socialism/fascism=markets controlled by the state, interventionism/cronyism=somewhere in between. Honestly what is your definition of capitalism, because it's certainly not Webster's...and it really sounds like someone shouldn't be casting stones in a glass house if they don't actually know what capitalism is, which is a pretty easy concept that should have been taught early, clearly someone or a group of people misled you pretty far off the mark.

 

[Tehon]

That is known as state capitalism and yes it is different from socialism. What you have described is a system that retains all the qualities of the capitalist mode of production which the socialists wish to abolish. You have only traded one hierarchical mode of production for another. You have not altered the conditions of the workers in regards to the produce of their labor.

What you just described is an oxymoron, on the level of a rainforest desert. Can't have a desert along with lush vegetation dependent on very frequent rain. There is no such thing as state run capitalism...they are diametrically opposed. Once the state takes control, it is no longer capitalism, and it's more like what I described as fascism...which is essentially socialism by a different name. There's interventionism, this is also not to be confused with capitalism. Then there's socialism, which is direct government control, or fascism which is indirect but control non the less.

There is no such thing as state run capitalism

Why not? If you replace the private owner of a business and the state takes control does the state not fulfill the same role as the private owner? Does the worker still have to report to the boss in the morning? Whether the boss is a private owner or a bureaucrat would matter little to the worker. Socialism is about freeing the worker from his condition of exploitation by the private system, not being shackled to a system run by state bureaucrats.

The Economist ran a story that suggests there is such a thing as state capitalism. And in it they describe a little about it and how popular it is these days.
The rise of state capitalism

Because capitalism is based on FREE MARKETS, markets cannot be free when the state takes over, it goes against the actual definition of capitalism. Capitalism is outside of the state. Which is why I called it an oxymoron.

"an economic system in which a country’s businesses and industry are controlled and run for profit by private owners rather than by the government"

You, nor this author do not understand what capitalism actually is. What you two are describing is actually socialism, just not full blown hardcore socialism, but still socialism.

The market is a socioeconomic construct used to distribute commodities that predates the capitalist mode of production. It acts independently from the mode of production, capitalist or socialist, doesn't matter, it still works to distribute goods and services. The degree to which it is free of government intervention is a political matter that is decided by the society of which the market serves.

Because capitalism is based on FREE MARKETS

A meaningless cliche of the indoctrinated.

Meaningless cliche? It's the definition haha. A definition is not indoctrination. I'm guessing your definition of capitalism is rich CEOs buying politicians, and a struggling lower class. Look up the definition yourself. I've posted it twice now. And you're whole lecture on markets was either non-sensical, or utterly redundant. Capitalism is very very little to no state intervention into said markets. What we have now is not capitalism. It may be closer to capitalism than some other countries, but it still isn't capitalism, it's cronyism or interventionism. Not capitalism, nor has it been for a long time. You can't make up definitions to fit your world view. Capitalism=markets free from the state, socialism/fascism=markets controlled by the state, interventionism/cronyism=somewhere in between. Honestly what is your definition of capitalism, because it's certainly not Webster's...and it really sounds like someone shouldn't be casting stones in a glass house if they don't actually know what capitalism is, which is a pretty easy concept that should have been taught early, clearly someone or a group of people misled you pretty far off the mark.

Meaningless cliche? It's the definition haha. A definition is not indoctrination.

Yes, it is meaningless. Once more. Capitalism is a mode of production. The capitalist owns the means of production. That means he owns or rents the land and building where the commodity is produced. He owns the raw materials used in the production of the commodity. He owns the labor that goes into producing the commodity via the wage. And he decides what to do with the surplus value accrued from the sale of the commodity.

The market is a socioeconomic construct which facilitates the distribution of goods and services produced by the capitalist. It functions independently of the capitalist mode of production as illustrated by the fact that it predates capitalism. The market would equally facilitate the distribution of goods and services produced in a socialist mode of production. If you would like I can explain that as well.

Capitalism is not defined by the extent to which the politics of a given society regulate the market. Regardless of the limitations placed on the market by society, the mode of production as I described above is unaltered. It remains capitalist.

 

[sakinago]

What you just described is an oxymoron, on the level of a rainforest desert. Can't have a desert along with lush vegetation dependent on very frequent rain. There is no such thing as state run capitalism...they are diametrically opposed. Once the state takes control, it is no longer capitalism, and it's more like what I described as fascism...which is essentially socialism by a different name. There's interventionism, this is also not to be confused with capitalism. Then there's socialism, which is direct government control, or fascism which is indirect but control non the less.

There is no such thing as state run capitalism

Why not? If you replace the private owner of a business and the state takes control does the state not fulfill the same role as the private owner? Does the worker still have to report to the boss in the morning? Whether the boss is a private owner or a bureaucrat would matter little to the worker. Socialism is about freeing the worker from his condition of exploitation by the private system, not being shackled to a system run by state bureaucrats.

The Economist ran a story that suggests there is such a thing as state capitalism. And in it they describe a little about it and how popular it is these days.
The rise of state capitalism

Because capitalism is based on FREE MARKETS, markets cannot be free when the state takes over, it goes against the actual definition of capitalism. Capitalism is outside of the state. Which is why I called it an oxymoron.

"an economic system in which a country’s businesses and industry are controlled and run for profit by private owners rather than by the government"

You, nor this author do not understand what capitalism actually is. What you two are describing is actually socialism, just not full blown hardcore socialism, but still socialism.

The market is a socioeconomic construct used to distribute commodities that predates the capitalist mode of production. It acts independently from the mode of production, capitalist or socialist, doesn't matter, it still works to distribute goods and services. The degree to which it is free of government intervention is a political matter that is decided by the society of which the market serves.

Because capitalism is based on FREE MARKETS

A meaningless cliche of the indoctrinated.

Meaningless cliche? It's the definition haha. A definition is not indoctrination. I'm guessing your definition of capitalism is rich CEOs buying politicians, and a struggling lower class. Look up the definition yourself. I've posted it twice now. And you're whole lecture on markets was either non-sensical, or utterly redundant. Capitalism is very very little to no state intervention into said markets. What we have now is not capitalism. It may be closer to capitalism than some other countries, but it still isn't capitalism, it's cronyism or interventionism. Not capitalism, nor has it been for a long time. You can't make up definitions to fit your world view. Capitalism=markets free from the state, socialism/fascism=markets controlled by the state, interventionism/cronyism=somewhere in between. Honestly what is your definition of capitalism, because it's certainly not Webster's...and it really sounds like someone shouldn't be casting stones in a glass house if they don't actually know what capitalism is, which is a pretty easy concept that should have been taught early, clearly someone or a group of people misled you pretty far off the mark.

Meaningless cliche? It's the definition haha. A definition is not indoctrination.

Yes, it is meaningless. Once more. Capitalism is a mode of production. The capitalist owns the means of production. That means he owns or rents the land and building where the commodity is produced. He owns the raw materials used in the production of the commodity. He owns the labor that goes into producing the commodity via the wage. And he decides what to do with the surplus value accrued from the sale of the commodity.

The market is a socioeconomic construct which facilitates the distribution of goods and services produced by the capitalist. It functions independently of the capitalist mode of production as illustrated by the fact that it predates capitalism. The market would equally facilitate the distribution of goods and services produced in a socialist mode of production. If you would like I can explain that as well.

Capitalism is not defined by the extent to which the politics of a given society regulate the market. Regardless of the limitations placed on the market by society, the mode of production as I described above is unaltered. It remains capitalist.

Dude your in the parking lot past left field. Capitalism is a type of economic system...to which it's mode of production falls under, but production, if we're talking in simple terms (this is giving you the benifit of the doubt), is only half of the equation. Your confusing capitalism with capitalist (by your definition, in other words is strictly a business owner, which is incorrect). Clearly you're lost and don't want to come back, I'm going to post the definition once again, and then I'm going to stop wasting my time.
This is websters
Definition of capitalism

1. : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
   
   This is oxfords
   Definition of capitalism in English:
   capitalism
   
   
   NOUN
   mass noun
   • An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
     
     ‘an era of free-market capitalism’
     
     ‘private ownership is a key feature of capitalism’
     
     
     You can't have capitalism when the state is controlling markets. It is based on the markets being free from the state. Free markets (meaning free from the state) is the fuel to the engine that capitalism runs on. You can't run it on any other fuel other than free markets. Once you do so, that engine doesn't work, or a better way of putting it, it's no longer capitalism. Free markets is the NUMBER ONE RULE TO CAPITALISM. What you're describing as state run capitalism is a made up term, to blame the bad shit the state does on capitalism, even though the act of state interference is in DIRECT violation capitalism. Its an oxymoron, like an ugly hot girl, or an allopecia patient with a beard.

 

[Tehon]

I'm going to post the definition once again, and then I'm going to stop wasting my time.

You're only giving up the debate due to your inability to discuss the topic rationally, without resorting to the platitudes that you have been indoctrinated with. You clearly lack a basic understanding of the market economy and how it interacts with differing methods of production.

Market economy - Wikipedia
Market economies do not logically presuppose the existence of private ownership of the means of production. A market economy can and often does include various types of cooperatives, collectives, or autonomous state agencies that acquire and exchange capital goods in capital markets. These all utilize a market-determined free price system to allocate capital goods and labor.[3] In addition, there are many variations of market socialism, some of which involve employee-owned enterprises based on self-management; as well as models that involve the combination of public ownership of the means of production with factor markets.[7]

Because the market is an independent socioeconomic construct that interacts with all manner of production it becomes necessary to break capitalism down to its basic form of production in order to find its defining characteristics. I'm not sure how that puts me out beyond left field. Hoping you have a thoughtful rebuttal that transcends simple Utopian platitudes.

 

[TNHarley]

Here koshergrl Read this thread. At least the last 3 pages.

 

[iceberg]

It's cuz he was in the nationalist socialist party, TNHarley.
Duh.
Do lurnin more beter.

Stalin called himself a communist but he wasnt. He was a socialist dictator
Self proclaimed liberals call themselves liberals, but they aint.
Germany started the socialist workers party to draw communists into their nationalist ideals. Then, they dropped that rhetoric to draw in industries.
What actions did he do that were "socialist?"
What kind of socialist puts industry above the worker? What kind of socialist attacks trade unions? What kind fo socialist kills socialists for being socialists? What kind of socialist publically speaks out against socialism and communism?

so you are saying that groups like to call themselves what they are not when in fact they are something else.

by that logic if you call yourself anti-socialist then wouldn't that MAKE you socialist???

 

[TNHarley]

It's cuz he was in the nationalist socialist party, TNHarley.
Duh.
Do lurnin more beter.

Stalin called himself a communist but he wasnt. He was a socialist dictator
Self proclaimed liberals call themselves liberals, but they aint.
Germany started the socialist workers party to draw communists into their nationalist ideals. Then, they dropped that rhetoric to draw in industries.
What actions did he do that were "socialist?"
What kind of socialist puts industry above the worker? What kind of socialist attacks trade unions? What kind fo socialist kills socialists for being socialists? What kind of socialist publically speaks out against socialism and communism?

so you are saying that groups like to call themselves what they are not when in fact they are something else.

by that logic if you call yourself anti-socialist then wouldn't that MAKE you socialist???

Its like a self proclaimed liberal calling themselves a liberal. I would bet my Harley that 5% of self proclaimed liberals are actually liberals.
But im not worried about semantics anymore. Its all tyranny, and thats what matters.

 

[BlindBoo]

Simple. They are pseudo-conned.

Conned by Goldberg.

Liberal Fascism, then, is a howl of rage disguised as intellectual history. Some mean liberals called Goldberg hurtful names, so he's responding with 400 pages that boil down to: I know you are, but what am I?

Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.

The Scholarly Flaws of "Liberal Fascism"

 

[iceberg]

It's cuz he was in the nationalist socialist party, TNHarley.
Duh.
Do lurnin more beter.

Stalin called himself a communist but he wasnt. He was a socialist dictator
Self proclaimed liberals call themselves liberals, but they aint.
Germany started the socialist workers party to draw communists into their nationalist ideals. Then, they dropped that rhetoric to draw in industries.
What actions did he do that were "socialist?"
What kind of socialist puts industry above the worker? What kind of socialist attacks trade unions? What kind fo socialist kills socialists for being socialists? What kind of socialist publically speaks out against socialism and communism?

so you are saying that groups like to call themselves what they are not when in fact they are something else.

by that logic if you call yourself anti-socialist then wouldn't that MAKE you socialist???

Its like a self proclaimed liberal calling themselves a liberal. I would bet my Harley that 5% of self proclaimed liberals are actually liberals.
But im not worried about semantics anymore. Its all tyranny, and thats what matters.

yep. now tell the left to stop it and we'll be fine.

 

[TNHarley]

It's cuz he was in the nationalist socialist party, TNHarley.
Duh.
Do lurnin more beter.

Stalin called himself a communist but he wasnt. He was a socialist dictator
Self proclaimed liberals call themselves liberals, but they aint.
Germany started the socialist workers party to draw communists into their nationalist ideals. Then, they dropped that rhetoric to draw in industries.
What actions did he do that were "socialist?"
What kind of socialist puts industry above the worker? What kind of socialist attacks trade unions? What kind fo socialist kills socialists for being socialists? What kind of socialist publically speaks out against socialism and communism?

so you are saying that groups like to call themselves what they are not when in fact they are something else.

by that logic if you call yourself anti-socialist then wouldn't that MAKE you socialist???

Its like a self proclaimed liberal calling themselves a liberal. I would bet my Harley that 5% of self proclaimed liberals are actually liberals.
But im not worried about semantics anymore. Its all tyranny, and thats what matters.

yep. now tell the left to stop it and we'll be fine.

The right doesnt rape the meaning of words?

 

[iceberg]

It's cuz he was in the nationalist socialist party, TNHarley.
Duh.
Do lurnin more beter.

Stalin called himself a communist but he wasnt. He was a socialist dictator
Self proclaimed liberals call themselves liberals, but they aint.
Germany started the socialist workers party to draw communists into their nationalist ideals. Then, they dropped that rhetoric to draw in industries.
What actions did he do that were "socialist?"
What kind of socialist puts industry above the worker? What kind of socialist attacks trade unions? What kind fo socialist kills socialists for being socialists? What kind of socialist publically speaks out against socialism and communism?

so you are saying that groups like to call themselves what they are not when in fact they are something else.

by that logic if you call yourself anti-socialist then wouldn't that MAKE you socialist???

Its like a self proclaimed liberal calling themselves a liberal. I would bet my Harley that 5% of self proclaimed liberals are actually liberals.
But im not worried about semantics anymore. Its all tyranny, and thats what matters.

yep. now tell the left to stop it and we'll be fine.

The right doesnt rape the meaning of words?

the left never does?

why just blame one side and pretend YOUR side is innocent?

 

[TNHarley]

Stalin called himself a communist but he wasnt. He was a socialist dictator
Self proclaimed liberals call themselves liberals, but they aint.
Germany started the socialist workers party to draw communists into their nationalist ideals. Then, they dropped that rhetoric to draw in industries.
What actions did he do that were "socialist?"
What kind of socialist puts industry above the worker? What kind of socialist attacks trade unions? What kind fo socialist kills socialists for being socialists? What kind of socialist publically speaks out against socialism and communism?

so you are saying that groups like to call themselves what they are not when in fact they are something else.

by that logic if you call yourself anti-socialist then wouldn't that MAKE you socialist???

Its like a self proclaimed liberal calling themselves a liberal. I would bet my Harley that 5% of self proclaimed liberals are actually liberals.
But im not worried about semantics anymore. Its all tyranny, and thats what matters.

yep. now tell the left to stop it and we'll be fine.

The right doesnt rape the meaning of words?

the left never does?

why just blame one side and pretend YOUR side is innocent?

I blasted both sides in this very thread. I dont have a "side" I think thats foolish and makes people inconsistent and dishonest. One good thing about my ideology is i dont have an agenda. I just go for what i think is right
Pretty sure you know i aint no sniveling leftist

 

[easyt65]

So Democrats would prefer to be known as 'Fascists' instead of 'Socialists'...despite one of their two Presidential candidates having been a self-described 'Socialist' / 'member of the Socialist Party?

Just as long as they are not confused with 'American'.

 

[koshergrl]

Here koshergrl Read this thread. At least the last 3 pages.

You aren't the boss of me!
HAHAHAHA

I will but is it going to piss me off? Because if it does ..well, I'll be pissed off.