Right/Left

[shagdrum]

EXCEEDINGLY snarky but also very informative on the history of the left/right political dichotomy and why it is less then accurate:

Right/Left
Posted by Jim Ryan at 9:42 PM on Monday, May 11, 2009

Oh, so I'm on the right and you're on the left? You're more towards the Bolsheviks, and I'm more towards the National Socialists, then? But you are not all the way over there with Lenin and Stalin, because you side with Hitler on some points. You're more moderate than Stalin because you tend toward the fascist on some issues, I guess. Right? We all lie somewhere on a spectrum that runs from Stalin to Hitler, in your view. Bolshevism and National Socialism together are the entirety of political philosophy, in your view.

Is that what you mean? Such is the depth of your political wisdom. Maybe it's not what you mean. But if you are on the left, either this is what you mean or you are so confused that you mean nothing at all when you speak of these things but only intend to give voice to your resentment. Which is it in your case?

I don't share any of the values of the National Socialists, not even moderate versions of them. What are your political values? Individualism and freedom from government control didn't exactly leap to mind, did they? In fact those concepts are slightly suspect in your view. You resent them for reasons you can't put your finger on. Someone has made you resent them. Why would someone do such a thing?

But while I share nothing with the National Socialists, you share many of Stalin's values, perhaps in moderated form. Don't you? For example, you are in favor of enormous government power over the American economy and severe limitation of private property rights. You also want capitalism to end. You don't want it to end but just to be under complete government control? Then you tend toward the fascist on that issue.

Have you ever given much thought to self-reliance, private property rights, limited government, gratitude, innovation and hard work? No, you prefer to dream of the American government controlling half of the economy and also controlling private enterprise, as well as eliminating the American health insurance industry and replacing it with more government. The prospect of government spending at 50% of GDP carries on importance or significance for you.

In fact, then, you tend towards both Stalin and Hitler. You see, they were on the same page. "Right" is a word leftists use to mean "enemy of my favored kind of totalitarianism." That's how you use it, just as the Bolsheviks wanted you to do. It is a leftist brickbat; it has no philosophical content. You've been hoodwinked by your "education" into believing that Stalin and Hitler, left and right, were polar opposites. You probably think that Hitler was conservative, don't you? Such is the profundity of your confusion and ignorance, flaws which you should take steps to correct but will not. Stalin and Hitler were both totalitarians who believed in government control of property and business and the elimination of individual liberty. Perhaps you are more moderate in your views than they, but your views are of the same kind. Do you eschew violence as a means, though they do not? Perhaps not. You will, after all, support the police as they arrest people unwilling to participate in your new government-controlled system. What if great numbers of these people really get in the way of the implementation of your totalitarian vision? Perhaps they should be eliminated. 100 million of them were eliminated in favor of totalitarianism in the last century. What's a few more if it will get you where you, in your ignorance, think justice (it's really revenge and the gratification of resentment and guilt, but you wouldn't know the difference) may be found? Never mind the economic impossibility of it all. That never stopped Stalin, Mao, or Hitler, your less moderate intellectual forebears.

You have filled a hole in your mind with twaddle festooned with pompous language intended to create a semblance of political philosophy. You are cheering as the American experiment in liberty, self-reliance and prosperity, which created more prosperity and freedom than any other force in history, is taken out back and shot. But never mind, your hatred of the rich is as far in political philosophy as your ken will take you. You even think that conservatives were in bed with big business but that the fascist government you currently applaud is not. You have no idea what ramifications the federal debt has or what the significance of permanent yearly deficits of $1T is, and you don't know anything about economics. But you support the spending that will cause these deficits. You somehow vaguely think that this must be done because of what conservatives did to your country, even though you don't know what conservatism is or how much damage the enormous size of your government has done to your country in the last 75 years.

You probably resent this post but have very little grasp of it. Resentment is your modus operandi in the political forum.​

 

[shagdrum]

The Meaninglessness of "Right" and "Left"
Posted by Jim Ryan at 6:38 PM on Sunday, September 06, 2009

Let's finish up this story.

If you want to use the terms "right" and "left," you have a decision to make. The early 20th C. fascists were on the "right" in common English. It has been demonstrated that they were also on the left, but that doesn't disprove the former point. Under these circumstances, "left" and "right" are incoherent or at least too confused to be useful.

If you want to use the terms, you will have to remove the confusion embedded in them, namely that the fascists were on the right and on the left. You'll need to prove that all users of English should (a.) reserve the term "right" for conservatives and other opponents of totalitarianism and (b.) stop calling Hitler and Mussolini "on the right" or "right wing." Good luck with that. It isn't going to happen. Take a look at John Jay Ray's writings on this. You'll have to search the Web under his name and "fascism," "leftism," "Hitler," and so forth; they're well worth reading in full. He has undertaken the Herculean task of semantically pushing the totalitarians out of the right.

Suppose you could accomplish this feat. Now you have conservatism on the right and totalitarianism (socialism, fascism, what have you) on the left. What good does that do you? It means that libertarians are to the right of conservatives, and anarchists still further to the right. Is that what you want? It will do you no good. If you want anarchists to be considered as to the right of conservatives, then you want to introduce a new semantics and not to clean up an old one. Also, you'll have rendered conservatism as only moderately right. To the right of it will be decidedly unconservative territory. This would render "extremely conservative" and even "very conservative" meaningless. You'll have to explain those features of the English language away.

"Right" and "left" are confused and intellectually useless. Their usage is best reserved as brickbats to be hurled at various totalitarians. This is how various totalitarians themselves have used them. The leftists decried the right wing fascists, and vice versa. At best the terms mean "totalitarian whom I dislike intensely." As a conservative, you can accept the label "right wing" only if you accept that it indelibly connotes "totalitarian whom I dislike intensely." Have fun washing that away. Lenin even denounced leftist communism as infantile. You better get to work if you want to clean up all the confusion. You'll fail, and if you succeed, you'll still have only useless gibberish left over.

Better to eschew these terms, preferring these: totalitarian, statist, fascist, socialist, communist, conservative, and libertarian. "Liberal" was also taken over by the socialists and is now in dire straits. It might be rescued as a close relative of libertarianism and conservatism, but the prospects are not good. Once you allow your language to be perverted for decades, you can't simply clean house. Semantics are not easily reversible because the meanings of words cannot be easily changed.

By the way, when you give up the useless left-right spectrum, you may still speak of degrees of conservatism. Conservatism is a devotion to a large set of important values, including liberty, order, justice, charity, and self-reliance, amongst many others. To be extremely conservative is to be absolutely and implacably so devoted. To be extremely unconservative is therefore to be amoral. There is in addition a sense in which one may be "too conservative." In this case, one is absolutely adherent to the traditional moral judgments one holds, even when one of them has been proven groundless or inconsistent with the others. The defenders of slavery in the 19th Century were too conservative in this sense. This is not a very salutary locution, however, as the ability to renounce moral judgments which run against the larger set of one's values is precisely a way of being devoted to that set and not a disloyalty to it. Slavery ran against the value of liberty and against certain non-moral facts, such as that blacks are people. To defend slavery in these circumstances is hardly conservative and only "too conservative" in an idiosyncratic sense. The real conservatives denounced slavery. Consider an analogy. Consider a scientist who won't give up his belief in one of the current theories in the face of conclusive evidence against it. Is he being "too scientific"? Of course not. "Too conservative," then, is hardly useful.

If you hear someone call conservatives "right wing" you might speak up and say "Do you mean like the fascists Hitler and Mussolini? Then how are conservatives, supporting limited government and individual liberty as they do, right wing? Please explain yourself." The reply will be hopelessly confused. This is a semantic task that requires less than Herculean effort and is achievable.

 

[shagdrum]

Commies, Nazis, Right, Left -- What's It All About?

A few years ago, I took to reminding some of my best students that the Nazis were, in fact, Socialists. This came as a bit of a surprise to them, since they had been taught that Socialists are “good” and Nazis are bad. They were even more surprised when I pointed out to them that “Nazi” was an acronym for “National Socialist” and that a “National” Socialist couldn’t help but still be a Socialist. More recently, Jonah Goldberg published a book making much the same point, namely that if one looks at the Nazi governance of Germany, it was through and through socialist. Any familiarity with early 20th century history will confirm this, since Nazism was a heavily derivative doctrine in its essentials. Nazism was learned, not surprisingly, from those intrepid pioneers of totalitarianism, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. Mussolini also learned from those forbearers, and Hitler learned from Mussolini. I need hardly point out that all of Hitler’s “role-models” were socialists of one kind or another. Oddly, the only contemprary of Hitler's who didn’t follow those role-models out of respect and admiration was Francisco Franco, who thought he would be able to stay out of the mess they were all causing.

At the end of WW II, the scribbling classes were all made up of sincere and well-intentioned progressives (read “socialists” or “fellow travelers”) and so the history of the preceding half century was given a distinct pink tinge. In particular, the scribblers managed to assign the term “right” to the Nazis, making it appear that whatever challenged Soviet style socialism was “the opposite” of socialism. My good friend Jim Ryan has just instructively discussed the uses of “right” and “left” on his blog (http://philosoblog.blogspot.com/), and I am in substantial agreement with what he says. I would only add to his discussion that there is one way in which talking about these things is still useful.

While Hitler was a socialist, and while both Hitler and Stalin were totalitarians, in Hitler’s mind, it was still communist Russia that was the ultimate enemy. His early aggressions, such as the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, were done for their wealth, so that the German armed forces could be rebuilt. He really did not seem keen on a conflict with Britain, and he hoped that his easy conquest of France would persuade the Brits to stay out of the fray. His one strategic assault was on Poland, and that was because it was through Poland that he would attack the Soviet Union. Unfortunately for the Russian people, it took Stalin a bit too long to realize that Hitler was not his friend. When his own spies reported Hitler’s build up of forces on the USSR border, he had the spies killed as lying agents of the West trying to drive a wedge between him and his good friend Adolf. Huge Panzer divisions were massed on his border before Stalin got the point. But given all that they had in common, we should ask precisely what it was that differentiated Hitler’s socialism from Stalin’s. The answer is not hard to find at all.

Hitler’s was a “National” socialism, which we should read as a “nationalist” socialism. Yes, of course, you say, Hitler was a German Nationalist – the Versailles Treaty humiliation, the stab-in-the-back narrative that the Germans believed, etc.. It was a natural strategic move on Hitler’s part to play on these feelings in his population. But the evidence, I think, shows this to be too facile. Hitler didn’t just use nationalism to unify the Volk, he was himself a passionate nationalist. It is this that differentiates him from the socialist/communists then and now, and it tells us something extremely important, not about Nazism, but about socialism, even the socialism that threatens us today, internally as well as externally.

Socialism is international in its very essence. It is no accident that it’s anthem is the Internationale. The best known slogan of communism, Workers of the world, unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains, comes from Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto. It is not, workers of Minsk or Workers of Russia or even Workers of the Soviet Union; it is workers of the … World!

The communists took this very seriously, and today’s variants still do. At the heart of the theory lies the belief that all cultural differences are instruments of worker domination. At the heart of the theory lies the belief that culture and national identification are distractions, capitalist tools for blocking the evolution of the classless society. The only truly free man is the man who is nothing beyond a worker in the classless society.

Of course, a culture is also always a potential rival to the power of the state. It is a convenient doctrine that meets two needs simultaneously.

Let me now drop the other penny.

It is this theory that underlies a number of political and cultural conflicts in the current United States and, to a degree, the European Union.

From the scribbling class we see:

A sudden attack on Christian religion.

A push towards using “international law.”

A hostility towards American nationalism.

A denial of American Exceptionalism.

A constant preference for all things European.

A consistent resistance to reinforcing and maintaining national boundaries.

Of course, one might argue that the sympathy and latitude that the scribblers give to Muslims counts against my point, but I think not. It is the United States that is the sole remaining powerful capitalist entity in the world. For the socialists, the United States must be brought down, if there is to be socialist progress in the world. If the radical Muslims can help in that cause, then they are friends. The communists from Lenin on have been nothing if not pragmatic in their choice of allegiances, just as both Hitler and Stalin were. Should the communists manage to bring the U.S.A. down, the Muslims would eventually find that it was their turn. Ultimately, the goal is to cleanse the world of cultures in the plural, to homogenize the world, to rend all men uniform.

It’s an attractive picture, isn’t it?

And so, I recommend that when we think of what was happening in Europe in the 1930s, we cease accepting the narrative that this was a conflict between socialism and a totalitarian “opposite”; that we think of it instead as a conflict between two species of socialism, the nationalist and the internationalist, both of which either are or incline towards dictatorships. The one form of government that was only minimally present in Europe at this time was free enterprise democracy, and it was also the earliest casualty.

 

[FIND]

Sounds like a conservative libertarian giving himself a hand-job. Entertaining, but more than a few inaccuracies. Not worth the time I spent reading it. I demand the three minutes of my life back.

 

[shagdrum]

Entertaining, but more than a few inaccuracies.

Such as...

 

[FIND]

Such as...

such as the allegory that all the left is socialism..... I mean, it seems to me that the point of this drivel was to say that if you are not on the right, you are just fooling yourself if you deny you are a nazi.... If you really need me to go into more of it, then I will decline, as you will never learn anyways. If you are just trying to get discussion going, then I'd consider it.

 

[Calabrio]

such as the allegory that all the left is socialism..... I mean, it seems to me that the point of this drivel was to say that if you are not on the right, you are just fooling yourself if you deny you are a nazi.... If you really need me to go into more of it, then I will decline, as you will never learn anyways. If you are just trying to get discussion going, then I'd consider it.

Did you not read it or is it that you can't understand it?

 

[FIND]

Did you not read it or is it that you can't understand it?

I did read it. What would make you think otherwise?

 

[shagdrum]

such as the allegory that all the left is socialism..... I mean, it seems to me that the point of this drivel was to say that if you are not on the right, you are just fooling yourself if you deny you are a nazi.... If you really need me to go into more of it, then I will decline, as you will never learn anyways. If you are just trying to get discussion going, then I'd consider it.

What allegory?

Do you understand what socialism is? What defines it as an ideology?

 

[FIND]

What allegory?

Do you understand what socialism is? What defines it as an ideology?

Did you not read it or is it that you can't understand it?

yes and yes.

 

[shagdrum]

Did you not read it or is it that you can't understand it?

yes and yes.

If you understand what defines socialism as an ideology then please point out, as a political ideologically, what separates modern "liberalism" from traditional socialism?

Can you explain the lineage of modern liberalism, because I was under the impression that it started (more or less) with an redefinition of the term "liberal" that began being perpetuated in the early 20th Century. As Norman Thomas said:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.​

 

[FIND]

Then, as a political ideologically, what separates modern "liberalism" from traditional socialism?

Liberalism is the belief in liberty and equality. Modern liberalism also includes social liberalism, which is the belief that liberalism should also include social justice (not socialism).

Socialism is the belief in common ownership and cooperative management.


Yes I know you can make a link to the two out of their EXTREMES by twisting definitions and using selective definitions for words, but then again, you can link nearly any political ideology in their extremes. I don't really care. You know they aren't the same thing. I don't feel like reading your straw man arguments, irrelevant conclusions, argumentum ad ignorantiam, straw man, or whatever conservative blogs and posts you dig up.

Like I said in the first place. Your whole post was just a conservative giving himself a handjob, and something you read because it "confirms" your point of view. Especially since you are not going to place any of what is wrong in it under any type of scrutiny or objective review. Either way, guess you proved my point. This was just something you wanted to post to "prove" that liberals are socialists or nazis.

 

[cammerfe]

Gee, Find, do you occasionally find it hard to breathe, up there in that lofty place from which you look down on all we mere mortals?
KS

 

[FIND]

Gee, Find, do you occasionally find it hard to breathe, up there in that lofty place from which you look down on all we mere mortals?
KS

huh?

 

[shagdrum]

Liberalism is the belief in liberty and equality. Modern liberalism also includes social liberalism, which is the belief that liberalism should also include social justice (not socialism).

Socialism is the belief in common ownership and cooperative management.

Those are the textbook definitions of liberalism and socialism that you would get in an intro to government class and while there is some truth in each it certianly isn't the whole truth (or even a fair representation of the truth). The most effective lies are ones sprinkled with the most actual truths and while these are not necessarily lying (or in the case of Liberalism, not necessarily even intentionally misleading) they are vague oversimplifications that can (and clearly have) mislead.

In regards to socialism, that line makes it seem like primarily a way of organizing an economy; an economic theory. Certainly that is one of it's distinct features, but that line inherently misrepresents socialism. Marxism is first and foremost a theory of social causation from which various forms of (socialist) ideology are derived. From those basic ideologies, the economic approaches are derived. To approach socialism as primarily an approach to economic management is to misunderstand what socialism is.

With regards to liberalism, there are many vague and simplistic notions in that "definition" that make it useless (for instance it doesn't give any indication as to what type of equality classical liberalism strives for and implies that it is held as a social value on par with individual liberty, which is inaccurate), but the most fatal flaw in that definition is that it ignores the fact has been known by many scholars and philosophers for decades; that social justice is inherently incompatible with individual liberty.

More accurately, the necessary means of achieving social justice (collectivism) are incompatible with individual liberty. Any policy aimed at furthering social justice inevitably infringes on individual liberty. So the question is; when those two values of social justice and individual liberty are in conflict, which one should take precedent? While your simplistic and vague definition of modern liberalism doesn't give an answer to that question, history has show that modern liberalism consistently prioritizes social justice over individual liberty.

That fact is why modern "liberalism" is liberalism in name only.

All political ideologies can be (and typically are) broken down into goals and a means to achieve those goals. The goal is not a concrete thing (like a communist society) but a greater (or even full) realization of a certain ideal. With classical liberalism, that goal is the maximizing of individual liberty and the means to achieve it are a generally laissez-faire approach to governance (hence, limited government). With socialism (in any form) the goal is a greater maximizing of social justice and the means to achieve it is collectivism.

In fact, when socialism as an ideology first came on the scene (in the early 1800's), it's unique conception of justice (social justice) was it's most fundamental difference with the dominate ideology in the western world at the time; classical liberalism. From that basic difference in justice, all other differences in approach to governance between the two ideologies were derived. That unique conception of justice was and is what defines socialism to this day.

Socialism grew in popularity across the western world and started seeing many counties being dominated by socialism; including Russia, Italy and Germany. Socialism started seeping into this country to, but because of the fiercely individualist nature of American culture, it didn't really grab hold.

In the first part of the 20th century you started to see post-marxist brands of socialism start to pop up; "hybrid" type socialist ideologies. In the case of Italy and Germany, where orthodox socialism had dominated politics and governance for years, you say a new form of socialism that took more pragmatic approaches to economics after the utter failure of orthodox socialist economic policy. In both the cases, socialism was combined with sentiment/ideal that was very popular in the country so the new ideology could "arouse the masses". In the case of Italy, that sentiment was populism, in the case of Germany that sentiment was Nationalism (and, to a lesser degree, racism). That sentiment was a great way to gain support and political power, but the core of the ideological approach was still socialism; social justice through collectivist means.

In America, a new "hybrid" type of post-marxist socialism developed that combined an individualist sensibility (with populist rhetoric) with socialism. This was called progressivism. What was unique about it was that, unlike facism and Nazism, it didn't propose the then typical socialist practice of a militarist regime to enforce it's collectivist agenda. That, IMO, is why it still survives today while other forms of post-marxist socialism have died out; it is a "kinder", "friendlier" socialism.

Progressivism became modern "liberalism" (remember the Norman Thomas quote) and has also gone by democratic socialism in Europe.

Modern "liberalism" is the antithesis to classical liberalism. Classical liberalism looks to maximize individual liberty through laissez faire means. Modern "liberalism" (progressivism, democratic socialism, whatever you want to call it) aims to maximize social justice through collectivist means (just like orthodox socialism).

Hopefully that clears up any confusion.

 

[foxpaws]

Shag - step away from the conservative blogs...

These idiots, Ryan and some 'simplicius simplicissiumus' never once back their stupid rhetoric that Hitler/the Nazi party was socialist - other than stating it. I can state you are a fascist pig shag - however, just by saying so doesn't make it so.

Guess what shag - gosh yes, there are one or two fringe similarities between Hitler’s “national socialism” and other forms of “socialism”. And for a one dimensional drone of the right, who could care less about the truth, and is just trying for yet another way to wrongly brush the 'left' as one step away from Nazi Germany, you win for quickest to Godwins law. “National socialism” was, in fact, socialism turned inside out. The socialist rhetoric by Hitler was to placate the populace who were comfortable with the term socialism and were ready to embrace it, but, it certainly doesn't mean since Hitler usurped the term means that he embraced the reality. And in turn, Stalin just hijacked the word 'communism.' The Soviet Union under Stalin was no more Socialist or Communist than Russia was a democracy under the Tsars. Both Hitler and Stalin were totalitarian - not socialist... Who was the biggest socialist in the Nazi Party? Rohm, who Hitler purged very quickly after coming to power.

Ryan's terms 'totalitarian, statist, fascist, socialist, communist, conservative, and libertarian' are still missing Nazi, corporatist, and authoritarian, at the very least - a few more if you want to look at things like anarchism. You need to put aside the pablum that he is trying to feed you, and actually think for yourself. Hitler was nationalistic, exclusionary, elitist, a dictator and racist. He believed in liberty of the Aryan German race. If you match his ideal - you would be as free as you wanted to be, with the wealth and power of the Nazi party behind you. Blond, tall, blue eyed - a world of the 'superior race' is where Hitler was headed. He wanted war to rid the world of every group that he felt were inferior to the 'super race', and then give the Aryans the reins of the government and economy. Volkswagen, I.G. Farben, Siemens, Krupp and others prospered during the Third Reich. German nationalist companies. Where is the socialism in that? There isn't any. None of the above are in a 'true' socialist model. In Mein Kampf, he vilified socialism, and placed it as one of the evils that the Jews were going to force onto the Germans. In fact Hitler labeled Marxist and socialists for extermination in his final solution.

Only in the insane world of the uber conservative is Hitler a socialist.
Fascists/nazis were supported by capital and were opposed by labor.
Communists/socialists supported labor and were opposed by capital.

Do you really believe there was a true pro-socialism sentiment in the hallowed halls of the Third Reich? Guess what happened with all that government oversight and the price controls? The profits of the resulting economy were not distributed to the oppressed in ghettoes, as it would be in a socialist model, they were given to Aryan businesses who were the Reich’s biggest supporters (the above mentioned Krupps, Volkswagen, et al), and supported the war effort. Who did Hitler consider as the biggest threat to Nazism - it wasn't the decadent west and their capitalist system - the threat to the Reich came in the form of Marxism, socialism and communism. His biggest rivals in Germany, until he because more or less a 'dictator' were the Social Democratic Party - true socialists.

Do you think Hitler started a world war to create a world wide socialistic society - full of international social justice, egalitarianism and equality for all?

Once again shag, you have got to be kidding.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - step away from the conservative blogs...

Hardly any of what I said was gleaned from those blogs. However, it is telling that Foxy's first reaction is to attempt make me and the point of view I espouse appear, "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic".

Her next action is to (ironically) dogmatically perpetuate the progressive talking points concerning Hitler. As is typical, her claims have some truth to them, but circumvent the whole truth. There is just enough truth to mask the disinformation that she is perpetuating and give her distortions legitimacy.

First, Foxy attempts to deceptively switch the focus from National Socialism's ideological lineage to Hitler's personal ideological credentials. This is a red herring that sets up her attempt to delegitimize/destabilize the notion of National Socialism being rooted in socialism. However, Foxy's red herring ignores the fact that Hitler DID NOT CREATE NATIONAL SOCIALISM. It was already around when he came on board. Hitler was simply it's best salesman and spearheaded/rode it's rise to prominence in German politics; thus gaining power for himself in the process.

While Hitler's own personal peculiarities (opportunistic, megalomaniac, etc.) may have clouded the ideological purity of himself and his rule, that doesn't mean that the rank and file Nazi and the National Socialist Party as a whole did not believe in the ideology as I have spoken of it (which is what Foxy's red herring is aimed at inferring). That would be like saying that since Obama makes politically pragmatic concessions and is opportunistic, he is not governing from a decidedly progressive viewpoint, his political party is not decidedly progressive and his supporters are not largely progressive.

Switching the focus to Hitler's personal ideological credentials instead of the lineage of National Socialist Ideology (which is the initial focus of this line of discussion) set's up the excuse she provides to dismiss the notion that National Socialism is rooted ideologically in socialism and any evidence presented to support that notion.

The socialist rhetoric by Hitler was to placate the populace who were comfortable with the term socialism and were ready to embrace it, but, it certainly doesn't mean since Hitler usurped the term means that he embraced the reality

Already, Foxy is engaging in more postmodernist posturing; instead of honestly confronting the idea, she is attempting to delegitimize and destablize the notion that National Socialism is fundamentally rooted in socialist ideological assumptions by injecting absurd false premises to change the focus of the discussion make that viewpoint impossible to prove. Her excuse already dismisses the idea that Hitler and/or the National Socialist Party as a whole employed socialist rhetoric both because they generally agreed with most of the orthodox socialist ideology and as a means to appeal to a socialist friendly populace. Foxy's excuse makes it either one reason or the other when, in most instances, it is impossible to distinguish between the two reasons and is likely both reasons.

After her attempt to switch the focus of the debate, inject her false premise/excuse, move the goalposts and shift the burden of proof in her favor, Foxy next sets up the false dichotomy typically used to promote the lie of Hitler having some sort of ideological kinship and/or being in bed with the capitalists:

Fascists/nazis were supported by capital and were opposed by labor.
Communists/socialists supported labor and were opposed by capital.

As an aside; this dichotomy undercuts her first point concerning Hitler and his use of socialist rhetoric to simply "placate the populace". If labor was in fact opposed to National Socialism, then the use of socialist rhetoric was foolhardy and clearly a failure. Yet that rhetoric was used constantly throughout the National Socialist rise to power and after that power had been secured; when that rhetoric was no longer needed under Foxy's narrative. Therefore, there it is highly likely that the socialist-appealing rhetoric was employed because it was in fact reflective of the fundamental beliefs of the National Socialist movement.

Back to the dichotomy in question; there are two facts that show her dichotomy to be false.

First; in Germany, labor actually supported the National Socialists (the same goes for Fascism in Italy, as well). In fact, Hitler couldn't have gotten elected to power without large swaths of both the working class and the capitalists supporting him; the current debate among most historians now tends to be focused on how large a swath of each group supported the National Socialists. Hitler intentionally courted the laborer (in both his rise to power and after he had attained power) by presenting himself as one of them; an "ex-worker". The masses in Germany knew Hitler's former professions to be a construction worker, an artist and a student. The notion that the "Nazis were...opposed by labor" is wrong; a false claim rooted in ideologically biased "analysis'" that have since been generally discredited.

Second; In Germany (and Italy) industrialists/capitalists started supporting Hitler (Mussolini in Italy) after he was rising to power; as a means of appeasing a (then) potential enemy to them and their interests. Businesses are opportunistic in nature, not ideological (Foxy's analysis assumes the opposite). There was no "ideological kinship" between the National Socialists and Capitalists as Foxy is inferring.

The 1920 National Socialist Party platform (which Cal has posted on this forum before) was written by Anton Drexler and Adolf Hitler. It was unquestionably anti-capitalist, rooted in socialist assumptions and appealed to the socialist. It was not simply mere rhetoric to disingenuously "placate the populace"; it was the "eternal" and "unalterable" statement of the National Socialist Ideology.

Among the many things it declared were:

• Abolition of unearned incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery. [no income from interest]
• In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
• We demand the nationalization of all associated industries.
• We demand a division of profits of heavy industries. [profit sharing]
• We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
• We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and it's conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
  
• We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral sense of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinces that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: COMMON UTILITY PRECEDES INDIVIDUAL UTILITY. [ties capitalist materialism to identity politics ("jewish-materialism") and demands collectivism over individualism]
• For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of a stand and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reigh within the various states of the Confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration. [centralizing power; collectivism and the rejection of the rule of law]

How could abolishing profits from interest, expanding "old age" welfare, confiscating "war profits", forced profit sharing, nationalizing industry, demanding collectivism over individualism, expanding central government and giving it "unlimited authority" or any of that other stuff be at all pro-capitalist?

That platform is inherently rooted in basic socialist assumptions; especially in the areas of economics and social causation including; Marxist exploitation theory, the inherent "evil" of profits, the focus on a classless society (rooted in social justice), collectivism and many other core socialist beliefs.

Foxy identifies the "nationalist" element as somehow being "right wing". However, nationalism is hardly unique to the right. Stalin was also nationalist ("Mother Russia"), as well as FDR, Castro and most other unquestionably "leftist" leaders. German Romanticism was nationalist as well as the French Revolution and both those two movements were also identified with the left.

Also, Nationalism is not the same thing as patriotism. They are very similar, and can overlap, but patriotism focuses on championing and supporting traditional institutions, etc. while Nationalism focuses on National identity. That is a very important distinction when it comes to analyzing the whole "Left/Right" dichotomy.

But even if Nationalism is somehow "right wing", it is only right wing on the socialist political spectrum. Foxy is ignoring the point made in the posts that the left/right spectrum started out concerning only socialist ideologies. It was simply because orthodoxy socialism was inherently internationalist in it's outlook that National Socialists got labeled "right wingers". Stalin executed political prisoners for being "right-wingers" and referred to disfavored forms of socialism (including fascism and National Socialism) as "right wing". It became a rhetorical tool used by orthodox socialists to demonize opposing "new age" socialist views and it has since been picked up and wrongly applied to politics in general without any examination of it's lineage.

Here is a quote from National Socialist politician Gregor Strasser (born:May 31, 1892 – died: June 30, 1934):

We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies of today's capitalist economic system, its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!​

Note the Marxist exploitation theory being promoted there, similar to what Foxy was doing in another context on this forum recently (as pointed out in post #29 of this thread, specifically)

Here is a fun little passage from Mein Kampf that belies the notion of Hitler being pro capitalist:

Either the German youth will one day create a new State founded on the racial idea or they will be the last witnesses of the complete breakdown and death of the bourgeois world. ["bourgeois" is, basically, a Marxist term for "capitalist"]​

There is also this little quote from Hitler:

...we were not intending to do anything like conserve a bourgeois world or go so far as to freshen it up. Had communism really intended nothing more than a certain purification by eliminating isolated rotten elements from among the ranks of our so-called "upper ten thousand"...one could have sat back quietly and looked on for a while​

There is really no question that Hitler was an enemy to capitalism.

It is true that Hitler's biggest rivals in his rise to power where the orthodox socialists, but as usual, Foxy is only telling part of the truth. The whole truth; the historical context of the situation and why they were Hitler's biggest rivals is revealed in the fact that the orthodox socialists were in power at the time of Hitler's rise to power. In order to gain power, in a nation in which socialism was the dominant political viewpoint, he had to get socialists on his side. Hitler did this by playing up the flaws in the old socialism as well as playing to the Nationalist sentiment which was very strong in Germany at the time, and by using the very effective rhetorical tool of identity politics; specifically with regard to racism and anti-semitism. His appeals and propaganda reflect this; they were clearly aimed at socialists and demographics prone to voting for socialists (both during his rise to power and after he had attained power). Much as the "New Left" here in America eventually replaced the "Old Left (and now has power), or as the "New Right" came about in the 1950's and 1960's, replaced the "Old Right" and accended to power in the 1980's, National Socialism replaced the old, orthodox socialism that had dominated German politics for years.

The ideological foundations of National Socialism were clearly socialist in nature (combined with Nationalism and identity politics). All the facts foxy cites don't challenge that notion. Some of her facts are taken out of context, while others only confirm the notion that National Socialism was not orthodox socialism, but they don't challenge the notion of National Socialism being rooted in socialism.

However, legitimately challenging that notion; honestly confronting it was clearly not her approach here. Foxy's approach, as is typical, is to try and delegitimize/destabilize the notion instead of confronting it.

As usual Foxy, your post cites some truth by conveniently circumvents the whole truth; the most effective lies are the ones with the most actual truths.

 

[FIND]

Hopefully that clears up any confusion.

Nope I wasn't confused at all. I knew you would twist definitions, misrepresent facts, and make whatever sketchy connection you could to make liberals into socialists. Exactly what you learn from reading all those conservative websites. O'Reilly would be proud of you.

And then, when confronted with facts by someone who was actually in the mood to argue with you, you deny them, and substitute what you have learned from conservative websites and use the post you made earlier as proof of your statements, despite the fact that she was arguing against your twisted logic that you arrive at based upon the post you made earlier. Circulatory logic much? Using the post to prove itself?

Like it or not, liberals are not socialists, even if they support some socialist policies. Any socialist who calls themselves a liberal is lying to you. They are two different ideals that you can only make a connection to by twisting facts and reality, then substituting in your opinions as if they were fact.

Besides the Nazi party was anti-liberal. Look it up if you are having trouble with that one. You could even use wikipedia if you like, since I see you have been relying on it heavily already this thread.

 

[shagdrum]

Did you even read my last post? Because you post here seems to ignore it in it's entirety.

...the Nazi party was anti-liberal.

Yep...in the traditional sense of the term; classical liberalism (as the term "liberalism" was generally understood at that time). Focusing on a partial truth can be an effective means of avoiding the whole truth. The fact of the Nazi being anti-liberal is not at all inconsistent with all of my posts in this thread.

The National Socialist party was anti-liberal (in the classical sense of the term) anti-communist (not socialist) and anti-capitalist. They were promoting a "third way" that was rooted in socialism but also was a nationalist movement (as opposed to an internationalist) and extreme identity politics (antisemitism/racial purity/Aryan race). This was why they were labeled "right wing" by traditional socialists.

The National Socialist movement also picked up on the failures of orthodox socialism in the area of economics and improved upon them, similar to what Lenin had to do in Russia after orthodox Marxism proved to be an economic failure. The National Socialists employed corporatism instead of a command and control economy. However, this was still socialism.

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

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

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936.​

 

[foxpaws]

Hardly any of what I said was gleaned from those blogs. However, it is telling that Foxy's first reaction is to attempt make me and the point of view I espouse appear, "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic".

Actually shag - the first 3 posts are entirely from those blogs - every word, punctuation point, paragraph indent, etc. And yes - they are dogmatic. very...

First, Foxy attempts to deceptively switch the focus from National Socialism's ideological lineage to Hitler's personal ideological credentials. This is a red herring that sets up her attempt to delegitimize/destabilize the notion of National Socialism being rooted in socialism. However, Foxy's red herring ignores the fact that Hitler DID NOT CREATE NATIONAL SOCIALISM. It was already around when he came on board. Hitler was simply it's best salesman and spearheaded/rode it's rise to prominence in German politics; thus gaining power for himself in the process.

Yes Hitler rose in a party that already existed - the National Socialist Party. He espoused its ideals, and its beliefs - to gain power for himself - however, when he finally gained that power what you seem to overlook shag, is that he did nothing that the 'party' promised. It was a tool for him to gain power. Once he gained power the Nazi party morphed, basically 180 degrees to reflect its new leader. This isn't any thing new - it has happened in our own country - both Democrats and Republicans are far different than what they have been in the past. I sincerely doubt that most Republicans today would embrace Teddy Roosevelt's progressive ideas - but they sure did in the early 1900s. The party reflects the people in power.

As soon as Hitler took power of the National Socialist Party it changed from being socialist to Nazi - that is why we have a new name for it shag - the National Socialist Party after Hitler got into power is no longer socialist - it is Nazi.

You are so big on what words mean shag - do you really think the dogma preached by Hitler after he got into power and could do basically whatever he wanted (elections at that point became a farce) was socialist? Nope - not even close. In fact, I think all the stuff you post is pre 1932 - before he got into power - if you start to look at the laws and ideals that were the 'party' after 1932 it isn't socialist at all. The National Socialist Party became the Nazi Party, not the Socialist Party.

While Hitler's own personal peculiarities (opportunistic, megalomaniac, etc.) may have clouded the ideological purity of himself and his rule, that doesn't mean that the rank and file Nazi and the National Socialist Party as a whole did not believe in the ideology as I have spoken of it (which is what Foxy's red herring is aimed at inferring). That would be like saying that since Obama makes politically pragmatic concessions and is opportunistic, he is not governing from a decidedly progressive viewpoint, his political party is not decidedly progressive and his supporters are not largely progressive.

After Hitler got into power he purged the Nazi party of its Socialists - like Roehm shag. The people of Germany were sold the National Socialist Party ideals and instead got Hitler's Nazi ideals. Bait and switch shag, pure and simple. Happens all the time.

Switching the focus to Hitler's personal ideological credentials instead of the lineage of National Socialist Ideology (which is the initial focus of this line of discussion) set's up the excuse she provides to dismiss the notion that National Socialism is rooted ideologically in socialism and any evidence presented to support that notion.

Shag, once again - it doesn't matter what you 'say' it matters what you do. Did Hitler do a lot that would indicate he was a socialist - absolutely not. He was a Nazi - that is why we have that term shag - so we can separate Nazis from Socialists. They are different shag.

First; in Germany, labor actually supported the National Socialists (the same goes for Fascism in Italy, as well). In fact, Hitler couldn't have gotten elected to power without large swaths of both the working class and the capitalists supporting him; the current debate among most historians now tends to be focused on how large a swath of each group supported the National Socialists. Hitler intentionally courted the laborer (in both his rise to power and after he had attained power) by presenting himself as one of them; an "ex-worker". The masses in Germany knew Hitler's former professions to be a construction worker, an artist and a student. The notion that the "Nazis were...opposed by labor" is wrong; a false claim rooted in ideologically biased "analysis'" that have since been generally discredited.

Yep - labor was all for Hitler because of what he said - he toted the socialist line while he was trying to gain power. However shag, once again, you can say anything you want - words mean very little when we have a lineage of actions to really look at. What Hitler did wasn't socialist, Hitler's actions were Nazism, through and through. The people who where real socialist stopped backing Hitler when he got into power - Roehm and his ilk were eliminated shag.

Second; In Germany (and Italy) industrialists/capitalists started supporting Hitler (Mussolini in Italy) after he was rising to power; as a means of appeasing a (then) potential enemy to them and their interests. Businesses are opportunistic in nature, not ideological (Foxy's analysis assumes the opposite). There was no "ideological kinship" between the National Socialists and Capitalists as Foxy is inferring.

Yes there was - as I said, they were powerful influences in the Nazi part - Volkswagen and the others. Heck, shag - they had private business that created large fortunes for their owners and leaders - what is socialist about that? Nothing shag - socialists nationalize all business - and remove the elitist ownership class, giving the companies to the workers. Were you asleep during this part of one of your poli sci classes. Power to the working class - what part of Nazism gives power to the working class. Where does Nazism distribute wealth evenly? Once again - look at the Seimen fortune - it wasn't because they were the working class shag - Nazism is all about class. Socialism is totally against class. If you deny that you are an idiot.

Now the National Socialist Party, as 'touted' by Hitler, pretended at first to be socialist - but it wasn't shag, once Hitler got into power he morphed it into a reflection of himself. It was no longer socialist at all, however it did retain the name.

So, lets look at your 'declared' list shag - and compare it to the reality of the Nazi party once Hitler took over. Again, Hitler said many things, but what did he really do, and what did the National Socialist Party eventually become?

Among the many things it declared were:
Abolition of unearned incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

Well - that isn't socialist at all - socialism is all for the welfare state - unearned income is just peachy for the socialist Shag. However, Hitler did use the state to give and take - just not in a socialist fashion - in a Nazi fashion - take from who you don't like, everyone but Aryans, and give to the Aryans. Hardly socialist shag. Hitler's welfare was - if you are Jewish (land owners - therefore rent collectors), you give everything, if you are Aryan - you get what the Jews have. That isn't socialism, that is Nazism.

no income from interest

German banks were some of the most powerful institutions under the Third Reich - and gave out plenty of interest to the wealthy who had funds in them - Duetsche Bank was huge within the party and was instrumental in Hitlers 'final solution' when it came to the Jews. Read Harold James' The Nazi Dictatorship and the Deutsche Bank. if you want to find out more shag - lots of evidence there, it was commissioned by Duetsche Bank itself - and it doesn't pull any punches to the atrocities that they were a part of during the Third Reich.

We demand the nationalization of all associated industries.

They weren't nationalized shag - if you were friends of the Reich you got to stay private - with regulations of course - but they weren't nationalized. Volkswagen, Duetsche Bank, Seimens, all 'vital' industries in a war effort were left private. Not exactly capitalistic, but certainly very far removed from socialism.

We demand a division of profits of heavy industries.-profit sharing

Never happened shag - Hitler controlled the working man by removing his economic and political organizations, and subordinating him to the joint authority of his employer and the new Nazi Labor Front. In 1933, Adolf Hitler ordered the Sturm Abteilung (SS) to arrest Germany's trade union leaders. He then gave Robert Ley the task of forming the Nazi Labor Front, the only union organization allowed in the Third Reich, which was run by the state and the corporations, not by the workers. There was no public ownership of the means of production. Hardly socialist, once again Shag - what Hitler 'promised' and what he delivered were two totally different things - and the Nazi Party embraced those new ideals -

We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

Once again - only if you were Aryan - hardly socialist shag.

On all the other points you have shag what Hitler said and what he did, and what became the foundation of the Nazi party are very different. In fact, he promised industrialists none of the anti-capitalists items in your list would ever be realized, that they were just 'show' to get labor's support. Hitler wrote a pamphlet in 1927 entitled The Road to Resurgence, which was meant only for the top industrialists in Germany. It contained information that would have upset Hitler's working-class supporters, because it stated that Hitler, if he got to power, would not give the working class what he promised, so it was kept a secret.

Once again, if you really want to find out exactly what the Nazis did - which is how we view them today, not as socialist (because they weren't) but because they were Nazis you should go to The Avalon Project which has all the 'real' laws that the Nazis enacted - not the promises they made.

Once again shag, there is a really good reason we have two words - nazi and socialist - they are very different.

How could abolishing profits from interest, expanding "old age" welfare, confiscating "war profits", forced profit sharing, nationalizing industry, demanding collectivism over individualism, expanding central government and giving it "unlimited authority" or any of that other stuff be at all pro-capitalist?

They can't be shag - but that isn't what he did - he did just the opposite - he only said he was going to do those things - guess what - he didn't keep his campaign promises - how surprising. The 'true' socialists were killed in the 'Night of Long Knifes.' Men like Roehm, Strasser, and 200 others.

Foxy identifies the "nationalist" element as somehow being "right wing". However, nationalism is hardly unique to the right. Stalin was also nationalist ("Mother Russia"), as well as FDR, Castro and most other unquestionably "leftist" leaders. German Romanticism was nationalist as well as the French Revolution and both those two movements were also identified with the left.

Shag - I have never said the Nazism is 'right wing', I have only stated it was not 'socialism'. Got the right wing statement for me, got the quote? Nope - because I don't state that it is right wing.

I think Nazism is so horrendous that it doesn't need to be labeled right or left, all it needs to be labeled with is 'Never, ever again.' You are still in this whole left/right stuff that Ryan states needs to be dropped - I would agree, lets drop it. What I don't agree with is his idea that Nazism is Socialism. It isn't.

Nazism is nazism - it stands on its own, very different from socialism, capitalism, democracy or any other political or economic system. It is nazism, period.

Also, Nationalism is not the same thing as patriotism. They are very similar, and can overlap, but patriotism focuses on championing and supporting traditional institutions, etc. while Nationalism focuses on National identity. That is a very important distinction when it comes to analyzing the whole "Left/Right" dichotomy.

Once again shag - I am not approaching this left/right, I have set those aside, as you seemed to indicate we should by posting Ryan's dissertation on the subject.

However, I will say his whole - 'either you are a conservative (good), or you are to the left and must be (the long list of everything left of conservative goes here) and therefore bad' seems to be a bit hyperbolic. There doesn't seem to be some sort of middle ground between conservative and (insert long left list here). That is where I think he fails.

Here is a fun little passage from Mein Kampf that belies the notion of Hitler being pro capitalist:
<snip>

Once again shag - Hitler said a lot of things to get into power - what he did once he was in power is where you really need to focus on... Actions speak ever so much more loudly than words. I go by Hitler's actions - you should too.

The ideological foundations of National Socialism were clearly socialist in nature (combined with Nationalism and identity politics). All the facts foxy cites don't challenge that notion. Some of her facts are taken out of context, while others only confirm the notion that National Socialism was not orthodox socialism, but they don't challenge the notion of National Socialism being rooted in socialism.

Once again shag - National Socialism started out as socialism, but it sure didn't end up that way. You could sort of look at the differences once again from the Democrat party of Andrew Jackson (and you could argue Thomas Jefferson) and the party today. If you go by your logical shag - they should be exactly the same - they aren't. Just like the Democrats have changed - the National Socialist Party really changed - 180 degrees shag - from its socialist roots.

As usual Foxy, your post cites some truth by conveniently circumvents the whole truth; the most effective lies are the ones with the most actual truths.

And shag - the most telling thing is that you can't answer...
Do you think Hitler started a world war to create a world wide socialistic society - full of international social justice, egalitarianism and equality for all?
Because unless you can say yes to that then Nazism isn't socialist.

 

[shagdrum]

Foxy, I really see no reason to waste anymore time with you because it is clear that, as usual, you are only going to posture, make excuses, attempt to delegimize opposing views and work to hijack the thread; turning it into a "heads-I-win, tails-you-lose"/"war of attrition" situation instead of honestly discussing things in good faith and confronting opposing ideas on their merits. It is enough for me that the sleight-of-hand rhetorical tactics you are taking in this thread and the half-truths/disinformation you are peddling have been exposed. I am tired of this petty little dance. No reason to waste anymore time with you.

Stay classy.

 

[FIND]

Foxy, I really see no reason to waste anymore time with you because it is clear that, as usual, you are only going to posture, make excuses, attempt to delegimize opposing views and work to hijack the thread; turning it into a "heads-I-win, tails-you-lose"/"war of attrition" situation instead of honestly discussing things in good faith and confronting opposing ideas on their merits. It is enough for me that the sleight-of-hand rhetorical tactics you are taking in this thread and the half-truths/disinformation you are peddling have been exposed. I am tired of this petty little dance. No reason to waste anymore time with you.

Stay classy.

ummm. As far as I can see, you are the only one doing that. Once again, when confronted by insurmountable facts and information that runs perpendicular to what you read on conservative blogs, you cry. O'Reilly would be proud.

 

[foxpaws]

Foxy, I really see no reason to waste anymore time with you because it is clear that, as usual, you are only going to posture, make excuses, attempt to delegimize opposing views and work to hijack the thread; turning it into a "heads-I-win, tails-you-lose"/"war of attrition" situation instead of honestly discussing things in good faith and confronting opposing ideas on their merits. It is enough for me that the sleight-of-hand rhetorical tactics you are taking in this thread and the half-truths/disinformation you are peddling have been exposed. I am tired of this petty little dance. No reason to waste anymore time with you.

Stay classy.

Posturing, making excuses? I have confronted your ideas on their merit - by showing that they don't have any merit. I don't have half truths - I have truths - Shag, you don't even have half truths. Peddling disinformation? I think you and Ryan and simpiticous are the only peddlers here.

You have to dance because you can't answer the most basic and simple of questions that would clear this whole thing up...

Do you think Hitler started a world war to create a world wide socialistic society - full of international social justice, egalitarianism and equality for all?

Because unless you can say yes to that then Nazism isn't socialist. And people can see that simply, your and your posts are incorrect - Nazism is not Socialism.

You are tired only because you have no answers... And I won't have to waste time with you - because you can't answer the one question that would clear all this up.

However, I am tired of the right using this tactic - If it isn't conservative, it must be (socialist, fascism, nazism, communism whatever other ism you want inserted here) and then it is bad. And somehow we must link them all together - that if you are 'left' you are all of the above, fascist, nazi, socialist, communist, etc. So the right can take whatever seems to be the most 'evil' at the moment and link it to the current left. You want Alinsky - there it is in a nutshell - and the right has used it for decades. They want easy to hate labels, and not coherent thought. You are a prime example of this shag - a talking box for the right.

Oh, you are a Democrat? Then you support Hitler's atrocities, you support Stalin's death camps, you support Mao's starvation policies... Because they are all interchangeable... What bunk.

 

[shagdrum]

ummm. As far as I can see, you are the only one doing that. Once again, when confronted by insurmountable facts and information that runs perpendicular to what you read on conservative blogs, you cry. O'Reilly would be proud.

You are a rather emotional, prideful person, aren't you.

 

[Calabrio]

Do you think Hitler started a world war to create a world wide socialistic society - full of international social justice, egalitarianism and equality for all?

The National Socialists of German did seek social justice, egalitarianism, and equality for all "true" Germans.

As has been discussed, one of the differences between the German National Socialists and the Soviet Communists had to do with their focus and identification of nationalism, rather than international economic classes.

Shag has explained this issue very clearly already in this thread, with historic examples and quotes.

Nazism is not Socialism.

It's National Socialism.

However, I am tired of the right using this tactic -

You've never been one to embrace historic truths....