Nazi's Were Certainly NOT Leftists NOR Socialists. like Duh.
Crash
on Fri, 06 Nov 1998 John Reece wrote:
Re: Nazi's Were Certainly NOT Leftists NOR Socialists. like Duh.
>Mike Nagel wrote:
>
>> The idea that the nazis were right and the communists were left is a
>> generally accepted convention that enhances discussion of right left
>> matters. The attempt to place the nazis on the left side of the
>> political spectrum seems to me to be an attempt to so muddy the waters
>> that any discussion becomes gibberish.
>
>No, it's just a reflection of the historical truth that the
>German Nazi's original public posture featured many
>anti-corporate, anti-aristocrat, anti-Prussian-military, and
>pro-social-welfare proposals normally associated with
>"socialist" movements.
I think you are correct, that was their "original
public posture." But by the time Hitler was in the
driver's seat, say 1935:
>> >C]) From he Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p285,
>> >C]) of summer 1933:
>> >C]) "The Nazis had destroyed the Left, but the Right
>> >C]) remained: big business and finance, the aristocracy,
>> >C]) the Junker landlords, and the Prussian generals who
>> >C]) kept tight rein over the Army."
you have just described
the opposite of Nazi Germany. The socialists had been
snuffed. It was pro-corporate, aristocratic, Prussian
Army, and anti-union. A major privatization effort was
under way, and largely successful, even nationalized
electricity was privatized.
> It may have been a cynical, tactical
>posture to lure votes and dues-paying, club-swinging members,
>but it was there, and some of that was acted on.
Well put. At first, they played the socialistic game. But
one of the few things Hitler remained true to, was his hatred
of socialism and communism. I think when most people say
"Nazis" they refer to "Nazi Germany", this would be after
1933 - 1935 or so, -- when Hitler was Chancellor.
>> This is like Orwells 1984 where
>> the party wanted to eliminate words from the language
>> to limit political thought.
>
>Insisting on casting everything as left-right and
>never-any-part-of-the-twain
>shall-meet strikes me as rather limiting.
Agree. There are many valid ways of grouping or describing
political groups. Yet the standardized R-L continuum is a
useful tool, and squawking "The Nazis were Leftists" is absurd.
Crash
Everybody tells us something different. So how do we
find Truth? Or is everything just a matter of opinion?
on Sat, 07 Nov 1998 jer <jer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Crash wrote:
>> Agree. But do you forget his is not academia? And I am not
>> attempting to establish a cutting edge theory among my peers
>> of experts. My attempt is to establish
>> the consensus big-view of history. Hence, I can think of no better
>> source than encyclopedias and the like. As I said below,
>> constantly citing snippets from Hitler et al, out of context
>> has been the problem, a source NOT of truth, but disinformation.
>
>But is even the encyclopedias written in the opinion of the authers?
Of a panel of authors, experts. Same with most school
textbooks. These sources are a great place to find the
boring expert consensus, not the cutting edge, often
controversial stuff, as you might find in respected
journals such as *Nature*. The valid complaint is that
the information is too old, too boring...but this is
the cost of accuracy. And that's where you can bet
your paycheck.
> Are
>not all acadamians giving you their opinion most of the time?
In science, almost never. Most of them report facts and have a
great fear of expressing their opinion of those facts,
I find that gutless. But academia is cut-throat, particularly
science. (Peer review)
> Is not the
>media when choosing what sound-bite and how much of it to
>give to the viewers not the same thing?
Not the same thing.
Media often gives its opinion. That is the great fallacy,
that all information and opinions are of equal value.
To equivocate them in your mind. As a lay info-consumer, that is
understandable, since both academia and Media may look like
similar spigots pouring information at you. But they are NOT
in the same ballpark. Peer review and the philosophy of science
makes it so.
Science (organized truth-seeking) has been designed so that
idiots and crooks can operate it, and still yield the truth.
It's far from perfect, and applies only to certain things,
but it's the best system for finding Truth that human
civilization has yet to devise. Go with the odds.
>Don't get me wrong, I use them all the time.
>But I view them like history books. They are written in the "view" of the
>author when they stray from telling you all the facts "to date" and then go
>on their own explanation.
History books are written by the winners, it is true...there
lies a major bias. But encyclopedias and school textbooks
are NOT like walking into Barnes & Noble's history section
and randomly picking up some kook's book, perhaps how we were
visited by space aliens in 3 B.C., or Nazis were socialists. They
are NOT what you describe. They are often written by panels
of experts, the controversial stuff is tossed, or stated as
being controversial.
>> The "most experts think" argument may have limits
>> but in this case, I am attempting to PROVE what most
>> experts think...that is, to awaken the victims of this
>> propaganda to the fact that their world has been re-defined
>> without their knowledge. That is, words and concepts as basic
>> as "capitalism", "socialism", "individual", the standardized
>> R-L continuum, and "rights" have nonstandard meanings,
>> and they don't even know it.
>
>We can fall on the democrats here. They cite experts
>all the time on global warming. They use that term
>over and over again. Using clinton as an
Yes, but don't trust politicians of ANY flavor.
In my opinion, they also often err by simplification. They
suggest global warming will happen, when perhaps
they mean only that the possible threat is very real.
They say "global warming" instead of "the issue of
the threat of possible global warming caused by excessive
anthropogenic greenhouse gases blah blah blah."
A short cut. Others, simply believe it as a fact.
>> I might add that the "most experts think" argument is a
>> foundation of scientific method. To propose a new theory, the
>> burden of proof lies with he outside of scientific consensus.
>> And it is proper to assume the scientific consensus without
>> such proof. Thus, the wheel need not be constantly re-invented.
>
>So those of us outside the "most experts think" group,
I don't get it.
How does one end up outside "most experts think" group
in scientific matters? By trusting National Inquirer,
or a politician, or a political comedian, or a snappy book
author, over scientists who have spent their whole life
studying (say) atmospheric science? Or history?
Are all opinions equally valuable?
Is everything just a matter of opinion?
Is uninformed opinion as valuable as expert opinion?
Is it impossible to tell which might be closer to truth?
>So those of us outside the "most experts think" group, have no choice but
>to buy what they say and let our taxes be upped to stop global warming. No
>reports cited, no names given, no nothing. So we should just buy into what
>govornment says? What needs to be re-invented is telling us the truth, give
>us the information to look up, and let us decide wether or not its true. As
You can find that info, easy. But it's scientific. What
would you do with stratospheric absorption rates of UVb correlated
to jet stream velocity data? Many people would just say;
"Science sucks." And they tune in to Limbaugh for an explanation
they can understand...feels-good science squealing; "JUNK SCIENCE!"
and "IT"S a CONSPIRACY!"
My point is that you don't need to understand jet stream
velocity data if you understand how to find reliable
information. How do we do that? That is the question.
>> And it is proper to assume the scientific consensus without
This allows an astronomer to assume his biology or chemistry
text is true...and frees him from ALSO becoming a chemist
AND a biologist. The whole body of human knowledge hangs
together fairly nicely. The trick is to differentiate between
(say) TIME magazine and Encyclopedia Brittanica.
>What needs to be re-invented is telling us the truth, give
>us the information to look up, and let us decide wether or not its true. As
Do you have the training to override scientific conclusions
about (say) atmospheric science?
The fad in politics is to assume that everything is only
a matter of opinion. If this were true, what you say would
be valid. Fact is, you have NOT looked up the info to become
an expert, and NOBODY can be an expert on more than a few
things.
Therefore, I think sitting around drinking beer, farting
in your underwear, reading People magazine, listening to
talk radio and armchair postulating against scientific consensus
would be absurd. Go with the odds.
>> To excessively poo-pah "authoritarian arguments" is a common
>> brainwashing method to isolate the victim. Keep the above
>> in mind. For example, Limbaugh calls science and Media;
>> "in on the plot." Or, it is Libertarian creed to reject
>> "authoritarian arguments". Beware.
>
>Here is a distoration as well. I do not listen to him on a consistant
>basis...but I know, having heard it used a few times, this line was used in
>context with global warming. For instance, he was refering to the use of
>satilites and how the temp was measured. One method is better than the
...
>two examples. One I think measures temp air to ground and the
>other...sigh...dunno.
I can flat guarantee you that Rush didn't know either. But
he talks a decent scam. For years he used absurd sounds-good
explanations why "The ozone hole is a HOAX!" Like CFC's can't
make it the stratosphere because they are heavier than air.
Sounds good, right? To an expert, that's absurd.
My point again: you cannot be an expert on most things.
But you CAN get your info only from the best sources
that human civilization can produce, imperfect though
it may be. And actively reject anything less.
It's MUCH easier to become an expert on your information
sources, and to learn a little science philosophy than
is to become an expert on all important things so you
can test them yourself. There's just too much garbage
out there to try and sift it all. Most of it.
> Anyways, point is, he then says that not counting the
>other way and investigating it, has media and science
>in on the plot. Yes,
Yawn. Media and science in on the plot. That leaves you
in a world where everything is only a matter of opinion.
No place to turn for Truth. A confusing world indeed.
So you cannot find truth, just turn to the guy who makes
you feel good about, understand that confusing nebulous world
of uncertainty that he has created for you?
How convenient for the propaganda artists, eh?
If you choose to believe Limbaugh instead of
science, you would be making a mistake. He freely
admits that he is s scientific idiot, as well as
demonstrating that every time he talks about science.
>since Gore is in on it, signed off on it, has a lot to
> do with it. But he did give the audience the places
>to go look it up for ourselves.
Probably some Rich Boy's think tank.
I'll give you a better source.
Try your favorite search engine on: global warming
stratospheric carbon oxygen greenhouse trends nature,
and read the non-political articles given as reference.
Or far better yet, check out a recent encyclopedia.
I think you will find that the scientific consensus is
that dire consequences are a real possibility and
threat. When faced with the possibility of a dire
threat, most people take evasive action. Fire or
auto insurance, for example. Or a standing military.
--Doug
- Limbaugh thinks leaving the cap on your coffee cup will
- dilute it. For that reason he gave Kit Carson hell
- one day. His theory was, the lid sweats and dilutes
- the coffee. laughingggg... Ya, the man is a real
- scientific genius, alright. He should have NO problem
- being able to figure out complex biophysical systems,
- right? He can't even figure out the environment
- in his coffee cup. With "creationism" in a cup, is
- it any wonder he doesn't comprehend "finite Earth?"
LK
(Crash) wrote:
>>Insisting on casting everything as left-right and
>>never-any-part-of-the-twain
>>shall-meet strikes me as rather limiting.
>
>Agree. There are many valid ways of grouping or describing
>political groups. Yet the standardized R-L continuum is a
>useful tool, and squawking "The Nazis were Leftists" is absurd.
Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialist. Socialists are most
definately on the LEFT.
If they'd been called Nafis then maybe you'd be right.
LK
--
"If a president ever lied to the American people, he should resign."
-William Jefferson Clinton
Give us cable modems NOW!
ro...@adelphia.net
uad...@adelphia.net
webm...@adelphia.net
dom...@adelphia.net
postm...@adelphia.net
wec...@adelphia.net
req...@adelphia.net
ab...@adelphia.net
sa...@adelphia.net
aeb...@adelphia.net
jon...@adelphia.net
==And a big fat "FUCK YOU" to==
ti...@telerama.com
ti...@nospam.lm.com
sy...@telerama.com
sy...@nospam.lm.com
Eat well spambots.
Edward William Clayton
: In article <36571506...@news.psnw.com>, see.m...@theBeach.edu
: (Crash) wrote:
: >>Insisting on casting everything as left-right and
: >>never-any-part-of-the-twain
: >>shall-meet strikes me as rather limiting.
: >
: >Agree. There are many valid ways of grouping or describing
: >political groups. Yet the standardized R-L continuum is a
: >useful tool, and squawking "The Nazis were Leftists" is absurd.
: Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialist. Socialists are most
: definately on the LEFT.
Free clue: a political party can call itself whatever it wants. For
example, the ruling party in Mexico is the Institutional Revolutionary
Party. Now, is it possible to be both Revolutionary and Institutional?
No. The name has no bearing on the reality of what the party stands for.
Similarly because the Nazis called themselves National Socialists it does
not follow that they really were Socialists. Heck, a truly National party
wouldn't send hundreds of thousands or millions of its own citizens to
their deaths in concentration camps, would it? No, it wouldn't. And the
Democratic Party in America doesn't advocate a direct democracy, does it?
No, it doesn't. I could multiply examples, but hopefully I've made the
point.
Ted
: If they'd been called Nafis then maybe you'd be right.
Scott Erb
lordka...@sgi.net says...
>Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialist. Socialists are most
>definately on the LEFT.
What a stupid response. So the German Democratic Republic was a
democracy, eh? Sheesh.
Anyway, chew on this:
"Theory was not the strong point of movements devoted to the inadequacies
of reason and rationalism and the superiority of instict and will. They
attracted all kinds of reactionary theorists in countries with an active
conservative intellectual life... as we have seen fascism shared
nationalism, anti-communism, anti-liberalism, etc. with other non-fascist
elements on the right....The major difference between the fascist and the
non-fascist right was that fascism existed by mobilizing masses from
below."
Page 117, "The Age of Extremes" by Eric Hobsbawm
He also points out on the same page how the Nazis stole symbols from the
Communists to try to lure the working class to their right wing cause,
including the term "national SOCIALIST."
For a real dramatic story showing how anti-communist and right wing the
nazis were, see:
"The Nazi Seizure of Power, The Experience of a Single German Town,
1930-1935," by William Sheridan Allen.
For those who doubt that nazis were anti-bolshevik to the extreme, here
are some places to look:
"Political Ideologies" by Thobaben and Funderburk
"Political Ideologies" by Leon Baradat
"A History of Modern Germany," by Hajo Holborn>"European Democracies" by
Juerg Steiner
"The Nightmare Years," by William Shirer (a book everyone should read
sometime in their lives)
"The Weimar Republic," by Detlev J.k. Peukert
The KPD (Communists) were the first party put in the concentration camps
in 1933. The SPD (Socialists, anti-Communist and anti-fascist) were sent
to Dachau in 1933 as well, voting against Hitler extending his powers.
The conservative parties supported Hitler completely.
From "Political Ideologies" by Thobaben and Funderburk, 3rd edition, p.
187:
"Hitler states his hatred of democracy with its 'ridiculous institution'
of parliament and communism with the 'loathsome' doctrines of class
struggle created by 'the jew Karl Marx'....Hermann Goering, commander of
the German force, saw Germany as a bastion against communism. War with
the 'red terror' was viewed as inevitable as national socialism and
Marxism are poles apart. Marxism's doctrines of class struggle,
internationalism, pulbic ownership of property, and atheism, if put into
practice, would destroy Germany as a nation-state."
From: "The Weimar Republic," by Detlev J.K. Peukert. Peukert, who died in
1990 at age 39, was formerly professor of modern history at the University
of Essen, and director of the Research Institute for the history of the
nazi Period:
"Ideologically speaking, on the other hand, the NSDAP stood for a melange
of ideas and grievances that were far from original and indeed were common
to much of the German right; all that was new was the passion and single
mindedness with which the separate ingredients of this ideological mixture
were combined on behalf of a struggle against ‘the system.' This
demonized image of ‘the system' was aprojection of attitudes that were by
no means identical: anti-Semitism, anti-liberalism, and
anti-Marxism...some of the Nazis specific political arguments were
certainly borrowed frmo the attacks on modernization that had been mounted
by the conservative Kulturkritiker. But the Nazis cult of dynamism and
the movement's utopian appeal to a future national community outrivalled
the conservatives' attempts to restore the old order." - p. 237
Note also page 268: anti-fascist movements were mostly from the left, and
were paralyzed by the right. Not also in that chapter how it was
conservative parties which cooperated with Hitler, and helped him gang
power (and ultimately voted to give Hitler total power later in 1933, with
only the SPD standing against him).
Note finally that I don't see the nazis as being any more like modern
conservatives than the communists are like modern leftists or liberals.
The extremes of either left or right are essentially evil, in my opinion.
But attempts to say Hitler was a leftist are simply wrong, and often
volitional lies.
Scott Erb
says...
>A more interesting question is what the essential characteristics are
>that make us call a government socialist. For the people you are arguing
>with, the essential characteristic was government control over the means
>of production. The fact that the Nazis maintained the form of private
>ownership but not the substance means that they are more similar to
>socialists than different. You might also want to look at Hayek's _Road
to
>Serfdom_, which discusses intellectual links between the two movements.
I've looked at that, but find that the vast ideological differences
between the two creates separate ideologies that are "fascist" (anti/post-
modern, anti-internationalist, anti-rationalist, nationalist,
anti-intellectual, emotional) and "socialist" (rationalist, objectivist,
modernist, internationalist).
Now, practically, the way that such movements played themselves out in the
twentieth century so far creates some vast distance liberal ideals and
both fascist and socialist ideals. Furthermore, to the extent that
socialist ideals moved away from Stalinist/bureaucratic socialism to a
democratic socialism, the distance between social democracy and liberalism
(i.e., free market individualism) is less than the distance between social
democracy and bureaucratic socialism. The distance between traditional
conservatism and social democracy may be less than the distance between
traditional conservatism and fascism.
The problem is that some people define the left only via Marxian style
socialism, and create the false and misleading claim that leftism =
centralization of power to a strong government. There are leftists (like
myself) who are very opposed to centralized, strong government, and
believe that the main goal of the Left must be to expand individual
freedoms in a way that opposes power centralized in either governmental or
non-governmental actors.
Now, all that is complicated, and too much to go into in the "hitler
debates," but at the very least a necessary first step is to debunk claims
that Hitler was a leftist, or that one can ignore the vast ideological
differences between fascism and communism to simply try to score
rhetorical points.
cheers, scott
bubbasm...@hotmail.com
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 04:17:19 GMT, bubbasm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>On the contrary, by any measure, socialism and fascism other 20th century
>>experiments in government centalized power beyond anything that monarchs ever
>>dreamed.
> oh bullshit, if there was any greater centeralization of power it was
> due to technology.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that greater centralization of
power was due to technology, that does not alter the facts. But the truth is
that socialism, fascism and communism siezed on the technologies of the 20th
century to create a power base for the state. Fortunately, technology is
reversing this process today.
> >Things are not quite the same but Sweden has historically been one of the
> >highest tax countries in the world. The government has taken far more control
> >of resources.
> >
>
> and they have a higher standard of living than we do.
Again, even if we were to concede this debatable point, it is irrelvant to the
discussion. The fact remains that Swedes suffer far greater direction of their
lives by the government perhaps even than Germans under Hitler.
> >> >have no say except through the organs of the state. If the victims of
> >>
> >> again ask the people of Sweeden they will tellyou that you are a
> >> raving lunatic.
> >
> >People in Sweden, for example, have no say in how most of their income is
> >disposed except through the organs of the state. QED.
>
> more bullshit.
It is self evident as measured by income tax alone, Swedes have conceded
control over roughly have their income to the government. And there are so
many other ways that the Swedish government exercises control over Swedish
society.
> >> >socialism are lucky, they'll have democratic control through elections.
More
> >> >often, the control is handled for them by benevolent dictators like Stalin
> >> >and Hitler.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hitler was a fascist not a socialist moron.
> >
> >Fascism is a form of socialism.
>
> fascism has nothing to do with socialism. they are opposites.
They are slight variations on the theme of state direction of society.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
David Friedman
(Scott Erb) wrote:
>For those who doubt that nazis were anti-bolshevik to the extreme, here
>are some places to look:
Coke is anti-pepsi to the extreme too, and vice versa.
In other words, the argument is about whether the hostility between the
Nazis and the Communists reflected an essential difference, or whether
they were two totalitarian movements, more similar than different, that
were fighting for power in a context where only one could win, and the
loser could expect to be destroyed.
It seems clear from both Turner and Shirer, the two books I have recently
been looking at, that the Nazis attempted to represent themselves as
socialists to workers who would be attracted by that, and as
anti-socialists to businessmen. If so, it will be easy to find quotes from
Nazis demonstrating that they are socialists, and other quotes
demonstrating that they are not.
A more interesting question is what the essential characteristics are that
make us call a government socialist. For the people you are arguing with,
the essential characteristic was government control over the means of
production. The fact that the Nazis maintained the form of private
ownership but not the substance means that they are more similar to
socialists than different. You might also want to look at Hayek's _Road to
Serfdom_, which discusses intellectual links between the two movements.
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
Fury
Scott Erb wrote in message <73hr24$10q0$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...(snip)
>The problem is that some people define the left only via Marxian style
>socialism, and create the false and misleading claim that leftism =
>centralization of power to a strong government. There are leftists (like
>myself) who are very opposed to centralized, strong government, and
>believe that the main goal of the Left must be to expand individual
>freedoms in a way that opposes power centralized in either governmental or
>non-governmental actors.
>
>Now, all that is complicated, and too much to go into in the "hitler
>debates," but at the very least a necessary first step is to debunk claims
>that Hitler was a leftist, or that one can ignore the vast ideological
>differences between fascism and communism to simply try to score
>rhetorical points.
>cheers, scott
>
And yet, with any political system that seeks to make people behave in a
certain fashion, rather than leaving them alone, you get big government. I`m
afraid it`s an inevitable consequence because individuals will sometimes act
in ways contrary to what the state wants. Either the state gives up or it
brings its powers to bear on those individuals.
This is the common thread of both Communism and Facism, as well as their
lesser forms, Socialism and Facism. They all seek to make people conform to
a certain code of behaviour that involves placing on people positive duties.
Dave Callaghan
LK <lordka...@sgi.net> writes
>In article <36571506...@news.psnw.com>, see.m...@theBeach.edu
>(Crash) wrote:
>>>Insisting on casting everything as left-right and
>>>never-any-part-of-the-twain
>>>shall-meet strikes me as rather limiting.
>>
>>Agree. There are many valid ways of grouping or describing
>>political groups. Yet the standardized R-L continuum is a
>>useful tool, and squawking "The Nazis were Leftists" is absurd.
>
>definately on the LEFT.
>
>
I suppose you will likewise claim that the GDR was democratic, on the
grounds that GDR was the abbreviation of German Democratic Republic.
--
Dave Callaghan
David Friedman
(Scott Erb) wrote:
>Furthermore, to the extent that
>socialist ideals moved away from Stalinist/bureaucratic socialism to a
>democratic socialism, the distance between social democracy and liberalism
>(i.e., free market individualism) is less than the distance between social
>democracy and bureaucratic socialism. The distance between traditional
>conservatism and social democracy may be less than the distance between
>traditional conservatism and fascism.
One further source of confusion is that there are at least two groups of
people who would describe themselves as believers in social democracy and
distance themselves from Stalinism. One is the group you appear to
identify with. The other is one of the dominant political movements in
Europe, represented by lots of political parties with words like "social"
and "democratic" in their names. The latter is basically welfare state
mixed capitalism--roughly the same system championed by FDR here.
>The problem is that some people define the left only via Marxian style
>socialism, and create the false and misleading claim that leftism =
>centralization of power to a strong government. There are leftists (like
>myself) who are very opposed to centralized, strong government, and
>believe that the main goal of the Left must be to expand individual
>freedoms in a way that opposes power centralized in either governmental or
>non-governmental actors.
And in order to make that position convincing, you have to explain more
clearly what you want, and how it differs from state socialism on the one
hand, and individualist free market libertarianism on the other.
>Now, all that is complicated, and too much to go into in the "hitler
>debates," but at the very least a necessary first step is to debunk claims
>that Hitler was a leftist, or that one can ignore the vast ideological
>differences between fascism and communism to simply try to score
>rhetorical points.
I'm not sure I see how that follows. Whether Hitler was a leftist is a
matter of definition--I have no objection to your claiming that both
Hitler and Stalin were rightists (as they were, in some senses of the
term), so long as you don't also claim that I and people who agree with me
are rightists too. The substantive point is that Stalinism and Naziism
were basically two variants on the same theme.
If you agree with that, the next question is how people (on both sides)
whose ideologies seem to have something in common with the ideologies of
Stalin and Hitler can convince themselves and others that they won't lead
to similar results. For the anarcho-socialists, that starts by explaining
how you prevent private concentrations of power without a state or
something similar, and how you prevent "something similar" from
representing a far greater concentration of power than even a large
private firm.
[newsgroups trimmed somewhat]
gdy52150
>In article <365c1d0...@news.lakes.com>,
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 04:17:19 GMT, bubbasm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>On the contrary, by any measure, socialism and fascism other 20th century
>>>experiments in government centalized power beyond anything that monarchs ever
>>>dreamed.
>> oh bullshit, if there was any greater centeralization of power it was
>> due to technology.
>
>Even if we assume for the sake of argument that greater centralization of
>power was due to technology, that does not alter the facts. But the truth is
>that socialism, fascism and communism siezed on the technologies of the 20th
>century to create a power base for the state. Fortunately, technology is
>reversing this process today.
>
they may have used technology, but that still doesn't change the fact
that fascism is not socialism.
>> >Things are not quite the same but Sweden has historically been one of the
>> >highest tax countries in the world. The government has taken far more control
>> >of resources.
>> >
>>
>> and they have a higher standard of living than we do.
>
>Again, even if we were to concede this debatable point, it is irrelvant to the
>discussion. The fact remains that Swedes suffer far greater direction of their
>lives by the government perhaps even than Germans under Hitler.
>
thats just laughable
>> >> >have no say except through the organs of the state. If the victims of
>> >>
>> >> again ask the people of Sweeden they will tellyou that you are a
>> >> raving lunatic.
>> >
>> >People in Sweden, for example, have no say in how most of their income is
>> >disposed except through the organs of the state. QED.
>>
>> more bullshit.
>
>It is self evident as measured by income tax alone, Swedes have conceded
>control over roughly have their income to the government. And there are so
>many other ways that the Swedish government exercises control over Swedish
>society.
>
you are a fool. They still have control at the ballot box.
>> >> >socialism are lucky, they'll have democratic control through elections.
>More
>> >> >often, the control is handled for them by benevolent dictators like Stalin
>> >> >and Hitler.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Hitler was a fascist not a socialist moron.
>> >
>> >Fascism is a form of socialism.
>>
>> fascism has nothing to do with socialism. they are opposites.
>
>They are slight variations on the theme of state direction of society.
>
the nazi economy was based on capitalism. So was Italy's under the
Duce. So was Franco's Spain.
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
====================================================
For those seeking Enlightenment
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
GDY Weasel
======================================================
Derek Nalecki
>In article <lordkaNO.SPAM-2...@dap01-144064.monroe.sgi.net>,
>lordka...@sgi.net says...
>
>>definately on the LEFT.
>
>democracy, eh? Sheesh.
That depends on how you define "democracy". If your idea of democracy is the
ridiculous attempt by some modern liberals to equate democracy with
multi-party system that you would be correct; but of course that premise is
wrong. As professor C.B. MacPherson points out in his CBC Massey lecture
-"The real world of Democracy", multi-party democracy is only one of its
forms; Chapter 2 of the lecture titled "Non-liberal democracy - the communist
variant" - gives ample support for the position that GDR (and others) was
indeed a democracy - if IMO of an unacceptable sort.
That of course goes back to the original definition of democracy being
simply one of the three classical systems of political accountability
autocracy - rule of one
aristocracy - rule of the best (the few)
democracy - rule of the many;
and not some form of ideological utopia.
And of course here is some proof of the fact that national socialism (Nazism)
was a form of socialism:
In the words of the great historical observer Paul Johnson ("Modern
Times - A History of the world from the 1920s to the 1990s"):
" Though Hitler sometimes used the words nationalism and
socialism as though they were interchangeable, the radical and
socialist element in his program always remained strong.
He was never in any sense bourgeois or conservative politician
or an exponent or defender of capitalism. Nor was the Nazi
party predominantly lower-middle class. Modern historians
have hotly debated [those like Shirer either lied or are simply
uninformed, dn] the extend of its working class appeal. The
truth seems to be that the active Nazis were drawn from the
discontented [ne'er-do-wells which today support Democrats
and Buchanan in US and NDP and Liberals in Canada, dn]
from all classes except the peasants and farmers."
And from the man himself
"...This is Socialism - not such trifles as the private possession of the
means of production. Of what importance is _that_ if I range men firmly
within a discipline they cannot escape?
Let them then "own" land or factories as much as they please. The decisive
factor is that the State, trough the party, is supreme over them, regardless
whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential.
Our Socialism goes far deeper"...
"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit.
The [only] difference between them and myself is that I have put into practice
what these peddlers and pen-pushers [ie: _too_ deferent to capitalism, dn.]
have timidly begun.
I had ***only to develop logically*** [emphasis dn] what Social Democracy
repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize the revolution within
the framework of democracy.
National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken
its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order."
Hitler to Hermann Rauschning
>
>Anyway, chew on this:
>
>
>
>"Theory was not the strong point of movements devoted to the inadequacies
>of reason and rationalism and the superiority of instict and will. They
>attracted all kinds of reactionary theorists in countries with an active
>conservative intellectual life... as we have seen fascism shared
>nationalism, anti-communism, anti-liberalism, etc. with other non-fascist
>elements on the right....The major difference between the fascist and the
>non-fascist right was that fascism existed by mobilizing masses from
>below."
Than fascism was a left-wing movement, very much like socialism 'mobilizing
masses from below".
>
>Page 117, "The Age of Extremes" by Eric Hobsbawm
>
>He also points out on the same page how the Nazis stole symbols from the
>Communists to try to lure the working class to their right wing cause,
>including the term "national SOCIALIST."
>
>For a real dramatic story showing how anti-communist and right wing the
>nazis were, see:
>
>"The Nazi Seizure of Power, The Experience of a Single German Town,
>1930-1935," by William Sheridan Allen.
>
>For those who doubt that nazis were anti-bolshevik to the extreme, here
>are some places to look:
>
Nazism is a brand of a broader socialist continuum - a merger of socialism and
extreme nationalism; as is fascism. All three though - doctrinaire socialism,
national socialism and fascism would agree with the following description by
the proud "pappa" - Benito Mussolini:
"Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in
which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered,
subject to natural law which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish
momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the
country...Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the
importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his
interests coincide with those of the State, which stands as a conscience and
the universal will of man as a historic entity."
Doctrinaire socialism used the idea of "community", national socialism of
"volk" - a super-nation, and fascism that of a state; in all cases led by an
avanguarde - represented by a monopolistic political movement.
Neither is national socialism (Nazism) the same as fascism. The difference
between fascism and national socialism is best expressed by Hannah Arendt in
"The Origins of Totalitarianism":
"After the First World War, a deeply antidemocratic, prodictatorial wave of
semitotalitarian and totalitarian movements swept Europe; Fascist movements
spread from Italy to nearly all Central and Eastern European countries (the
Czech part of Czechoslovakia was one of the notable exceptions); yet even
Mussolini, who was so fond of the term "totalitarian state", did not attempt
to establish a full-fledged totalitarian regime and contended himself with
dictatorship and one-party rule... The nazis, who had an unfailing instinct
for such differences, used to comment contemptuously on the shortcomings of
their Fascist allies while their genuine admiration for the Bolshevik regime
of Russia (and the Communist Party in Germany) was matched and checked
only by their contempt for Eastern European races".
derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
"To be truly selfish one needs a degree of self-esteem. The self-despisers are
less intent on their own increase than on the diminution of others.
Where self-esteem is unattainable, envy takes the place of greed."
(Eric Hoffer)
********** THE ONLY GOOD ENVIRONMENT IS A MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT ***********
dyb...@busprod.com
> >
>
> the nazi economy was based on capitalism. So was Italy's under the
> Duce. So was Franco's Spain.
And so was Shinto in Nippon, and most glaringly, the "New Deal",
here in the US. So, have you gotten the message that it's NOT
the economic system in practice, that deterimines which ideology
is oppressing us, "right now", whenever that is?
Scott Erb
>This is the common thread of both Communism and Facism, as well as their
>lesser forms, Socialism and Facism. They all seek to make people conform
>to a certain code of behaviour that involves placing on people positive
>duties.
So any movement, religious, cultural, etc., that tries to make people
conform to a certain set of duties (e.g., a moral code, set of values,
etc.) is socialist/fascist, etc.? You're wiping away any set of
ideological differences and making it appear as if everything but a type
of liberal/libertarian system is socialist/fascist/religious/communist,
etc. That maybe a convenient way to state things for a libertarian, but
it really muddies the waters and makes real analysis of the different
ideologies quite difficult.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
>>Furthermore, to the extent that
>>socialist ideals moved away from Stalinist/bureaucratic socialism to a
>>democratic socialism, the distance between social democracy and
liberalism
>>(i.e., free market individualism) is less than the distance between
social
>>democracy and bureaucratic socialism. The distance between traditional
>>conservatism and social democracy may be less than the distance between
>>traditional conservatism and fascism.
>
>One further source of confusion is that there are at least two groups of
>people who would describe themselves as believers in social democracy and
>distance themselves from Stalinism. One is the group you appear to
>identify with. The other is one of the dominant political movements in
>Europe, represented by lots of political parties with words like "social"
>and "democratic" in their names. The latter is basically welfare state
>mixed capitalism--roughly the same system championed by FDR here.
I think that the Social Democrats are also split, but that in a sense they
are trying to establish socialism as part of the democratic revolution
(taking power away from elites and giving it to the people), rejecting the
"scientific socialism" of Marx. In that sense they are ideologically both
liberal (individual freedoms are paramount, and the rationale for social
welfare programs is that structured power denies individual liberty, even
as markets should be used most of the time) and socialist (seeing society
as a set of structured relations that can empower and constrain, rather
than just voluntary transactions that are completely free).
>>The problem is that some people define the left only via Marxian style
>>socialism, and create the false and misleading claim that leftism =
>>centralization of power to a strong government. There are leftists
(like
>>myself) who are very opposed to centralized, strong government, and
>>believe that the main goal of the Left must be to expand individual
>>freedoms in a way that opposes power centralized in either governmental
or
>>non-governmental actors.
>
>And in order to make that position convincing, you have to explain more
>clearly what you want, and how it differs from state socialism on the one
>hand, and individualist free market libertarianism on the other.
Well, most every system that is feasible is inbetween those extremes, so I
would even make my "challenge" more precise. How does one reject
centralized power and still undertake the type of reforms that are used in
more centralized social democratic states to deal with structural
force/power in a way that does not create corruption or too much
centralized power. At this point, I'd move towards more decentralization
of power (local and regional power rather than central state power), and a
democratization of decision making, including in the work force and other
aspects of society. Not computer voting on "big" issues ala Perot, but
community and work place involvement. I'm still working on specifics
though...I think capitalists often underestimate structural power and how
it gets concentrated into a few non-governmental actors because their
economic theories -- abstract and resting on a number of assumptions --
tell them it can be differently. Socialists underestimate governmental
corruption and abuse of power because they believe those in power will
have good intentions.
>>Now, all that is complicated, and too much to go into in the "hitler
>>debates," but at the very least a necessary first step is to debunk
claims
>>that Hitler was a leftist, or that one can ignore the vast ideological
>>differences between fascism and communism to simply try to score
>>rhetorical points.
>
>I'm not sure I see how that follows. Whether Hitler was a leftist is a
>matter of definition--I have no objection to your claiming that both
>Hitler and Stalin were rightists (as they were, in some senses of the
>term), so long as you don't also claim that I and people who agree with
me
>are rightists too. The substantive point is that Stalinism and Naziism
>were basically two variants on the same theme.
I think Hitler and Stalin had very different ideologies, and there are
both similarities and differences in their forms of government. I don't
think current social democrats are any closer to Hitler or Stalin, than
current libertarians are. I don't think that glib attempts to label
Hitler as a leftist (or Stalin as a right winger) do any good in the
debates because they seem more an attempt to simply label an opponents
view as being Hitler like to hide real discussion of the issues. There's
no substance to such an attempt, and it obfuscates rather than clarifies.
But I certainly don't see libertarians close to either Hitler nor Stalin.
>If you agree with that, the next question is how people (on both sides)
>whose ideologies seem to have something in common with the ideologies of
>Stalin and Hitler can convince themselves and others that they won't lead
>to similar results.
But the ideologies are different. Focus not on the ideology, but on the
practicalities. HOW are goals acheived. Goals pursued through
bureacuratic means will tend to abuses that one can see in fascism,
authoritarian bureaucratic regimes, Stalinism, and even some kinds of
social democracy. The ideologies are different, practical application
leads to some kind of similarities.
>For the anarcho-socialists, that starts by explaining
>how you prevent private concentrations of power without a state or
>something similar, and how you prevent "something similar" from
>representing a far greater concentration of power than even a large
>private firm.
I think the whole notion of anarchy is misplaced, in both the capitalist
and socialist sides. We can have a non-statist less bureaucratic more
democratic system without having NO government or no power. You can have
power exercised collectively to prevent groups with more resources and
strength from using their non-governmental power to limit freedom. The
key is to do so in a way that does not create more disadvantages than
advantages.
The key to that: hold the use of power accountable. I don't think
capitalism does that since markets give the power to hold accountable to
those with money, who can use that to enhance their own power and create
defacto government like organizations, like mafias, etc. The world is
moving to a post-sovereignty era, which could be a post-state era.
Perhaps a mix of some centralization of practical issues (e.g., a WTO to
try to guarantee free trade, some monetary organizations to allow a stable
exchange system) with more democratization and control over most
governmental functions at a local level can recast politics to one less
friendly to centralized control.
However, I think this can only work -- any system can only work -- if the
people want it and there are cultural underpinnings for it. Economists
often ignore that factor. Preferences, utility functions, rationality
calculation is not a purely intellectual enterprise, but an emotional and
culturally constructed one, meaning that systems operate only insofar as
they are in accord with the shared norms and beliefs of a given culture.
To me that suggests that the only workable transition to anything
different is through a gradual democratic process.
cheers, scott
Rick Jones
>Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialist. Socialists are most
>definately on the LEFT.
China is called the People's Republic of China. Most Communist
countries had "Democratic" in their names. Did you believe those,
too? I don't recall many Communist countries holding democratic
elections.
Insanity Set
their name either. But Nazis were really socialists.
Dave Callaghan wrote:
>
> In article <lordkaNO.SPAM-2...@dap01-144064.monroe.sgi.net>,
> LK <lordka...@sgi.net> writes
> >In article <36571506...@news.psnw.com>, see.m...@theBeach.edu
> >(Crash) wrote:
> >>>Insisting on casting everything as left-right and
> >>>never-any-part-of-the-twain
> >>>shall-meet strikes me as rather limiting.
> >>
> >>Agree. There are many valid ways of grouping or describing
> >>political groups. Yet the standardized R-L continuum is a
> >>useful tool, and squawking "The Nazis were Leftists" is absurd.
> >
> >Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialist. Socialists are most
> >definately on the LEFT.
> >
> >If they'd been called Nafis then maybe you'd be right.
> >
> Simplistic buffoonery!
>
> I suppose you will likewise claim that the GDR was democratic, on the
> grounds that GDR was the abbreviation of German Democratic Republic.
> --
> Dave Callaghan
--
alt.conspiracy- the truth is THERE.
David
(Scott Erb) wrote:
>Well, most every system that is feasible is inbetween those extremes, so I
>would even make my "challenge" more precise. How does one reject
>centralized power and still undertake the type of reforms that are used in
>more centralized social democratic states to deal with structural
>force/power in a way that does not create corruption or too much
>centralized power.
This sounds as though you think that current polities such as the U.S.,
U.K., etc. actually do "deal with structural force/power," as opposed to
using the pretence of doing so for other purposes. Is that your position?
Do you, for example, think that the U.S. economy has less monopoly than it
would under the sort of minimal government that non-anarchist libertarians
favor (I don't want to get into the more complicated question of how
anarcho-capitalism would work)? Most of us think it has more. Or is your
point about redistribution of wealth?
>At this point, I'd move towards more decentralization
>of power (local and regional power rather than central state power),
Note that "regional" in the modern world still involves big polities, with
millions of people in them--making such a policy far more centralist than
a free market system, where most decisions are being made by individuals,
families, and (relatively) small groups such as (most) firms.
>and a
>democratization of decision making, including in the work force and other
>aspects of society.
Does that mean that you require firms (or whatever you call them) to be
set up on a particular model--all participants get one vote or something
similar? How do you enforce that requirement without a state? What if my
worker run firm wants to make a deal with some other workers, hiring them
to do something but not giving the votes in the firm. Why do you object,
and what business is it of yours?
>Not computer voting on "big" issues ala Perot, but
>community and work place involvement.
Are you talking about the way you plan to persuade people to organize
their firms (or equivalent), in which case I have no objection (although
I'm not persuaded that I should organize my life that way), or the way you
intend to require them to?
>I think Hitler and Stalin had very different ideologies, and there are
>both similarities and differences in their forms of government. I don't
>think current social democrats are any closer to Hitler or Stalin, than
>current libertarians are.
Which kind of social democrats? I'm not sure that anarcho-socialists are
any closer to Hitler or Stalin than I am, but I don't really understand
what sort of institutions they are proposing, which makes it hard to tell.
Social democrats in the sense of new deal democrats are closer to Hitler
and Stalin than libertarians are, because they favor a large and powerful
state.
>>For the anarcho-socialists, that starts by explaining
>>how you prevent private concentrations of power without a state or
>>something similar, and how you prevent "something similar" from
>>representing a far greater concentration of power than even a large
>>private firm.
>
>I think the whole notion of anarchy is misplaced, in both the capitalist
>and socialist sides. We can have a non-statist less bureaucratic more
>democratic system without having NO government or no power.
Maybe, but it isn't clear. The problem is that if you have a government,
there are fairly well understood forces that will tend to make it do what
I, at least, regard as bad things. It is possible that there is some set
of institutions that prevents that--limited state libertarians tend to put
faith in a constitution, despite the failure of our last experiment along
those lines--but I haven't seen a convincing argument for it.
>You can have
>power exercised collectively to prevent groups with more resources and
>strength from using their non-governmental power to limit freedom.
Except that institutions in a position to exercise power collectively are
in a much better position to limit freedom than non-governmental actors
with resources. Consider the difference between a government, small by
modern standards, that imposes alcohol or drug prohibition, and a very
rich and powerful firm--say Ford Motors--that decides consumers really
ought to buy its new car.
>The key to that: hold the use of power accountable.
To whom, how, and qui custodes ipsos custodiet?
>Perhaps a mix of some centralization of practical issues (e.g., a WTO to
>try to guarantee free trade, some monetary organizations to allow a stable
>exchange system)
Why in the world do you need anything more than competing private banks
issuing money? That experiment has been done--in Scotland for 150
years--and it worked just fine.
Insanity Set
Tell me what a socialist republic is then. Looks like the USSR covered
both sides of that question.
It just so happens that the Nazis correctly identified themselves as
socialists.
Rick Jones wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:35:12 -0500, lordka...@sgi.net (LK) wrote:
>
> >Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialist. Socialists are most
> >definately on the LEFT.
>
> China is called the People's Republic of China. Most Communist
> countries had "Democratic" in their names. Did you believe those,
> too? I don't recall many Communist countries holding democratic
> elections.
--
Scott Erb
says...
>This sounds as though you think that current polities such as the U.S.,
>U.K., etc. actually do "deal with structural force/power," as opposed to
>using the pretence of doing so for other purposes. Is that your position?
They do both, but often too little of the former and too much of the
latter.
>Do you, for example, think that the U.S. economy has less monopoly than
>it would under the sort of minimal government that non-anarchist
>libertarians favor (I don't want to get into the more complicated
>question of how anarcho-capitalism would work)? Most of us think it has
>more. Or is your point about redistribution of wealth?
I don't know who the "us" is on that one, but in the economics I've
studied, as well as the political economy questions, most people think
that it is less than would have been the case. The problem with
"libertarians" is they tend to base their argument on abstract economic
theories and certain concepts of how rational action "should" work, often
trying to reinterpret history so that all problems are interpreted as due
to the government, and that if only government hadn't intervened, things
would be better. Anyone can reinterpret history to their liking. To me
the facts seem clear that trust busting, social welfare programs designed
to stave off a socialist revolt, "new liberal" reforms to stop the
excesses of the industrial revolution (I know the capitalist apologist
historians interpret history to say all that was happening and would have
happened anyway...they don't seem to convince more than their own
constituency), etc.
>Note that "regional" in the modern world still involves big polities,
with
>millions of people in them--making such a policy far more centralist than
>a free market system, where most decisions are being made by individuals,
>families, and (relatively) small groups such as (most) firms.
In any system all decisions are individual. Its where power lies that
matters. In a capitalist system, power can be concentrated where the
wealth is. In a system with too concetrated a government, it is
concentrated in bureaucracies. The key: make sure those who use those
power are accountable to the people, not just those who exercise market
power (or can mold markets), but all people, equally.
That being said, I'd prefer a subsidiarity based situation where power is
decentralized as much as possible, sent up the ladder as practical
problems warrant.
>Does that mean that you require firms (or whatever you call them) to be
>set up on a particular model--all participants get one vote or something
>similar? How do you enforce that requirement without a state? What if my
>worker run firm wants to make a deal with some other workers, hiring them
>to do something but not giving the votes in the firm. Why do you object,
>and what business is it of yours?
I don't require anything but would prefer worker voting and representation
on all boards of directors, worker say in workplace policies, worker
oversight on decisions of the corporation in general, and worker oversight
over health and safety concerns. Details could be worked out
pragmatically.
>Are you talking about the way you plan to persuade people to organize
>their firms (or equivalent), in which case I have no objection (although
>I'm not persuaded that I should organize my life that way), or the way
>you intend to require them to?
Some firms have power and would choose not to share power with workers.
They are abusing that power and must be held accountable. If politics is
the way to do it (construct a system that those with power must assent to
or else be constrained from acting freely), so be it.
>Which kind of social democrats? I'm not sure that anarcho-socialists are
>any closer to Hitler or Stalin than I am, but I don't really understand
>what sort of institutions they are proposing, which makes it hard to
>tell. Social democrats in the sense of new deal democrats are closer to
>Hitler and Stalin than libertarians are, because they favor a large and
>powerful state.
That's just silly. All of you are far away from Hitler and Stalin, and
the attempt to posit an unidimensional "big state/no state" continuum and
measure space only by how you interpret that dimension is rhetorical and
not logical or scientific. In fact, any attempt to say the other side is
"more like Stalin/Hitler" usually is a rhetorical ruse that is meant to
create emotions and animosity rather than reasoned debate.
>>I think the whole notion of anarchy is misplaced, in both the capitalist
>>and socialist sides. We can have a non-statist less bureaucratic more
>>democratic system without having NO government or no power.
>
>Maybe, but it isn't clear. The problem is that if you have a government,
>there are fairly well understood forces that will tend to make it do what
>I, at least, regard as bad things. It is possible that there is some set
>of institutions that prevents that--limited state libertarians tend to
>put faith in a constitution, despite the failure of our last experiment
>along those lines--but I haven't seen a convincing argument for it.
I suspect you see things too much in terms of absolutes and ideological
extremes rather than practical balances. Sometimes there is no perfect
solution, just a bunch of imperfect ones, each with disadvantageous and
adventageous ramifications. You try to form a balance, looking for the
best outcome possible, learning from the evidence as you progress.
Having absolutely NO government would, I believe, lead to mafias and the
like, and those with power and wealth could concentrate it and create
structural inequities, exercising that power without oversight. Big
government lacks oversight, and leads to gulags and authoritarianism. We
have to balance the two.
The key: diffuse power. Capitalist libertarians aren't real libertarians,
in my view, because they are (it seems to me) unbelievably blind to how
concentrated wealth creates power differential and limits the freedom of
those without that power. They seem to think only governments abuse
power. I have no perfect answers, only a recognition that the problem is
complex, and requires perhaps balancing and experimentation, recognizing
that none of us are smart enough to fantasize our own theoretical perfect
system and expect it will work in the multicausal multidimensional real
world.
>Except that institutions in a position to exercise power collectively are
>in a much better position to limit freedom than non-governmental actors
>with resources.
Absent governmental institutions to balance that power, non-governmental
actors could quickly amass it.
>Consider the difference between a government, small by
>modern standards, that imposes alcohol or drug prohibition, and a very
>rich and powerful firm--say Ford Motors--that decides consumers really
>ought to buy its new car.
Or mafia gangs, that fight things out absent any government, or Ford
Motors, colluding and using its power with no regulations or restraints
from the government (as elected by the people based on policy preferences
of individuals). Governments aren't perfect, they aren't even close. But
they are a weapon of the weak and those without power if they can be
democratic and based on certain rules that hold the use of power
accountable. It is that which I support.
>Why in the world do you need anything more than competing private banks
>issuing money? That experiment has been done--in Scotland for 150
>years--and it worked just fine.
Believe it or not, the world economy is quite different now than it was
150 years ago. Such "solutions" sound again like theoretical thought
experiments, seeming to me to be out of touch with reality. If we were to
experiment so dramatically, we'd have to have small steps and reforms
which could create data that could be analyzed and assessed.
cheers, scott
Insanity Set
the way "private" businesses were commandeered for wartime production.
Is that what you mean by private? Or like the way private banks were
directed to support the Nazi party. (Think of it as an early form of the
Madison Savings and Loan deal w/ Clinton.) That certainly is not private
when your so called private business must produce according to govt
dictates.
Lenin in the first decade or so allowed so called private businesses to
operate to a certain extent. It was called New Economic Policy. Are you
saying he wasn't a socialist because he initially allowed businesses to
operate in a limited way before taking them over?
gdy52150 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 14:57:11 -0600, Insanity Set
> <se...@dontreplyhere.com> wrote:
>
> >So your theory is that a country is named the opposite of what it is?
> >Tell me what a socialist republic is then. Looks like the USSR covered
> >both sides of that question.
> >
> >It just so happens that the Nazis correctly identified themselves as
> >socialists.
> >
>
> oh is that why all the businesses were private?
> Is that why no socialistic program was ever adopted under the Nazis?
>
> >Rick Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:35:12 -0500, lordka...@sgi.net (LK) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialist. Socialists are most
> >> >definately on the LEFT.
> >>
> >> China is called the People's Republic of China. Most Communist
> >> countries had "Democratic" in their names. Did you believe those,
> >> too? I don't recall many Communist countries holding democratic
> >> elections.
> >
> >--
> >alt.conspiracy- the truth is THERE.
>
> ====================================================
> For those seeking Enlightenment
> http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
> GDY Weasel
>
> ======================================================
--
Scott Erb
says...
>
>Do a bit of research before you post.
Actually your debunked claim that Hitler was a socialist has been meet
with considerable evidence. You ignore it and continue to assert what has
been rendered laughable. That shows you to be the one needing to engage
in research. Get a life.
Dan Clore
THE OBSERVER PROFILE: Paul Johnson, Spectator sport
Hit And Myth
By Christopher Hitchens
It's too easy to be tough on Paul Johnson. One must also be tough on
the causes of Paul Johnson. The repeat offender, as we all know, is a
threat to civilised society. Sometimes, though, it is possible to take
a lenient and nuanced view. Certain classes of offender simply cannot
help themselves. Their pathological behaviour reveals an unconscious
wish to be apprehended; to make some kind of clean breast and to cease
living a lie. It's entirely possible - and call me a bleeding heart if
you must - that the Daily Mail columnist's most recent outrage against
decency may be a sort of cry for help. A muffled and inarticulate cry,
to be sure, but that's in the nature of the beast.
Consider the length of this wretched man's record. In order to make a
point in a crowded restaurant, he once struck his own wife in the face.
Those who intervened were threatened with violence in their turn. In
his prose and in his person, he repeatedly resorts to wild and lurid
threats. In a puerile novel which is hard to obtain, but which still
repays the attention of the specialist, he wrote a heavy-breathing,
man-on-woman spanking scene that takes its place among the collectors'
items. Compared to these episodes, it almost counts as normal that he
should, over the past 11 years, have arranged regular meetings with a
lady who would give him a good smacking in his turn. This week, the
lady in question sold herself to the tabloids. But then so does
Johnson.
When the kleptomaniac or the plagiarist is caught, we rightly ask
ourselves how on earth they expected to get away with it. Sometimes,
sad to say, it is society that is at fault. Did we ignore the
premonitory signs? Much the same is true of the fantasist in politics
and letters. For a brief period, Paul Johnson edited the New Statesman
and made it a platform for some extremely idiosyncratic opinions of a
chauvinist nature. Staff and contributors were appalled and alienated,
but the Johnsonian tenure was actually ended in circumstances that might
best be described as stress-related. From this sorry time, for which he
was more to be pitied than censured, Johnson constructed a personal myth
of a radical past, the better to betray this same illusion for the grimy
shillings of the tabloids. Yet many people indulged him in this
mythomania, speaking soothingly of a turn to the Right in middle age.
Still he continued to send up fizzing warning flares that were
misinterpreted or just missed. In a pseudo-book entitled Intellectuals,
he asserted wildly that the only true measure of a writer was his
private and sexual life. He denounced the heirs of the Enlightenment as
a crew of spankers and fornicators. This was to try and hide the
ghastly truth in plain sight. Yet his so-called friends abetted his
life of denial, even as they continued to encourage his lucubrations in
print. "I was an advisor to Princess Diana," Johnson claimed abruptly
in the New York Times just this past March. "I told her: 'Don't commit
adultery.'" Somewhat earlier, he had lined up to stone the hapless Tory
MP Tim Yeo, a chap taken in infidelity. Men who stand up for
traditional virtues, he yelled, "can expect no mercy when they are
caught in flagrante themselves. Adultery is wrong and should be
punished." And we all stood idly by and watched Johnson make another
spectacle of himself.
There is also the painful business of his most recent book, marketed as
A History of the American People. Johnson has gained an audience in the
United States, at least among the fraud and crackpot community. He has
won golden opinions from the late William Casey, who died before he
could be sent to jail; from the staring-eyed Oliver North and from Newt
Gingrich, the most discredited American politician since Richard Nixon
(another Johnson patron). Gingrich, indeed, consented to introduce
Johnson at a hilarious recent evening in Washington DC. Much has been
made of the howlers which disfigure the volume - not even Gingrich
believes that Thomas Edison invented the telephone - but this emphasis
overlooks the root causes of its deranged badness. In a hysterical
passage, Johnson claims that the resignation of Richard Nixon was a coup
and a conspiracy, engineered by the liberal press. The claim is even
footnoted, as if the pretend book had a proper scholar for an author.
Those curious enough to pursue the footnote found themselves referred to
a thing about Nixon written by Jonathan Aitken. Here, surely, the verge
of desperation was being reached.
Stung by mockery of his abysmal work (because it must be admitted that
there are those heartless souls who enjoy teasing the afflicted for its
own sake), Johnson sent an arm-waving letter to the Guardian, claiming
to have received an endorsement and validation from 'The Institute for
Accuracy in Academia' in Washington. Did he imagine no-one would check,
or did he privately, secretly hope that someone would? There is no such
body as The Institute for Accuracy in Academia. There is, however, a
bizarre right-wing front organisation named 'Accuracy in Academia'.
Composed of non-academics (its most intellectual supporter left to
become a speechwriter for Dan Quayle), it purports to monitor American
university classrooms for evidence of liberal bias.
Most serious Conservatives won't go near it, because of its mediocrity
as well as its reputation for McCarthyite snooping. Its tatty bulletin
did indeed give Johnson's book a fairly enthusiastic review, but that
was all. In other words, it is as if Johnson, accused of not knowing
what day of the week it was, had claimed the support of the Monday Club
(or, for that matter, of Ruby Tuesday, Man Friday or the Man Who Was
Thursday).
It's popular to say, when people such as Johnson are found in a
trouser-free condition, and with or without bales of straw in their
hair, that their 'double standard' has been exposed. I'm dubious of
such conventional wisdom. Johnson's preachments would be no more
attractive, and certainly no more sound, if he made an earnest attempt
to follow them himself. I remember him writing vicious articles in the
once-great New Statesman, calling for martial law in Ulster, a firm hand
with African rebels in Rhodesia and the restoration of capital
punishment. Had he gone off in person to police the Six Counties, or to
make things more to his liking north of the Limpopo, or to act the
hangman's part, would that have made his opinions any less repugnant?
On the moral front, he employs the Church's teachings in the same way
that a hopeless drunkard uses a lamppost. Over the course of an 11-year
illicit liaison, he must often have gone to confession fully intending
to repeat the sin as soon as possible. To say that this makes him a
hypocrite is to say the least of it. What it mainly shows is that the
sexual code of the Palestinian Bronze Age, with its sinister fairy tales
about reward and punishment, is useless even to those who affect to
believe in it.
I have read that the Prime Minister regards this sad old mountebank in
the light of a personal advisor. Surely not? Mr Blair should know when
his acquaintance is being scraped by a rascally power-worshipper and
poseur. If he has not done so, he should send him a crisp fax, of which
the closing words should be:
I know thee not, old man. Fall to thy prayers
How ill white hairs become a fool and jester.
T H E_.R I S E_.A N D_.F A L L_.O F
_______Paul "Spanker" Johnson
THE RIGHT-WING HISTORIAN'S LONGTIME MISTRESS DEALS HIM THE UNKINDEST
WHACK OF ALL.
- - - - - - - - - -
BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
There is almost no English surname, however ancient and dignified, that
cannot be instantly improved by the prefix "Spanker." So deeply is the
habit and culture of corporal punishment imbricated with the national
psyche that whole shelves of specialist literature, to say nothing of
entire racks of newspapers and magazines, are regularly devoted to
the subject. A decade or so ago, I outed the barking Tory pamphleteer
Paul Johnson as an enthusiast or votary of this cult. For evidence,
I had no more to go upon than certain suggestive and repetitive elements
in his "work."
So it was decidedly invigorating to learn, in the dog days of mid-May,
that he had been exposed by his mistress of 11 years, the writer Gloria
Stewart, as a spankee:
"Paul loved to be spanked and it was a big part of our relationship. I
had to tell him he was a very naughty boy."
A pretty easy task (the second bit, I mean). Johnson has made
a career as an especially bilious and persecuting moralizer. His
disgraceful book "Intellectuals," a foul-minded assault on the
Enlightenment, laid a feverish stress on the private lives of
secular and rationalist intellectuals. Rousseau was not only "vain,
egotistical and quarrelsome," but he "enjoyed being spanked on his
bare bottom." Ibsen "would not expose his sexual organ even for the
purpose of medical examination. Was there something wrong with it --
or did he think there was?" I don't need to draw you a picture: With
sermonizers like this it's just a matter of setting one's watch.
Give it just a little time and -- presto! We open the tabloids to
see their withered haunches bared to the slipper, and the haggard
remnants of their Johnsons exposed to the cruel light of day.
(Oxford English Dictionary: Johnson. A common surname, used in
low slang to designate: a)The penis. b) A man who is kept by a
prostitute or prostitutes; a ponce.)
Stewart unmasked Spanker Johnson to the tabloids because she could
not bear to read another word of his "family values" tripe in the
press. As recently as March, interviewed by Jacob Weisberg for the
New York Times Magazine, he had claimed to be an advisor to the late
Princess Diana. "Don't commit adultery," he said, was his "chief
advice" to the divine one. When various Tory MPs were found in a
trouser-free condition not long ago, Johnson predicted the ruin of
the state and said that adultery, especially when committed by those
who opposed it in public, should be severely punished.
But here's the bizarre thing. Johnson is not just a cult figure
wherever two or three spankers are gathered together. He is an
adored object of the American Right. Norman Podhoretz loved
"Intellectuals." Nixon used to send out Johnson volumes for
Christmas. Oliver North was once overcome with admiration at
seeing William Casey read a whole Johnson on a plane flight. Dan
Quayle kept a copy of Johnson's awful "Modern Times" by him, and
employed it as a prop against those who accused him of being no
great reader. (When pressed for an exegesis of its content, he
announced contentedly that it was "a very good historical book
about history.") To be fair to Quayle, "Modern Times" is almost
technically unreadable. And so is Johnson's most recent extrusion,
"A History of the American People." Of this pseudo-scholarly
atrocity -- slavery a mere blip, the New Deal a monstrous tyranny,
Watergate a liberal conspiracy, Reagan the summa of statesmanship --
Newt Gingrich has stepped forward in the Weekly Standard to announce
it as "perhaps (sic) the most important history of the American
people in our generation." And Steve Forbes, in the Wall Street
Journal, terms it "a magnificent achievement." And neither of
them, I feel confident, agrees with Johnson's grand, risk-taking,
entrepreneurial claim that Thomas Edison invented the telephone.
Perhaps there is an element of anti-American self-hatred involved: a
surreptitious contempt for American freedom and democracy and a slavish
need for approval from a Brit Spanker? (On meeting James Baldwin,
Johnson once famously said: "I'm not unaware of prejudice. If you're
born like me, red-haired and left-handed and Catholic, you know exactly
what prejudice is." Baldwin's impassivity on that occasion did him
credit.) But perhaps, also, there is a bodice-ripping Right that hides
behind the mild visage of Steve Forbes. So, since Johnson's "novels"
are now remaindered beyond recall, I consider it my stern duty to give
you a flavor of his magnificent and sweeping style. Here's an extract
from "Merrie England," where the blurb promises "cabinet ministers
and ponces":
'Felix Appleby, dressed for the office, sat on the edge of Lady Titty
Ross's rumpled four-poster bed, his eyes anchored firmly on the ample
cleavage displayed by her negligee... "There, you don't see a pair like
that every day, do you darling?"'
And here's another, from "Left of Center":
'Henry found his gaze straying to her round and rosy bottom, which rose
and fell gently to the rhythm of her breathing. What to do? Henry
pondered
in the doorway. ... "There's nothing more calculated, old man, to excite
a
woman than a good hard slap on her behind. None of your playful taps,
mind. A real stinger. They come up foaming at the mouth."
'Dora's bottom invited him. Here was his chance, at one blow, to
reassume his masculine, paramount role in their relationship. Draining
his glass and setting it down decisively on the dressing table, he
advanced purposefully over Dora's sleeping form and brought his hand
down with tremendous force.'
It's both satisfying and unsatisfying that Spanker Johnson is now,
conclusively and forever, a figure of ridicule and contempt. He ought
also to be remembered for his bigotry and spite and bullying. (And
maybe for an accidental tincture of literary prescience: One light
smack and he "comes up foaming at the mouth.") But not all the
perfumes of Araby can sweeten that spanking hand; nay, not all the
genius of the Pfizer Corporation can make this Johnson rise again.
SALON | May 28, 1998
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
gdy52150
C. Duncan
>Does that mean that you require firms (or whatever you call them) to be
>set up on a particular model--all participants get one vote or something
>similar? How do you enforce that requirement without a state? What if my
>worker run firm wants to make a deal with some other workers, hiring them
>to do something but not giving the votes in the firm. Why do you object,
>and what business is it of yours?
>
>>Not computer voting on "big" issues ala Perot, but
>>community and work place involvement.
>
>Are you talking about the way you plan to persuade people to organize
>their firms (or equivalent), in which case I have no objection (although
>I'm not persuaded that I should organize my life that way), or the way you
>intend to require them to?
It would seem that like-minded people have the freedom now to start
enterprises based upon a co-op type model if they wish. What is
preventing them from establishing these in an economy such as that of
the US? Why would I need to be involved in someone else's enterprise?
>>You can have
>>power exercised collectively to prevent groups with more resources and
>>strength from using their non-governmental power to limit freedom.
>
>Except that institutions in a position to exercise power collectively are
>in a much better position to limit freedom than non-governmental actors
>with resources. Consider the difference between a government, small by
>modern standards, that imposes alcohol or drug prohibition, and a very
>rich and powerful firm--say Ford Motors--that decides consumers really
>ought to buy its new car.
Nothing can force anyone to have any dealings with Ford. I can't
be arrested for deciding to buy a Jeep, or deciding that I will walk
instead of drive. (Remember the automobile monopoly that the Soviet
government had? Would anyone in a free economy buy that kind of auto
and endure a waiting list besides?)
C. Duncan
Dave Callaghan
<se...@dontreplyhere.com> writes
>I don't believe the Democratic party is democractic just because of
>their name either. But Nazis were really socialists.
>
desire was to create a powerful, united, greater Germany, that would
expand eastward, creating lebensraum, destroying bolshevism in the
process, and of course dealing with the Jews.
He did not entertain any attitude to class, or the question of ownership
of the means of production, in the way that socialism addresses these
questions. To Hitler, there was no question of this at all, his
approach was, let them own banks, factories land etc. what does it
matter? as long as they are part of the German Reich.
The concept of class-warfare was anathema to him, it was nationally
divisive and therefore contravened his ideology of national unity. To
him the greatest 'evil' of Marxist socialism was that its conception of
class did not confine itself to the narrow confines of the nation state,
but was international in character. To Hitler it was a mongrel creed,
total anathema to his dream of the pure-blooded master race.
He privately admired the tenacity and idealism of the German communists,
even though he hated their ideology. He marveled at the idea of winning
them over to National Socialism, to channel their fierce idealism into
the cause of the fatherland.
He knew that without the support of a sizeable proportion of workers he
could never achieve his aim.
This was also recognised by the high ranking military and big business,
whose dream was to rebuild Germany as a military power after the defeat
of WW1.
In 1919, while still in the army, Hitler was given the task of
investigating political groups in Munich that had the possibility of
attracting workers. One of these was the DAP (German Workers Party)
whose program was an odd mixture of socialism, nationalism and anti-
semetism.
Hitler reported to Capt. Rohm, his C.O. that he wasn't impressed.
However, Rohm passed on the report to General Ludendorf, who met
regularly with a group of capitalists with whom he discussed the
importance of winning workers over to their ideas. Ludendorf eventually
gave orders that Hitler was to join the DAP and with the help of the
army, concentrate all his activities into building it into a party that
would attract workers. The DAP later became the NSDAP (the National
Socialist German Workers Party).
Thus the fledgling Nazi party was the brainchild of the German high-
ranking military and their capitalist masters, not socialists.
--
Dave Callaghan
gdy52150
<se...@dontreplyhere.com> wrote:
>Do a bit of research before you post. What do you mean by private? Like
>the way "private" businesses were commandeered for wartime production.
>Is that what you mean by private? Or like the way private banks were
>directed to support the Nazi party. (Think of it as an early form of the
>Madison Savings and Loan deal w/ Clinton.) That certainly is not private
>when your so called private business must produce according to govt
>dictates.
>
oh I have done a bit of research that is one reason you are stumbling
all over yourself. As for commandeering private business in war time
that is hardly the mark of a socialist. FDR did it, as did Churchill
and any other nation facing a war time crisis. To assert otherwise is
the mark of a fool.
>Lenin in the first decade or so allowed so called private businesses to
>operate to a certain extent. It was called New Economic Policy. Are you
>saying he wasn't a socialist because he initially allowed businesses to
>operate in a limited way before taking them over?
>
no, but if you read my post before you started frothing at the mouth
you would note the use of the word majority. Unlike you I realize
there has never been any pure socialist or pure capitalist society.
Both pure forms are inherently so fatally flawed that neither have
been tried in the pure form. Although I would not dispute the claim
for USSR just for the sake of an argument.
And by that standard alone Nazi Germany was then a capitalistic
society. Any time you want to start listing the government owned
businesses in nazi germany go right ahead. I can match everyone you
list with scads of privately owned businesses that would be a lot
larger than any you can list.
Derek Nalecki
>In article <365D827C...@dontreplyhere.com>, Insanity Set
><se...@dontreplyhere.com> writes
>>I don't believe the Democratic party is democractic just because of
>>their name either. But Nazis were really socialists.
>>
>Hitler was not a socialist, he was an ultra-nationalist. His overiding
>desire was to create a powerful, united, greater Germany, that would
>expand eastward, creating lebensraum, destroying bolshevism in the
>process, and of course dealing with the Jews.
>He did not entertain any attitude to class, or the question of ownership
>of the means of production, in the way that socialism addresses these
"...This is Socialism - not such trifles as the private possession of the
means of production. Of what importance is _that_ if I range men firmly
within a discipline they cannot escape?
Let them then "own" land or factories as much as they please. The decisive
factor is that the State, trough the party, is supreme over them, regardless
whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential.
Our Socialism goes far deeper"...
Hitler to Hermann Rauschning
>questions. To Hitler, there was no question of this at all, his
>approach was, let them own banks, factories land etc. what does it
>matter? as long as they are part of the German Reich.
>The concept of class-warfare was anathema to him, it was nationally
>divisive and therefore contravened his ideology of national unity. To
>him the greatest 'evil' of Marxist socialism was that its conception of
>class did not confine itself to the narrow confines of the nation state,
>but was international in character. To Hitler it was a mongrel creed,
>total anathema to his dream of the pure-blooded master race.
>He privately admired the tenacity and idealism of the German communists,
>even though he hated their ideology. He marveled at the idea of winning
>them over to National Socialism, to channel their fierce idealism into
>the cause of the fatherland.
That's because he shared a common goal with the Marxists, while he despised
their subservience to a foreign power - Soviet Union. His fight with the
communist was a turf-fight between gangsters for the spoils of a socialist
system, not any serious ideological disagreement.
"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit.
The [only] difference between them and myself is that I have put into practice
what these peddlers and pen-pushers [ie: _too_ deferent to capitalism, dn.]
have timidly begun.
I had ***only to develop logically*** [emphasis, dn.] what Social Democracy
repeatedly failed in, because of its attempts to realize the revolution within
the framework of democracy.
National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken
its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order."
Hitler to Hermann Rauschning
>He knew that without the support of a sizeable proportion of workers he
>could never achieve his aim.
>This was also recognised by the high ranking military and big business,
>whose dream was to rebuild Germany as a military power after the defeat
>of WW1.
>In 1919, while still in the army, Hitler was given the task of
>investigating political groups in Munich that had the possibility of
>attracting workers. One of these was the DAP (German Workers Party)
>whose program was an odd mixture of socialism, nationalism and anti-
>semetism.
Actually the DAP was a gripe club of left-leaning workers without
comprehensive socialist program before Hitler became its leader. It was Hitler
who gave it coherent program based on a marriage of socialism and
nationalism-etatism.
>Hitler reported to Capt. Rohm, his C.O. that he wasn't impressed.
>However, Rohm passed on the report to General Ludendorf, who met
>regularly with a group of capitalists with whom he discussed the
>importance of winning workers over to their ideas. Ludendorf eventually
>gave orders that Hitler was to join the DAP and with the help of the
>army, concentrate all his activities into building it into a party that
>would attract workers. The DAP later became the NSDAP (the National
>Socialist German Workers Party).
The DAP did not "later become" NSDAP; Hitler change the name along with the
program to reflect his socialist beliefs.
>Thus the fledgling Nazi party was the brainchild of the German high-
>ranking military and their capitalist masters, not socialists.
>
" Though Hitler sometimes used the words nationalism and
socialism as though they were interchangeable, the radical and
socialist element in his program always remained strong.
He was never in any sense bourgeois or conservative politician
or an exponent or defender of capitalism. Nor was the Nazi
party predominantly lower-middle class. Modern historians
have hotly debated [those like Shirer either lied or are simply
uninformed, dn] the extend of its working class appeal. The
truth seems to be that the active Nazis were drawn from the
discontented [ne'er-do-wells which today support Democrats
and Buchanan in US and NDP and Liberals in Canada, dn]
from all classes except the peasants and farmers."
Paul Johnson
"Modern Times - A History of the world from the 1920s to the 1990s"
The Nazi party was both in its program and majority support a party of workers
and lower-middle class - the aparatchicks of the lower rungs of the civil
service.
Social Class of Nazi Party joiners, 1925-1932 [before it was prudent and/or
desirable to join to gain advancement in the state apparatus, dn]
from: "The Logic of Evil - The Social Origins of the Nazi Party, 1925-1933",
by William Brustein
Workers - 40% (31% of the general population)
New Middle Class - 21% (11% of the general pop.)
Old Middle Class - 32% (24% of the general pop.)
No occupation - 7% (34% of general population)
The Nazi party thus appealed mostly to workers and "old middle class", which
was composed of civil servants, small shopkeepers, etc. The "capitalists"
which are listed here as "no occupation" = from industrialist to free agent
professionals were the group least attracted to NSDAP precisely because of its
socialist program. That does not mean no "capitalist" joined, but overall they
formed a small part of it, and many later regretted it, like Fritz von
Thiessen, who eventually escaped the Third Reich with little more than clothes
on his back, proclaiming "oh, what a dumpkopf I was".
Derek Nalecki
>On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 14:57:11 -0600, Insanity Set
><se...@dontreplyhere.com> wrote:
>
>>So your theory is that a country is named the opposite of what it is?
>>Tell me what a socialist republic is then. Looks like the USSR covered
>>both sides of that question.
>>
>>It just so happens that the Nazis correctly identified themselves as
>>socialists.
>>
>
>oh is that why all the businesses were private?
>Is that why no socialistic program was ever adopted under the Nazis?
"...This is Socialism - not such trifles as the private possession of the
means of production. Of what importance is _that_ if I range men firmly
within a discipline they cannot escape?
Let them then "own" land or factories as much as they please. The decisive
factor is that the State, trough the party, is supreme over them, regardless
whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential.
Our Socialism goes far deeper"...
Adolf Hitler.
>
>>Rick Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:35:12 -0500, lordka...@sgi.net (LK) wrote:
>>>
>>> >Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialist. Socialists are most
>>> >definately on the LEFT.
>>>
>>> China is called the People's Republic of China. Most Communist
>>> countries had "Democratic" in their names. Did you believe those,
>>> too? I don't recall many Communist countries holding democratic
>>> elections.
>>
>>--
>>alt.conspiracy- the truth is THERE.
>
>====================================================
>For those seeking Enlightenment
>http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
>GDY Weasel
>
>======================================================
Derek Nalecki
>Do a bit of research before you post. What do you mean by private? Like
>the way "private" businesses were commandeered for wartime production.
>Is that what you mean by private? Or like the way private banks were
>directed to support the Nazi party. (Think of it as an early form of the
>Madison Savings and Loan deal w/ Clinton.) That certainly is not private
>when your so called private business must produce according to govt
>dictates.
Correct. Consider the following:
"The sensitivity with which the economy reacts to each influence from outside
or to changes requires extreme caution. Changes must be slow and well thought
out. That explains why, for example, the German Reichsbank remained anchored
in old financial thinking until its reorganization. The result were that the
activities of the capital market frequently moved against the needs of the
community without the necessary planning and goals. That sometimes resulted in
expenditures that sometimes were that did not help savings or planning. That
led, among other things, to surpluses in the so-called Locklöhne, which
necessarily led to
disruptions in the economy. Party comrade Lohne stated that the Reichsbank may
not carry out its own financial policies, rather must serve the common good.
No one but the Führer determines the main political policies, which finance
and the economy as a whole must follow. The new Minister of Economics and
President of the Reichs Bank, Party Comrade Funk, will do that. With his
appointment, the German central bank, the Reichs Bank, has become an
instrument serving National Socialist policies."
"[I] emphasize that the state has no intention of establishing a monopoly in
the production and use of the new materials. This process is entirely the
responsibility of private enterprise. This does not mean that the National
Socialist state favors the independence of the economy. If such is attempted
or if the economy is unwilling to do what needs to be done, it is ready to
react energetically, as the example of the Hermann Göring Works demonstrates.
Such a policy is entirely consistent with the National Socialist outlook,
which believes that politics governs the economy, that politics, not
economics, determines the fate of the nation.
Ministerialdirektor Lange from the Ministry of Economics speaking on:
National Socialist Taxation and Financial Policy
The Source: "1. Lehrgang der Gau- und Kreispropagandaleiter der NSDAP.,
" Unser Wille und Weg, 9 (1939), pp. 124-139.
>
>Lenin in the first decade or so allowed so called private businesses to
>operate to a certain extent. It was called New Economic Policy. Are you
>saying he wasn't a socialist because he initially allowed businesses to
>operate in a limited way before taking them over?
Like Nazi, his was a policy of temporary expediency. The Nazis made no secret
of the fact that they eventually meant to bring the entire economy within the
rigid confines of the Four-Year Plan of Ministry of Economics.
>
>
>gdy52150 wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 14:57:11 -0600, Insanity Set
>> <se...@dontreplyhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >So your theory is that a country is named the opposite of what it is?
>> >Tell me what a socialist republic is then. Looks like the USSR covered
>> >both sides of that question.
>> >
>> >It just so happens that the Nazis correctly identified themselves as
>> >socialists.
>> >
>>
>> oh is that why all the businesses were private?
>> Is that why no socialistic program was ever adopted under the Nazis?
>>
Scott Erb
says...
>Our Socialism goes far deeper"...
>Adolf Hitler.
Yes, and Adolf also claimed that racism was scientific. He would say any
lie to sell his policy to the people, but as has been demonstrated quite
convincingly by a number of people who can cite sources other than Adolf
Hitler, Nazi ideology was distinctly fascist: nationalist,
anti-rationalist, anti-internationalist, anti-intellectual, and he built
his movement around cooperation with numerous right wing groups. He was
supported by Britain for awhile (or at least not opposed) because they saw
fascism as a bulwark against bolshevism.
I have posted and reposted specific quotes by scholars on this issue,
which you apparently don't want to deal with. I won't do that again, yet,
since I've done that three times in the last week. But the result is
clear: Fascism is an inherently different ideology than socialism, and the
evidence is clear that Hitler tried to call the movement socialist to get
support from the working class. You are wrong, and I think you know you
are wrong. That makes you a liar.
gdy52150
looks like the banking system was private. I wouldn't excatly say that
is any different than the Fed is in this country, and I certainly
don't consider that socialistic. And I sure as hell would whip the
first person that would advocate doing away with the fed and go back
to the old system that existed before the fed.
But if you insist lets see how about krupp steel? IG Faben? How
about the several cabals of steel and coal producers from the Ruhr?
How about Siemens?
jcarrick
>>>Insisting on casting everything as left-right and
>>>never-any-part-of-the-twain shall-meet strikes me as rather limiting.
Many of us differentiate between right-wing *social* extremists, and
right-wing *fiscal* extremists.
The first group doesn't give a damn about the unfortunate in their
communities. The second consists of people who want to shrink
government and regulation for the sole purpose of easing their tax
burden.
Both are despicable and both are on the right.
>>Agree. There are many valid ways of grouping or describing
>>political groups.
No, that is simply a cop-out used by right-wingers attempting to deny
the consequences that will come to the poor, from the implementation
of their agenda.
>>Yet the standardized R-L continuum is a useful tool, and squawking
>> "The Nazis were Leftists" is absurd.
Of course it is, but that doesn't stop right-wing ignoramuses from
doing so.
>Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialist. Socialists are most
>definately (sic) on the LEFT.
You haven't the slightest notion what you are talking about. *Of
course* Hitler called his tight-wing party the German National
Socialist Workers' Party", but that had *nothing* to do with
"socialism" either then or now! German Communists were the blood
enemies of the Nazis, and were rounded up and either imprisoned in
concentration camps along with Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals, or
simply murdered.
Those of is who *loved* through this period find it monstrously
stupid that anyone would consider Hitler to be a socialist.
Tell me, do you believe that the "People's Republic of China"
represents the Chinese people? By your logic, the answer must be
"Yes!", since you accept that whatever a political party chooses to
call itself must be accurate.
And in that case, perhaps you'd care to explain what a "Progressive
Conservative" might be.
>If they'd been called Nafis then maybe you'd be right.
No, but if you took the time to read anything at all about Hitler's
party, you would certainly find yourself back here apologizing to us.
James Goneaux
wrote:
>Those of is who *loved* through this period find it monstrously
>stupid that anyone would consider Hitler to be a socialist.
Hehehehehe.
jcarrick
>You haven't the slightest notion what you are talking about. *Of
Come on! Proof read!
>Those of is who *loved* through this period...
"Live and love and laugh and play, and save your money for a rainy day
in my home town." That was a 60's song, wasn't it?
jcarrick
>>Those of is who *loved* through this period find it monstrously
>>stupid that anyone would consider Hitler to be a socialist.
>Hehehehehe.
Well, we did have a cat named "Ginger" during the 30's that the whole
family had great affection for.
(Did you miss my other typo in that post..."tight-wing party"?)
Spell-checkers do have their limitations.
Insanity Set
Marxist and who is a capitalist roader. It's an eternal argument which
kills many trees and gives the humanities the bad rep it has today.
Among anyone NOT devoted to hair splitting, Hitler and the reds were two
bands of socialist thugs fighting it out for supremacy. That Hitler was
against some other socialists doesn't make him a capitalist.
Dave Callaghan wrote:
>
> In article <365e4...@news.cadvision.com>, Derek Nalecki
> <nale...@rescorporate.com> writes
> >In article <8RrCEGAf...@rootandbranch.demon.co.uk>, Dave Callaghan
> ><da...@rootandbranch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>In article <365D827C...@dontreplyhere.com>, Insanity Set
> >><se...@dontreplyhere.com> writes
> >>>I don't believe the Democratic party is democractic just because of
> >>>their name either. But Nazis were really socialists.
> >>>
> >>Hitler was not a socialist, he was an ultra-nationalist. His overiding
> >>desire was to create a powerful, united, greater Germany, that would
> >>expand eastward, creating lebensraum, destroying bolshevism in the
> >>process, and of course dealing with the Jews.
> >>He did not entertain any attitude to class, or the question of ownership
> >>of the means of production, in the way that socialism addresses these
> >
> >"...This is Socialism - not such trifles as the private possession of the
> >means of production. Of what importance is _that_ if I range men firmly
> >within a discipline they cannot escape?
>
> Pure Rhetoric.
>
> >Let them then "own" land or factories as much as they please. The decisive
> >factor is that the State, trough the party, is supreme over them, regardless
> >whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential.
> >Our Socialism goes far deeper"...
> >
> >Hitler to Hermann Rauschning
>
> Ah, Rauschning! A tame Nazi serving US ideological aims.
>
> >
> >>questions. To Hitler, there was no question of this at all, his
> >>approach was, let them own banks, factories land etc. what does it
> >>matter? as long as they are part of the German Reich.
> >>The concept of class-warfare was anathema to him, it was nationally
> >>divisive and therefore contravened his ideology of national unity. To
> >>him the greatest 'evil' of Marxist socialism was that its conception of
> >>class did not confine itself to the narrow confines of the nation state,
> >>but was international in character. To Hitler it was a mongrel creed,
> >>total anathema to his dream of the pure-blooded master race.
> >>He privately admired the tenacity and idealism of the German communists,
> >>even though he hated their ideology. He marveled at the idea of winning
> >>them over to National Socialism, to channel their fierce idealism into
> >>the cause of the fatherland.
> >
> >That's because he shared a common goal with the Marxists, while he despised
> >their subservience to a foreign power - Soviet Union. His fight with the
> >communist was a turf-fight between gangsters for the spoils of a socialist
> >system, not any serious ideological disagreement.
>
> On the contrary, he was ideologically opposed to Marxism, which he
> regarded as a Jewish conspiracy against Germany. What common goal did he
> share with this avowed enemy?
>
> >"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit.
>
> Yes he read some Marxist literature when he was living in a tramps
> hostel in Vienna, and rejected it.
>
> >The [only] difference between them and myself is that I have put into practice
> >what these peddlers and pen-pushers [ie: _too_ deferent to capitalism, dn.]
> >have timidly begun.
>
> Marx? deferrent? When he advocated the overthrow of capitalism?
>
> I think you will find if you look again that here he was referring to
> the Social Democrats, not Marxists
>
> >I had ***only to develop logically*** [emphasis, dn.] what Social Democracy
> >repeatedly failed in, because of its attempts to realize the revolution within
> >the framework of democracy.
>
> In fact, Social Democracy, in the shape the SPD, shared Hitler's
> abhorrence of (Marxist) Red revolution, as they amply demonstrated in
> 1918 when they used an illegal right-wing militia, the Freikorps, to
> crush the Spartacist uprising.
>
> >National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken
> >its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order."
>
> Here he was obviously confusing Marxism with Social Democracy when they
> where, and are, as different as chalk and cheese. Some Marxist!
> >
> >Hitler to Hermann Rauschning
> >
> >
> >>He knew that without the support of a sizeable proportion of workers he
> >>could never achieve his aim.
> >>This was also recognised by the high ranking military and big business,
> >>whose dream was to rebuild Germany as a military power after the defeat
> >>of WW1.
> >>In 1919, while still in the army, Hitler was given the task of
> >>investigating political groups in Munich that had the possibility of
> >>attracting workers. One of these was the DAP (German Workers Party)
> >>whose program was an odd mixture of socialism, nationalism and anti-
> >>semetism.
> >
> >Actually the DAP was a gripe club of left-leaning workers without
> >comprehensive socialist program before Hitler became its leader. It was Hitler
> >who gave it coherent program based on a marriage of socialism and
> >nationalism-etatism.
>
> That goes with what I said.
> >
> >>Hitler reported to Capt. Rohm, his C.O. that he wasn't impressed.
> >>However, Rohm passed on the report to General Ludendorf, who met
> >>regularly with a group of capitalists with whom he discussed the
> >>importance of winning workers over to their ideas. Ludendorf eventually
> >>gave orders that Hitler was to join the DAP and with the help of the
> >>army, concentrate all his activities into building it into a party that
> >>would attract workers. The DAP later became the NSDAP (the National
> >>Socialist German Workers Party).
> >
> >The DAP did not "later become" NSDAP; Hitler change the name along with the
> >program to reflect his socialist beliefs.
>
> Trivial point.
>
> Hitler had no socialist beliefs. He was a bohemian nationalist and
> anit-semitic. The DAP members resented his influence and ambitions,
> however the party's founder, Anton Drexler, felt Hitler had potential
> for winning a large following. They worked together on the 25 points of
> the party program, the socialist part of which was a concession to
> Drexler. Hitler later realised its inclusion was correct because it
> attracted workers.
> >
> >>Thus the fledgling Nazi party was the brainchild of the German high-
> >>ranking military and their capitalist masters, not socialists.
> >>
> >
> >" Though Hitler sometimes used the words nationalism and
> >socialism as though they were interchangeable, the radical and
> >socialist element in his program always remained strong.
> >He was never in any sense bourgeois or conservative politician
> >or an exponent or defender of capitalism. Nor was the Nazi
> >party predominantly lower-middle class. Modern historians
> >have hotly debated [those like Shirer either lied or are simply
> >uninformed, dn] the extend of its working class appeal. The
> >truth seems to be that the active Nazis were drawn from the
> >discontented [ne'er-do-wells which today support Democrats
> >and Buchanan in US and NDP and Liberals in Canada, dn]
> >from all classes except the peasants and farmers."
> >
> >Paul Johnson
> >"Modern Times - A History of the world from the 1920s to the 1990s"
>
> See Dan Clore post "Spanking Paul Johnson" in this thread.
>
> However, the largest concentration of workers in the Nazi party before
> Hitler took power was around 36%
> >
> >The Nazi party was both in its program and majority support a party of workers
> >and lower-middle class - the aparatchicks of the lower rungs of the civil
> >service.
> >
> >Social Class of Nazi Party joiners, 1925-1932 [before it was prudent and/or
> >desirable to join to gain advancement in the state apparatus, dn]
> >from: "The Logic of Evil - The Social Origins of the Nazi Party, 1925-1933",
> >by William Brustein
> >
> >Workers - 40% (31% of the general population)
> >New Middle Class - 21% (11% of the general pop.)
> >Old Middle Class - 32% (24% of the general pop.)
> >No occupation - 7% (34% of general population)
> >
> >The Nazi party thus appealed mostly to workers and "old middle class", which
> >was composed of civil servants, small shopkeepers, etc.
>
> "By the end of that summer (1929) Hitler had succeeded in setting up a
> functionary corps in line with an appeal to the German middle class by
> admitting university graduates and other representatives of the
> bourgeoisie into the party bureaucracy. While allowing Goebbels and
> Strasser to win over the workers, he (Hitler) directed his opening
> campaign primarily to militant veterans and capitalistic businessmen,
> for he realised that he would never get into power without them. He
> dramatised his new thrust by publicly joining with the Stahlhelm,... and
> Alfred Hugenberg, the nation's leading film and press lord and head of
> the volkisch right-wing German National People's Party...
> In the meantime he and the party were enjoying the financial benefits of
> their 'mariage de convenance' with industry. Hitler bought the Barlow
> Palace, a three storey building on the Briennerstrasse, as national
> party HQ; then early that September moved from his monastic room to one
> of the most fashionable sections of Munich acroos the Isar, where he
> took a nine-room apartment covering the entire second floor of 16
> Prinzregentplatz."
> 'Adolf Hitler' by John Toland p320
>
> >The "capitalists"
> >which are listed here as "no occupation" = from industrialist to free agent
> >professionals were the group least attracted to NSDAP precisely because of its
> >socialist program.
>
> Businesses were put off by the Socialist rhetoric, there was no
> 'socialist program' as such. Once Hitler had got rid of the 'left' by
> purging Rohm and the SA, at the behest of big business, and later the
> Strassers, the bourgeois money began to flow in.
>
> > That does not mean no "capitalist" joined, but overall they
> >formed a small part of it, and many later regretted it, like Fritz von
> >Thiessen, who eventually escaped the Third Reich with little more than clothes
> >on his back, proclaiming "oh, what a dumpkopf I was".
>
> One sorry capitalist.
> >
> >
> >
> >derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
> >
> >"To be truly selfish one needs a degree of self-esteem. The self-despisers are
> >less intent on their own increase than on the diminution of others.
> >Where self-esteem is unattainable, envy takes the place of greed."
> >(Eric Hoffer)
> >********** THE ONLY GOOD ENVIRONMENT IS A MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT ***********
>
> --
> Dave Callaghan
Dave Callaghan
><da...@rootandbranch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <365D827C...@dontreplyhere.com>, Insanity Set
>><se...@dontreplyhere.com> writes
>>>I don't believe the Democratic party is democractic just because of
>>>their name either. But Nazis were really socialists.
>>>
>>Hitler was not a socialist, he was an ultra-nationalist. His overiding
>>desire was to create a powerful, united, greater Germany, that would
>>expand eastward, creating lebensraum, destroying bolshevism in the
>>process, and of course dealing with the Jews.
>>He did not entertain any attitude to class, or the question of ownership
>>of the means of production, in the way that socialism addresses these
>
>"...This is Socialism - not such trifles as the private possession of the
>means of production. Of what importance is _that_ if I range men firmly
>within a discipline they cannot escape?
Pure Rhetoric.
>Let them then "own" land or factories as much as they please. The decisive
>factor is that the State, trough the party, is supreme over them, regardless
>whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential.
>Our Socialism goes far deeper"...
>
>Hitler to Hermann Rauschning
Ah, Rauschning! A tame Nazi serving US ideological aims.
>
>>questions. To Hitler, there was no question of this at all, his
>>approach was, let them own banks, factories land etc. what does it
>>matter? as long as they are part of the German Reich.
>>The concept of class-warfare was anathema to him, it was nationally
>>divisive and therefore contravened his ideology of national unity. To
>>him the greatest 'evil' of Marxist socialism was that its conception of
>>class did not confine itself to the narrow confines of the nation state,
>>but was international in character. To Hitler it was a mongrel creed,
>>total anathema to his dream of the pure-blooded master race.
>>He privately admired the tenacity and idealism of the German communists,
>>even though he hated their ideology. He marveled at the idea of winning
>>them over to National Socialism, to channel their fierce idealism into
>>the cause of the fatherland.
>
>That's because he shared a common goal with the Marxists, while he despised
>their subservience to a foreign power - Soviet Union. His fight with the
>communist was a turf-fight between gangsters for the spoils of a socialist
>system, not any serious ideological disagreement.
On the contrary, he was ideologically opposed to Marxism, which he
regarded as a Jewish conspiracy against Germany. What common goal did he
share with this avowed enemy?
>"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit.
Yes he read some Marxist literature when he was living in a tramps
hostel in Vienna, and rejected it.
>The [only] difference between them and myself is that I have put into practice
>what these peddlers and pen-pushers [ie: _too_ deferent to capitalism, dn.]
>have timidly begun.
Marx? deferrent? When he advocated the overthrow of capitalism?
I think you will find if you look again that here he was referring to
the Social Democrats, not Marxists
>I had ***only to develop logically*** [emphasis, dn.] what Social Democracy
>repeatedly failed in, because of its attempts to realize the revolution within
>the framework of democracy.
In fact, Social Democracy, in the shape the SPD, shared Hitler's
abhorrence of (Marxist) Red revolution, as they amply demonstrated in
1918 when they used an illegal right-wing militia, the Freikorps, to
crush the Spartacist uprising.
>National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken
>its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order."
Here he was obviously confusing Marxism with Social Democracy when they
where, and are, as different as chalk and cheese. Some Marxist!
>
>Hitler to Hermann Rauschning
>
>
>>He knew that without the support of a sizeable proportion of workers he
>>could never achieve his aim.
>>This was also recognised by the high ranking military and big business,
>>whose dream was to rebuild Germany as a military power after the defeat
>>of WW1.
>>In 1919, while still in the army, Hitler was given the task of
>>investigating political groups in Munich that had the possibility of
>>attracting workers. One of these was the DAP (German Workers Party)
>>whose program was an odd mixture of socialism, nationalism and anti-
>>semetism.
>
>Actually the DAP was a gripe club of left-leaning workers without
>comprehensive socialist program before Hitler became its leader. It was Hitler
>who gave it coherent program based on a marriage of socialism and
>nationalism-etatism.
That goes with what I said.
>
>>Hitler reported to Capt. Rohm, his C.O. that he wasn't impressed.
>>However, Rohm passed on the report to General Ludendorf, who met
>>regularly with a group of capitalists with whom he discussed the
>>importance of winning workers over to their ideas. Ludendorf eventually
>>gave orders that Hitler was to join the DAP and with the help of the
>>army, concentrate all his activities into building it into a party that
>>would attract workers. The DAP later became the NSDAP (the National
>>Socialist German Workers Party).
>
>The DAP did not "later become" NSDAP; Hitler change the name along with the
>program to reflect his socialist beliefs.
Trivial point.
Hitler had no socialist beliefs. He was a bohemian nationalist and
anit-semitic. The DAP members resented his influence and ambitions,
however the party's founder, Anton Drexler, felt Hitler had potential
for winning a large following. They worked together on the 25 points of
the party program, the socialist part of which was a concession to
Drexler. Hitler later realised its inclusion was correct because it
attracted workers.
>
>>Thus the fledgling Nazi party was the brainchild of the German high-
>>ranking military and their capitalist masters, not socialists.
>>
>
>" Though Hitler sometimes used the words nationalism and
>socialism as though they were interchangeable, the radical and
>socialist element in his program always remained strong.
>He was never in any sense bourgeois or conservative politician
>or an exponent or defender of capitalism. Nor was the Nazi
>party predominantly lower-middle class. Modern historians
>have hotly debated [those like Shirer either lied or are simply
>uninformed, dn] the extend of its working class appeal. The
>truth seems to be that the active Nazis were drawn from the
>discontented [ne'er-do-wells which today support Democrats
>and Buchanan in US and NDP and Liberals in Canada, dn]
>from all classes except the peasants and farmers."
>
>Paul Johnson
>"Modern Times - A History of the world from the 1920s to the 1990s"
See Dan Clore post "Spanking Paul Johnson" in this thread.
However, the largest concentration of workers in the Nazi party before
Hitler took power was around 36%
>
>The Nazi party was both in its program and majority support a party of workers
>and lower-middle class - the aparatchicks of the lower rungs of the civil
>service.
>
>Social Class of Nazi Party joiners, 1925-1932 [before it was prudent and/or
>desirable to join to gain advancement in the state apparatus, dn]
>from: "The Logic of Evil - The Social Origins of the Nazi Party, 1925-1933",
>by William Brustein
>
>Workers - 40% (31% of the general population)
>New Middle Class - 21% (11% of the general pop.)
>Old Middle Class - 32% (24% of the general pop.)
>No occupation - 7% (34% of general population)
>
>The Nazi party thus appealed mostly to workers and "old middle class", which
>was composed of civil servants, small shopkeepers, etc.
"By the end of that summer (1929) Hitler had succeeded in setting up a
functionary corps in line with an appeal to the German middle class by
admitting university graduates and other representatives of the
bourgeoisie into the party bureaucracy. While allowing Goebbels and
Strasser to win over the workers, he (Hitler) directed his opening
campaign primarily to militant veterans and capitalistic businessmen,
for he realised that he would never get into power without them. He
dramatised his new thrust by publicly joining with the Stahlhelm,... and
Alfred Hugenberg, the nation's leading film and press lord and head of
the volkisch right-wing German National People's Party...
In the meantime he and the party were enjoying the financial benefits of
their 'mariage de convenance' with industry. Hitler bought the Barlow
Palace, a three storey building on the Briennerstrasse, as national
party HQ; then early that September moved from his monastic room to one
of the most fashionable sections of Munich acroos the Isar, where he
took a nine-room apartment covering the entire second floor of 16
Prinzregentplatz."
'Adolf Hitler' by John Toland p320
>The "capitalists"
>which are listed here as "no occupation" = from industrialist to free agent
>professionals were the group least attracted to NSDAP precisely because of its
>socialist program.
Businesses were put off by the Socialist rhetoric, there was no
'socialist program' as such. Once Hitler had got rid of the 'left' by
purging Rohm and the SA, at the behest of big business, and later the
Strassers, the bourgeois money began to flow in.
> That does not mean no "capitalist" joined, but overall they
>formed a small part of it, and many later regretted it, like Fritz von
>Thiessen, who eventually escaped the Third Reich with little more than clothes
>on his back, proclaiming "oh, what a dumpkopf I was".
One sorry capitalist.
>
>
>
>derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
>
>"To be truly selfish one needs a degree of self-esteem. The self-despisers are
>less intent on their own increase than on the diminution of others.
>Where self-esteem is unattainable, envy takes the place of greed."
>(Eric Hoffer)
>********** THE ONLY GOOD ENVIRONMENT IS A MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT ***********
--
Dave Callaghan
bubbasm...@hotmail.com
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
> no country has been able to delink politics and the economy.
But some do a better job than others. At one extreme you have socialist and
fascist countries and on the other extreme you have America. Unfortunately,
America suffers some political influence over the economy, which is why it is
regarded as a mixed economy. But it still serves as a powerful example of what
is possible when politicians are kept in their place.
> But where
> are those state owned businesses under the Nazis?
Your simple-minded obsession with state ownership of industry belies your weak
argument.
1) Nazis controlled and directed businesses without formal ownership but
rather through various other means as has been repeatedly demonstrated in
these threads.
2) Many societies and policies that are generally accepted as socialist do not
involve direct ownership but rather indirect control in the fascist style.
If you define socialism narrowly as state ownership of industry then you'll
end up with only hard-core communist countries. If you define it more loosely
to include less extreme examples, you'll admit Nazi Germany into the fold.
Which way do you prefer it?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
gdy52150
wrote:
>Again we have an spat between leftists trying to prove who is really
>Marxist and who is a capitalist roader. It's an eternal argument which
>kills many trees and gives the humanities the bad rep it has today.
>
>Among anyone NOT devoted to hair splitting, Hitler and the reds were two
>bands of socialist thugs fighting it out for supremacy. That Hitler was
>against some other socialists doesn't make him a capitalist.
Ok so start naming th companies that the state owned under the Nazis?
its going to be very short list folks.
====================================================
Phil Ronzone
>>The problem is that some people define the left only via
>>Marxian style socialism, and create the false and misleading
>>claim that leftism = centralization of power to a strong
>>government. There are leftists (like myself) who are very
>>opposed to centralized, strong government, and believe that
>>the main goal of the Left must be to expand individual
>>freedoms in a way that opposes power centralized in either
>>governmental or non-governmental actors.
>>
>And in order to make that position convincing, you have to
>explain more clearly what you want, and how it differs from
>state socialism on the one hand, and individualist free
>market libertarianism on the other.
More to the point - WHAT is socialism????
A lot of adjectives get attached to socialism, but when freedom
and socialism are mentioned together - it sounds like nonsense.
The basis of socialism IS the initiation of coercion - the theft,
the cannibalism of others to support non-producers.
Now when the local yokels protest that THAT is not socialism,
they never ever answer:
"OK then, just WHAT is socialism if not that?".
Your turn.
--
"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Phil Ronzone
>>It just so happens that the Nazis correctly identified
>>themselves as socialists.
>>
>>
>oh is that why all the businesses were private? Is that why
>no socialistic program was ever adopted under the Nazis?
And again, for the 2,564,219'th time, "gdy" is dead wrong!
Hell, Hitler even nationalized the tourism industry! Wages, prices,
even being able to change jobs was State controlled! Factories
could not fire/layoff workers, workers couldn't change jobs, without
State permission.
Health facilities nationalized, all farms nationalized, even the private
hunting parks were nationalized.
Phil Ronzone
>Hitler was not a socialist, he was an ultra-nationalist. His
>overiding desire was to create a powerful, united, greater
>Germany, that would expand eastward, creating lebensraum,
>destroying bolshevism in the process, and of course dealing
>with the Jews. He did not entertain any attitude to class, or
>the question of ownership of the means of production, in the
>there was no question of this at all, his approach was, let
>them own banks, factories land etc. what does it matter? as
>long as they are part of the German Reich. The concept of
Like most of Mr. Callaghn "posts", dead-wrong again.
Just ONE example - business could NOT hire/fire/layoff anyone
without prior State permission.
No worker could quit or be hired without prior State permission. (He
was given a work booklet he had to carry at all times. It also controlled
his travel.)
Another one - Hitler nationalized the entire tourism industry! All tourism
had to be done via the State. In the same way that NAZI Germany developed
the first usable jet aircraft, the national german tourism industry
developed the first "cruise ships". For the accounts, the average
worker could get quite nice packages for vacations.
Even the private game parks were nationalized.
Phil Ronzone
>In article <365E1421...@dontreplyhere.com>,
>se...@dontreplyhere.com says...
>
>>
>been meet with considerable evidence. You ignore it and
>continue to assert what has been rendered laughable. That
>shows you to be the one needing to engage in research. Get a
>life.
Factual evidence has been posted, repeatedly, on everything from
the total theft of Krupp indusrial plant by the State to the
nationalization of the tourist industry to the complete State
control of the ability of business to hire/fire to the
workers lack of abilityb to even change jobs without State permission.
You need to try and find some facts to support your fantasy position.
Phil Ronzone
>On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 20:53:21 -0600, Insanity Set
><se...@dontreplyhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Do a bit of research before you post. What do you mean by
>>private? Like the way "private" businesses were commandeered
>>for wartime production. Is that what you mean by private? Or
>>like the way private banks were directed to support the Nazi
>>party. (Think of it as an early form of the Madison Savings
>>and Loan deal w/ Clinton.) That certainly is not private when
>>your so called private business must produce according to
>>govt dictates.
>>
>>
>stumbling all over yourself. As for commandeering private
>business in war time that is hardly the mark of a socialist.
>FDR did it, as did Churchill and any other nation facing a
>war time crisis. To assert otherwise is the mark of a fool.
Snicker. You've "done research", but you've posted NO facts or sources?
I see.
In any case, NO, FDR did NOT nationalize or commandeer any private
businesses.
Nor did Churchhill. For example, the plants producing the Merlin engines
(for the Spitfire) were privately owned and operated throughout the war.
When some of the engines plants were bombed, the companies were allowed
to increase their costs to the State to fund the rebuild efforts, BUT,
there was never any direct aid to the companies.
Indeed, Chruchill wanted the Merlin engine plants moved into the
interior, farther away from the coast and German bombers, but that never
happened as the companies couldn't afford it.
You have zero facts - so PLEASE stop making up wild ass assertions.
See the English booms "The Spitfire" and "Spitfire!".
Snicker.
Phil Ronzone
Phil Ronzone
>Nazis made no secret of the fact that they eventually meant
>to bring the entire economy within the rigid confines of the
>Four-Year Plan of Ministry of Economics.
Correct. If WWII had not happened, germany would have been a State far more
socialized than even the USSR by 1950.
For example, from 1935 through 1939, the percentage of the GDP that
was wages-to-workers TRIPLED! State fiat. It changed for the negative
after the start of WWII, but Hitler was already looting German
businesses.
Of course, workers already had to stay at their jobs like serfs, They
couldn't quite (or be hired) without State permission.
Phil Ronzone
>In article <365e4...@news.cadvision.com>,
>nale...@rescorporate.com says...
>>Our Socialism goes far deeper"... Adolf Hitler.
>>
>Yes, and Adolf also claimed that racism was scientific. He
Yes, he did. And he said also he would exterminate the Jews. And he almost did.
>would say any lie to sell his policy to the people, but as
He wasn't telling a lie. Hitler believed in socialism.
>has been demonstrated quite convincingly by a number of
>people who can cite sources other than Adolf Hitler, Nazi
>ideology was distinctly fascist: nationalist,
>anti-rationalist, anti-internationalist, anti-intellectual,
>and he built his movement around cooperation with numerous
>right wing groups. He was supported by Britain for awhile (or
>at least not opposed) because they saw fascism as a bulwark
>against bolshevism.
All the above sure sounds like socialism.
He was never support by "Britain". A few oddballs close to the royal
familiy, but never the State.
>I have posted and reposted specific quotes by scholars on
>this issue, which you apparently don't want to deal with. I
>won't do that again, yet, since I've done that three times in
>the last week. But the result is clear: Fascism is an
>inherently different ideology than socialism, and the
>evidence is clear that Hitler tried to call the movement
>socialist to get support from the working class. You are
>wrong, and I think you know you are wrong. That makes you a
>liar.
Really? Page numbers And sources? Please do it a fourth time.
Unless of course you're beginning to see how weak they are, if
they do indeed exist.
All I've seen you post is unascribed assertions, like "authorities say ...".
Snicker.
Like this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 126
"..., for Hitler believed that only in that form
[nationalism] could socialism promote the common good over
the private good, preserve social transquilty, and promote
the restablishment of a healthy folk community.
"Nazi Germany, A New History", by Klaus P. Fischer.
Translated from the German and published by Barnes and
Noble, 1998. Original published in 1995. It's available in
all Barnes and Noble stores.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following page numbers and quotes are from:
Turner, Henry Ashby, German Big Business & the Rise of Hitler,
Oxford University press, 1985. 504 pages.
Henry Ashby Turner is Professor of History at Yale University,
Master of Davenport College, and the author and editor of
previous works on modern German history.
1. [late 1920's NAZI party gatherings] "those Nazis who
organzied the the Essen gatherings sought to convey the
impression that Hitler's audiences included the managerial
elite of the Ruhr, and the reporters from the conservative
press parrotted that version. But, in fact, the Nazis
failed to attract the leading industrialists of the Ruhr to
Hitler's speeches of 1926 and 1927. In none of the
surviving, often voluminous, private papers left behind by
some of the Ruhr's most prominent executives of that time
does one find any indication that they, others of their
circle, or even any subordinates, attended."
[page 88]
2. "As Kirchdorf's memoirs reveal, NAZI socialistic rhetoric
remained a barrier between the NSDAP and the business
community, despite Hitler's efforts to counter it with
reassuring words of his own."
... [1927]
"Thanks in part to the wide distribution achieved by
Feder's publication, knowledge of the socialistic planks
of the NAZI program spread throughout the business
community."
[page 94]
3. "The socialistic agitation of the NAZIs soon proved too much
even for Emil Kirdorf. In August 1928, a little more than a
year after he joined the NSDAP, Kirdorf angrily sunmitted
his resignation to the part's Munich headquarters".
[page 95]
4. "Despite Bruning's talk of the desirability of freeing
business from government interference, it seemed to
[businessmen] that his policies actually tended to the worst
kind of Zwangwirtschaft - economics by coercion ..."
[page 161]
5. On the alleged big gathering of big business in support of
Hitler Bad Harzburg, 1931:
"By adding still more names to the list disseminated by the
Telepgraphen-Union and mistakenly identifying some of those
on that list, numerous historians who have written about
the Bad Harzburg gathering have fallen prey to Hugenberg's
propagand machine. The myth of an impressive showing by big
business in general and u=industry in particular has become
entrenched in virtually all historical works on the period.
Yet well informed comtemporaries recognized that die
Wirtschaft had been conspicous at Bad Harzburg only by
virtue of its absence.... Too bad industry was absent at Bad
Harzburg, Scacht chided Reusch afterwards ... Many [NAZI
party leaders] had noticed the absence of business leaders,
Gilsa reported to reusch."
[page 169]
6. "In the summer of 1931 the Fuhrer suddenly decided to
cultivate systematically the authoritative leaders
of die Wirtschaft who stood at the center of
resistance [to the NAZIs]. ... in his less quotable
post-war memoirs, written without the aid of the NAZI
propaganda apparatus, a much subdued Dietrich made no
mention of any succesful pursuit of business leaders on
Hitler's part. Instead, he recalled: 'The autoriattive men
of die Wirtschaft and the associational officials of
industry displayed a cool political reserve [to Hitler].
[page 171]
7. Too long to type in. Pages 172 to 174 demolish the myth
that German coal producers set up a self-imposed "tax" to
get money to support Hitler with. Not only is there NO
record of any of this, the myth was originally 50
pfennigs per ton. When it was pointed out that the
industry average cost of overhead was 42 pfennigs a ton,
this bogus figure suddenly became only 5 pfennigs a ton.
8. On the allegations that Schroder was instrumental in
bringing bus business and Hitler together: "[in the
Nuremberg trials Schroder was pressed to identify the
businessmen involved] "Schroder replied that he had in 1932
'nothing to do with industry' ... Asked if he had consulted
anyone at the industrial Reichsverband, Schroder [admitted
he had no involvenment]. ... Hitler, Papen. and Schroder
all later denied that money had even been mentioned ..."
...
[in short, this was a lie produced by the leftists outside
of the NAZI party -- designed to trouble the SOCIALIST
NAZIs by purporting a big-business funding base]
...
page 318 is very detail listing all the source of documents
which would have had evidence of this, but lack it
entirely.
[pages 315-322]
9. Per your lie that Krupp supported Hitler, see page 320,
where it starts ".. to krupp and of Krupp's unconcealed
distaste for national Socialism ...".
10. Ashby has a whole chapter on fools like you. "Quite aside
from the mutual incompatibilities of these variations on
the basic thesis of capitalism as the cause of NAZIism,
attempts to account for the rise of Hitler and his party by
using that thesis as the point of departure have produced a
badly flawed body of historical writing. [This thesis]
requires such flagrant distortions of the historical record
that it has become reserved for indoctrination propaganda
of a primitive variety."
[pages 351-352]
Phil Ronzone
>But if you insist lets see how about krupp steel? IG Faben?
>How about the several cabals of steel and coal producers from
>the Ruhr? How about Siemens?
Snicker. At last! I've been waiting ages for the "gdy" idiot to
actually touch something concrete.
Yes, what about Kfupp? Siemens, et al?
Hmmm?
They were nationalized, destroyed, and stolen by the socialistics German
State.
Go ahead, butt-head, let's see you try to wiggle out of this one!
Snicker.
Phil Ronzone
>>>>Insisting on casting everything as left-right and
>>>>never-any-part-of-the-twain shall-meet strikes me as rather
>>>>limiting.
>>>>
>Many of us differentiate between right-wing *social*
>extremists, and right-wing *fiscal* extremists.
>
>The first group doesn't give a damn about the unfortunate in
>their communities. The second consists of people who want to
>shrink government and regulation for the sole purpose of
>easing their tax burden.
>
>Both are despicable and both are on the right.
Snicker. Hmm, so when the State fascists come and steal more than 50% of
your income, THAT's extremism?
Ever notice how the "unfortunate" are always the rationalization behind
this massive State theft?
Poverty had been in continous decline since WWII until the start of
the so-called "War on Poverty", when it began to rise again.
Snicker.
Perpetutaing bureacracy.
Phil Ronzone
>On Fri, 27 Nov 1998 00:25:55 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net
>(jcarrick) wrote:
>
>>monstrously stupid that anyone would consider Hitler to be a
>>socialist.
>>
>Hehehehehe.
Yep indeed "heheheh". AKA, "Mommy, don't tell me there is no Santa Claus!!!"
Phil Ronzone
>
>Pure Rhetoric.
Not at all, Those are REAL WORLD oibservations of things that ACTUALLY
happened. Snicker.
>>That's because he shared a common goal with the Marxists,
>>while he despised their subservience to a foreign power -
>>Soviet Union. His fight with the communist was a turf-fight
>>between gangsters for the spoils of a socialist system, not
>>any serious ideological disagreement.
>>
>On the contrary, he was ideologically opposed to Marxism,
>which he regarded as a Jewish conspiracy against Germany.
>What common goal did he share with this avowed enemy?
Snicker. How stupid, how naive. This is the "communists and socialists
can't be the same because they fought against each other [politically]".
Snicker snicker snicker. Gee, both Democrats and Republicans hold
allegedly the same ideals, so why do they fight?
Better yet, notice than when one side propsoes an idea that seems to
go over well with "the people", the other side rushes to make
an equivalent?
Socialist has an appeal to ignorant people.
Hitler hate the communists (and vice versa) because they were both using
the same ideology to pursue coercive power against their fellow man.
Brothers in blood lust!
Snicker.
Phil Ronzone
>Ok so start naming th companies that the state owned under
>the Nazis? its going to be very short list folks.
Snicker. Just about most of the big ones. As the Allied Occupation
Government learned, in trying to restart basic production after
WWII, the NAZIs had stolen and looted just about everything.
For example, in the Ruhr, when bombers would destroy a steel plant,
the State would "buy" the ruins, and "lease back" the ruins,
with other property of the company being held as security
for a "loan" to rebuild the plant. Needless to saym when the plant being
held as security was bombed, the State got ownership of that as well.
German higher ups (Goering and such) would also "give" ownership
of such properties to friends.
In the case of the entire Ruhr, it was so confused and mixed up that
essentially the 1934 owners were more or less reinstated as is.
Krupp, legally at the end of the war, owned almost NO industrial plant
or property in Germany - it had been forced to trade for "more valuable"
properties in the conquered lands.
Other comapnies, like Zeiss, had 3 or more alleged owners after WWII,
and tried using the Zeiss name all at once.
BMW was so dismembered that the occupation government actually reassembled
it! This was duing the time when people wanted German industry destroyed
somit could never bne a threat again, butn the need for trucks and such
was so strong that the Allies decreed what was needed to reassemble
the industrial plant of BMW so it could start up again.
And lots lots more ...
Gee "gdy", how about a source, WITH page number that says anything like
"the giant German Schmidt GMBH passed through WWII with its property
mostly intact...".
Snicker.
Dip shit.
Charles Fiterman
The American word for communist is Republican.
gdy52150
wrote:
>In article <365f7ee7...@news.lakes.com> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) writes:
> >Ok so start naming th companies that the state owned under
> >the Nazis? its going to be very short list folks.
>
>Snicker. Just about most of the big ones. As the Allied Occupation
>Government learned, in trying to restart basic production after
>WWII, the NAZIs had stolen and looted just about everything.
>
too bad ronzone, none of the steel companies were owned by the nazis,
nor none of the autos, nor Faben, nor Siemens.
>For example, in the Ruhr, when bombers would destroy a steel plant,
>the State would "buy" the ruins, and "lease back" the ruins,
>with other property of the company being held as security
>for a "loan" to rebuild the plant. Needless to saym when the plant being
>held as security was bombed, the State got ownership of that as well.
>
>German higher ups (Goering and such) would also "give" ownership
>of such properties to friends.
>
>In the case of the entire Ruhr, it was so confused and mixed up that
>essentially the 1934 owners were more or less reinstated as is.
>
>Krupp, legally at the end of the war, owned almost NO industrial plant
>or property in Germany - it had been forced to trade for "more valuable"
>properties in the conquered lands.
>
>Other comapnies, like Zeiss, had 3 or more alleged owners after WWII,
>and tried using the Zeiss name all at once.
>
>BMW was so dismembered that the occupation government actually reassembled
>it! This was duing the time when people wanted German industry destroyed
>somit could never bne a threat again, butn the need for trucks and such
>was so strong that the Allies decreed what was needed to reassemble
>the industrial plant of BMW so it could start up again.
>
>And lots lots more ...
>
>Gee "gdy", how about a source, WITH page number that says anything like
>"the giant German Schmidt GMBH passed through WWII with its property
>mostly intact...".
>
you lost you still didn't name any. You just blather away.
>Snicker.
>
>Dip shit.
>
>
>
>--
>"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
====================================================
gdy52150
wrote:
>In article <8RrCEGAf...@rootandbranch.demon.co.uk> Dave Callaghan <da...@rootandbranch.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >Hitler was not a socialist, he was an ultra-nationalist. His
> >overiding desire was to create a powerful, united, greater
> >Germany, that would expand eastward, creating lebensraum,
> >destroying bolshevism in the process, and of course dealing
> >with the Jews. He did not entertain any attitude to class, or
> >the question of ownership of the means of production, in the
> >way that socialism addresses these questions. To Hitler,
> >there was no question of this at all, his approach was, let
> >them own banks, factories land etc. what does it matter? as
> >long as they are part of the German Reich. The concept of
> ...
>
>Like most of Mr. Callaghn "posts", dead-wrong again.
>
>Just ONE example - business could NOT hire/fire/layoff anyone
>without prior State permission.
>
once again silly philly wants to contruct socialism out of war time
measures. It may surprise you silly philly but businesses here in the
US had some of the same measures to a somewhat lesser extent.No
shipyard worker was fired without a lotof red tape.
>No worker could quit or be hired without prior State permission. (He
>was given a work booklet he had to carry at all times. It also controlled
>his travel.)
>
sorta like our ration books for gas and sugar, rubber and many other
things
>Another one - Hitler nationalized the entire tourism industry! All tourism
>had to be done via the State. In the same way that NAZI Germany developed
>the first usable jet aircraft, the national german tourism industry
>developed the first "cruise ships". For the accounts, the average
>worker could get quite nice packages for vacations.
>
thats some pure bullshit.
>Even the private game parks were nationalized.
>
>
gdy52150
wrote:
>In article <365ebb31...@news.lakes.com> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) writes:
> >But if you insist lets see how about krupp steel? IG Faben?
> >How about the several cabals of steel and coal producers from
> >the Ruhr? How about Siemens?
>
>Snicker. At last! I've been waiting ages for the "gdy" idiot to
>actually touch something concrete.
>
>Yes, what about Kfupp? Siemens, et al?
>
>Hmmm?
>
>They were nationalized, destroyed, and stolen by the socialistics German
>State.
>
no they were not silly philly, you are once again lying. Both operated
under private ownership throughout the Nazi's reign.
>Go ahead, butt-head, let's see you try to wiggle out of this one!
>
>Snicker.
>
>
>
>--
>"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
====================================================
gdy52150
wrote:
>In article <73m7tq$23ik$2...@sol.caps.maine.edu> scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb) writes:
> >In article <365e4...@news.cadvision.com>,
> >nale...@rescorporate.com says...
> >>Our Socialism goes far deeper"... Adolf Hitler.
> >>
> >Yes, and Adolf also claimed that racism was scientific. He
>
>Yes, he did. And he said also he would exterminate the Jews. And he almost did.
>
> >would say any lie to sell his policy to the people, but as
>
>He wasn't telling a lie. Hitler believed in socialism.
>
> >has been demonstrated quite convincingly by a number of
> >people who can cite sources other than Adolf Hitler, Nazi
> >ideology was distinctly fascist: nationalist,
> >anti-rationalist, anti-internationalist, anti-intellectual,
> >and he built his movement around cooperation with numerous
> >right wing groups. He was supported by Britain for awhile (or
> >at least not opposed) because they saw fascism as a bulwark
> >against bolshevism.
>
>All the above sure sounds like socialism.
>
>He was never support by "Britain". A few oddballs close to the royal
>familiy, but never the State.
>
um that was more than just a few odd balls silly philly. It included
members of the royal family and nobility. Now why would the elite's of
a scoiety support someone like Hitler if it wasn't to increase their
own power and wealth. Once again thats capitalism and not socialism.
====================================================
gdy52150
wrote:
>In article <365dedc0...@news.istar.ca> crs...@inforamp.net (jcarrick) writes:
> >>>>Insisting on casting everything as left-right and
> >>>>never-any-part-of-the-twain shall-meet strikes me as rather
> >>>>limiting.
> >>>>
> >Many of us differentiate between right-wing *social*
> >extremists, and right-wing *fiscal* extremists.
> >
> >The first group doesn't give a damn about the unfortunate in
> >their communities. The second consists of people who want to
> >shrink government and regulation for the sole purpose of
> >easing their tax burden.
> >
> >Both are despicable and both are on the right.
>
>Snicker. Hmm, so when the State fascists come and steal more than 50% of
>your income, THAT's extremism?
>
>Ever notice how the "unfortunate" are always the rationalization behind
>this massive State theft?
>
>Poverty had been in continous decline since WWII until the start of
>the so-called "War on Poverty", when it began to rise again.
>
you fucking idiot. The low point for poverty was 77-78.
>Snicker.
>
>Perpetutaing bureacracy.
Dave Callaghan
writes
>In article <365f44e6...@news.lakes.com>,
> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
>> no country has been able to delink politics and the economy.
>
>But some do a better job than others. At one extreme you have socialist and
>fascist countries and on the other extreme you have America.
So you don't have political extremes in America?
>Unfortunately,
>America suffers some political influence over the economy,
Maybe so, but the economy exercises virtually 100% influence over the
politics.
>which is why it is
>regarded as a mixed economy.
There are nationalised industries in the US?
>But it still serves as a powerful example of what
>is possible when politicians are kept in their place.
Like Clinton in the White House eh?
>
>> But where
>> are those state owned businesses under the Nazis?
>
>Your simple-minded obsession with state ownership of industry belies your weak
>argument.
You're the one with a weak argument buddy.
>
>1) Nazis controlled and directed businesses without formal ownership but
>rather through various other means as has been repeatedly demonstrated in
>these threads.
"Various other means"? Please elaborate. (they may have been trotted out
occasionally but there's been no proof)
>
>2) Many societies and policies that are generally accepted as socialist do not
>involve direct ownership but rather indirect control in the fascist style.
Name one.
>
>If you define socialism narrowly as state ownership of industry then you'll
>end up with only hard-core communist countries.
Which, of course, disproves your argument
>If you define it more loosely
>to include less extreme examples, you'll admit Nazi Germany into the fold.
Oh! so that's how you do it! Just widen the definitions until you can
fit anything you want in!
That is your whole problem, loose definitions, way too loose! Why it
even allows you to group together different political systems such as
fascism and socialism
>
>Which way do you prefer it?
Nice and tight!
--
Dave Callaghan
gdy52150
>In article <365f44e6...@news.lakes.com>,
> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
>> no country has been able to delink politics and the economy.
>
>But some do a better job than others. At one extreme you have socialist and
>fascist countries and on the other extreme you have America. Unfortunately,
you are already wrong, fascist are right wing extremists and have
nothing to do with socialism. In fact fascism is capitalism run amok.
>America suffers some political influence over the economy, which is why it is
>regarded as a mixed economy. But it still serves as a powerful example of what
>is possible when politicians are kept in their place.
>
The problem in the US is not from too much control over corporations
but from too few of controls. At one time this country had the
controls over corproations but the rich elite were able to buy new
laws and judges on the bench to erode those laws that were protecting
us. Its time for a amendment to the constitution restricting
corporation and the rights they now have. The constitution was written
for the people not the corporations. Such an amendment must restrict
the scope of the business to be engaged in, the maximum size to which
it may grow. Additionaly it must reaffirm the constitutional rights of
all employees and applicants for a position, no more unreasonable
searches such as drug tests, background checks etc. And finally it
must contain a provision that any voting division such as a city,
state or lower level can place a ballot measure on the ballot to
remove the corporate charter's privelege of operating within that
division, lets make that a low threashold of saying only 10% of the
voters are needed on a pension to place the measure on the ballot. And
one final item that no treaty can void environmental or any other laws
on the books at the time it is passed. This is specifically aimed at
the MAI treaty and to prevent similar measures in the future. The so
called MAI treaty is nothing more than the corporate rule treaty.
>> But where
>> are those state owned businesses under the Nazis?
>
>Your simple-minded obsession with state ownership of industry belies your weak
>argument.
>
>1) Nazis controlled and directed businesses without formal ownership but
>rather through various other means as has been repeatedly demonstrated in
>these threads.
>
>2) Many societies and policies that are generally accepted as socialist do not
>involve direct ownership but rather indirect control in the fascist style.
>
>If you define socialism narrowly as state ownership of industry then you'll
>end up with only hard-core communist countries. If you define it more loosely
>to include less extreme examples, you'll admit Nazi Germany into the fold.
>
>Which way do you prefer it?
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
====================================================
gdy52150
wrote:
>In article <365e2ec7...@news.lakes.com> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) writes:
> >On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 20:53:21 -0600, Insanity Set
> ><se...@dontreplyhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Do a bit of research before you post. What do you mean by
> >>private? Like the way "private" businesses were commandeered
> >>for wartime production. Is that what you mean by private? Or
> >>like the way private banks were directed to support the Nazi
> >>party. (Think of it as an early form of the Madison Savings
> >>and Loan deal w/ Clinton.) That certainly is not private when
> >>your so called private business must produce according to
> >>govt dictates.
> >>
> >>
> >oh I have done a bit of research that is one reason you are
> >stumbling all over yourself. As for commandeering private
> >business in war time that is hardly the mark of a socialist.
> >FDR did it, as did Churchill and any other nation facing a
> >war time crisis. To assert otherwise is the mark of a fool.
>
>
>Snicker. You've "done research", but you've posted NO facts or sources?
>
I am not going to waste my time providing cites for widely recongized
facts.
>I see.
>
>In any case, NO, FDR did NOT nationalize or commandeer any private
>businesses.
>
>Nor did Churchhill. For example, the plants producing the Merlin engines
>(for the Spitfire) were privately owned and operated throughout the war.
>When some of the engines plants were bombed, the companies were allowed
>to increase their costs to the State to fund the rebuild efforts, BUT,
>there was never any direct aid to the companies.
>
yup and so was the companies that produced the Panzers and other
German war machines. Or are you going to be stupid enough to tell us
that Ford really didn't own those plants that produced the Nazi army's
trucks?
>Indeed, Chruchill wanted the Merlin engine plants moved into the
>interior, farther away from the coast and German bombers, but that never
>happened as the companies couldn't afford it.
>
Probably because the air war of Britian was short in duration.
>
>You have zero facts - so PLEASE stop making up wild ass assertions.
>
>See the English booms "The Spitfire" and "Spitfire!".
>
>Snicker.
>
>--
>"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
====================================================
Crash
on Thu, 26 Nov 1998 (Rick Jones) wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:35:12 -0500, lordka...@sgi.net (LK) wrote:
>
>>Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialist. Socialists are most
>>definately on the LEFT.
>
>China is called the People's Republic of China. Most Communist
>countries had "Democratic" in their names. Did you believe those,
>too? I don't recall many Communist countries holding democratic
>elections.
Quite right. As someone else said, LK' reasoning is naive or
ignorant of common political operating procedure. After all,
who is going to call themselves The Anti-Environmenat Party, or
The Party for the Rich, or the Richboy Bootlicker's Party?
Hitler was constantly pitching freedom, etc.
In this context, one of the most naive (deceitful???) things
I've seen done here is quoting Hitler to make their point.
To logically do that, one must assume or assert that Hitler was
an honest guy. Say what!?
>>Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialist. Socialists
>>are most definately on the LEFT.
One of the sadest things I've seen in this silly 700-reply
thread is people who make that naive (and face it, for the
uneducated; reasonable) assumption, -- then when corrected
with a mountain of counter-evidence, they blindly stick to their
original claims, come Hell or high water.
From "World Book Encyclopedia", 1958, p. 5467:
The name National Socialist German Workers Party does not
correctly describe the Nazi movement. It was neither
socialist nor organized for the benefit of workers. The
name was apparently developed in an effort to win the
support of the working classes....
Nazism was only a part of of the broad social movement
known as Fascism which gained millions of supporters in
many countries during the 1930's....
The industrialists gave financial support to the party
because they thought the Nazis would protect them from
from socialism and communism, and from the increasing
strength of the labor unions.
End Quotes.
Crash
>m...@nowhere.com says...
>
>>This is the common thread of both Communism and Facism, as well as their
>>lesser forms, Socialism and Facism. They all seek to make people conform
>>to a certain code of behaviour that involves placing on people positive
>>duties.
>
>So any movement, religious, cultural, etc., that tries to make people
>conform to a certain set of duties (e.g., a moral code, set of values,
>etc.) is socialist/fascist, etc.? You're wiping away any set of
>ideological differences and making it appear as if everything but a type
>of liberal/libertarian system is socialist/fascist/religious/communist,
>etc. That maybe a convenient way to state things for a libertarian, but
>it really muddies the waters and makes real analysis of the different
>ideologies quite difficult. >cheers, scott
"convenient"??????!!! "convenient"??????!!!
"muddies the waters and makes real analysis of the different
ideologies quite difficult."????
Scott, I wish I knew how to be as polite as you are.
An old post:
on Tue, 18 Aug 1998 (Crash) wrote:
about: Libertarians's Are Certainly Brainwashed. like Duh.
>Re: Nazi's Were Certainly NOT Leftists NOR Socialists. like Duh.
>
>on 13 Aug David Deilley wrote:
>>Caesar wrote:
>>>"Derek Nalecki" writes:
>>> > Libertarian _are_, Nazis however are far to the left of both.
Oh brother!
>>>
>>> If you want to devise
>>> your own private language where fascism means the same as communism,
>>> then feel free to do so.
>>
>>It's more than a "private language." Mr. Nalecki has constructed a
>>complete parallel universe. He is the lone occupant.
>
>Well, if you read on, you'll see he's NOT the lone occupant,
>that all the Libertarians have been similarly brainwashed.
>For example, in my school, at one of their indoctrinization
>meetings, they called the standardized political tool; the
>Right-Left continuum invalid, and re-defined it to their own
>liking. With their own language, Libertarians have
>no choice but to come to the "proper" conclusion.
The irony is the link between the terms; "Libertarian" and
"no choice". "Irony" is the polite term.
>James Goneaux wrote:
>>-Actually, your theories, ideals and "proof" is so far on the fringe,
>>-you should be glad that ANYONE shares your fantasies.
>
>Well, the Libertarian brainwashing has re-defined all
>their words, (such as capitalism, socialism, the Right-Left
>continuum, property rights, etc..) so they MUST arrive at
>the "proper" conclusion.
The proof of this is, it's only the Libertarians who have
been arguing against this thread's silly topic:
Nazi's Were Certainly NOT Leftists NOR Socialists.
If not for Libertarians, this thread would have died months ago.
>These guys really have no choice.
>This brainwashing has them so crippled they can't even carry
>on a meaningful conversation with the general public.
>
>So, this quasi-religion has definite cultist characteristics.
>
>Enjoy irony? Libertarian cultist's main idols are
>"Freedom and the individual". Freedom? What freedom?
>Individual thought? Where? The subtle and double irony here
>is that Ronzone & Co's first vehement "proof" in this thread
>was; "Nazi has socialist in the name, that's PROOF!!" It
>seems that they use similar "proof" about "Libertarian",
>but again, their obvious brainwashing and lockstep mental
>marching proves the opposite.
>
Karen McFarlin
> More to the point - WHAT is socialism????
>
> A lot of adjectives get attached to socialism, but when freedom
> and socialism are mentioned together - it sounds like nonsense.
>
> The basis of socialism IS the initiation of coercion - the theft,
> the cannibalism of others to support non-producers.
> "OK then, just WHAT is socialism if not that?".
>
> Your turn.
I've never read this as a definition of socialism before. What I have read
is, more or less, that socialism is the collective ownership of natural
resources and the means of production.
Isn't all property (meaning exclusively land and resources - not the
objects of industrial production) the result of an ancient theft?
Please allow me to illustrate.
The king of England sold, or gave, land grants to land that he, in fact,
did not own. Both William Pitt and Roger Williams pointed this out and at
least in Pennsylvania, actually bought land from the Indians. Thus the
possession of the land stolen from the Indians, as the prior occupants,
constitutes a theft. It therefore follows that any wealth based on stolen
land was gained under coercion, does it not?
If we look at taxes as a form of theft (under government coercion) then
any wealth aquired through governemnt contracts would be wealth gained
under coercion, would it not?
It therefore follows that men like Gould, Fisk, Morgan, Carnegie, Hill,
Rockefeller, and Mellon, who all gained a great degree of their wealth
from government contracts, gained it through legalized theft under the
threat of coercion.
It appears, therefore, that, historically speaking, capitalism has gained
as much through coercion as you allege to socialism. Doesn't it appear
that both capitalism and socialism have profited from coercion?
Rob McFarlin
C. Duncan
>It appears, therefore, that, historically speaking, capitalism has gained
>as much through coercion as you allege to socialism. Doesn't it appear
>that both capitalism and socialism have profited from coercion?
>
>Rob McFarlin
If that's true, what should we do? Given today's reality, which
system offers a better future for you?
C. Duncan
bubbasm...@hotmail.com
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 05:08:32 GMT, bubbasm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >In article <365f44e6...@news.lakes.com>,
> > gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
> >America suffers some political influence over the economy, which is why it is
> >regarded as a mixed economy. But it still serves as a powerful example of
what
> >is possible when politicians are kept in their place.
>
> The problem in the US is not from too much control over corporations
> but from too few of controls.
This is another of your value judgements. While I obviously disagree, I won't
weigh down this discussion doing so.
Instead, I will merely point out that you are reinforcing my point: fascism
and socialism are a breed where the government does exert such control as
you desire. Capitalism, as for example in America, echews such control and
leaves people free to pursue personal wealth and profit as they individually
see fit.
--
"It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism
while wolves remain of a different opinion."
--William Ralph Inge
bubbasm...@hotmail.com
Dave Callaghan <da...@rootandbranch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <73o0g9$c75$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bubbasm...@hotmail.com
> writes
> >to include less extreme examples, you'll admit Nazi Germany into the fold.
>
> fit anything you want in!
Not at all. Any definition of socialism that allows for control of the
economy through means other than direct ownership will end up including Nazi
Germany. Universal health coverage as proposed by the Clintonistas is a
perfect example.
If you want to define socialism to include only the late USSR, be my guest.
Bill Koehler
bubbasm...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <365f44e6...@news.lakes.com>,
> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
> > no country has been able to delink politics and the economy.
>
> But some do a better job than others. At one extreme you have socialist and
> fascist countries and on the other extreme you have America. Unfortunately,
> America suffers some political influence over the economy, which is why it is
> regarded as a mixed economy. But it still serves as a powerful example of what
> is possible when politicians are kept in their place.
>
> > But where
> > are those state owned businesses under the Nazis?
>
> Your simple-minded obsession with state ownership of industry belies your weak
> argument.
>
> 1) Nazis controlled and directed businesses without formal ownership but
> rather through various other means as has been repeatedly demonstrated in
> these threads.
The difference is state ownership is socialism
private ownership with state control is fascism
You can twist the definition but it will always
come down to this.
>
>
> 2) Many societies and policies that are generally accepted as socialist do not
> involve direct ownership but rather indirect control in the fascist style.
>
> If you define socialism narrowly as state ownership of industry then you'll
> end up with only hard-core communist countries. If you define it more loosely
> to include less extreme examples, you'll admit Nazi Germany into the fold.
>
> Which way do you prefer it?
>
gdy52150
>In article <366028bb...@news.lakes.com>,
> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 05:08:32 GMT, bubbasm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <365f44e6...@news.lakes.com>,
>> > gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) wrote:
>> >America suffers some political influence over the economy, which is why it is
>> >regarded as a mixed economy. But it still serves as a powerful example of
>what
>> >is possible when politicians are kept in their place.
>>
>> The problem in the US is not from too much control over corporations
>> but from too few of controls.
>
>This is another of your value judgements. While I obviously disagree, I won't
>weigh down this discussion doing so.
>
>Instead, I will merely point out that you are reinforcing my point: fascism
>and socialism are a breed where the government does exert such control as
>you desire. Capitalism, as for example in America, echews such control and
>leaves people free to pursue personal wealth and profit as they individually
>see fit.
>
no you are just making an even greater fool of yourself.
>--
>"It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism
>while wolves remain of a different opinion."
>--William Ralph Inge
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
====================================================
Steve
<crs...@inforamp.net> writes
>Of course it is, but that doesn't stop right-wing ignoramuses from
>doing so.
You are jesting of course......or are you an ignorami too?
--
Steve Frazer at http://members.xoom.com/steve_frazer/
Main interests are politics, chess and stamp collecting.
Deutches Reich, Papua New Guinea and other world stamps for trade.
Clyde Maxim
gdy52150 wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 09:32:16 GMT, ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <365ebb31...@news.lakes.com> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150) writes:
> > >But if you insist lets see how about krupp steel? IG Faben?
> > >How about the several cabals of steel and coal producers from
> > >the Ruhr? How about Siemens?
> >
> >Snicker. At last! I've been waiting ages for the "gdy" idiot to
> >actually touch something concrete.
> >
> >Yes, what about Kfupp? Siemens, et al?
> >
> >Hmmm?
> >
> >They were nationalized, destroyed, and stolen by the socialistics German
> >State.
> >
>
> no they were not silly philly, you are once again lying. Both operated
> under private ownership throughout the Nazi's reign.
>
If the Nazis were neither leftists nor socialists, just what were they, and how can we
adopt some of their economic policies here in the modern U.S.A.? After all, the German economy
thrived under the Nazis, even while the rest of the world was collapsing under the Great
Depression. Germany went from a defeated nation, paying enormous sums in war reparations while
trying to restore its industry, into the leading military and industrial nation in Europe, and
it did it in an astonishingly short time. Surely, we could learn something from such a
successful economic plan.
bubbasm...@hotmail.com
nc...@flash.net wrote:
> The difference is state ownership is socialism
> private ownership with state control is fascism
> You can twist the definition but it will always
> come down to this.
You are of course free to define it as such but then the only socialist
countries are communist and many nominally socialist which will not qualify
under this strict definition. Indeed, you can go back through these threads
and find defenders of socialism who refused to define it as such.
Are there any objections to defining fascism as nominal private ownership with
state control?
Dave Callaghan
<ser...@hotmail.com> writes
>Again we have an spat between leftists trying to prove who is really
>Marxist and who is a capitalist roader.
Nice try, but your attempt to split the opposition has been duly noted.
No spat here between leftists. (I don't think the person to whom I
replied below would fit into that category). On the contrary I think
the left are united on this question, broadly speaking. You don't have
to be a Marxist to spot the fallacies in the arguments which claim that
Nazism was left-wing socialism.
>It's an eternal argument which
>kills many trees and gives the humanities the bad rep it has today.
It's an argument that sadly has killed a lot of people, and wrong
positions need correcting, you have got to understand what
Nazism/Fascism is all about, else how are you going to recognise it next
time it comes rolling along? You going to let it roll right over you
before you know what it is and by that time it's too late brother!
>
>Among anyone NOT devoted to hair splitting,
Not hair-splitting. It's called principles.
> Hitler and the reds were two
>bands of socialist thugs fighting it out for supremacy. That Hitler was
>against some other socialists doesn't make him a capitalist.
I don't think you have read the text below, you just stuck your knee-
jerk response at the top, without commenting on or trying to refute any
of the points I have made. You have an odd way of debating buddy.
>
>Dave Callaghan wrote:
>>
>> In article <365e4...@news.cadvision.com>, Derek Nalecki
>> <nale...@rescorporate.com> writes
>> >In article <8RrCEGAf...@rootandbranch.demon.co.uk>, Dave Callaghan
>> ><da...@rootandbranch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>In article <365D827C...@dontreplyhere.com>, Insanity Set
>> >><se...@dontreplyhere.com> writes
>> >>>I don't believe the Democratic party is democractic just because of
>> >>>their name either. But Nazis were really socialists.
>> >>>
>> >>Hitler was not a socialist, he was an ultra-nationalist. His overiding
>> >>desire was to create a powerful, united, greater Germany, that would
>> >>expand eastward, creating lebensraum, destroying bolshevism in the
>> >>process, and of course dealing with the Jews.
>> >>He did not entertain any attitude to class, or the question of ownership
>> >>of the means of production, in the way that socialism addresses these
>> >
>> >"...This is Socialism - not such trifles as the private possession of the
>> >means of production. Of what importance is _that_ if I range men firmly
>> >within a discipline they cannot escape?
>>
>> Pure Rhetoric.
>>
>> >Let them then "own" land or factories as much as they please. The decisive
>> >factor is that the State, trough the party, is supreme over them, regardless
>> >whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential.
>> >Our Socialism goes far deeper"...
>> >
>> >Hitler to Hermann Rauschning
>>
>> Ah, Rauschning! A tame Nazi serving US ideological aims.
>>
>> >
>> >>questions. To Hitler, there was no question of this at all, his
>> >>approach was, let them own banks, factories land etc. what does it
>> >>matter? as long as they are part of the German Reich.
>> >>The concept of class-warfare was anathema to him, it was nationally
>> >>divisive and therefore contravened his ideology of national unity. To
>> >>him the greatest 'evil' of Marxist socialism was that its conception of
>> >>class did not confine itself to the narrow confines of the nation state,
>> >>but was international in character. To Hitler it was a mongrel creed,
>> >>total anathema to his dream of the pure-blooded master race.
>> >>He privately admired the tenacity and idealism of the German communists,
>> >>even though he hated their ideology. He marveled at the idea of winning
>> >>them over to National Socialism, to channel their fierce idealism into
>> >>the cause of the fatherland.
>> >
>> >That's because he shared a common goal with the Marxists, while he despised
>> >their subservience to a foreign power - Soviet Union. His fight with the
>> >communist was a turf-fight between gangsters for the spoils of a socialist
>> >system, not any serious ideological disagreement.
>>
>> On the contrary, he was ideologically opposed to Marxism, which he
>> regarded as a Jewish conspiracy against Germany. What common goal did he
>> share with this avowed enemy?
>>
>> >"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit.
>>
>> Yes he read some Marxist literature when he was living in a tramps
>> hostel in Vienna, and rejected it.
>>
>> >The [only] difference between them and myself is that I have put into
>practice
>> >what these peddlers and pen-pushers [ie: _too_ deferent to capitalism, dn.]
>> >have timidly begun.
>>
>> Marx? deferrent? When he advocated the overthrow of capitalism?
>>
>> I think you will find if you look again that here he was referring to
>> the Social Democrats, not Marxists
>>
>> >I had ***only to develop logically*** [emphasis, dn.] what Social Democracy
>> >repeatedly failed in, because of its attempts to realize the revolution
>within
>> >the framework of democracy.
>>
>> In fact, Social Democracy, in the shape the SPD, shared Hitler's
>> abhorrence of (Marxist) Red revolution, as they amply demonstrated in
>> 1918 when they used an illegal right-wing militia, the Freikorps, to
>> crush the Spartacist uprising.
>>
>> >National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken
>> >its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order."
>>
>> Here he was obviously confusing Marxism with Social Democracy when they
>> where, and are, as different as chalk and cheese. Some Marxist!
>> >
>> >Hitler to Hermann Rauschning
>> >
>> >
>> >>He knew that without the support of a sizeable proportion of workers he
>> >>could never achieve his aim.
>> >>This was also recognised by the high ranking military and big business,
>> >>whose dream was to rebuild Germany as a military power after the defeat
>> >>of WW1.
>> >>In 1919, while still in the army, Hitler was given the task of
>> >>investigating political groups in Munich that had the possibility of
>> >>attracting workers. One of these was the DAP (German Workers Party)
>> >>whose program was an odd mixture of socialism, nationalism and anti-
>> >>semetism.
>> >
>> >Actually the DAP was a gripe club of left-leaning workers without
>> >comprehensive socialist program before Hitler became its leader. It was
>Hitler
>> >who gave it coherent program based on a marriage of socialism and
>> >nationalism-etatism.
>>
>> That goes with what I said.
>> >
>> >>Hitler reported to Capt. Rohm, his C.O. that he wasn't impressed.
>> >>However, Rohm passed on the report to General Ludendorf, who met
>> >>regularly with a group of capitalists with whom he discussed the
>> >>importance of winning workers over to their ideas. Ludendorf eventually
>> >>gave orders that Hitler was to join the DAP and with the help of the
>> >>army, concentrate all his activities into building it into a party that
>> >>would attract workers. The DAP later became the NSDAP (the National
>> >>Socialist German Workers Party).
>> >
>> >The DAP did not "later become" NSDAP; Hitler change the name along with the
>> >program to reflect his socialist beliefs.
>>
>> Trivial point.
>>
>> Hitler had no socialist beliefs. He was a bohemian nationalist and
>> anit-semitic. The DAP members resented his influence and ambitions,
>> however the party's founder, Anton Drexler, felt Hitler had potential
>> for winning a large following. They worked together on the 25 points of
>> the party program, the socialist part of which was a concession to
>> Drexler. Hitler later realised its inclusion was correct because it
>> attracted workers.
>> >
>> >>Thus the fledgling Nazi party was the brainchild of the German high-
>> >>ranking military and their capitalist masters, not socialists.
>> >>
>> >
>> >" Though Hitler sometimes used the words nationalism and
>> >socialism as though they were interchangeable, the radical and
>> >socialist element in his program always remained strong.
>> >He was never in any sense bourgeois or conservative politician
>> >or an exponent or defender of capitalism. Nor was the Nazi
>> >party predominantly lower-middle class. Modern historians
>> >have hotly debated [those like Shirer either lied or are simply
>> >uninformed, dn] the extend of its working class appeal. The
>> >truth seems to be that the active Nazis were drawn from the
>> >discontented [ne'er-do-wells which today support Democrats
>> >and Buchanan in US and NDP and Liberals in Canada, dn]
>> >from all classes except the peasants and farmers."
>> >
>> >Paul Johnson
>> >"Modern Times - A History of the world from the 1920s to the 1990s"
>>
>> See Dan Clore post "Spanking Paul Johnson" in this thread.
>>
>> However, the largest concentration of workers in the Nazi party before
>> Hitler took power was around 36%
>> >
>> >The Nazi party was both in its program and majority support a party of
>workers
>> >and lower-middle class - the aparatchicks of the lower rungs of the civil
>> >service.
>> >
>> >Social Class of Nazi Party joiners, 1925-1932 [before it was prudent and/or
>> >desirable to join to gain advancement in the state apparatus, dn]
>> >from: "The Logic of Evil - The Social Origins of the Nazi Party, 1925-1933",
>> >by William Brustein
>> >
>> >Workers - 40% (31% of the general population)
>> >New Middle Class - 21% (11% of the general pop.)
>> >Old Middle Class - 32% (24% of the general pop.)
>> >No occupation - 7% (34% of general population)
>> >
>> >The Nazi party thus appealed mostly to workers and "old middle class", which
>> >was composed of civil servants, small shopkeepers, etc.
>>
>> "By the end of that summer (1929) Hitler had succeeded in setting up a
>> functionary corps in line with an appeal to the German middle class by
>> admitting university graduates and other representatives of the
>> bourgeoisie into the party bureaucracy. While allowing Goebbels and
>> Strasser to win over the workers, he (Hitler) directed his opening
>> campaign primarily to militant veterans and capitalistic businessmen,
>> for he realised that he would never get into power without them. He
>> dramatised his new thrust by publicly joining with the Stahlhelm,... and
>> Alfred Hugenberg, the nation's leading film and press lord and head of
>> the volkisch right-wing German National People's Party...
>> In the meantime he and the party were enjoying the financial benefits of
>> their 'mariage de convenance' with industry. Hitler bought the Barlow
>> Palace, a three storey building on the Briennerstrasse, as national
>> party HQ; then early that September moved from his monastic room to one
>> of the most fashionable sections of Munich acroos the Isar, where he
>> took a nine-room apartment covering the entire second floor of 16
>> Prinzregentplatz."
>> 'Adolf Hitler' by John Toland p320
>>
>> >The "capitalists"
>> >which are listed here as "no occupation" = from industrialist to free agent
>> >professionals were the group least attracted to NSDAP precisely because of
>its
>> >socialist program.
>>
>> Businesses were put off by the Socialist rhetoric, there was no
>> 'socialist program' as such. Once Hitler had got rid of the 'left' by
>> purging Rohm and the SA, at the behest of big business, and later the
>> Strassers, the bourgeois money began to flow in.
>>
>> > That does not mean no "capitalist" joined, but overall they
>> >formed a small part of it, and many later regretted it, like Fritz von
>> >Thiessen, who eventually escaped the Third Reich with little more than
>clothes
>> >on his back, proclaiming "oh, what a dumpkopf I was".
>>
>> One sorry capitalist.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
>> >
>> >"To be truly selfish one needs a degree of self-esteem. The self-despisers
>are
>> >less intent on their own increase than on the diminution of others.
>> >Where self-esteem is unattainable, envy takes the place of greed."
>> >(Eric Hoffer)
>> >********** THE ONLY GOOD ENVIRONMENT IS A MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT ***********
>>
>> --
>> Dave Callaghan
>
--
Dave Callaghan
Dave Callaghan
[snip]
>
>Among anyone NOT devoted to hair splitting, Hitler and the reds were two
>bands of socialist thugs fighting it out for supremacy. That Hitler was
>against some other socialists doesn't make him a capitalist.
I don't recall anyone on this side of the fence describing Hitler as a
capitalist. I know I certainly haven't.
--
Dave Callaghan
Needs Limbaughtomy
"left wing guerrillas, and right wing death squads".
It got me to thinking that you hear that term
on Wed, 25 Nov 1998 23:57:04 -0800,
"Reverend Doctor Tim, BsD, McC"
<Dr_...@Cowards.Use.Cancelbots.newsguy.com> wrote:
about: Re: Are Right Wing TALK SHOWS "fixed?"
>>On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:25:31 -0800, Fred Rosenblatt <fre...@juno.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>>BTW, I heard a segment on NPR this morning discussing terrorism at an
>>>antiterrorism conference in Karachi. It mentioned that Columbia has
>>>a terrorism problem form drug cartels, "left wing guerrillas, and
>right
>>>wing death squads". It got me to thinking that you hear that term
>("right
>>>wing death squads") quite often in reportage on Central and South
>America.
>
>I don't know about Columbia, but in El Salvador and Guatemala the death
>squads were an unofficial arm of the most fascist elements of those
>country's armies, and I do mean fascist. Politics is more polarized
>there. The left wing is communist. The right wing is fascist. People
>like you and me, Fred, who are about as far apart ideologically as it
>can get in this country would be considered centrists there. You'd
>probably would be part of the more moderate wing of the Christian
>Democratic Party, and I'd be in a similar position with the social
>democrats.
>
>As far as the terminology goes, in those two countries, the extreme
>right--the Arena Party in El Salvador and it's counterpart in Guatemala,
>harbored secret cells of military officers and soldiers who kidnapped
>and killed suspected leftists in the dark of night. I think death squad
>is an apt term for them. The FMLN, and it's counterpart in Guatemala, on
>the other hand, were in rebellion against their government. I think
>rebel is an apt term for that. There is no evidence that they
>participated in an organized effort to kidnap and murder individuals,
>and believe me, this is not because the CIA under the last two
>Presidents did not try to find it.
>
>I'm not claiming that the left is blameless, only that their atrocities
>are very small in number as compared to the right. A government
>sanctioned killing machine is more efficient than a rebel one. If you
>look throughout Central and South America, with the possible exception
>of the Shining Path in Peru, rightists are responsible for far more
>violence against the public than is the left. Think of the names of the
>worst human rights offenders from that region: Somoza, Peron, Pinochet,
>D'Aubisson, Truillo, Stroessner, the various juntas, etc.
>
>In Asia it's a different story. The left was responsible for mass
>murder, but again it was efficient government sponsored mass murder.
>
>--
>Rev. Dr. Tim, McC, BsD
>Art Bell, Dr. Laura, Militia Satire Websites
>http://extra.newsguy.com/~satire
tims...@my-dejanews.com
>
>In article <DDFr-25119...@ddfr.vip.best.com>, DD...@best.com
>says...
>
>>A more interesting question is what the essential characteristics are
>>that make us call a government socialist. For the people you are arguing
>>with, the essential characteristic was government control over the means
>>of production. The fact that the Nazis maintained the form of private
>>ownership but not the substance means that they are more similar to
>>socialists than different. You might also want to look at Hayek's _Road
>>to Serfdom_, which discusses intellectual links between the two movements.
>
>I've looked at that, but find that the vast ideological differences
>between the two creates separate ideologies that are "fascist" (anti/post-
>modern, anti-internationalist, anti-rationalist, nationalist, anti-
>intellectual, emotional) and "socialist" (rationalist, objectivist,
>modernist, internationalist).
Yet somehow the actual policies imposed by regimes with such "vast ideological
differences" as National Socialist Germany & Soviet Socialist Russia don't seem
to have been all that different after all.
>Now, practically, the way that such movements played themselves out in the
>twentieth century so far creates some vast distance liberal ideals and
>both fascist and socialist ideals. Furthermore, to the extent that
>socialist ideals moved away from Stalinist/bureaucratic socialism to a
>democratic socialism, the distance between social democracy and liberalism
>(i.e., free market individualism) is less than the distance between social
>democracy and bureaucratic socialism. The distance between traditional
>conservatism and social democracy may be less than the distance between
>traditional conservatism and fascism.
If so, then that's because social democrats have been backpedaling away from
socialism in its purest forms since at least the 1950s, after the failure of
nationalization in Britain under Clement Atlee's Labour Party (Second
International) government & Kruschev's "secret" speech admitting the crimes of
Stalin (which was only leaked to the outside world thanks to the Israeli spy
service, Mossad).
Tim Starr
ka...@snowcrest.net
The point of my post was to point out that both capitalists and
socialists have utilized coercion when they have had the (political)
power to do so.
So the problem is political power.
Neither socialism or capitalism are inherently coercive. They are merely
economic systems. If people choose to enter into an economic arrangement
voluntarilly, that is their business. It is in the realm of politics
that coercion finds expression. If the government has the power to
coerce, it doesn't matter which kind of economic system one lives under
because the government will become the coercive tool for whichever
faction is able to capture and control the state.
Thus, I favor the deconstruction of hierarchally arranged political
megalopolies in favor of localized direct democracy.
In economics I am a utilitarian. I favor the economic system that works
best for the greatest number of people, allows the highest degree of
individual freedom, and is the least environmentally damaging. People
should be able to choose their own economic systems based on their
collective localized needs. They should be free to mix elements if they
so desire or develop communistic or capitalist systems as they choose.
But they must not be allowed to coerce each other. If some people wish
to live outside a strictly marketized economy, they ought to have that
right.
It should be understood however that I favor the direct ownership, by
the people themselves, of resources and the means of production. And
this especially means the possession of usable farm land. Anyone
dependent upon others, or distantly controlled "markets," for their
sustenance are slaves to someone else's economic system.
The state uses the people's taxes to pay the cost of coercing them. Thus
I favor drastically lowering personal taxes, and allowing people at the
local level to decide how their taxes will be used. Taxes should be
moved from the individual to corporations that produce greenhouse
gasses, and other air pollutants, produce pesticides, toxic chemicals,
pump ground water, create suburban sprawl, etc. Since the air and water
belong to the "commons," anyone who over-utilizes or pollutes these
necessary resources should be compelled to pay for it.
I don't know if there is a particular doctrine that expresses my opinion
or not. But I've been influenced by both anarchist and libertarian
thinking.
Rob McFarlin
C. Duncan
>Neither socialism or capitalism are inherently coercive. They are merely
>economic systems. If people choose to enter into an economic arrangement
>voluntarilly, that is their business. It is in the realm of politics
>that coercion finds expression. If the government has the power to
>coerce, it doesn't matter which kind of economic system one lives under
>because the government will become the coercive tool for whichever
>faction is able to capture and control the state.
That's the reason I identify with libertarian arguments. It is the
state which threatens freedoms.
>Thus, I favor the deconstruction of hierarchally arranged political
>megalopolies in favor of localized direct democracy.
>
>In economics I am a utilitarian. I favor the economic system that works
>best for the greatest number of people, allows the highest degree of
>individual freedom, and is the least environmentally damaging. People
>should be able to choose their own economic systems based on their
>collective localized needs. They should be free to mix elements if they
>so desire or develop communistic or capitalist systems as they choose.
>But they must not be allowed to coerce each other. If some people wish
>to live outside a strictly marketized economy, they ought to have that
>right.
I see nothing wrong with individuals or groups choosing the economic
structure for their enterprises. If a group of people wish to live
in a voluntary communal arrangement, or run businesses based upon
a co-op arrangement there is nothing inherently
wrong with that. As you say, it is coercive force which limits
freedom. By the same token, I don't think that coercive force should
be used against people who wish to establish businesses on capitalist
models. Any workers in such a society would have the choice of
workplace that suits them.
C. Duncan
Needs Limbaughtomy
(gdy52150) wrote:
Re: Nazi's Were Certainly NOT Leftists NOR Socialists. like Duh.
>>In article ...
>> >The first group doesn't give a damn about the unfortunate in
>> >their communities. The second consists of people who want to
>> >shrink government and regulation for the sole purpose of
>> >easing their tax burden.
>> >
>> >Both are despicable and both are on the right.
>>
>>Ever notice how the "unfortunate" are always the rationalization behind
>>this massive State theft?
>>
>>Poverty had been in continous decline since WWII until the start of
>>the so-called "War on Poverty", when it began to rise again.
>>
>
>you fucking idiot. The low point for poverty was 77-78.
And only those of us who *loved* thru that juicy period
can understand the widespread hatred of Reagan & Co.
It looked like the American Dream was gunna come true.
Now, they spit on that idea.
Needs Limbaughtomy
Insanity Set <se...@dontreplyhere.com> wrote:
>Do a bit of research before you post. What do you mean by private? Like
>the way "private" businesses were commandeered for wartime production.
>Is that what you mean by private? Or like the way private banks were
>directed to support the
Oh, you are not talking about the USA during WW II?
Ever wonder why gasolone was rationed and tires were not
available here in WW II. Long long list. The American socilists
ar work? Try war. Don't get them confused.
>when your so called private business must produce according to govt
>dictates.
Well, what do you call Uniroyal and Standard Oil in WW II?
You guys really need some historical perspective.
>
>Lenin in the first decade or so allowed so called private businesses to
>operate to a certain extent. It was called New Economic Policy. Are you
>saying he wasn't a socialist because he initially allowed businesses to
>operate in a limited way before taking them over?
Are you saying that the USA and Nazi Germany durring WW II,
and the preceeding arms build-ups were socilists because they
only allowed businesses to operate in a limited way?
Needs Limbaughtomy
on Wed, 25 Nov 1998 David Friedman) wrote:
>(Scott Erb) wrote:
>
>
>>For those who doubt that nazis were anti-bolshevik to the extreme, here
>>are some places to look:
>
>Coke is anti-pepsi to the extreme too, and vice versa.
Indeed, this is probably true. Assuming there is no
merger in sight. So in the context you have quoted,
I agree that Erb's evidence is non-sequitur.
>
>In other words, the argument is about whether the hostility between the
>Nazis and the Communists reflected an essential difference, or whether
>they were two totalitarian movements, more similar than different, that
>were fighting for power in a context where only one could win, and the
>loser could expect to be destroyed.
Understand that "totalitarian movements" has NOTHING to
do with the definition of socialism, despite the Libertarian
brainwashing and re-defining of terms to the contrary. The
question is, are there essential and major differences?
A somewhat related question is; why did the Libertarians
find it necessary to re-define their terminology by inserting
"totalitarian" into socialism, and communism? Why do they
need "special" definitions? The answer is simple. They
hate being grouped farther to the Right than Repubs on the
Nazi end. Yet their philosophy has much in common with
fascism. That's why. Denial.
>It seems clear from both Turner and Shirer, the two books I have recently
>been looking at, that the Nazis attempted to represent themselves as
>socialists to workers who would be attracted by that, and as
>anti-socialists to businessmen.
Almost, but not quite.
Depends on the time. After 1933 or 1935 is the period where
Nazis can by no stretch of the imagination be called socialist.
But in the beginning, all their propaganda was socialist, even
if Hitler was a right wing shining star under the control
of the right wing Army.
>If so, it will be easy to find quotes from
>Nazis demonstrating that they are socialists, and other quotes
>demonstrating that they are not.
BINGO! Which is why undated quotes are useless. I think
it's important to consider that when most people say "Nazi",
they refer to Nazi Germany (post 1935?), and Americans
mean even post 1939 Nazi Germany, as in WW II.
>
>A more interesting question is what the essential characteristics are that
>make us call a government socialist. For the people you are arguing with,
>the essential characteristic was government control over the means of
>production.
Yep.
>The fact that the Nazis maintained the form of private
>ownership but not the substance
Problem is, that is no fact. What is a fact is, Hitler is
responsible for major de-nationalization, he even privatized
electricity. What is a fact is that Hitler got major
industrialized money, which seems to contradict your claims.
Do you have a non-Hitler cite?
>means that they are more similar to
>socialists than different. You might also want to look at Hayek's _Road to
>Serfdom_, which discusses intellectual links between the two movements.
Heyek, a Libertarian doyen is one of the few people with that
opinion. I'd suggest that people first familiarize themselves
with the consensus expert opinions before checking out the fringes.
His area of expertise is not history, so I wonder why anybody
would do that, or why you would recommend him in this context.
To those who don't want to be bothered by research, I suggest
you just ask somebody who was politically aware in WW II.
They will find this topic absurd.
Scott Erb
>
>Factual evidence has been posted, repeatedly,
No, I've posted very specific information (and can repost it) stating
precisely what the ideological differences are between fascism and
socialism. No one has debunked that. You have tried to redefine what
socialism is to fit into your simplistic view of things, but that hardly
proves much. You're as much a troll as that little O'Dell character who
gets embarrassed off the net now and then. Grow up and get an education.
cheers, scott
http://violet.umfacad.maine.edu/~erb/
Bill Koehler
bubbasm...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <365FFA58...@flash.net>,
> nc...@flash.net wrote:
> > The difference is state ownership is socialism
> > private ownership with state control is fascism
> > You can twist the definition but it will always
> > come down to this.
>
> You are of course free to define it as such but then the only socialist
> countries are communist and many nominally socialist which will not qualify
> under this strict definition. Indeed, you can go back through these threads
> and find defenders of socialism who refused to define it as such.
>
> Are there any objections to defining fascism as nominal private ownership with
> state control?
Define away the difference is the same.
Phil Ronzone
>In article <philF34...@netcom.com>, ph...@netcom.com (Phil
>Ronzone) wrote:
>
>>More to the point - WHAT is socialism????
>>
>>A lot of adjectives get attached to socialism, but when
>>freedom and socialism are mentioned together - it sounds like
>>nonsense.
>>
>>The basis of socialism IS the initiation of coercion - the
>>theft, the cannibalism of others to support non-producers.
>>
>>"OK then, just WHAT is socialism if not that?".
>>
>>Your turn.
>>
>I've never read this as a definition of socialism before.
>What I have read is, more or less, that socialism is the
>production.
That's not a definition, since a "collective" is not a volitional
entity nor an artificial person (corporation).
It's like saying "it's socities fault".
What is the collective? Who defines the collective? Undert what basis
does the "collective" become the ONLY property owner?
What if someone does NOT want his property owned by the collective?
Do you agree the Borg illustrate the end evolution of socialism?
>Isn't all property (meaning exclusively land and resources -
>not the objects of industrial production) the result of an
>ancient theft?
No.
>
>Please allow me to illustrate.
>
>The king of England sold, or gave, land grants to land that
>he, in fact, did not own. Both William Pitt and Roger
>Williams pointed this out and at least in Pennsylvania,
>actually bought land from the Indians. Thus the possession of
>the land stolen from the Indians, as the prior occupants,
>constitutes a theft. It therefore follows that any wealth
>based on stolen land was gained under coercion, does it not?
No. Most all of the pre-1760 land was purchased from the Indians.
Indeed, the Indians were so adept at "milking" the newcomers
that a great deal of irritation came up between the Americans
and ther British - over 1/3 of the Massachusets budget was
spent meeting new and original demands from the Indian (ugh,
Chief FlyByNight have no right to sell you THAT land. Must pay
Chief RipOff for THAT land).
>If we look at taxes as a form of theft (under government
>coercion) then any wealth aquired through governemnt
>contracts would be wealth gained under coercion, would it
>not?
No. Why would you imagine this? If I sell a doughnut to a Mafia
mobster, sitting in his stolen car, and he pays me with stolen
money, I am in no way participating in hos coercive efforts.
>It therefore follows that men like Gould, Fisk, Morgan,
>Carnegie, Hill, Rockefeller, and Mellon, who all gained a
>great degree of their wealth from government contracts,
>gained it through legalized theft under the threat of
>coercion.
Sigh: 1. All monkeys have tails.
2. All concert pianists wear tails.
3. Therefore, all concert pianists are monkeys.
More to the point, you are in error that the above lists of men
gained any significant amount of wealth from "government contracts".
This is dead wrong.
Your logic is flawed, and your "facts" are wrong.
Before you enter into one of your classic hissy fits, remember
that you can go out and dig up a citation from a history book
that describes how all the above "gained a great degree of their
wealth from government contracts".
And then you can throw in my face and chortle with great glee.
Of course, since no such thing happened, you won't be able to
do that now will you.
>It appears, therefore, that, historically speaking,
>capitalism has gained as much through coercion as you allege
>to socialism. Doesn't it appear that both capitalism and
>socialism have profited from coercion?
>
>Rob McFarlin
Snicker. Not even a bad try.
AND STILL NO DEFINITION OF WHAT IS SOCIALISM!
BTW - Unless you, and people like you are REALLY stupid, you KNOW that
you have/had NO EVIDENCE of the statement:
"gained a great degree of their wealth from government contracts".
I.e., you knowingly made it up.
Otherwise, I would have read, say, Gould then got another 100 million
from the so-and-so contract with the (Feds) etc.
You're LONNNNNG on assertion, VERY SHORT on facts.
Phil Ronzone
>ka...@snowcrest.net (Karen McFarlin) wrote:
>
>
>>It appears, therefore, that, historically speaking,
>>capitalism has gained as much through coercion as you allege
>>to socialism. Doesn't it appear that both capitalism and
>>socialism have profited from coercion?
>>
>>Rob McFarlin
>>
>which system offers a better future for you?
Mr. McFarlin is confused, or is trying to confuse others.
Capitalism is like virginity - it ain't after the first prick.
Not only has McFarlin tried to create the falksehood that capitalists
got their (bulk of) wealth throught State contracts, he doesn't seem
to realize that capitalism is about freedom.
No freedom, no capitalism.
Phil Ronzone
>Insanity Set <se...@dontreplyhere.com> wrote:
>>Do a bit of research before you post. What do you mean by
>>private? Like the way "private" businesses were commandeered
>>for wartime production. Is that what you mean by private? Or
>>like the way private banks were directed to support the
>United States war efforts?
>
>Oh, you are not talking about the USA during WW II? Ever
>wonder why gasolone was rationed and tires were not available
>here in WW II. Long long list. The American socilists ar
>work? Try war. Don't get them confused.
Snicker.
I see that you STILL have no response, like a list of these alleged
companies that were allegedly "commandeered".
BTW- Gasoline was rationed. By the State. And not because gasoline was
scarce - it was plentiful throughout the war. The official reason
was that rubber was scarce, and if you let people drive ...
The real reason was the socialists just felt it was right to
make people "suffer" - to disallow the freedom of the people moving
around. What's a socialist/fascist with a bunch of people to control?
>>when your so called private business must produce according
>>to govt dictates.
>>
>Well, what do you call Uniroyal and Standard Oil in WW II?
>You guys really need some historical perspective.
Call them? Companies. You see, dickweed head, when the USA wanted
something in WWII, it went out and asked for bids. The bids could
be accepted, or, they could be turned down.
There was NO commandeering.
>>Lenin in the first decade or so allowed so called private
>>businesses to operate to a certain extent. It was called New
>>Economic Policy. Are you saying he wasn't a socialist because
>>he initially allowed businesses to operate in a limited way
>>before taking them over?
>>
>Are you saying that the USA and Nazi Germany durring WW II,
>and the preceeding arms build-ups were socilists because they
>only allowed businesses to operate in a limited way?
Unlike Germany, in the USA in WWII, the government would send out
bids. A company would accept or decline. That's called freedom.
Joe Schembrie
I guess your opinion is that National SOCIALISM never failed because it
was never tried.
Joe Schembrie
American Parallax: Contract with America 2
http://cybooks.com/politics
Scott Erb
>Do you agree the Borg illustrate the end evolution of socialism?
In a word: No.
You seem to want to have very extreme definitions about anything. Take
the word "collective." You are part of a collective -- you are part of a
family (I assume). Collective does not mean a borg like single decision
making system with all discordant thought eliminated. A collective is any
group that cooperates together or shares a common sense of identity
(including such diverse things as "British" or "Vikings Football Fans" or
"Sixth Graders at Grant High School," etc.). Democratic socialism that
stresses individual rights would limit the scope of a "collective" to
trying to create the conditions for true freedom and justice, not limiting
individualism or independence.
cheers, scott
Larry Hewitt
Joe Schembrie wrote in message <3662DD...@seanet.com>...
>Scott Erb wrote:
>>
>> In article <philF34...@netcom.com>, ph...@netcom.com says...
>> >
>> >Factual evidence has been posted, repeatedly,
>>
>> No, I've posted very specific information (and can repost it) stating
>> precisely what the ideological differences are between fascism and
>> socialism. No one has debunked that. You have tried to redefine what
>> socialism is to fit into your simplistic view of things, but that hardly
>> proves much. You're as much a troll as that little O'Dell character who
>> gets embarrassed off the net now and then. Grow up and get an education.
>> cheers, scott
>> http://violet.umfacad.maine.edu/~erb/
>
>I guess your opinion is that National SOCIALISM never failed because it
>was never tried.
>
Another right wing wacko falls for the name game. Or are you going to
continue this nuttiness and assert that the German Democratic Republic was a
democracy?? ( for the inellectually impaired on the right this was _East_
Germany).
But, in your own weird way, you actually came close to the truth. Nazi
Germany never really practiced any government philosophy, but was more a
cult of personalities ruled by strongmen in charge of their little fiefdoms,
both inside and outside Germany. Even Hitler wasn't safe - besides the well
known bombing there were several other plots against him, including
kidnapping him when he went to the Eastern Front during the early days of
the invasion of Russia - when all was going _well_.
No, most of the "political" system of Nazi Germany was feuding and turf wars
between a few key individuals, not a choherent national agenda.
Read _Barbarossa_, the invasion of Russia for some insights.
Larry
gdy52150
wrote:
>In article <36620499....@news.psnw.com> mind.sti...@theBeach.edu (Needs Limbaughtomy) writes:
>
>
> >Insanity Set <se...@dontreplyhere.com> wrote:
> >>Do a bit of research before you post. What do you mean by
> >>private? Like the way "private" businesses were commandeered
> >>for wartime production. Is that what you mean by private? Or
> >>like the way private banks were directed to support the
> >United States war efforts?
> >
> >Oh, you are not talking about the USA during WW II? Ever
> >wonder why gasolone was rationed and tires were not available
> >here in WW II. Long long list. The American socilists ar
> >work? Try war. Don't get them confused.
>
>Snicker.
>
>I see that you STILL have no response, like a list of these alleged
>companies that were allegedly "commandeered".
>
>BTW- Gasoline was rationed. By the State. And not because gasoline was
>scarce - it was plentiful throughout the war. The official reason
silly philly just keeps on getting dumber by the second. Now go tell
us another whooper.
>was that rubber was scarce, and if you let people drive ...
>The real reason was the socialists just felt it was right to
>make people "suffer" - to disallow the freedom of the people moving
>around. What's a socialist/fascist with a bunch of people to control?
>
didn't have to wait for that whopper very long, now did we.
>
> >>when your so called private business must produce according
> >>to govt dictates.
> >>
> >Well, what do you call Uniroyal and Standard Oil in WW II?
> >You guys really need some historical perspective.
>
>Call them? Companies. You see, dickweed head, when the USA wanted
>something in WWII, it went out and asked for bids. The bids could
>be accepted, or, they could be turned down.
>
thats entirely bullshit, there were many exceptions. In fact
businesses caused a greater delay in getting war material to the
troops than all the strikes combined. Some businesses were forced into
producing war material.
>There was NO commandeering.
>
you are full of shit as usual.
> >>Lenin in the first decade or so allowed so called private
> >>businesses to operate to a certain extent. It was called New
> >>Economic Policy. Are you saying he wasn't a socialist because
> >>he initially allowed businesses to operate in a limited way
> >>before taking them over?
> >>
> >Are you saying that the USA and Nazi Germany durring WW II,
> >and the preceeding arms build-ups were socilists because they
> >only allowed businesses to operate in a limited way?
>
>Unlike Germany, in the USA in WWII, the government would send out
>bids. A company would accept or decline. That's called freedom.
>
No thats called corporatism where the corporate whores have more
rights than a individual. Thats fascism.
>
>
>--
>"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
====================================================
bad...@cow-net.com
> If the Nazis were neither leftists nor socialists, just what
>were they, and how can we adopt some of their economic policies
>here in the modern U.S.A.? After all, the German economy thrived
>under the Nazis, even while the rest of the world was collapsing
>under the Great Depression. Germany went from a defeated nation,
>paying enormous sums in war reparations while trying to restore
>its industry, into the leading military and industrial nation in
>Europe, and it did it in an astonishingly short time. Surely, we
>could learn something from such a successful economic
>plan.
Canada did the same thing at the start of the War. The methods
are well known. Whether they can be applied during times of peace
and within a democratic society is another matter.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
SecureCom for OS2 and 95/NT support Page (formally NetChat)
http://cud.cow-net.com/badams/index.htm
Barry Adams
Vancouver Island,B.C.,Canada
---
-----------------------------------------------------------
bubbasm...@hotmail.com
nc...@flash.net wrote:
> bubbasm...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > In article <365FFA58...@flash.net>,
> > nc...@flash.net wrote:
> > > The difference is state ownership is socialism
> > > private ownership with state control is fascism
> > > You can twist the definition but it will always
> > > come down to this.
> >
> > You are of course free to define it as such but then the only socialist
> > countries are communist and many nominally socialist which will not qualify
> > under this strict definition. Indeed, you can go back through these threads
> > and find defenders of socialism who refused to define it as such.
> >
> > Are there any objections to defining fascism as nominal private ownership
with
> > state control?
>
> Define away the difference is the same.
OK, then. Let's see what we can do with this new intellectual tool.
Hmm, let's look at Hillary Clinton's proposal for universal health care. Was
that socialistic as many have argued? Actually, its fascist because she never
proposed nationalizing hospitals or HMOs but only to bring them under the
federal jackboot through regulation of law. I guess that would make Hillary a
right-wing Nazi.
How can it be that economic theories that supposedly anchor the opposite ends
of the political spectrum should prove so ambiguous?
--
"It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism
while wolves remain of a different opinion."
--William Ralph Inge
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Phil Ronzone
Snicker. There are a hell of lot of ex-victims of socialist/Borg style
collectivism that would disagree with you. Several billion in fact
as we count the USSR, the PRC, Cuba, and all the other fascist
places.
Your "Democratic socialism that stresses individual rights" is just silly.
It's like saying "a kind and sensitive personality with regards for
the feelings of others" would have prevented Ted Bundy from
being a murderer.
True, BUT THEN HE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN TED BUNDY NOW, WOULD HE?
Where is this "idividual rights" for 3,000,000 murdered Kulaks,
12,000,000 concentration camp victims, the 30,000,000 plus
"liquidated enemies of the State"?
The core, the very being, the ultra essence of socialism is that of
a thug. A small group of people get off satisfying their blood lusts
to control other people by FORCE. They LIVE to control others.
They are also, for most part, people that have NEVER produce or
created much of anything, besides terror.
From murder to life style coercion, the thugs lust for power over men
know no bounds.
A few years nack, as BUT ONE example, the Swedish controlling fascist
decided that not enough men were taking maternity leave - seemed it
was mainly women that used the maternity leave law, where the
employer was FORCED to pay for many months of stay home.
The last time I paid attention, changes to the law were being made
to FORCE men to stay home for maternity leave in roughly equal
numbers. Sort of like our racist AA laws here in the USA.
That's horrible.
Of course, some people see nothing wrong with the above case.
And some people see nothing wrong with Hitler also ...
Phil Ronzone
>If the Nazis were neither leftists nor socialists, just what
>were they, and how can we adopt some of their economic
>policies here in the modern U.S.A.? After all, the German
>economy thrived under the Nazis, even while the rest of the
>world was collapsing under the Great Depression. Germany went
>from a defeated nation, paying enormous sums in war
>reparations while trying to restore its industry, into the
>leading military and industrial nation in Europe, and it did
>it in an astonishingly short time. Surely, we could learn
>something from such a successful economic plan.
Actually, Germany did NOT do very well in the 1930's. As Hitler rose to
power, autarky become am actual obession. There was a HUGE overhang
of marks around, with not much to buy. The belief was that a freely
convertible mark would have blown Germany into a huge depression
(via a gigantic devaluation of mark making it valueless).
WWII intervened and allowed most of the overhang to be taxed away.
Wars are good for that.
A side from the autobahn make-work projects, no major infrastructures
were made - no new electrical transmission lines, no new sewers, etc.
Phil Ronzone
>
>Joe Schembrie wrote in message <3662DD...@seanet.com>...
>>Scott Erb wrote:
>>
>>>In article <philF34...@netcom.com>, ph...@netcom.com
>>>says...
>>>
>>>>Factual evidence has been posted, repeatedly,
>>I guess your opinion is that National SOCIALISM never failed
>>because it was never tried.
>>
>>
>Another right wing wacko falls for the name game. Or are you
>impaired on the right this was _East_ Germany).
Snicker. The GDR was post WWII.
Ooops, again ANOTHER fascist REFUSE to define socialism.
We know why.
>No, most of the "political" system of Nazi Germany was
>feuding and turf wars between a few key individuals, not a
>choherent national agenda.
Huh? I don't get it. Aren;t you saying that the NAZIs were (allegedly)
NOT socialists? Yet you've just described socialist thugdoms perfectly.
Phil Ronzone
As usual, no facts. No rational discussion. Even a tremendous ignorance
of history. The facts and issues of WWII gasoline rationing are explained
in all good history books (the ones with few pictures, snicker.).
You lose again!
Yossarian
>Snicker. There are a hell of lot of ex-victims of socialist/Borg style
>collectivism that would disagree with you. Several billion in fact
>as we count the USSR, the PRC, Cuba, and all the other fascist
>places.
USSR were not "democratic socialists".
>Your "Democratic socialism that stresses individual rights" is just silly.
"Definition of Socialism: The aim of socialism is to pursue political
democracy, individual freedom, especially the freedom from fear and all
forms of deficiency, economic equalitiy for individual lives, and to
develop techniques of production in order to guarantee the continuing
progress of human society.
The socialist society must be based on political democracy."
(From the "New Labour Theory of Value", Chapter XI, What is Socialism?)
>Where is this "idividual rights" for 3,000,000 murdered Kulaks,
>12,000,000 concentration camp victims, the 30,000,000 plus
>"liquidated enemies of the State"?
Yes, Stalinism was evil.
>The core, the very being, the ultra essence of socialism is that of
>a thug. A small group of people get off satisfying their blood lusts
>to control other people by FORCE. They LIVE to control others.
You keep trying to associate Stalin's actions - forced labor, purges, etc.
with socialism. That does not equate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Powell mpo...@nettaxi.com
"Every line I have written since 1936 has been written,
directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism,and for
democratic Socialism, as I understand it."
-George Orwell
" I wanted to meet stimulating and interesting people
of an ancient culture, and kill them. I wanted to be the
first kid on my block to get a confirmed kill."
-Joker, *Full Metal Jacket*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
gdy52150
wrote:
>In article <3660C589...@peak.com> Clyde Maxim <cli...@peak.com> writes:
got love it when these monkeys shoot themself in the foot. So silly
philly you want to talk about the electrice industry in Nazi Germany,
that haven for corporatism, huh? Surprise you damn fool Hitler
privitized the electric industry. So much for your shit that the nazis
were socialists.
>
>--
>"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
====================================================