Bernie Sanders is quite literally a Nazi

[Newell Steamer]

My GOD! The liberals have figured out how to merge fascists with communists - Bernie Sanders!

 

[MongGrel]

I think this is closer to what the USA is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy

But Plutocracy isn't too far off either. Maybe the real truth is somewhere between those two. Both are as a result of Capitalism in its advanced stages.

I appologise.

Your right regarding the Communism area I'd think.

Forgive me.

*edit* I'm starting to like this guy.

 

[MongGrel]

How he was banned so fast, he actually said a few things that made sense.

I must have missed something there.

Youcks and away.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, Glen Beck has been busy promoting the idea that Hitler and his ilk were socialists, you know commies. It's been one of his main bullshit stories for quite some time.

When Hitler came to power the very first thing he and his supporters did was round up thousands of communists and killed many of them. Hitler HATED commies and invaded the Soviet Union in no small part to get rid of commies.

In this country, the folks that most hold dear the principles behind the Nazi's are the extreme right wingers. Sadly, many of the "normal" right wingers believe too much of this nonsense!

Sad that so many folks are so certain of there beliefs that actual facts need not apply!

Brian

Dude, you seriously need to educate yourself. Hitler and "his ilk" were National Socialists. Glen Beck promotes the idea that the National Socialists were Socialists because the National Socialists fucking WERE Socialists. They rounded up the communists for two reasons, first because they were the only real competition and second because communists owed allegiance to Moscow, NOT to Berlin. It was a time when the left was strongly in ascendence all across the world (the USA had plenty of communist and socialist rallies and even had our own brownshirts until we entered the war and that became . . . unhealthy) and the right was particularly weak in Germany, being represented by the royalists who had led them into a war they badly lost and then proved unable to restart the German economy. The only strong outside competition to the National Socialists were the communists who were strong in various sectors, particularly the German merchant marine. But two far left movements in competition for power doesn't make one of them right wing, it only makes them the more right wing of the two far left movements.

The National Socialists hated their Jewish bankers and wealthy aristocratic families every bit as much as the Communists hated Russia's and the American far left hates our own. The National Socialists also exercised a level of control over industry which any socialist would admire; they didn't make businesses state-owned as did the Communists, but any which did not do as directed were taken and given to cronies so that they would be privately owned but operated in the state's interests. And they certainly had that group identity thing down pat.

 

[werepossum]

It still is.

Yeah, but it's used so cavalierly that it's no longer an insulting insult.

 

[IronWing]

Dude, you seriously need to educate yourself. Hitler and "his ilk" were National Socialists. Glen Beck promotes the idea that the National Socialists were Socialists because the National Socialists fucking WERE Socialists. They rounded up the communists for two reasons, first because they were the only real competition and second because communists owed allegiance to Moscow, NOT to Berlin. It was a time when the left was strongly in ascendence all across the world (the USA had plenty of communist and socialist rallies and even had our own brownshirts until we entered the war and that became . . . unhealthy) and the right was particularly weak in Germany, being represented by the royalists who had led them into a war they badly lost and then proved unable to restart the German economy. The only strong outside competition to the National Socialists were the communists who were strong in various sectors, particularly the German merchant marine. But two far left movements in competition for power doesn't make one of them right wing, it only makes them the more right wing of the two far left movements.

The National Socialists hated their Jewish bankers and wealthy aristocratic families every bit as much as the Communists hated Russia's and the American far left hates our own. The National Socialists also exercised a level of control over industry which any socialist would admire; they didn't make businesses state-owned as did the Communists, but any which did not do as directed were taken and given to cronies so that they would be privately owned but operated in the state's interests. And they certainly had that group identity thing down pat.

^^ 99 44⁄100% pure bullshit.

 

[werepossum]

^^ 99 44⁄100% pure bullshit.

Oh really? Who said:

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

The really scary thing is that it could come straight out of Occupy Wall Street today. Yes, they deviated radically from pure Marxism; so did the Soviet Communists. In any form of government which concentrates power into very few people, the nation becomes much less about supposed founding principles than about the whims of the ruler(s).

 

[Brian Stirling]

^^ 99 44⁄100% pure bullshit.

Wrong ... 100% bullshit!


Brian

 

[werepossum]

Lest anyone think that was a one-off:
http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-12-22.html

And if we ask who was responsible for our misfortune, then we must inquire who profited by our collapse. And the answer to that question is that 'Banks and Stock Exchanges are more flourishing than ever before.' We were told that capitalism would be destroyed, and when we ventured to remind one or other of these famous statesmen and said 'Don't forget hat Jews too have capital,' then the answer was: 'What are you worrying about? Capitalism as a whole will now be destroyed, the whole people will now be free. We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting very capitalism: we are making the people completely free.'

Christian capitalism' is already as good as destroyed, the international Jewish Stock Exchange capital gains in proportion as the other loses ground. It is only the international Stock Exchange and loan-capital, the so-called 'supra-state capital,' which has profited from the collapse of our economic life, the capital which receives its character from the single supra-state nation which is itself national to the core, which fancies itself to be above all other nations, which places itself above other nations and which already rules over them.

The international Stock Exchange capital would be unthinkable, it would never have come, without its founders the supra-national, because intensely national, Jews....

The Jew has not grown poorer: he gradually gets bloated, and, if you don't believe me, I would ask you to go to one of our health-resorts; there you will find two sorts of visitors: the German who goes there, perhaps for the first time for a long while, to breathe a little fresh air and to recover his health, and the Jew who goes there to lose his fat. And if you go out to our mountains, whom do you find there in fine brand-new yellow boots with splendid rucksacks in which there is generally nothing that would really be of any use? And why are they there? They go up to the hotel, usually no further than the train can take them: where the train stops, they stop too. And then they sit about somewhere within a mile from the hotel, like blow-flies round a corpse.

These are not, you may be sure, our working classes: neither those working with the mind, nor with the body. With their worn clothes they leave the hotel on one side and go on climbing: they would not feel comfortable coming into this perfumed atmosphere in suits which date from 1913 or 1914. No, assuredly the Jew has suffered no privations! . . .

 

[Blackjack200]

hitler.org

 

[woolfe9998]

Lest anyone think that was a one-off:
http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-12-22.html

You can cite all you want from 1922. Hitler gave speeches in beer halls where he discussed the party platform, but Hitler was never interested in socialism or even much in economics. Those elements in the party originated with Anton Drexler and others who founded it in 1919 before Hitler joined. Hitler always considered nationalism, racism and anti-semitism as the core ideas of the party. Economics to him was purely instrumental: it's only importance was to support state military power.

When the Nazis took power, one of the first things they did was dissolve the unions and replace them with Nazi fronts. Striking was outlawed and workers who attempted to strike were sometimes hanged. This is not socialism.

The Nazis also ousted and/or executed most of their remaining socialists in order to appease industrialists and other wealthy elites that Hitler needed for rearmament.

Socialism wants to use the state to promote the welfare of workers and citizens, not for military conquest. Socialism isn't inherently totalitarian. The comparison with Soviet Bolshevism is perhaps more apt but conflating socialism with the form of government they had in the USSR is absurd. Nazism and Bolshevism had far more in common with each other than either did with socialism.

 

[MongGrel]

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=34A67C87B712763C026A34A67C87B712763C026A

Spanish Civil War was were they tested things before WWII.

Ernest Hemmingway documented a lot of it, at the time. HE-111s and a lot of things we're tested there shortly before WWII started.

There were even Communists Soviets there hanging out.

I think was about the time the Japanese were invading China, and Claire Chenault and the Flying Tigers (American Volunteer Group) were doing their thing pre WWII.

They were Mercs of course, they got paid pretty well, but still.

 

[realibrad]

You can cite all you want from 1922. Hitler gave speeches in beer halls where he discussed the party platform, but Hitler was never interested in socialism or even much in economics. Those elements in the party originated with Anton Drexler and others who founded it in 1919 before Hitler joined. Hitler always considered nationalism, racism and anti-semitism as the core ideas of the party. Economics to him was purely instrumental: it's only importance was to support state military power.

When the Nazis took power, one of the first things they did was dissolve the unions and replace them with Nazi fronts. Striking was outlawed and workers who attempted to strike were sometimes hanged. This is not socialism.

The Nazis also ousted and/or executed most of their remaining socialists in order to appease industrialists and other wealthy elites that Hitler needed for rearmament.

Socialism wants to use the state to promote the welfare of workers and citizens, not for military conquest. Socialism isn't inherently totalitarian. The comparison with Soviet Bolshevism is perhaps more apt but conflating socialism with the form of government they had in the USSR is absurd. Nazism and Bolshevism had far more in common with each other than either did with socialism.

Socialism does not do with just economic policy. That being said, Hitler was absolutely for Socialism. Socialism is grounded in the idea that there are a few that are superior and should lead. His view was that the superior people were superior because of heritage, but it could also be the educated. Hitler took away many choices in the market which is a socialist position. Hitler was not a communist by its definition is supposed to be where ownership is spread around to the people. That is why Hitler did not like communism, because he wanted power for his group, and not for the people.

Unions are not something that Socialist would want, as it is giving power to the people which is communist. Socialist would advocate for the state to make the choices for the people. Capitalism would allow the people to make choices in the market.

Hitler was quoted as saying he did not care much for the word socialist, but he absolutely believed in its meaning.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Lest anyone think that was a one-off:
http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-12-22.html

From your very link...

"1. 'NATIONAL' AND 'SOCIAL' ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it ''National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it."


In this section, point number 1 of his speech, he links Marxism with the treachery of the Jew. He then goes on to explain National Socialism and the take away from that is his defining socialism as the every individual acts in the interest of the community as opposed to the notion of socialism as that state taking care of the individual -- exactly backwards from the notion the right is trying to paint!


As I said before -- you guys need to stop watching Glen Beck. You do know that for every hour you spend watching GB your IQ drops a point. Some here appear to have a negative IQ...


Brian

 

[MongGrel]

Some one has to figure out how a Socialist Star Trek world is possible someday I suppose.

Because it sure as hell will never happen if the GOP has it's way. they want Rollerball world, for the few that would benefit and the twits that support it.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Yeah, Glen Beck has been busy promoting the idea that Hitler and his ilk were socialists, you know commies. It's been one of his main bullshit stories for quite some time.

When Hitler came to power the very first thing he and his supporters did was round up thousands of communists and killed many of them. Hitler HATED commies and invaded the Soviet Union in no small part to get rid of commies.

In this country, the folks that most hold dear the principles behind the Nazi's are the extreme right wingers. Sadly, many of the "normal" right wingers believe too much of this nonsense!

Sad that so many folks are so certain of there beliefs that actual facts need not apply!


Brian

As I said in an earlier post, I have no patience for this "ISM pissy-fit nonsense."

People should study the history of "socialism" as a general political philosophy. There isn't any single ideology for anything "socialist."

This thread being a case in point, I'd also suggest some folks study the history of propaganda and "psy-war" before engaging in all this over-generalized nonsense.

And long after having done so myself, I was outraged at Beck for conducting his own little "class" on propaganda in his FOX show, with an audience that didn't have a clue about the underpinnings.

If you read some scholarly work like Jacque Ellul's "Propaganda," it explains the mass-psychology that provides the basic reasons why deceptive propaganda can work.

First, people think they're all "individuals" and that there isn't a mass-psychology. Since they're "individuals," they aren't "average." Since they aren't average, they can't be deceived by media-borne propaganda. They assume they are "smart." They assume that they all think "independently."

Now -- here comes Beck -- telling his audience that the science and art of propaganda has liberal underpinnings, and that his audience cannot be deceived by it -- why? -- because they're "individuals," they're not "average," and they're "smart."

In other words, he took the conditions that makes propaganda work, and used those very conditions as reasons why propaganda would NOT work with a FOX audience.

People take their little "ISM" biases and project them on just about any public good or public program that displeases them. So if the ACA (ObamaCare) offers subsidies to the indigent while promoting health insurance through an exchange market mechanism, it's "socialist," therefore "bad," and must be repealed.

Consider instead that there are different "toolboxes" of ideas that may address this or that problem. So would I draw from the "socialist" toolbox if a laissez-faire or market solution did not offer a solution? Sure I would. Does that mean I want to nationalize the fossil-fuel and transportation industries? No. Do I want to rob you of your "freedoms?" Not likely.

But if you're a 2-percenter Master of the Universe, you have a lot more freedom than a 98-percenter -- to make that "class" distinction. In many cases, you're freedom may undermine the freedoms of many others.

 

[werepossum]

You can cite all you want from 1922. Hitler gave speeches in beer halls where he discussed the party platform, but Hitler was never interested in socialism or even much in economics. Those elements in the party originated with Anton Drexler and others who founded it in 1919 before Hitler joined. Hitler always considered nationalism, racism and anti-semitism as the core ideas of the party. Economics to him was purely instrumental: it's only importance was to support state military power.

When the Nazis took power, one of the first things they did was dissolve the unions and replace them with Nazi fronts. Striking was outlawed and workers who attempted to strike were sometimes hanged. This is not socialism.

The Nazis also ousted and/or executed most of their remaining socialists in order to appease industrialists and other wealthy elites that Hitler needed for rearmament.

Socialism wants to use the state to promote the welfare of workers and citizens, not for military conquest. Socialism isn't inherently totalitarian. The comparison with Soviet Bolshevism is perhaps more apt but conflating socialism with the form of government they had in the USSR is absurd. Nazism and Bolshevism had far more in common with each other than either did with socialism.

Being a totalitarian system, National Socialism of course eliminated all competing power bases. The Soviets did the same thing. This doesn't make them right wing ideologies unless one artificially defines right wing as totalitarian or authoritarian or "anything I don't like". The essence of socialism isn't wanting to use the state to promote the welfare of workers and citizens, it's wanting to empower the state over individuals under the presumption that a few people know better than all the people. Sometimes that works out well - as I've said many times, socialism is inherently necessary to any higher order civilization - and sometimes it gets taken to an extreme. That is always a risk with any Marxist theory system, because concentrating power into a few individuals inherently risks a totalitarian system. I agree that socialism is not inherently totalitarian. Neither is free market capitalism, but both can be taken to that degree.

It's worth pointing out that historically every communist system we've seen has rapidly become totalitarian, whereas not every socialist system does. This is no doubt because socialism is a much less strenuous application of Marxist theory and concentrates power to a lesser degree (i.e. the state controls without necessarily owning the means of production) and thus is inherently less susceptible to abuse unless mixed with something else (i.e. Fascism or rabid nationalism/racism) that builds upon authoritarianism and concentration of power. That said, it doesn't mean National Socialism wasn't socialist, just that it wasn't purely socialist.

Nonetheless, your point that I can post whatever I want is well taken. The left is even worse than the right to "know what I know" and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Socialism does not do with just economic policy. That being said, Hitler was absolutely for Socialism. Socialism is grounded in the idea that there are a few that are superior and should lead. His view was that the superior people were superior because of heritage, but it could also be the educated. Hitler took away many choices in the market which is a socialist position. Hitler was not a communist by its definition is supposed to be where ownership is spread around to the people. That is why Hitler did not like communism, because he wanted power for his group, and not for the people.

Unions are not something that Socialist would want, as it is giving power to the people which is communist. Socialist would advocate for the state to make the choices for the people. Capitalism would allow the people to make choices in the market.

Hitler was quoted as saying he did not care much for the word socialist, but he absolutely believed in its meaning.

Well said.

One of the main reasons that the National Socialists diverged so strongly from communism was that in spite of the underlying theory of both being Marxism, communism worldwide took its marching orders from and looked for leadership to Moscow. By combining nationalism with socialism, their leaders broke power away from Moscow and toward themselves. This is why so many of the early leaders of German socialism were killed or forced to flee Germany - they embraced their Marxist brothers in the USSR.

From your very link...

"1. 'NATIONAL' AND 'SOCIAL' ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it ''National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it."

In this section, point number 1 of his speech, he links Marxism with the treachery of the Jew. He then goes on to explain National Socialism and the take away from that is his defining socialism as the every individual acts in the interest of the community as opposed to the notion of socialism as that state taking care of the individual -- exactly backwards from the notion the right is trying to paint!

As I said before -- you guys need to stop watching Glen Beck. You do know that for every hour you spend watching GB your IQ drops a point. Some here appear to have a negative IQ...

Brian

Sheesh. There is absolutely no difference between "every individual acts in the interest of the community" and the "state taking care of the individual". Both are sublimating the interests of (and the identity of) the individual to the state, and neither can exist without the other. Unfortunately fuzzy headed thinking has led many people to feel that the state can take care of them without them taking care of the state, because the state will get the necessary resources from "someone else". Well, news flash - we are all "someone else" to other people.

 

[werepossum]

As I said in an earlier post, I have no patience for this "ISM pissy-fit nonsense."

People should study the history of "socialism" as a general political philosophy. There isn't any single ideology for anything "socialist."

This thread being a case in point, I'd also suggest some folks study the history of propaganda and "psy-war" before engaging in all this over-generalized nonsense.

And long after having done so myself, I was outraged at Beck for conducting his own little "class" on propaganda in his FOX show, with an audience that didn't have a clue about the underpinnings.

If you read some scholarly work like Jacque Ellul's "Propaganda," it explains the mass-psychology that provides the basic reasons why deceptive propaganda can work.

First, people think they're all "individuals" and that there isn't a mass-psychology. Since they're "individuals," they aren't "average." Since they aren't average, they can't be deceived by media-borne propaganda. They assume they are "smart." They assume that they all think "independently."

Now -- here comes Beck -- telling his audience that the science and art of propaganda has liberal underpinnings, and that his audience cannot be deceived by it -- why? -- because they're "individuals," they're not "average," and they're "smart."

In other words, he took the conditions that makes propaganda work, and used those very conditions as reasons why propaganda would NOT work with a FOX audience.

People take their little "ISM" biases and project them on just about any public good or public program that displeases them. So if the ACA (ObamaCare) offers subsidies to the indigent while promoting health insurance through an exchange market mechanism, it's "socialist," therefore "bad," and must be repealed.

Consider instead that there are different "toolboxes" of ideas that may address this or that problem. So would I draw from the "socialist" toolbox if a laissez-faire or market solution did not offer a solution? Sure I would. Does that mean I want to nationalize the fossil-fuel and transportation industries? No. Do I want to rob you of your "freedoms?" Not likely.

But if you're a 2-percenter Master of the Universe, you have a lot more freedom than a 98-percenter -- to make that "class" distinction. In many cases, you're freedom may undermine the freedoms of many others.

I can't comment on Beck since I didn't see that - amazing how the left wingers see everything he does and the right wingers see almost nothing - but I have one small quibble with the rest of your comments. Socialism inherently involves a loss of freedom. When we band together to build a road or hospital or port, the individual needs must lose his freedom to choose not to fund that road or hospital or port. When we band together to make some drugs illegal, the individual needs must lose his freedom to use those drugs. Unlike totalitarianism this loss of freedom is inherent to socialism, and socialism must adopt sufficient authoritarianism to enforce this. This is the only way socialism works, otherwise some people could choose to gain the benefits of socialism without bearing the cost.

This doesn't mean that socialism is inherently bad; modern civilization could not exist without it. It DOES mean that people can honestly have differing opinions as to whether a particular level of socialism is worth the loss in freedom and treasure.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Being a totalitarian system, National Socialism of course eliminated all competing power bases. The Soviets did the same thing. This doesn't make them right wing ideologies unless one artificially defines right wing as totalitarian or authoritarian or "anything I don't like". The essence of socialism isn't wanting to use the state to promote the welfare of workers and citizens, it's wanting to empower the state over individuals under the presumption that a few people know better than all the people. Sometimes that works out well - as I've said many times, socialism is inherently necessary to any higher order civilization - and sometimes it gets taken to an extreme. That is always a risk with any Marxist theory system, because concentrating power into a few individuals inherently risks a totalitarian system. I agree that socialism is not inherently totalitarian. Neither is free market capitalism, but both can be taken to that degree.

It's worth pointing out that historically every communist system we've seen has rapidly become totalitarian, whereas not every socialist system does. This is no doubt because socialism is a much less strenuous application of Marxist theory and concentrates power to a lesser degree (i.e. the state controls without necessarily owning the means of production) and thus is inherently less susceptible to abuse unless mixed with something else (i.e. Fascism or rabid nationalism/racism) that builds upon authoritarianism and concentration of power. That said, it doesn't mean National Socialism wasn't socialist, just that it wasn't purely socialist.

Nonetheless, your point that I can post whatever I want is well taken. The left is even worse than the right to "know what I know" and ignore all evidence to the contrary.


Well said.

One of the main reasons that the National Socialists diverged so strongly from communism was that in spite of the underlying theory of both being Marxism, communism worldwide took its marching orders from and looked for leadership to Moscow. By combining nationalism with socialism, their leaders broke power away from Moscow and toward themselves. This is why so many of the early leaders of German socialism were killed or forced to flee Germany - they embraced their Marxist brothers in the USSR.


Sheesh. There is absolutely no difference between "every individual acts in the interest of the community" and the "state taking care of the individual". Both are sublimating the interests of (and the identity of) the individual to the state, and neither can exist without the other. Unfortunately fuzzy headed thinking has led many people to feel that the state can take care of them without them taking care of the state, because the state will get the necessary resources from "someone else". Well, news flash - we are all "someone else" to other people.

Christ, you're thick! No, the two are NOT the same. I volunteered to serve my country in the military -- does that make me the same as the parasite that wants handouts?

In 1961, during his inauguration speech, president Kennedy implored the nation to .."Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Yep, exactly the same thing as going on welfare!


Brian

 

[werepossum]

Christ, you're thick! No, the two are NOT the same. I volunteered to serve my country in the military -- does that make me the same as the parasite that wants handouts?

In 1961, during his inauguration speech, president Kennedy implored the nation to .."Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Yep, exactly the same thing as going on welfare!

Brian

And in return for your service, your nation offers you health care, low interest home loans, and education assistance.

Perhaps you noticed that "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" is essentially the same as "every individual acts in the interest of the community". This is part and parcel of socialism, recognizing that it is far more efficient to, for example, train and maintain a standing army than to have each of us train to fight our enemies as Minute Men. We take care of our nation and our nation takes care of us - with the understanding that if and when we need those handouts, our nation will be there for us too. Socialism as under Hitler though was far more developed, as the national government also took control of industry where and when it wished for the supposed benefit of all. Both examples of socialism, but under Hitler it was much more developed which is why the National Socialist German Workers Party includes "Socialist" whereas the United States of America does not. This is also how the National Socialists were able to woo so many working class Germans away from the communists - they spoke the same anti-capitalist language.

EDIT: You people seriously need to learn about people like Gottfried Feder, Ernst Rohm, and the Strassers. Up until the Night of the Long Knives the National Socialists were economically conventional socialists. After that they were Hitler's body and soul and fascism replaced socialism, largely to facilitate his rearming program, but unless we actually know history we are doomed to repeat it. With the far left repeating many of the National Socialists' points almost verbatim and the right repeating others to a lesser extent, that is not an insignificant risk.

 

[Brian Stirling]

The Nazi's were not about giving to the people, they were demanding of the people -- that this fact eludes you is sad.

The right gets all fired up about give aways and handouts to the people but is OK when the handouts go to big business or the military.

The whole effort embodied in the OP's post and this thread is that Bernie Sanders is the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler and this happens when you don't know up from down.

When you make a list of "beliefs" about what a nation should be and do and compare the American rights list to that of Hitlers Germany there is far greater overlap and agreement than the list compiled by the American left.

Hate foreigners? American right -- check, Third Reich Nazi's -- check, American left -- not so much!

etc. etc. etc.

The effort by Glen Beck and his brain dead followers to rewrite history with regard to Hitler and the Nazi's is pathetic -- and so is his followers!


Brian


Brian

 

[werepossum]

The Nazi's were not about giving to the people, they were demanding of the people -- that this fact eludes you is sad.

The right gets all fired up about give aways and handouts to the people but is OK when the handouts go to big business or the military.

The whole effort embodied in the OP's post and this thread is that Bernie Sanders is the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler and this happens when you don't know up from down.

When you make a list of "beliefs" about what a nation should be and do and compare the American rights list to that of Hitlers Germany there is far greater overlap and agreement than the list compiled by the American left.

Hate foreigners? American right -- check, Third Reich Nazi's -- check, American left -- not so much!

etc. etc. etc.

The effort by Glen Beck and his brain dead followers to rewrite history with regard to Hitler and the Nazi's is pathetic -- and so is his followers!


Brian


Brian

I agree that it's asinine to compare Sanders to Hitler, but research the National Socialists' early propaganda. It's often very similar to the rhetoric of the modern American far left, condemning bankers, capitalists, and interest rates/usury, promising wealth distribution, guaranteed employment, and "equitable" rather than market-based salaries.

There were two main parts to National Socialism, extreme nationalism and socialism, and to ignore either is foolish and ultimately dangerous. It isn't by accident that they did not style themselves the National Capitalist German Workers Party.

 

[realibrad]

The Nazi's were not about giving to the people, they were demanding of the people -- that this fact eludes you is sad.

The right gets all fired up about give aways and handouts to the people but is OK when the handouts go to big business or the military.

The whole effort embodied in the OP's post and this thread is that Bernie Sanders is the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler and this happens when you don't know up from down.

When you make a list of "beliefs" about what a nation should be and do and compare the American rights list to that of Hitlers Germany there is far greater overlap and agreement than the list compiled by the American left.

Hate foreigners? American right -- check, Third Reich Nazi's -- check, American left -- not so much!

etc. etc. etc.

The effort by Glen Beck and his brain dead followers to rewrite history with regard to Hitler and the Nazi's is pathetic -- and so is his followers!


Brian


Brian

I fully agree that the right gives money to big companies. But, the implication is that the left does not and I think that is un true. The right gives money to companies that further their power. The left gives money to the companies that further their power.

 

[sandorski]

I agree that it's asinine to compare Sanders to Hitler, but research the National Socialists' early propaganda. It's often very similar to the rhetoric of the modern American far left, condemning bankers, capitalists, and interest rates/usury, promising wealth distribution, guaranteed employment, and "equitable" rather than market-based salaries.

There were two main parts to National Socialism, extreme nationalism and socialism, and to ignore either is foolish and ultimately dangerous. It isn't by accident that they did not style themselves the National Capitalist German Workers Party.

They were predominantly Jews, Jews were Hitlers special interest.

 

[glenn1]

Being a totalitarian system, National Socialism of course eliminated all competing power bases. The Soviets did the same thing. This doesn't make them right wing ideologies unless one artificially defines right wing as totalitarian or authoritarian or "anything I don't like". The essence of socialism isn't wanting to use the state to promote the welfare of workers and citizens, it's wanting to empower the state over individuals under the presumption that a few people know better than all the people. Sometimes that works out well - as I've said many times, socialism is inherently necessary to any higher order civilization - and sometimes it gets taken to an extreme. That is always a risk with any Marxist theory system, because concentrating power into a few individuals inherently risks a totalitarian system. I agree that socialism is not inherently totalitarian. Neither is free market capitalism, but both can be taken to that degree.

It's worth pointing out that historically every communist system we've seen has rapidly become totalitarian, whereas not every socialist system does. This is no doubt because socialism is a much less strenuous application of Marxist theory and concentrates power to a lesser degree (i.e. the state controls without necessarily owning the means of production) and thus is inherently less susceptible to abuse unless mixed with something else (i.e. Fascism or rabid nationalism/racism) that builds upon authoritarianism and concentration of power. That said, it doesn't mean National Socialism wasn't socialist, just that it wasn't purely socialist.

Nonetheless, your point that I can post whatever I want is well taken. The left is even worse than the right to "know what I know" and ignore all evidence to the contrary.


Well said.

One of the main reasons that the National Socialists diverged so strongly from communism was that in spite of the underlying theory of both being Marxism, communism worldwide took its marching orders from and looked for leadership to Moscow. By combining nationalism with socialism, their leaders broke power away from Moscow and toward themselves. This is why so many of the early leaders of German socialism were killed or forced to flee Germany - they embraced their Marxist brothers in the USSR.


Sheesh. There is absolutely no difference between "every individual acts in the interest of the community" and the "state taking care of the individual". Both are sublimating the interests of (and the identity of) the individual to the state, and neither can exist without the other. Unfortunately fuzzy headed thinking has led many people to feel that the state can take care of them without them taking care of the state, because the state will get the necessary resources from "someone else". Well, news flash - we are all "someone else" to other people.

The modern formulation of "every individual acts in the interest of the community" is "it takes a village." Much shorter.