Nazi's Were Certainly NOT Leftists NOR Socialists. like Duh.
etr...@ibm.net
Insanity Set wrote:
>
> Dear Cairn Terrier:
>
>
>
> Look at Himmler, a back-to-the-land, Buddhist, occult nature worshipper... Not
> exactly a conservative type.
>
> Cairns wrote:
>
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hitler plagerized some of the promises the left made, in order to win the
> > support of some of the working class. But Hitler and the whole fascist
> > circus of horrors belongs to the right.
> >
>> Wrong. Any collectivist, utopian centrist system such as Nazism (National Socialism)
is left. The genuine right a la Adam Smith emphasizes individual
freedom,
a free market and weak government.
Also no one could have been more leftist and pro union that Joseph
Goebbels, Hitler's left-hand man (excuse the pun)
> >
Victoria Baschzok
about: Re: Nazi's Were Certainly Leftists. Documented. (WAS:
Reagan's War)
>Uhm, Doug ....
>Nazis WERE leftists ... until they came to power, when they became
>ultra-rightists.
Bullshit.
Hitler hated socialists! He was hunting them for the German
Army when they discovered the right wing German's Worker's Party
about 1920 which he later renamed the Nazis. Cold war history
revisionism? I don't get it.
Read a book, idiot.
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.
>Socialism is generally identified as a "leftist" political
>stance.
Yep. But as we see, they were not socialists.
Free Masons are not construction workers.
Don't be fooled by what they called themselves to get votes.
>The German brand of National Socialism took a page from Mussolini's
>fascism (corporate socialism) and added a couple of quarts of totalitarianism.
Close enough. But it was NOT socialism.
And there was no "brand of" National Socialism, that
was the Party's NAME (sort of).
>"Pure" socialism, as was instituted in Russia and China,
Are you under the false impression that pure socialism is defined
by Soviet or Chinese Communism? Or that these systems
were pure socialism?
>"Pure" socialism, as was instituted in Russia and China,
>turned out to be little
>different than Nazi socialism.
May I suggest you brush up on history and economics
before you make such absurd comments? From a widely
respected source?
again:
"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...."
> In Russia, in fact, democracy-minded folks were
>identified as "leftists."
And your point is...?
-- Douglas bashford ät psnw döt-cöm--
- Dear Politicians:
- Seek to increase individuals' wealth and freedom
- rather than stimulating the gross economy. Consider abundance
- and wholeness instead of so-called; "economic growth".
- Growthmania consumes what it promises. Ecology delivers.
Cliff Morrison
> is left. The genuine right a la Adam Smith emphasizes individual
> freedom, a free market and weak government.
That's bollocks -- Adam Smith did *not* emphasise a "weak" government, far
from it. 'Tis true he advocated minimalising intervention -- but when
needed to curb the bad excesses of powerful elements in the "market" (like
the big-business battalions) he indicated the desirability and the
necessity for *strong* government, for the common good.
I think his reputation was done a grave dis-service in recent times by
those who only pulled out the bits that suited their own profiteering
purposes and pretended that was all he had said.
Scott D. Erb
In article <Victoria-250...@van-as-13c15.direct.ca>,
Vict...@netinfo.ubc.ca says...
>
> about: Re: Nazi's Were Certainly Leftists. Documented. (WAS:
>Reagan's War)
>
>>Uhm, Doug ....
>>Nazis WERE leftists ... until they came to power, when they became
>>ultra-rightists.
>
>Bullshit.
>
> Hitler hated socialists! He was hunting them for the German
> Army when they discovered the right wing German's Worker's Party
> about 1920 which he later renamed the Nazis. Cold war history
> revisionism? I don't get it.
>Read a book, idiot.
Yeah, this is an old debate. I posted some stuff with cites on fascism and
nazism that helped prove this, plus a netsite that goes step by step to show
that the nazis were not leftists.
To be sure, there were wings of the party that took socialism seriously, and
at times when their vote totals were low they toyed with stressing socialism
to try to lure votes away from the Communists. However, the real money was on
the far right, as were Hitler's natural allies (though fascism was ultimately
anti-conservative too -- but that wasn't clear to the right wing at the time).
Anyone who took the socialist part of "national socialism" too seriously was
quickly removed after the Nazis took power. Hitler himself was not anywhere
near the left, nor were most of the leaders of the party (who had rightwing,
nationalist credentials).
The Communists were the first group sent to Dachau, the Social Democrats were
the second.
cheers, scott
Scott D. Erb
In article <359489b9...@news.clara.net>, ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net
says...
>socialists. The fact that Hitler hated socialists is therefore an
>argument in support of the contention that the Nazis were socialists.
Joining socialists such as Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman,
Pat Buchanan, and all those other people who hate socialists.
What beautiful logic. Tell me, by your logic, are you a socialist?
Sheldon Scott
Vict...@netinfo.ubc.ca (Victoria Baschzok) wrote:
>Hitler hated socialists! He was hunting them for the German
>Army when they discovered the right wing German's Worker's Party
>about 1920 which he later renamed the Nazis.
>
Socialists. From a Vancouver Sun Editorial (page A14), June 23 '98.
Note the reference to a "left-wing publisher".
----------------------
>>Orwell, the socialist icon, had his leftist standards
>>
>>Britain's left supposedly was shocked a couple of years ago to
>>learn that - in the early days of the Cold War - socialist icon
>>George Orwell had provided a list of 130 left- wing unreliables
>>to a British government anti- communist propaganda agency.
>>Now the list has been made public, shielding the names of only
>>about three dozen living people.
>>
>>It should be no surprise that the author of two of the most
>>influential books of the century on totalitarian regimes and
>>their propaganda, "Animal Farm" and "1984", despised propaganda.
>>He exposed the propaganda pumped out by the Communists in the
>>Spanish Civil War. He considered his own wartime work with the
>>BBC Indian service as propagandistic, and quit it for freelance
>>journalism.
>>
>>The explanation is that Orwell was an anti-Stalinist socialist
>>at at time when it was highly unpopular to be one - "Animal
>>Farm" famously was rejected in 1944 by his own left-wing
>>publisher as likely to offend the Soviet Union - but, even
>>more, a scathingly independent thinker in the great tradition
>>of English skepticism. One critic described him as "a
>>socialist who despised all other socialists".
>>
>>The woman to whom he provided his list said recently: "If
>>George said these people were what he said they were, I bet
>>he knew." Mr. Orwell was held in that kind of respect.
>>
>>He was unwaveringly harsh on his own residual class snobbery,
>>and no one knew better that all human animals are unreliable,
>>but some are more unreliable than others.
>>
--
)-: E-mail will be posted as I see fit. :-(
(-: "Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net." :-)
Sheldon Scott
scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
>To be sure, there were wings of the party that took socialism
>seriously,
>
>and at times when their vote totals were low they toyed with
>stressing socialism to try to lure votes away from the Communists.
>
So, apparently, the Communists and Socialists didn't know that the
NAZI party wasn't socialist. Astounding - but then, those aren't the
sort of people I would expect to see keen insight from.
>However, the real money was on the far right, as were Hitler's
>natural allies
>
I suppose this is a reference to corporate / NAZI cooperation.
Some academics point to corporate / state cooperation in countries
like Sweden as proof that socialism works, then attempt to use the
fact that the National Socialists actually cooperated with industry as
proof that those guys weren't socialists. Amusing.
>(though fascism was ultimately anti-conservative
>too -- but that wasn't clear to the right wing at the time).
>
What's this, a back-handed attempt to indicate that the NAZI party
isn't to be connected with modern right-of-centre parties?
>Anyone who took the socialist part of "national socialism" too
>seriously was quickly removed after the Nazis took power.
>
As were many others of various political stripes, many of which had
not connection whatever to any socialist thought. In any event,
persecution of leftists is no indication that a gov't itself is not
leftist.
>Hitler himself was not anywhere near the left, nor were most of the
>leaders of the party (who had rightwing, nationalist credentials).
>
Some had solid left-wing nationalist credentials. Are we to accept
that the existence of less-than-hard-core socialists in a gov't proves
that gov't isn't socialist? Sounds like a fairly fanatic criteria.
>The Communists were the first group sent to Dachau, the
>Social Democrats were the second.
>
Show this. Explain why you leave out the fact that many were "sent
off" who had no connection to socialism whatever.
Sheldon Scott
ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net (Marc Living) wrote:
>As far as I can tell, *all* socialists hate all other types of
>socialists. The fact that Hitler hated socialists is therefore an
>argument in support of the contention that the Nazis were socialists.
>
persecution of leftists is no proof that a gov't isn't leftist.
Sheldon Scott
Vict...@netinfo.ubc.ca (Victoria Baschzok) wrote:
>Hitler hated socialists! ... Read a book, idiot.
>
Oooh, now, Vicky, don't get upset. You see, as George Orwell knew,
some writers are more reliable that others. Just because an
interpretation can be found in a book is no proof that it's true.
>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....
>"
This does not show that NAZIs weren't socialist; it just states that
efforts to "win the support of the working classes" don't show that a
party is a worker's party, then flatly states NAZIism was not
socialist. Sorry, boys, you'll have to do better than that.
The quote is helpful, for it makes the distinction between "organizing
for the benefit of the workers" and "socialism".
>"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....
>
Many of the tenets of which involved close control of industry by
gov't, a concept well-known to socialists.
>"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.
>
Which flavor of socialism were they referring to here: Soviet style,
"evolving to communism" style, or "labor gov't" style?
>But as we see, they were not socialists.
>Free Masons are not construction workers.
>Don't be fooled by what they called themselves to get votes.
>
You've tripped right over the point here, victoria! Socialism comes,
socialism founders, socialism goes, followed by a campaign by the
usuals suspects to whitewash another failure of socialism by telling
us "oh, that wasn't socialism". Pretty lame, really.
Advice from Vicky when contemplating a vote for socialists:
"Don't be fooled by what they called themselves to get votes."
>Close enough. But it was NOT socialism.
>And there was no "brand of" National Socialism, that
>was the Party's NAME (sort of).
>
On the contrary, National socialism was very much a type of socialism.
Some socialists don't like the idea; that doesn't change the fact that
millions of people voted for it on that basis.
>Are you under the false impression that pure socialism is defined
>by Soviet or Chinese Communism? Or that these systems
>were pure socialism?
>
Hell, no! Socialists often assure us that those weren't and aren't
socialism, just as they tell us National Socialism was not socialism.
In fact, it appears this "not socialism" is the favorite flavor!
>May I suggest you brush up on history and economics
>before you make such absurd comments? From a widely
>respected source?
>
Respected by whom? By you? Dubious respect, that...
<snip repeat of World Book, page 5467, quote>
Good lord, woman, now you're posting the same material twice in the
same _article_, never mind the same _thread_.
The NAZI party claimed to be socialist just the same way that gov't
that purports to be "organized for the benefit of workers" claim to be
socialist - to imply that they have the will of the people. Once
elected, they usually implement broadly ignorant policies that result
in economic turmoil.
Some socialist states have had success by cooperating with industry.
Sweden is a good example of this. Yet, we are told by vicky, here,
via the World Book Encyclopedia, no less, that cooperation with
industry proves that the NAZI party was not socialist. Amusing.
Sheldon Scott
ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net (Marc Living) wrote:
>cli...@post.almac.co.uk (Cliff Morrison) made the following:
>>Adam Smith did *not* emphasise a "weak" government, far from
>>it. 'Tis true he advocated minimalising intervention -- but when
>>needed to curb the bad excesses of powerful elements in the "market"
>
>threatened individual freedom and the market.
>
Exactly. Cliff, by ignoring that important factor and trying to paint
Smith as an advocate of gov't intervention for its own sake, is doing
exactly what he describes below - "those who only pulled out the bits
that suited their own profiteering".
>>I think his reputation was done a grave dis-service in recent times by
>>those who only pulled out the bits that suited their own profiteering
>>purposes and pretended that was all he had said.
>
>It is both sides of the political spectrum who have misrepresented
>Adam Smith.
Cliff Morrison
In article <35935132...@news.uniserve.com>,
ssc...@no.spam.uniserve.com wrote:
> ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net (Marc Living) wrote:
> >cli...@post.almac.co.uk (Cliff Morrison) made the following:
> >>Adam Smith did *not* emphasise a "weak" government, far from
> >>it. 'Tis true he advocated minimalising intervention -- but when
> >>needed to curb the bad excesses of powerful elements in the "market"
> >
> >Indeed - but only when those powerful interests themselves
> >threatened individual freedom and the market.
> >
> Exactly. Cliff, by ignoring that important factor and trying to paint
> Smith as an advocate of gov't intervention for its own sake, is doing
> exactly what he describes below - "those who only pulled out the bits
> that suited their own profiteering".
Well, not really since we all accept that he was in favour of a market
system, and I'd already said he advocated a minimum of intervention.
So it stands to reason that his approved intervention would be to
alleviate distortions of the market -- but that would almost certainly
need a "strong" not a "weak" government to do it effectively.
I was originally taking issue with the assumption that minimalist (where
economic regulation is concerned) automatically equalled weak... several
dictatorships have illustrated that is clearly not the case.
Cicero
Wayne Allen wrote: (snipped)
Arguably some of the most right-wing people posting in the NGs are
libertarians. They want more responsible individual freedom,
less government, free markets etc.
Now Hitler's Nazis were for collectivism, conformity, coercion, regimentation,
state capitalism, mercantilism, secret police,
social engineering, indoctrination and state propaganda. In Hitler's
Nazi utopia, the state was everything and the individual was nothing.
So from this you can see that libertarianism is the antithesis of Nazism.
Therefore, if libertarianism is right-wing, Nazism must needs be left-wing
and socialistic, which of course it is. Case closed.
Phil Ronzone
In article <35935043...@news.uniserve.com> ssc...@no.spam.uniserve.com writes:
>I suppose this is a reference to corporate / NAZI
>cooperation. Some academics point to corporate / state
>cooperation in countries like Sweden as proof that socialism
>works, then attempt to use the fact that the National
>Socialists actually cooperated with industry as proof that
>those guys weren't socialists. Amusing.
Actual history shows that businessmen wanted very little to do with NAZIs.
>What's this, a back-handed attempt to indicate that the NAZI
>party isn't to be connected with modern right-of-centre
>parties?
NAZIs *were* socialists. socialist, communists, fascists, all the same.
--
"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Larry Hewitt
Phil Ronzone wrote in message ...
>In article <35935043...@news.uniserve.com> ssc...@no.spam.uniserve.com
writes:
> >I suppose this is a reference to corporate / NAZI
> >cooperation. Some academics point to corporate / state
> >cooperation in countries like Sweden as proof that socialism
> >works, then attempt to use the fact that the National
> >Socialists actually cooperated with industry as proof that
> >those guys weren't socialists. Amusing.
>
>Actual history shows that businessmen wanted very little to do with NAZIs.
>
> >What's this, a back-handed attempt to indicate that the NAZI
> >party isn't to be connected with modern right-of-centre
> >parties?
>
>NAZIs *were* socialists. socialist, communists, fascists, all the same.
>
That's why they warred with each other, huh? Couldn't get along because they
were too similar??
larry
Cliff Morrison
In article <3593c463...@news.sk.sympatico.ca>,
think...@dlcwest.com (XXX) wrote:
> or why Joseph Goebels
> came up with the "Big Lie" theory.
a description prior to which all
politicians were paragons of truthfulness?
Sheldon Scott
ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) wrote:
>ssc...@no.spam.uniserve.com writes:
> >Some academics point to corporate / state
> >cooperation in countries like Sweden as proof that socialism
> >works, then attempt to use the fact that the National
> >Socialists actually cooperated with industry as proof that
> >those guys weren't socialists. Amusing.
>
>Actual history shows that businessmen wanted very little to do with NAZIs.
>
the left post without double-checking. Sure, some large corporations
cooperated, but many businessmen, as you state, wanted nothing to do
with the party.
>NAZIs *were* socialists. socialist, communists, fascists, all the same.
>
Bang on. All use the state as an excuse to do what they bloody well
want, regardless of the long-term consequences for the jurisdiction.
Erik
'Cicero' wrote:
>Arguably some of the most right-wing people
posting in the NGs are
>libertarians. They want more responsible
individual freedom,
>less government, free markets etc.
>
>Now Hitler's Nazis were for collectivism,
conformity, coercion, regimentation, state
capitalism, mercantilism, secret police,
>social engineering, indoctrination and state
propaganda.
[snip]
Much like some of our bloatedly large
corporations. This is what they're aspiring to, I
guess. Corporate state status.
E!
esc...@bc.sympatico.ca
__________________________________________________
______
**The belief in coincidence is the prevalent
superstition
of the 20th century** R.A. Wilson
Paul Hyett
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Cicero at Cicero <cic...@sympatico.ca> stated this
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>
>Wayne Allen wrote: (snipped)
>
>Arguably some of the most right-wing people posting in the NGs are
>libertarians. They want more responsible individual freedom,
>less government, free markets etc.
>
>Now Hitler's Nazis were for collectivism, conformity, coercion, regimentation,
>
>state capitalism, mercantilism, secret police,
>Nazi utopia, the state was everything and the individual was nothing.
>
>So from this you can see that libertarianism is the antithesis of Nazism.
>Therefore, if libertarianism is right-wing, Nazism must needs be left-wing
>and socialistic, which of course it is. Case closed.
But the Nazi's blatent racism is hardly characteristic of the left!
>
>
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Hartmann Schaffer
Sheldon Scott wrote:
> ...
> >and at times when their vote totals were low they toyed with
> >stressing socialism to try to lure votes away from the Communists.
> >
> So, apparently, the Communists and Socialists didn't know that the
> NAZI party wasn't socialist. Astounding - but then, those aren't the
> sort of people I would expect to see keen insight from.
You missed the point. Read the original argument again
> ...
> >(though fascism was ultimately anti-conservative
> >too -- but that wasn't clear to the right wing at the time).
> >
> What's this, a back-handed attempt to indicate that the NAZI party
> isn't to be connected with modern right-of-centre parties?
You can be anticonservative and right wing
> ...
> >Hitler himself was not anywhere near the left, nor were most of the
> >leaders of the party (who had rightwing, nationalist credentials).
> >
> Some had solid left-wing nationalist credentials. Are we to accept
> that the existence of less-than-hard-core socialists in a gov't proves
> that gov't isn't socialist? Sounds like a fairly fanatic criteria.
Care to name a few? The only ones I can think of are the Strasser
brothers, and they didn't survive the Nazi power grab for long.
> >The Communists were the first group sent to Dachau, the
> >Social Democrats were the second.
> >
> Show this. Explain why you leave out the fact that many were "sent
> off" who had no connection to socialism whatever.
It is well documented that Communists, sicialists, social democrats, and
anarchists were the first (though they got sent off pretty much
simultaneously). It was right after the Reichtagsbrand, when Hitler
still had to make the Conservatives and moderate rightwingers believe
that they could control him. It was their turn as soon as the Nazis
didn't need them any more, which happened to be somewhat later.
--
Hartmann Schaffer
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
scha...@netcom.ca (hs)
Hartmann Schaffer
Phil Ronzone wrote:
> ...
> Actual history shows that businessmen wanted very little to do with NAZIs.
One of the biggest boosters of the Nazis was Hugenberg (sp?), owner of
the biggerst German press publisher. Hjalmar Schacht, conservative boss
of the Reichsbank, also contributed a lot to get Hitler into power.
> >What's this, a back-handed attempt to indicate that the NAZI
> >party isn't to be connected with modern right-of-centre
> >parties?
>
> NAZIs *were* socialists. socialist, communists, fascists, all the same.
Then how would you explain the fact that Hitler's rise to power was
engineered by the triumvirat (sp?) of v. Papen, Bruening, and
Schleicher, leaders of the political and conservative right, as the only
means to keep the Social Democrats out of thegovernment. Their
miscalculation was that they thought they could use him rather than be
used by him
Victoria Baschzok
> Wayne Allen wrote: (snipped)
>
> Arguably some of the most right-wing people posting in the NGs are
> libertarians. They want more responsible individual freedom,
> less government, free markets etc.
>
> Now Hitler's Nazis were for collectivism, conformity, coercion, regimentation,
>
> state capitalism, mercantilism, secret police,
> social engineering, indoctrination and state propaganda.
Wow, that's just like the USA.
enrique
Cicero <cic...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Wayne Allen wrote: (snipped)
>
>Arguably some of the most right-wing people posting in the NGs are
>libertarians. They want more responsible individual freedom,
>less government, free markets etc.
>
>Now Hitler's Nazis were for collectivism, conformity, coercion, regimentation,
>
>state capitalism, mercantilism, secret police,
>social engineering, indoctrination and state propaganda. In Hitler's
>Nazi utopia, the state was everything and the individual was nothing.
>
>So from this you can see that libertarianism is the antithesis of Nazism.
>Therefore, if libertarianism is right-wing, Nazism must needs be left-wing
>and socialistic, which of course it is. Case closed.
>
The right and left wings are two sides of the conservative
coin.
T. Asquith
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 09:28:40 -0400, etr...@ibm.net wrote in can.politics :
-Insanity Set wrote:
->
-> Dear Cairn Terrier:
-> > Hitler plagerized some of the promises the left made, in order to win the
-> > support of some of the working class. But Hitler and the whole fascist
-> > circus of horrors belongs to the right.
-Wrong. Any collectivist, utopian centrist system such as Nazism (National -
- Socialism) is left. The genuine right a la Adam Smith emphasizes individual
-freedom, a free market and weak government.
You are confusing collectivism with nationalism. Adam Smith was not right.
Adam Smith didn't advocate individual freedom per se nor did he advocate a
weak government. He did advocate however the idea of a self-interested
morality and a general hands-off policy for government with regards to
a local economy. Also, utopianism is quite prominent on the Right as
well as the Left.
- Also no one could have been more leftist and pro union that Joseph
- Goebbels, Hitler's left-hand man (excuse the pun)
How do you make Goebbels a leftie? He was anti-union, anti-abortion,
anti-minorities, pro-big business, anti-disabled, pro-eugenics and
anti-homosexual. He devised forms of making mass appeal
possible Add all these together and you have a right winger bub.
Cheers,
Tom Asquith
No spam please!
tasquith [at] gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
==============================================
GO ENGLAND!!! 'Ere we go, 'ere we go, ...
==============================================
Hokey Wolf
In article <35940c8b...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (T. Asquith) wrote:
?On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 09:28:40 -0400, etr...@ibm.net wrote in can.politics :
?
?-Insanity Set wrote:
?->
?-> Dear Cairn Terrier:
?
?-> > Hitler plagerized some of the promises the left made, in order to win the
?-> > support of some of the working class. But Hitler and the whole fascist
?-> > circus of horrors belongs to the right.
?
?-Wrong. Any collectivist, utopian centrist system such as Nazism (National -
?- Socialism) is left. The genuine right a la Adam Smith emphasizes individual
?-freedom, a free market and weak government.
?
?You are confusing collectivism with nationalism.
No, he's confusing a free-market with weak government. Free-market
capitalist rules constitute just another quite potent authoritarian
governance.
Derek Nalecki
In article <Victoria-250...@van-as-13c15.direct.ca>, Vict...@netinfo.ubc.ca (Victoria Baschzok) wrote:
> about: Re: Nazi's Were Certainly Leftists. Documented. (WAS:
>Reagan's War)
>
>>Uhm, Doug ....
>>Nazis WERE leftists ... until they came to power, when they became
>>ultra-rightists.
>
>Bullshit.
Real intelligent left-wing argument.
>
> Hitler hated socialists! He was hunting them for the German
> Army when they discovered the right wing German's Worker's Party
> about 1920 which he later renamed the Nazis. Cold war history
> revisionism? I don't get it.
>Read a book, idiot.
How about this book:
"The Italian Fascist Party and the German Nazi Party do not fit the mold
of a traditional conservative rightist party. In particular, in *total
contradiction* [emphasis dn] to the conservative right, the Nazi party
attacked economic liberalism and instead proposed economic autarky, in
combination with an interventionist state industrial and agricultural
policy, as a measure to stimulate the economy and create jobs"...
"Instead, I would suggest, the Nazi success can be attributed largely to
the economic proposals found in the party's programs, which, in an uncanny
fashion, integrated elements of eighteenth- and nineteenth- century
nationalist-etatist philosophy with twentieth-century Keynesian economics
[both socialist, dn]. Nationalist etatism is an ideology that rejects
economic liberalism [like true ownership, based on effective control, of
property, dn] and promotes the right of the state to intervene in all
spheres of life, including the economy...
In their nationalist-etatist thinking the Nazis drew upon the late
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century contributions of anti-laissez faire
or **anti-capitalist** [emphasis dn] economist such as Adam Heinrich
Muller, Wilhelm Rosher, Friedrich List, Georg Friedrich Knapp, Gustav
Schmoller, and Adolf Wagner. Much of the impetus for the nationalist-
etatist thinking came from German philosophers who felt that English or
Western economic theory had minimized the importance of national
characteristics. Among the ideas that nationalist-etatist school
contributed to Nazi economic theory were state socialism, autarkic
economic development, and Lebensraum.
The concept of state socialism was based on the principles that the
economy should serve the interests of the state or Volk, rather than the
individual and that the state should oversee the direction of the
economy...
Nationalist-etatist principles (...of anticapitalism, autarkic economic
development, and Lebensraum) and Keynesian economics made for a good
match. Autarky was realizable, according to the thinking in the NSDAP,
through government-initiated investment in the nation's infrastructure,
including public works, residential reconstruction, resettlement, and
reagrarianization. In the end, the mariage of nationalist-etatist thinking
and Keynesian economics allowed the Nazis to design some rather novel
but nevertheless concrete economic policies."
William Brustein
The Logic of Evil, The Social Origins of the Nazi Party, 1925-1933.;
Yale University Press, 1996
Or perhaps from the man himself:
The party is all-embracing... There will be no license, no free space,
in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism - not such
trifles as private possessions of the means of production. Of what importance
is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape?
Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor
is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them, regardless
whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unnecessary.
Our Socialism goes far deeper.
The people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them.
They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as
possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions.
As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the
meantime they have entered a new relation, a powerful social force has
caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and
income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories?
We socialize human beings.
--Adolf Hitler to Hermann Raushning
explaining the essence of national socialism
>
> From "World Book Encyclopedia", 1958, p. 5467:
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaah
>
> 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.
>
>>Socialism is generally identified as a "leftist" political
>>stance.
>
>Yep. But as we see, they were not socialists.
What made them "non-socialist"?
>Free Masons are not construction workers.
>Don't be fooled by what they called themselves to get votes.
>
>>The German brand of National Socialism took a page from Mussolini's
>>fascism (corporate socialism) and added a couple of quarts of totalitarianism.
>
>Close enough. But it was NOT socialism.
>And there was no "brand of" National Socialism, that
>was the Party's NAME (sort of).
>
>>"Pure" socialism, as was instituted in Russia and China,
>
>Are you under the false impression that pure socialism is defined
>by Soviet or Chinese Communism? Or that these systems
>were pure socialism?
Like national socialism, they were variants of socialism. Of course every
off-shoot of every cult always describes itself as a pure version. So do
today's democratic socialists; so did the other socialists.
>
>>"Pure" socialism, as was instituted in Russia and China,
>>turned out to be little
>>different than Nazi socialism.
>
>May I suggest you brush up on history and economics
>before you make such absurd comments? From a widely
>respected source?
> again:
> "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...."
Repeating the same pathetic nonsense of the insanely left-wing (in the
academia) '50s does not make it any more credible.
>
>
>> In Russia, in fact, democracy-minded folks were
>>identified as "leftists."
>
>And your point is...?
>
>-- Douglas bashford ät psnw döt-cöm--
>
>- Dear Politicians:
>- Seek to increase individuals' wealth and freedom
>- rather than stimulating the gross economy. Consider abundance
>- and wholeness instead of so-called; "economic growth".
>- Growthmania consumes what it promises. Ecology delivers.
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 ***********
Derek Nalecki
In article <35940c8b...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>, tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (T. Asquith) wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 09:28:40 -0400, etr...@ibm.net wrote in can.politics :
>
>->
>-> Dear Cairn Terrier:
>
>
>
Nationalism is one of the forms of collectivism.
>Adam Smith didn't advocate individual freedom per se nor did he advocate a
>weak government. He did advocate however the idea of a self-interested
Correct; see critique of Smith in Reisman's "Capitalism".
>morality and a general hands-off policy for government with regards to
>a local economy. Also, utopianism is quite prominent on the Right as
>well as the Left.
Granted, but mostly on the religious right.
>
>
>- Also no one could have been more leftist and pro union that Joseph
>- Goebbels, Hitler's left-hand man (excuse the pun)
>
>How do you make Goebbels a leftie? He was anti-union, anti-abortion,
No he wanted unions as arms of the state - just like the modern unions of
welfare state.
>anti-minorities, pro-big business, anti-disabled, pro-eugenics and
Just politically incorrect minorities; modern leftist are equally
anti-immigrant; but pro-"natives".
Modern leftists are pro-eugenics; indeed eugenics are still almost exclusive
preserve of the left.
>anti-homosexual. He devised forms of making mass appeal
True, homosexuals did became a politically correct minority; times, I guess,
do change.
>possible Add all these together and you have a right winger bub.
>
Nothing in your diatribe applies to a right winger, except anti-abortion
stance.
Derek Nalecki
In article <Victoria-270...@pm11s8.intergate.bc.ca>, Vict...@netinfo.ubc.ca (Victoria Baschzok) wrote:
>In article <35937344...@sympatico.ca>, Cicero <cic...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Wayne Allen wrote: (snipped)
>>
>> Arguably some of the most right-wing people posting in the NGs are
>> libertarians. They want more responsible individual freedom,
>> less government, free markets etc.
>>
>> Now Hitler's Nazis were for collectivism, conformity, coercion,
> regimentation,
>>
>> state capitalism, mercantilism, secret police,
>> social engineering, indoctrination and state propaganda.
>
Of course, and Canada, and all the neo-fascist welfare states.
Loren Petrich
In article <35971...@news.cadvision.com>,
Derek Nalecki <nale...@rescorporate.com> wrote:
[The Nazis as "real" socialists...]
However, Adolf Hitler was more than willing to kiss up to Big
Business -- in effect, he was a believer in pro-business statism,
something that right-wing "libertarians" find *very* difficult to criticize.
>Or perhaps from the man himself:
>The party is all-embracing... There will be no license, no free space,
>in which the individual belongs to himself. ...
The ultimate in nationalism, it would seem.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Loren Petrich
>Nationalism is one of the forms of collectivism.
So you go on record as being anti-nationalist? And you are
willing to accept being viewed as unpatriotic?
>>How do you make Goebbels a leftie? He was anti-union, anti-abortion,
>No he wanted unions as arms of the state - just like the modern unions of
>welfare state.
That's ridiculous.
>Modern leftists are pro-eugenics; indeed eugenics are still almost exclusive
>preserve of the left.
In what way?
Phil Ronzone
In article <35952B7D...@netcom.ca> Hartmann Schaffer <scha...@netcom.ca> writes:
>Phil Ronzone wrote:
>>... Actual history shows that businessmen wanted very little
>>to do with NAZIs.
>>
>One of the biggest boosters of the Nazis was Hugenberg (sp?),
>owner of the biggerst German press publisher. Hjalmar
>Schacht, conservative boss of the Reichsbank, also
>contributed a lot to get Hitler into power.
>Then how would you explain the fact that Hitler's rise to
>power was engineered by the triumvirat (sp?) of v. Papen,
>Bruening, and Schleicher, leaders of the political and
>conservative right, as the only means to keep the Social
>Democrats out of thegovernment. Their miscalculation was that
>they thought they could use him rather than be used by him
It wasn't. A lot of people, businessmen included, suck up to the major
parties. All large corporations give $$$ to the Democrats - just in case
you know.
Microsoft didn't. And look at the running hyenas of the Democrats going
after Microsoft.
WHAT COUNTS is MONEY. Businessmen gave very little $$$ to the NAZIs.
I've quoted chapter and verse.
The evidence for your unique, ah, "position" is???????
James Goneaux
From James Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution", 1941:
"The regulation of production in Germany is no longer left to the
market. What is to be produced, and how much, is decided,
deliberately, by groups of men, by the state boards, and bureaus and
commissions. It is they that decide whether a new plant shall be built
or an old plant etired, how raw materials shall be allotted and orders
distributed, what quotas must be fulfilled by various ranches of
industry, what goods shall be put aside for export, how prices shall
be fixed and credit and exchange extended.
There is no requirement that these decisions of the bureaus must be
based on any profit aim in the capitalist sense. If it is thought
expedient, for whatever reason, to produce, for example, an ersatz
rubber or wool or food, this will be done even if the production
entails, from a capitalist point of view, a heavy loss.
Similarly, in order to accumulate foreign exchange or to stimulate
some political effect in a foreign nation, goods will be exported
regardless of loss. A factory may be compelled to shut down, even
though it could operate at a high profit. Banks and individuals are
forced to invest their funds with no reference to their private and
voluntary opinions about "risks" from a profit standpoint. It is
literally true to say that the Nazi economy, already, is not a profit
economy"
-----------------------
email: jam...@pathcom.com
"Things that are bad for business are bad for people who work for business." Thomas E. Dewey
Andrew Smith
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Phil Ronzone wrote:
> NAZIs *were* socialists.
This stuff still amazes me.
> socialist, communists, fascists, all the same.
Let me see now, on the one hand we have fascism, which is nationalist,
totalitarian, inegalitarian, and undemocratic.
Then we have communism, which is internationalist, totalitarian,
(theoretically) egalitarian, and anti-democratic.
Then we have democratic socialism, which is internationalist,
anti-totalitarian, egalitarian and democratic.
Now you might be able to see similarities between fascism and communism,
and between communism and democratic socialism, but by the time you've
gone all the way from fascism to democratic socialism, you've reached the
opposite end of the political spectrum.
Andrew Smith.
"Good morning, Little Piglet," said Eeyore. "If it is a good morning,"
he said, "which I doubt", said he. "Not that it matters", he said.
Phil Ronzone
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.980701111415.7567A-100000@primrose> Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes:
>On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Phil Ronzone wrote:
>
>>NAZIs *were* socialists.
>>
>This stuff still amazes me.
Why then you must be trivially easy to amaze!
>>socialist, communists, fascists, all the same.
>>
>Let me see now, on the one hand we have fascism, which is
>nationalist, totalitarian, inegalitarian, and undemocratic.
>
>Then we have communism, which is internationalist,
>totalitarian, (theoretically) egalitarian, and
>anti-democratic.
>
>Then we have democratic socialism, which is internationalist,
>anti-totalitarian, egalitarian and democratic.
>
>Now you might be able to see similarities between fascism and
>communism, and between communism and democratic socialism,
>but by the time you've gone all the way from fascism to
>democratic socialism, you've reached the opposite end of the
>political spectrum.
Huh? This frog has 3 spots, this frog has 4 spots - they are different
species no matter what their DNA tests say!
Fascism (Mussolini), communism (Stalin) , socialism (Hitler):
1. Nationalistic, internationalistic? They ALL invaded other countries,
they all sought to spread beyond their international borders.
2. Totalitarian? They ALL were totalitarian.
3. Egalitarian? They were all anti-egalitarian. Your comment on
communism being "(theoretically) egalitarian" is most humorous.
You DO know of the special shops/stores and hosuing for the
communist elite don't you?
4. Democratic? Not at all of course.
You can pick your title, it's all the same. See Cuba, N. Korea, Burma, ...
As for "democratic", I'd LOVE to see an ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC vote on
statist/tax issues in Sweden or Denmark.
A TRUE VOTE.
All those in favor of spending >51% of GDP on the State and keeping
the 25% sales tax, send your taxes into the state. Those that don't,
keep ypur money.
It ain't democratic if you NEVER get to vote on it.
Loren Petrich
In article <philEvF...@netcom.com>, Phil Ronzone <ph...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Fascism (Mussolini), communism (Stalin) , socialism (Hitler):
>1. Nationalistic, internationalistic? They ALL invaded other countries,
> they all sought to spread beyond their international borders.
Pure baloney. One of the pretentions of Communism is its
internationalism. The official line in the USSR was that its numerous
nationalities were all one big happy family. And there have never been any
nationality restrictions on being a Communist.
However, both Hitler and Mussolini were big on nationality.
>3. Egalitarian? They were all anti-egalitarian. Your comment on
> communism being "(theoretically) egalitarian" is most humorous.
> You DO know of the special shops/stores and hosuing for the
> communist elite don't you?
I do know that, Phool. In fact, when that sort of thing results
from capitalism, you jump for joy.
>4. Democratic? Not at all of course.
I'm well aware of that, Phool.
>As for "democratic", I'd LOVE to see an ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC vote on
>statist/tax issues in Sweden or Denmark.
>A TRUE VOTE.
>All those in favor of spending >51% of GDP on the State and keeping
>the 25% sales tax, send your taxes into the state. Those that don't,
>keep ypur money.
This is only legitimate if those who don't want to pay taxes
don't get *any* public services -- not even protection by the military or
the police.
Andrew Smith
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Phil Ronzone wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.980701111415.7567A-100000@primrose> Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes:
> >On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Phil Ronzone wrote:
> >
> >>NAZIs *were* socialists.
> >>
> >This stuff still amazes me.
>
> Why then you must be trivially easy to amaze!
No. It does take a particularly special degree of ignorance, and an
astonishing willingness to demonstrate it.
> >Now you might be able to see similarities between fascism and
> >communism, and between communism and democratic socialism,
> >but by the time you've gone all the way from fascism to
> >democratic socialism, you've reached the opposite end of the
> >political spectrum.
>
> Huh? This frog has 3 spots, this frog has 4 spots - they are different
> species no matter what their DNA tests say!
No but if it Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
then the chances are it isn't a frog.
> Fascism (Mussolini), communism (Stalin) , socialism (Hitler):
This is the stuff that amazes me. You appear to have put Hitler under
socialism, rather then fascism. Ironic given that even the other two you
mention had more links with socialism than Hitler did.
> 1. Nationalistic, internationalistic? They ALL invaded other countries,
> they all sought to spread beyond their international borders.
The people you listed did. But as a general rule democratic socialist
governments don't. Besides invading other countries isn't a sign of
nationalism, more one of imperialism.
> 2. Totalitarian? They ALL were totalitarian.
Again the people you listed were, but democratic socialist governments
don't tend to be.
> 3. Egalitarian? They were all anti-egalitarian. Your comment on
> communism being "(theoretically) egalitarian" is most humorous.
I'm distinguishing between ideologies rather than corrupt practices, not
because the corruption has nothing to do with the ideology, but because
there is a world of difference between ideologies that pursue inequality,
and those that are against it but lead to it through abuse of power.
> 4. Democratic? Not at all of course.
>
> You can pick your title, it's all the same. See Cuba, N. Korea, Burma, ...
>
> As for "democratic", I'd LOVE to see an ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC vote on
> statist/tax issues in Sweden or Denmark.
If people disagree they can kick the government out. That's democracy.
> A TRUE VOTE.
>
> All those in favor of spending >51% of GDP on the State and keeping
> the 25% sales tax, send your taxes into the state. Those that don't,
> keep ypur money.
>
> It ain't democratic if you NEVER get to vote on it.
They do get to vote. Just because they don't vote for what you want
doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the system.
Bad Crane Win Him Rank
Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.95.980702115756.7871A-100000@primrose>...
> On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Phil Ronzone wrote:
> > In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.980701111415.7567A-100000@primrose>
> > Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes:
> > >On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Phil Ronzone wrote:
> > This frog has 3 spots, this frog has 4 spots - they are different
> > species no matter what their DNA tests say!
> No but if it Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks
> like a duck, then the chances are it isn't a frog.
I do not know how important spots should be considered, but for
some time now it has been known that if you change the incubation
conditions, the sex of the individual can be different.
Nurture over nature, nothing to do with species.
Phil Ronzone
In article <petrichE...@netcom.com> pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) writes:
>In article <philEvF...@netcom.com>, Phil Ronzone
><ph...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>countries, they all sought to spread beyond their
>>international borders.
>>
Loren exceeds even his prior non-grasp on reality.
Italy, Germany, and the USSR *all* invaded and conquered other countries.
You know, Hungary, Czeckoslovakia, Poland, Lithuania, ...
Snicker.
Phil Ronzone
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.980702115756.7871A-100000@primrose> Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes:
>This is the stuff that amazes me. You appear to have put
>Hitler under socialism, rather then fascism. Ironic given
>that even the other two you mention had more links with
>socialism than Hitler did.
Let's see - Hitler said he was a socialist, the party had the word
Socialist in it, the policies adopted were socialist, why, you must be
right!! Hitler obviosuly really had adopted Libertarianism!!!!!
Obligatory fact:
Did you know the concept of "cruise ships" originated in socialist Germany
in the 1930's?
Being GOOD SOCIALISTS, Hitler organzied his workers lives. The German
State had a bunch of what we today would call "cruise ships" to carry
his workers on vacation cruises. Even janitors in factories could go
on very inexpensive two week vacations in foreign lands.
Up to that point, ships carrying mainly passengers were for the
rich and well off.
Hitler had ships purpose built for carrying ~5,000-10,000 workers at a
time for vacations.
Of course, being in a SOCIALIST state meant that you HAD to take your
vacation on socialist terms -- no hiking off in the mountains by yourself.
No way -- you were now property of the socialist state.
Of course, these ships meant that travel agents and resort owners went
out of business, but, heck, they were mostly Jews anayway.
It walks like a duck, quacks and flies like a duck, and its DNA is
that of a duck.
QUAC QUACK == socialism.
Hartmann Schaffer
Phil Ronzone wrote:
> ...
> Loren exceeds even his prior non-grasp on reality.
>
> Italy, Germany, and the USSR *all* invaded and conquered other countries.
>
> You know, Hungary, Czeckoslovakia, Poland, Lithuania, ...
Please let us know how Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California became
parts of the US
> Snicker.
Weep
Andrew Smith
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Phil Ronzone wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.980702115756.7871A-100000@primrose> Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes:
> >This is the stuff that amazes me. You appear to have put
> >Hitler under socialism, rather then fascism. Ironic given
> >that even the other two you mention had more links with
> >socialism than Hitler did.
>
> Let's see - Hitler said he was a socialist,
He claimed to be virtually everything.
I'm merely pointing out that he identified himself as a fascist, a
follower of an ideology with a completely different history to that of
socialism, and given that almost all those who followed a socialist
political tradition opposed him, it looks kind of like he wasn't a
socialist.
> the party had the word Socialist in it,
Originally it also had the word "workers" in. Do you think they were
workers?
> the policies adopted were socialist,
Name a socialist thinker who recommended genocide of the Jews, just one.
> why, you must be
> right!! Hitler obviosuly really had adopted Libertarianism!!!!!
No, fascism.
I'm getting amazed again.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.980702115756.7871A-100000@primrose> Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes:
> >This is the stuff that amazes me. You appear to have put
> >Hitler under socialism, rather then fascism. Ironic given
> >that even the other two you mention had more links with
> >socialism than Hitler did.
>Let's see - Hitler said he was a socialist, the party had the word
>Socialist in it, the policies adopted were socialist, why, you must be
>right!! Hitler obviosuly really had adopted Libertarianism!!!!!
yuo poor damn fool, Hitler was a extreme right winger, not alot unlike
the current republicons.
>Obligatory fact:
>Did you know the concept of "cruise ships" originated in socialist Germany
>in the 1930's?
>Being GOOD SOCIALISTS, Hitler organzied his workers lives. The German
>State had a bunch of what we today would call "cruise ships" to carry
>his workers on vacation cruises. Even janitors in factories could go
>on very inexpensive two week vacations in foreign lands.
was this before or after he outlawed labor unions. Now any self
respecting socialist would support labor unions. Your fellow right
winger, Hitler was very anti union.
>Up to that point, ships carrying mainly passengers were for the
>rich and well off.
>Hitler had ships purpose built for carrying ~5,000-10,000 workers at a
>time for vacations.
>Of course, being in a SOCIALIST state meant that you HAD to take your
>vacation on socialist terms -- no hiking off in the mountains by yourself.
wrong again bozo, you don't know shit about Nazi Germany, try readina
few bios from that era and you would soon learn that you are full of
shit.
>No way -- you were now property of the socialist state.
nope fascism is not socialism, its a right wing view
>Of course, these ships meant that travel agents and resort owners went
>out of business, but, heck, they were mostly Jews anayway.
>It walks like a duck, quacks and flies like a duck, and its DNA is
>that of a duck.
the duck is brighter than phil
>QUAC QUACK == socialism.
>--
>"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
__________________________________________________
Let The White Rose enlighten you.
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
gdy weasel
________________________________________________
Irritate a right winger burn the bible banger not the book
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
gib...@prairienet.org (Mark Gibson) wrote:
>The Gdyiot (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>>ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) wrote:
>>>Let's see - Hitler said he was a socialist, the party had the word
>>>Socialist in it, the policies adopted were socialist, why, you must be
>>>right!! Hitler obviosuly really had adopted Libertarianism!!!!!
>>
>>yuo poor damn fool, Hitler was a extreme right winger, not alot unlike
>No wonder you'll never get your GED, Gdyiot. Informed people know
>that Hitler was a Nazi (that's short for National Socialist) and
>socialists are LEFTIST loons, just like you!
bet yuo believe that the Democractic republic of Germany was a free
country too?
>Why do you support Nazis, Gdyiot?
I don't support the Nazi, gibby, your views are not all that much
different than theirs.
>--
>"The smallest minority on earth is the Avoid the legal nets
> individual. Those who deny individual That entangled Bernie Goetz,
> rights cannot claim to be defenders Just shout "Help! Help! Police!"
> of minorities." --Ayn Rand Like Kitty Genovese...
Victoria Baschzok
In article <359fc1a5...@news.uniserve.com>,
ssc...@no.spam.uniserve.com wrote:
> see.m...@thebeach.edu (Crash) wrote:
> <snip>
> Six times reposting of another person's posting of tedious 40-year old
> revisionism regarding the nature of the Nationalist Socialist party.
> The quote doesn't _show_ the NAZI party was not socialist, it merely
> makes the bald statement and then throws in a few bits of info,
> including a mention of fascism.
>
> The implication is that since the Axis involved "Fascism" it can't
> possibly be socialist. This ignores the fact that the word fascism
> itself refers to a worker-based, union-oriented gov't, a system that
> also involved "corporatism", which was/is a close tying of corporate
> planning to gov't bureaucracy - in other words, Socialism.
And from the next post, S. Scott: Let's compare apples to apples - how
would "democratic socialism" differ from "democratic fascism"?
Your way off, again, Sheldon. Fascism and sociaism are very different.
Socialism came into existence as a clearly formulated theory based on a
specific interpretation of history, fascism introduced no systematic
exposition of its ideology or purpose other than a negative reaction
against socialist and democratic egalitarianism. The growth of democratic
ideology and popular participation in politics in the 19th cent. was
terrifying to some conservative elements in European society, and fascism
grew out of the attempt to counter it by forming mass parties based
largely on the middle classes and the petty bourgeoisie, exploiting their
fear of political domination by the lower classes.
Fascism is a totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the
state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of
national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito
Mussolini, as I'm sure your aware. Fascism, especially in its early
stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in
order to appeal to many diverse groups.(This pretty much explains the Nazi
party name NSDAP: National Socialist German Workers Party)
A big differnce with sociaism is fascist use of the theory of social
Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of
struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state.
Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more
dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading
characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of
this dogma.
Another different element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule
by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be
effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals
of the nation. Fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees
desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place
and function. Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers,
and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the
corporative state is a part of fascist dogma.
Although Mussolini's and Hitler's governments tended to interfere
considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no
doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and
landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored
it as an obstacle to socialization.
Lets look at some reaction to US leaders at the time of Mussolini. The US
embassy in Italy was telling Washington that Mussolini was a łmoderate˛
and that the choice in Italy is łbetween Mussolini and Fascism and
Giolitti and Socialism˛ --Henry Fletcher. Secretary of State Frank
Kellogg called Mussoliniąs opposition łcommunists, socialists, and
anarchists.˛ - Kellogg, Krenn, U.S. Policy toward Economic Nationalism,
53-4. On the favourable general response to Mussolini's Fascism in the
United States, see John Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism (Princeton, 1972).
As the effects of the great depression hit Europe, leading to social and
political unrest, Fascist Italy received mounting praise as a bastion of
order and stability, free of class struggle and challenges from labour and
the left. "The wops are unwopping themselves," Fortune magazine wrote with
awe in a special issue devoted to Fascist Italy in 1934. State Department
roving Ambassador Norman Davis praised the successes of Italy in remarks
before the Council of Foreign Relations in 1933, speaking after the
Italian Ambassador had drawn applause from his distinguished audience for
his description of how Italy had put its "own house in order...(Where do
you hear that phrase now?) A class war was put down"
In the major academic study of the topic, David Schmitz points out that
the model developed for Italy, with "moderate" Fascists holding the middle
ground
between the dreaded left and right-wing extremists, was applied to Nazism
as well. Here, Hitler was chosen as the representative of the moderates
who
promised "social order, anti-Bolshevik laws, and protection for foreign
capital(Hmmmm,getting the idea yet?)," Schmitz observes. The American
chargé d'affaires in Berlin wrote Washington in 1933 that the hope for
Germany lay in "the more moderate section of the [Nazi] party, headed by
Hitler himself...which appeal[s] to all civilized and reasonable people,"
and seems to have "the upper hand" over the violent fringe. In 1937, the
State Department saw Fascism as compatible with U.S. economic interests. A
report of the European Division explained its rise as the natural reaction
of "the rich and middle classes, in self-defense" when the "dissatisfied
masses, with the example of the Russian revolution before them, swing to
the Left." Fascism therefore "must succeed or the masses, this time
reinforced by the disillusioned middle classes, will again turn to the
left." Not until European Fascism attacked U.S. interests directly did it
become an avowed enemy.--Schmitz 133, 140, 174 and chapter 9
Derek Nalecki
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.980703143108.11139C-100000@primrose>, Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Phil Ronzone wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.980702115756.7871A-100000@primrose> Andrew Smith
> <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes:
>> >This is the stuff that amazes me. You appear to have put
>> >Hitler under socialism, rather then fascism. Ironic given
>> >that even the other two you mention had more links with
>> >socialism than Hitler did.
>>
>
Incorrect.
>
>I'm merely pointing out that he identified himself as a fascist, a
Actually Hitler **never** identified himself as fascist. He identified himself
as a national socialist, and was disdainful on several occasions of fascism
and its father - Mussolini;
>follower of an ideology with a completely different history to that of
>socialism, and given that almost all those who followed a socialist
>political tradition opposed him, it looks kind of like he wasn't a
>socialist.
You people will never accept the truth, will you?
>
>> the party had the word Socialist in it,
>
>Originally it also had the word "workers" in. Do you think they were
>workers?
Yes; most definitely.
Between 1925 and 1932 the percentage of people who joined the NSDAP were as
follows:
workers - 40% (while they constituted 31% of general population)
new middle class (mostly civil servants) - 21% (11 percent of GP)
old middle class (shopkeepers etc.) - 32% (24% of GP)
other (professionals, industrialists, etc.) 7% (34% of GP)
As you can see workers were the largest group; the "Rich" the smallest.
>
>> the policies adopted were socialist,
>
>Name a socialist thinker who recommended genocide of the Jews, just one.
Marx.
>
>> why, you must be
>> right!! Hitler obviosuly really had adopted Libertarianism!!!!!
>
>No, fascism.
National socialism, actually.
>
>
>I'm getting amazed again.
>
Well stick around; apparently truth will not only set you free, but amaze and
piss you off beforehand.
Andrew Smith
On Sun, 5 Jul 1998, Sheldon Scott wrote:
> Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Phil Ronzone wrote:
> >> NAZIs *were* socialists.
> >
> >This stuff still amazes me.
> >
> I am amazed as well, but at the startling level of disinformation put
> forth by the left. The Third Reich was not any closer to modern
> rightists than it was to modern leftists,
I never said it was.
> and its strict control of
> the economy and it worker's advocacy certainly are leftist traits.
Worker's advocacy?
> >Let me see now, on the one hand we have fascism, which is
> >nationalist, totalitarian, inegalitarian, and undemocratic.
> >Then we have communism, which is internationalist, totalitarian,
> >(theoretically) egalitarian, and anti-democratic.
> >Then we have democratic socialism, which is internationalist,
> >anti-totalitarian, egalitarian and democratic.
> >
> How is socialism any more democratic than communism or fascism?
If it's democratic socialism, because it is done by an elected,
accountable government.
> The
> left are fond of telling us that capitalism isn't democratic, but it
> certainly appears to be more democratic than socialist countries, with
> their high tax rates, punitive measures for running a successful
> business, etc
There is nothing undemocratic about high tax rates or regulation of
industry.
> Socialists are able to excuse their compatriots by simply disavowing
> any actions they deem unsuitable.
And rightwingers attempt to lump anyone using the word socialist together,
regardless of whether they actually agree on anything much.
> They are loathe to admit any examples of Socialist failures.
> For decades, dedicated Socialists defended the USSR.
And other dedicated socialists attacked it. Look at the postwar British
Labour government, it helped form NATO, it developed Britain's nuclear
deterrent, sent troops to Korea, because it was vehemently against the
USSR. Or look at who wrote Animal Farm. If you are trying to make out that
all socialists, or even the socialist mainstream, supported the USSR then
it is no wonder you find socialists disowning such behaviour.
> Now they decry it as "State Capitalism".
Who do? Name one non-communist, politically significant modern socialist
who would use such a term.
> Pretty
> lame, really, and it's just one piece of evidence that the Third Reich
> wasn't quite the Rightist bastion some of us were led to believe.
Logic failure there.
> >Now you might be able to see similarities between fascism and
> >communism, and between communism and democratic socialism,
> >but by the time you've gone all the way from fascism to democratic
> >socialism, you've reached the opposite end of the political spectrum.
> >
> Let's compare apples to apples - how would "democratic socialism"
> differ from "democratic fascism"?
Egalitarianism.
Andrew Smith
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Derek Nalecki wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.980703143108.11139C-100000@primrose>, Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Phil Ronzone wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.980702115756.7871A-100000@primrose> Andrew Smith
> > <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes:
> >> >This is the stuff that amazes me. You appear to have put
> >> >Hitler under socialism, rather then fascism. Ironic given
> >> >that even the other two you mention had more links with
> >> >socialism than Hitler did.
> >>
> >> Let's see - Hitler said he was a socialist,
> >
> >He claimed to be virtually everything.
>
> Incorrect.
It's a figure of speech.
> >I'm merely pointing out that he identified himself as a fascist, a
>
> Actually Hitler **never** identified himself as fascist.
He identified himself as part of the fascist movement. Will that do?
> He identified himself
> as a national socialist, and was disdainful on several occasions of fascism
> and its father - Mussolini;
Not so disdainful that Mussolini hasn't been described as his hero. Not so
disdainful that Mein Kampf doesn't comment on Mussolini's greatness.
> >follower of an ideology with a completely different history to that of
> >socialism, and given that almost all those who followed a socialist
> >political tradition opposed him, it looks kind of like he wasn't a
> >socialist.
>
> You people will never accept the truth, will you?
Read the 4 lines above you are glibly dismissing. Are they or are they not
true? Do they or do they not suggest Hitler wasn't a socialist?
> >> the party had the word Socialist in it,
> >
> >Originally it also had the word "workers" in. Do you think they were
> >workers?
>
> Yes; most definitely.
> Between 1925 and 1932 the percentage of people who joined the NSDAP were as
> follows:
> workers - 40% (while they constituted 31% of general population)
> new middle class (mostly civil servants) - 21% (11 percent of GP)
> old middle class (shopkeepers etc.) - 32% (24% of GP)
> other (professionals, industrialists, etc.) 7% (34% of GP)
> As you can see workers were the largest group; the "Rich" the smallest.
So because the Nazi Party between 1925 and 1932 had a membership that was
40% working class, the Nazis were workers?
> >> the policies adopted were socialist,
> >
> >Name a socialist thinker who recommended genocide of the Jews, just one.
>
> Marx.
Where did Marx recommend the genocide of the Jews?
Hang on a second, IIRC Marx was Jewish. What on earth ARE you talking
about?
Hartmann Schaffer
Sheldon Scott wrote:
> ...
> The implication is that since the Axis involved "Fascism" it can't
> possibly be socialist. This ignores the fact that the word fascism
> itself refers to a worker-based, union-oriented gov't, a system that
Look you clown: if you really want to delve into the roots of a name,
get your facts straight: the word fascism is derived from the word for
some equipment police (under whatever name) in the old Roman republic
and empire carried around to beat up on unruly populace. Nothing to do
with workers or unions.
> ...
> Another reposting of the same lame material, including the immortal:
> > Hitler hated socialists!
> >
> Is that why he joined the "National Socialist" party?
He was one of the founders, you dimwit (his party membership number was
7). Like many other parties who get founded on dissatisfaction with an
existing situation, there were many divergent movements coming together
initially. Whatever socialist tendency was there in the beginning, soon
lost any influence, and most of the remaining NSDAP members with
socialist leanings got eliminated right after Hitler gained power (ever
heard about the "Roehm putsch"?).
> ...
> > Hitler hated socialists!
> >
> Say, maybe that's an indication that he wasn't such a bad guy.
Apparently in your eyes. Doesn't that prove that you have a fascist or
nazi tendency?
> ...
Phil Ronzone
In article <359C7FF7...@netcom.ca> Hartmann Schaffer <scha...@netcom.ca> writes:
>Phil Ronzone wrote:
>>... Loren exceeds even his prior non-grasp on reality.
>>
>>Italy, Germany, and the USSR *all* invaded and conquered
>>other countries.
>>
>>You know, Hungary, Czeckoslovakia, Poland, Lithuania, ...
>>
>Please let us know how Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and
>California became parts of the US
>
>>Snicker.
>>
>Weep
Snicker.
Why, the United States invaded those soon-to-be-States with tanks,
and, err, no, they didn't have tanks in those days, did they?
OK< they sent the cavalry in, and, er, no, they didn't do that either.
Oh, I remember now - the local peoples, tired of repressive Old
World controlling regimes, revolted and chose freedom.
Snicker.
Phil Ronzone
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.980703143108.11139C-100000@primrose> Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes:
>I'm merely pointing out that he identified himself as a
>different history to that of socialism, and given that almost
>all those who followed a socialist political tradition
>opposed him, it looks kind of like he wasn't a socialist.
So when Joe Bigotta goes after the local Mafia chief, the fact that they
are fighting each other is proof that one ONE of 'em can be Mafia?
Snicker.
Or, hey, how about those Menshevinks -- Stalin went after them with
husto, killing most of them. So obviously, oinly Stalin OR the Menshevinks
could have been socialist.
Well, given the thug-like nature of socialism/communism/fascism, it is
no surprise to see your stroing desire to avoid an accurate labelling.
>Name a socialist thinker who recommended genocide of the
>Jews, just one.
Oh, the Politburo and Stalin were thinking very hard along those
lines when Stalin died.
But of course, using such an emotional topic you try to steer attention
AWAY from the FACT that NAZI Germany was a CLASSIC case of country
wide socialism.
>>why, you must be right!! Hitler obviosuly really had adopted
>>Libertarianism!!!!!
>>
>No, fascism.
>
>
>I'm getting amazed again.
You're easily amazed as I said before. First contact with solid facts?
Phil Ronzone
In article <6nmdsi$rhv$1...@alpine.psnw.com> see.m...@thebeach.edu (Crash) writes:
>Fact is, Hitler hated socialists! So, idiot ph...@netcom.com
>(Phil Ronzone) wrote on Thu, 2 Jul 1998 20:02:18
>
>>Andrew Smith writes:
>>>This is the stuff that amazes me. You appear to have put
>>>Hitler under socialism, rather then fascism. Ironic given
>>>that even the other two you mention had more links with
>>>socialism than Hitler did.
>>>
>>word Socialist in it, the policies adopted were socialist,
>>why, you must be right!! Hitler obviosuly really had adopted
>>Libertarianism!!!!!
>>
>>
Dear Douglas, (may we call you dork-head?):
The fact that group A hates group B doesn't imply that groups A and B
are dissimalr.
Two Mafia families may fight to the deatrh, but, they are both Mafia families.
Since Hitler knew that his socialist State was MOST suceptible to a competing
socialist party, that's why he went after the socialist and communist factions.
By your illogic, Hitler should have spent his resources getting rid of
the royalist & Junkers factions - which, he basically left alone.
Let me guess - you also believe that black people can't be racists, right?
Phil Ronzone
In article <6nmfji$3if$1...@alpine.psnw.com> see.m...@thebeach.edu (Crash) writes:
>>>>yuo poor damn fool, Hitler was a extreme right winger,
>>>>
>well. That part has not changed. Those SAME rules say the
>same about Reagan and Limbaugh, the main difference being
>degree, and Hitler's genocide.
Snicker. RLAG (Reagan and Limbaugh and Gang) believe in private property,
owned by individuals.
Hitler and Socialist (HAS) do not.
RLAG believe in free and unhindered movement of capital.
HAS do not.
RLAG believe in freedom to hire and fire, and for worker to leave,
HAS does not.
RLAG believe in freedom to emigrate.
HAS does not. (Technically, in say, Swedish socialism, you
can leave, but if you try to take any money, you must first "repay"
the state for all its alleged subsidies. Say, 250,000 US or so).
RLAG believes of freedom of the press,
HAS does not.
Hmmmm, I think I see a pattern here.
Phil Ronzone
In article <6nmf60$3i2$1...@alpine.psnw.com> see.m...@thebeach.edu (Crash) writes:
> From "World Book Encyclopedia", 1958, p. 5467:
>
> The name National Socialist German Workers Party does not
> correctly describe the Nazi movement. It was neither
Uh, there are a lot (like, about all) histories that are much more
recent than 1958 that descrive the USSR and NAZI Germany as socialist
states.
Historians can learn a lot in FORTY YEARS.
You had to go back THAT long to find something, eh?
Phil Ronzone
In article <6nmgmt$87v$1...@alpine.psnw.com> see.m...@thebeach.edu (Crash) writes:
>Of course. Hitler and Clinton both have two eyes. So Clinton
>must be a Nazi. That's the logical fallacy being used here.
>"They have similarities, therefore they are the same." Duh.
>
>>>1. Nationalistic, internationalistic? They ALL invaded other
>>>countries, they all sought to spread beyond their
>>>international borders.
>>>
Snicker. Looks like my points can't be refuted by you, and boy, does that
piss you off.
Go burble somewhere else.
Phil Ronzone
In article <6nmej6$12o$1...@alpine.psnw.com> see.m...@thebeach.edu (Crash) writes:
>That is a foolish statement. However, some resemblences of
>Hitler, Reagan and Limbaugh are uncanny, the list long. All
>great communicators who used mass media like noone before.
>All used scapegoats to cause hatred and blaim for a poor
>economy, all were/are in favor of increased government force,
>even against its own citizens, favor(ed) Nationalism to the
>point of jingoism, and bypassed the normal Free Press to turn
>people into their puppets. Many of those are parts of what
>Right Wing means, and THOSE are why they are "RIGHT".
Uh, sounds just like Clinto to me. Is he part of the VRWC also?
Hartmann Schaffer
Phil Ronzone wrote:
> ...
> Uh, there are a lot (like, about all) histories that are much more
> recent than 1958 that descrive the USSR and NAZI Germany as socialist
> states.
>
> Historians can learn a lot in FORTY YEARS.
Do you really believe that Rush Limbaugh (sp?) is a Historian?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) wrote:
>In article <6nmfji$3if$1...@alpine.psnw.com> see.m...@thebeach.edu (Crash) writes:
> >>>>yuo poor damn fool, Hitler was a extreme right winger,
> >>>>
> >Yes he was. The definitions that applied then, applie now as
> >well. That part has not changed. Those SAME rules say the
> >same about Reagan and Limbaugh, the main difference being
> >degree, and Hitler's genocide.
>Snicker. RLAG (Reagan and Limbaugh and Gang) believe in private property,
>owned by individuals.
only for the rich elitists
>Hitler and Socialist (HAS) do not.
you poor damn fool hitler was an extreme right wing just like
yourself.
>RLAG believe in free and unhindered movement of capital.
only when it moves toward the rich elitists
>HAS do not.
>RLAG believe in freedom to hire and fire, and for worker to leave,
wrong angain, it was the right wingers that forced those on welfare to
wrok at submin wage jobs. no choice there.
>HAS does not.
>RLAG believe in freedom to emigrate.
not hardly once again its the right wingers that are having a shit fit
over emigrents
>HAS does not. (Technically, in say, Swedish socialism, you
>can leave, but if you try to take any money, you must first "repay"
>the state for all its alleged subsidies. Say, 250,000 US or so).
>RLAG believes of freedom of the press,
its the right wing that wants to censor tv and the net
>HAS does not.
>Hmmmm, I think I see a pattern here.
>--
>"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
__________________________________________________
Sheldon Scott
Vict...@netinfo.ubc.ca (Victoria Baschzok) wrote:
>ssc...@no.spam.uniserve.com wrote:
>> The implication is that since the Axis involved "Fascism" it can't
>> possibly be socialist. This ignores the fact that the word fascism
>> itself refers to a worker-based, union-oriented gov't, a system that
>> also involved "corporatism", which was/is a close tying of corporate
>> planning to gov't bureaucracy - in other words, Socialism.
>
>And from the next post, S. Scott: Let's compare apples to apples - how
>would "democratic socialism" differ from "democratic fascism"?
>Your way off, again, Sheldon. Fascism and sociaism are very different.
>
"democratic fascism". How can a question be "way off"?
>Socialism came into existence as a clearly formulated theory
>based on a specific interpretation of history,
>
Is this yet another flavor of socialism - "original socialism", aka
"fundamentalist socialism" ?:-) It was a test-tube creation. But the
oft-posted (by Victoria) JR Saul tells us to beware of those who
purport to have "the" solution to the problems facing us. Was he
really warning us about socialism?
>fascism introduced no systematic
>exposition of its ideology or purpose other than a negative reaction
>against socialist and democratic egalitarianism.
>
Fascism was based on union / gov't cooperation. It did not purport to
have "the" solution. True equality, as opposed to "Egalitarianism",
so seldom arises from socialism that I think we can disregard that
test altogether.
>The growth of democratic
>ideology and popular participation in politics in the 19th cent. was
>terrifying to some conservative elements in European society,
>
I should say so, since much of "popular participation in politics in
the 19th cent." involved declaring a region to be autonomous and no
longer under the control of its federal authority.
This "popular democracy" you speak of was more along the lines of
peasant revolt, riot, and other unpleasant civil unrest than it was of
any sort of democracy.
>and fascism grew out of the attempt to counter it by forming mass
>parties based largely on the middle classes and the petty bourgeoisie,
>exploiting their fear of political domination by the lower classes.
>
Pretty rarefied concepts here, vicky - you state that socialism grew
from "democratic ideology and popular participation in politics" while
fascism grew from "the middle classes and the petty bourgeoisie". How
different in demographics are those two groups? Indeed, do they
differ at all? Do they differ sharply less now than they did, say, 50
years ago? If they differ, is there a substantially larger number of
people in one group than in the other?
>Fascism is a totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the
>state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of
>national life.
>
You're doing a good job of equating fascism with socialism here.
>The name was first used by the party started by Benito
>Mussolini, as I'm sure your aware. Fascism, especially in its early
>stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in
>order to appeal to many diverse groups.(This pretty much explains the
>Nazi party name NSDAP: National Socialist German Workers Party)
>
Socialism has always been opportunistic - it goes to a place economic
expansion has yet to reach and tries to convince the people there that
they need to "take" their "fair share". This also explains how little
difference there is between fascism and socialism. Both are different
expressions of the same base doctrine.
>A big differnce with sociaism is fascist use of the theory of social
>Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of
>struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state.
>
Darwinism did not state "survival of the fittest". This turn of
phrase implies that anyone less than superlative does not survive.
Darwin said survival of the fit - which does not automatically exclude
anyone.
>Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more
>dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading
>characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of
>this dogma.
>
Earlier, you wrote "fascism introduced no systematic exposition of its
ideology or purpose other than a negative reaction". Now you are
referring to fascist "dogma". Seems contradictory...
>Another different element of fascism is its elitism.
>
CHUCKLES! This one is just too much!
Socialists Certainly ARE Elitists. Like, Duh.
>Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the
>existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian
>leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation.
>
Do you define socialism as "rule by the mob and the destruction of the
existing social order"? If not, why do you describe it this way?
>Fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees
>desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place
>and function. Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers,
>and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the
>corporative state is a part of fascist dogma.
>
Do you mean to imply that in a truly _socialist_ state, on the other
hand, "capital, labor, farmers, and professionals" would be the same
"class"? I presume this means the same income level, since that is
all Socialists really are concerned with in the end. Pretty lame.
Again, earlier you wrote "fascism introduced no systematic exposition
of its ideology or purpose other than a negative reaction". Yet,
again, you refer to fascist "dogma". Seems contradictory... or is it?
Maybe it's just a way to tailor Fascism to your argument (such as it
is), to make Fascism seem to counter each socialist intent. You quote
some firm ideas for an ideology that had no "systematic exposition".
>Although Mussolini's and Hitler's governments tended to interfere
>considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can
>be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist
>and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and
>many favored it as an obstacle to socialization.
>
The National Socialists were smart enough to allow private industry to
continue. Socialists try to use that point to prove the NS weren't
really socialist. After all, socialism means "worker's control of the
means of production". Yet, in socialist countries, the means of
production is controlled either by the state (in the case of failed
examples) or privately (in the case of "successful" examples).
How do these private - industry socialists states differ from fascism?
Isn't the only difference the PR put forth by the gov't? (Or on
behalf of the gov't).
>Lets look at some reaction to US leaders at the time of Mussolini. The US
>embassy in Italy was telling Washington that Mussolini was a łmoderate˛
>and that the choice in Italy is łbetween Mussolini and Fascism and
>Giolitti and Socialism˛ --Henry Fletcher.
>
Just what did Fletcher understand by the use of those terms "fascist"
and "socialist"? Would the major difference be the lack of formal
expropriation by the fascists?
>Secretary of State Frank Kellogg called Mussoliniąs opposition
>łcommunists, socialists, and anarchists.˛ - Kellogg, Krenn,
>U.S. Policy toward Economic Nationalism, 53-4. On the favourable
>general response to Mussolini's Fascism in the United States,
>see John Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism (Princeton, 1972).
>
Maybe these US "analysts" were put off by Mussolini's use of the word
fascist. Their assessment is more of an indication of the peculiar
state of Italian politics than of any "Fascist vs. Socialist"
conflict. Mussolini's "socialists" used the term "fascist" to tie
themselves more closely to the unions. The ploy worked - they got
elected.
Delving into the particulars of pre-WW2 Italian politics is not going
to clarify anything for us here. There's more curves in that topic
than on the Sea to Sky highway. For example, as I'm sure you are
aware, Mussolini regarded Hitler as a socialist and was not too happy
about throwing in with him.
In the US, "socialists" were regarded as wanting to destroy all
governments and set up a world cooperative federation of workers. It
was this US perception of socialists as destroyers that made any party
that kept them away seem attractive. Are US advisors a major
authority on who is and isn't really socialist?
>As the effects of the great depression hit Europe, leading to social
>and political unrest, Fascist Italy received mounting praise as a
>bastion of order and stability, free of class struggle and challenges
>from labour and the left. "The wops are unwopping themselves,"
>Fortune magazine wrote with awe in a special issue devoted to
>Fascist Italy in 1934.
>
Good Lord! This speaks to the lack of quality of political commentary
in those times. At any rate, the freedom from "challenges
from labour and the left" was precisely because those groups had a
strong voice in this fascist government.
>State Department roving Ambassador Norman Davis praised the
>successes of Italy in remarks before the Council of Foreign Relations
>in 1933, speaking after the Italian Ambassador had drawn applause
>from his distinguished audience for his description of how Italy had
>put its "own house in order...(Where do you hear that phrase now?)
>A class war was put down"
>
Would you prefer that a "class war" had continued?
>In the major academic study of the topic,
>David Schmitz points out that the model developed for Italy,
>with "moderate" Fascists holding the middle ground between the
>dreaded left and right-wing extremists, was applied to Nazism as well.
>
Well, at least Schmitz realized that the fascists weren't right-wing.
>Here, Hitler was chosen as the representative of the moderates who
>promised "social order, anti-Bolshevik laws, and protection for
>foreign capital(Hmmmm,getting the idea yet?),"
>
Is it your idea that socialism promotes "disorder, bolshevism, and
looting of foreign capital"? That would be the opposite of what you
say der fuhrer represented. Hitler probably opposed the state
capitalism the Bolsheviks were implementing (according to modern
leftists). Socialism's lack of protection for "foreign capital" is
but one of the many aspects of socialist dogma that the National
Socialist party wisely dropped as unworkable.
>Schmitz observes. The American chargé d'affaires in Berlin
>wrote Washington in 1933 that the hope for Germany lay in
>"the more moderate section of the [Nazi] party, headed by Hitler
>himself...which appeal[s] to all civilized and reasonable people,"
>and seems to have "the upper hand" over the violent fringe.
>
Now you're implying that socialism would appeal to uncivilized and
unreasonable people. Hey, maybe I am getting the idea!
You say the NAZI party held "the upper hand over the violent fringe"!
Is this a bad thing? Are you putting this forth as proof that Hitler
wasn't a socialist? Once again I shudder - at the appalling lack of
foresight shown by American policy advisors, and at your dependence on
60-years outdated American policy wonks to "prove" your point.
>In 1937, the State Department saw Fascism as compatible
>with U.S. economic interests.
>
I'm not sure what they thought fascism was, but I suppose they wanted
to avoid a system that would confiscate all property and put it under
the aegis of the state. The NEW state, of course.
>A report of the European Division explained its rise
>as the natural reaction of "the rich and middle classes, in
>self-defense" when the "dissatisfied masses, with the example
>of the Russian revolution before them, swing to the Left."
>
Schmitz was, apparently, blissfully unaware that German citizens voted
for the NAZI party because of its socialist policies.
>Fascism therefore "must succeed or the masses, this time
>reinforced by the disillusioned middle classes, will again turn to the
>left." Not until European Fascism attacked U.S. interests directly did it
>become an avowed enemy.--Schmitz 133, 140, 174 and chapter 9
>
"European Fascism" never attacked US interests directly - the German
war machine attacked US interests. "European Fascism" was purportedly
fought during the Spanish Civil War, and by the time WW2 began, those
same "labor activists and students"(TM) who had so gleefully joined
the Spanish Civil War were quite happy to sit at the sidelines. Their
reasoning was fairly obvious - they would not fight a coalition of
Communists (USSR) and Socialists (NAZI Germany).
--
)-: E-mail will be posted as I see fit. :-(
(-: "Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net." :-)
Sheldon Scott
Hartmann Schaffer <scha...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>Sheldon Scott wrote:
>> The implication is that since the Axis involved "Fascism" it can't
>> possibly be socialist. This ignores the fact that the word fascism
>> itself refers to a worker-based, union-oriented gov't, a system that
>
>get your facts straight: the word fascism is derived from the word for
>some equipment police (under whatever name) in the old Roman republic
>and empire carried around to beat up on unruly populace. Nothing to do
>with workers or unions.
>
His use of the term fascism had nothing whatever to do with police
equipment, and everything to do with unions, as I'm sure you well
know.
>> Is that why he joined the "National Socialist" party?
>
>He was one of the founders, you dimwit (his party membership
>number was 7).
>
So being a founder means he hasn't joined? Of course he joined.
>Like many other parties who get founded on dissatisfaction with
>an existing situation, there were many divergent movements
>coming together initially.
>
Including Socialists of various stripes.
>Whatever socialist tendency was there in the beginning,
>soon lost any influence, and most of the remaining NSDAP
>members with socialist leanings got eliminated right after Hitler
>gained power (ever heard about the "Roehm putsch"?).
>
No, most remaining members who didn't agree with the founders were
eliminated. Purging a few leftists is no proof that the founders
weren't socialist.
>> Say, maybe that's an indication that he wasn't such a bad guy.
>
>Apparently in your eyes. Doesn't that prove that you have a
>fascist or nazi tendency?
>
Anyone who would accuse me of being a socialist has not been paying
attention. Apparently that includes Hartmann Schaffer.
Sheldon Scott
Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Jul 1998, Sheldon Scott wrote:
>>The Third Reich was not any closer to modern
>>rightists than it was to modern leftists,
>
>I never said it was.
>
Reich with modern conservatism. That is the myth I was addressing.
>> and its strict control of
>> the economy and it worker's advocacy certainly are leftist traits.
>
>Worker's advocacy?
>
Er, yes, that was the theme of much NAZI rhetoric. They were the
worker's party.
>> How is socialism any more democratic than communism or fascism?
>
>If it's democratic socialism, because it is done by an elected,
>accountable government.
>
Well, then, so would democratic [whatever] be democratic.
Note that you have to refer to a certain flavor of socialism in order
to make any distinction from communism or fascism.
>> ... socialist countries, with their high tax rates, punitive
>> measures for running a successful business, etc
>
>There is nothing undemocratic about high tax rates
>
There most definitely is! They represent a higher confiscation of the
wealth of the population, with questionable and even counterproductive
results to show for that confiscation.
>or regulation of industry.
>
??? I didn't write "regulation of industry", I wrote "punitive
measures for running a successful business", and I think you know
exactly what I'm talking about. Please address my remarks, not your
parsing of them.
>> Socialists are able to excuse their compatriots by simply
>> disavowing any actions they deem unsuitable.
>
>And rightwingers attempt to lump anyone using the word socialist
>together, regardless of whether they actually agree on anything much.
>
I don't see myself "lumping" any groups together. It just so happens
that the word "socialist" is used by many groups, many of which decry
the other's policies. This "lumping" is done by these various groups.
I merely point out that it is another of the signs of the folly of
socialism. George Orwell spent considerable time hounding and
exposing socialists he thought "weren't socialist".
I'm still looking for an example of a socialist country that
socialists will get behind. Since Sweden's gov't cooperates with
private industry, I don't suppose we can count on them as a good
example. After all, this cooperation with industry is put forth as
evidence that the WW2 NAZI party was _not_ socialist.
Even the support of socialists is no indication that country is "true"
socialism; many mainstream (for them) socialists defended the USSR for
decades, only to decry it today as "state capitalism".
>> For decades, dedicated Socialists defended the USSR.
>
>And other dedicated socialists attacked it. Look at the postwar
>British Labour government, it helped form NATO, it developed
>Britain's nuclear deterrent, sent troops to Korea, because it was
>vehemently against the USSR.
>
Pro-USSR socialists didn't hold the reigns of power in post-WW2
Britain? Thanks for the bulletin. How does this show whether the
NAZIs were socialist?
>Or look at who wrote Animal Farm. If you are trying to make out that
>all socialists, or even the socialist mainstream, supported the USSR then
>it is no wonder you find socialists disowning such behaviour.
>
I'm not trying to make out that "all" socialists supported the USSR -
one can't get socialists to agree on anything.
Speaking of the author of "Animal Farm", Orwell also wrote pieces
attacking some of the bullshit coming from "socialist" forces who
stuck their noses into the Spanish Civil War, and, at the start of
WW2, he submitted a list of leftist subversives to the British gov't.
Does that mean Orwell wasn't a socialist?
>>Now they decry it as "State Capitalism".
>
>Who do? Name one non-communist, politically significant
>modern socialist who would use such a term.
>
I'm amused at your qualification "non-communist, politically
significant modern" socialist. This is a brand new category, to my
knowledge. I'll have to add it to my collection.
To answer your convoluted challenge, I submit Naom Chomsky. He's the
first person I noticed using the term "State Capitalism" for the USSR.
>> it's just one piece of evidence that the Third Reich
>> wasn't quite the Rightist bastion some of us were led to believe.
>
>Logic failure there.
>
I was referring to the fact that socialists seemingly change their
tune according to the wind (defend the USSR, it collapses, so "dis"
it), which does not enhance their credibility.
>> Let's compare apples to apples - how would "democratic socialism"
>> differ from "democratic fascism"?
>
>Egalitarianism.
>
Translation: "Egalitarianism" - gov't confiscation of wealth,
purportedly for redistribution to those who are "more deserving".
Translation: "more deserving" - party loyalists who can't find work
elsewhere, especially in the private sector.
Frederick Hebert
>
> On Sun, 5 Jul 1998, Sheldon Scott wrote:
>
> > Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >> NAZIs *were* socialists.
> > >
> > >This stuff still amazes me.
> > >
> > I am amazed as well, but at the startling level of disinformation put
> > rightists than it was to modern leftists,
>
> I never said it was.
>
> > the economy and it worker's advocacy certainly are leftist traits.
>
> Worker's advocacy?
>
> > >nationalist, totalitarian, inegalitarian, and undemocratic.
> > >Then we have communism, which is internationalist, totalitarian,
> > >(theoretically) egalitarian, and anti-democratic.
> > >Then we have democratic socialism, which is internationalist,
> > >anti-totalitarian, egalitarian and democratic.
> > >
>
> If it's democratic socialism, because it is done by an elected,
> accountable government.
>
> > left are fond of telling us that capitalism isn't democratic, but it
> > their high tax rates, punitive measures for running a successful
> > business, etc
>
> industry.
>
> > Socialists are able to excuse their compatriots by simply disavowing
> > any actions they deem unsuitable.
>
> And rightwingers attempt to lump anyone using the word socialist together,
> regardless of whether they actually agree on anything much.
>
>
>
> And other dedicated socialists attacked it. Look at the postwar British
> Labour government, it helped form NATO, it developed Britain's nuclear
> deterrent, sent troops to Korea, because it was vehemently against the
> all socialists, or even the socialist mainstream, supported the USSR then
> it is no wonder you find socialists disowning such behaviour.
>
>
> Who do? Name one non-communist, politically significant modern socialist
> who would use such a term.
>
> > lame, really, and it's just one piece of evidence that the Third Reich
> > wasn't quite the Rightist bastion some of us were led to believe.
>
> Logic failure there.
>
> > >communism, and between communism and democratic socialism,
> > >but by the time you've gone all the way from fascism to democratic
> > >socialism, you've reached the opposite end of the political spectrum.
> > >
> > differ from "democratic fascism"?
>
> Egalitarianism.
>
>
> "Good morning, Little Piglet," said Eeyore. "If it is a good morning,"
> he said, "which I doubt", said he. "Not that it matters", he said.
According to Mussolini Fascism is either corporatism or reaction.
1930's fascism had the support of many of the world great capitalists
including Henry Ford. Hitler based much of his anti-Semetic philosophy
on the thinking of Ford and Ford helped finance the Nazi party. Using
the words
socialist and workers' is just propaganda. I assume you get this stuff
on KKKSFO, "Seig Heil on your Radio Dial!"
Joe Trader
ie. The spectrum runs from Totolitarianism to Anarcy, with some reasonable
entity in between. Communists, Nazis, Facists, Social Democrats, Socialists
etc all are to various degrees big government, people control entities.
Left vs Right is not the key. It is how free you are, and how much they
steal (tax) you.
Andrew Smith
> Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On Sun, 5 Jul 1998, Sheldon Scott wrote:
> >>The Third Reich was not any closer to modern
> >>rightists than it was to modern leftists,
> >
> >I never said it was.
> >
> I never said you said it was. Many folks try to associate the Third
> Reich with modern conservatism. That is the myth I was addressing.
Well would you kindly not address it when replying to me.
> >> and its strict control of
> >> the economy and it worker's advocacy certainly are leftist traits.
> >
> >Worker's advocacy?
> >
> Er, yes, that was the theme of much NAZI rhetoric. They were the
> worker's party.
Rhetoric about workers doesn't strike me as being "workers' advocacy" in
any meaningful sense.
> >> How is socialism any more democratic than communism or fascism?
> >
> >If it's democratic socialism, because it is done by an elected,
> >accountable government.
> >
> Well, then, so would democratic [whatever] be democratic.
> Note that you have to refer to a certain flavor of socialism in order
> to make any distinction from communism or fascism.
I suggest you reread what *you* wrote. You asked how they differed in
terms of being democratic, not merely to make "any distinction".
> >> ... socialist countries, with their high tax rates, punitive
> >> measures for running a successful business, etc
> >
> >There is nothing undemocratic about high tax rates
> >
> There most definitely is! They represent a higher confiscation of the
> wealth of the population, with questionable and even counterproductive
> results to show for that confiscation.
You appear to have no understanding of the word democratic at all.
> >or regulation of industry.
> >
> ??? I didn't write "regulation of industry", I wrote "punitive
> measures for running a successful business", and I think you know
> exactly what I'm talking about.
I assumed that's what you were talking about. Perhaps if you tried to use
more objective wording. "punitive" and "successful" are very much in the
eye of the beholder.
> Please address my remarks, not your parsing of them.
Then put your remarks into plain English not libertarianese. You seem to
think the meaning of "democratic" somehow defines the content of economic
policy, you talk of "confiscation of wealth" as though tax revenue was
just kept by the government, you refer to "punitive measures" as though it
was clear and unarguable which policies had punishment as a motive.
> >> Socialists are able to excuse their compatriots by simply
> >> disavowing any actions they deem unsuitable.
> >
> >And rightwingers attempt to lump anyone using the word socialist
> >together, regardless of whether they actually agree on anything much.
> >
> I don't see myself "lumping" any groups together. It just so happens
> that the word "socialist" is used by many groups, many of which decry
> the other's policies. This "lumping" is done by these various groups.
> I merely point out that it is another of the signs of the folly of
> socialism. George Orwell spent considerable time hounding and
> exposing socialists he thought "weren't socialist".
>
> I'm still looking for an example of a socialist country that
> socialists will get behind.
Personally I'd dispute the entire concept of a "socialist country". To
give a nation a political character in that way is undemocratic and smacks
of totalitarianism, or at the very least undemocratic constitutionalism.
> Since Sweden's gov't cooperates with
> private industry, I don't suppose we can count on them as a good
> example. After all, this cooperation with industry is put forth as
> evidence that the WW2 NAZI party was _not_ socialist.
Not by me. If you are going to reply to me please address my arguments,
not somebody else's.
> Even the support of socialists is no indication that country is "true"
> socialism; many mainstream (for them) socialists defended the USSR for
> decades, only to decry it today as "state capitalism".
I've already addressed this point once.
> >> For decades, dedicated Socialists defended the USSR.
> >
> >And other dedicated socialists attacked it. Look at the postwar
> >British Labour government, it helped form NATO, it developed
> >Britain's nuclear deterrent, sent troops to Korea, because it was
> >vehemently against the USSR.
> >
> Pro-USSR socialists didn't hold the reigns of power in post-WW2
> Britain? Thanks for the bulletin. How does this show whether the
> NAZIs were socialist?
It points out that you can't equate socialists with supporters of the
USSR.
> >Or look at who wrote Animal Farm. If you are trying to make out that
> >all socialists, or even the socialist mainstream, supported the USSR then
> >it is no wonder you find socialists disowning such behaviour.
> >
> I'm not trying to make out that "all" socialists supported the USSR -
> one can't get socialists to agree on anything.
>
> Speaking of the author of "Animal Farm", Orwell also wrote pieces
> attacking some of the bullshit coming from "socialist" forces who
> stuck their noses into the Spanish Civil War, and, at the start of
> WW2, he submitted a list of leftist subversives to the British gov't.
> Does that mean Orwell wasn't a socialist?
You appear to be rambling now.
> >>Now they decry it as "State Capitalism".
> >
> >Who do? Name one non-communist, politically significant
> >modern socialist who would use such a term.
> >
> I'm amused at your qualification "non-communist, politically
> significant modern" socialist. This is a brand new category, to my
> knowledge. I'll have to add it to my collection.
It's a pretty useful way of saying the socialists that matter in the free
world.
> To answer your convoluted challenge, I submit Naom Chomsky. He's the
> first person I noticed using the term "State Capitalism" for the USSR.
I would dispute both his non-communism or his political significance.
> >> it's just one piece of evidence that the Third Reich
> >> wasn't quite the Rightist bastion some of us were led to believe.
> >
> >Logic failure there.
> >
> I was referring to the fact that socialists seemingly change their
> tune according to the wind (defend the USSR, it collapses, so "dis"
> it), which does not enhance their credibility.
Socialists that defended the USSR don't have any credibility as far as
I'm concerned, regardless. But this is another point that has nothing to
do with the current discussion.
> >> Let's compare apples to apples - how would "democratic socialism"
> >> differ from "democratic fascism"?
> >
> >Egalitarianism.
> >
> Translation: "Egalitarianism" - gov't confiscation....
[propaganda snipped]
Harold
<ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Phil Ronzone wrote:
>
>> NAZIs *were* socialists.
>
>This stuff still amazes me.
>
>> socialist, communists, fascists, all the same.
>
>Let me see now, on the one hand we have fascism, which is nationalist,
>totalitarian, inegalitarian, and undemocratic.
>
>Then we have communism, which is internationalist, totalitarian,
>(theoretically) egalitarian, and anti-democratic.
I am amazed you figured that out. Most net citizens have yet to see
that the difference between fascism and communism is only that
communism is internationalist, and fascism is nationalist.
>
>Then we have democratic socialism, which is internationalist,
>anti-totalitarian, egalitarian and democratic.
Not anti-tolitarian, except in theory, of course. In practice,
socialism requires force to initiate, which attracts the power hungry,
and force to maintain, attracting those who will use that force to
their own ends.
>Now you might be able to see similarities between fascism and communism,
>and between communism and democratic socialism, but by the time you've
>gone all the way from fascism to democratic socialism, you've reached the
>opposite end of the political spectrum.
I would have to disagree. Socialism requires force to initiate, and
coercion to maintain. Socialism cannot be democratic, even if the
people are allowed to vote, but it is always a tyranny. The power
required for socialism to exist is sufficient to insure that the most
power hungry are attracted, and the force necessary to maintain a
socialist economy will be used by those in authority to their own
advantage.
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that
only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
--- Thomas Sowell
Guenter A. Scholz
>
>But of course, using such an emotional topic you try to steer attention
>AWAY from the FACT that NAZI Germany was a CLASSIC case of country
>wide socialism.
>
>
>
socialist roots following their initial growth which was supported precisely
because of the socialist views a lot in the movement had. You might think of
the 'night of long knives' as the ending of any socialist thinking within the
nsdap .
-regards, gs
bobbie
Phil Ronzone
>Phil Ronzone wrote:
>>... Uh, there are a lot (like, about all) histories that are
>>much more recent than 1958 that descrive the USSR and NAZI
>>Germany as socialist states.
>>
>>Historians can learn a lot in FORTY YEARS.
>>
>Do you really believe that Rush Limbaugh (sp?) is a
>Historian?
Huh? Care to explain this out of bounds statement?
ka...@snowcrest.net
(Derek Nalecki) wrote:
> You people will never accept the truth, will you?
The truth is that if you think Hitler was a liberal socialist - you're
ignorant or brainwashed or both.
> Between 1925 and 1932 the percentage of people who joined the NSDAP were as
> follows:
> workers - 40% (while they constituted 31% of general population)
> new middle class (mostly civil servants) - 21% (11 percent of GP)
> old middle class (shopkeepers etc.) - 32% (24% of GP)
> other (professionals, industrialists, etc.) 7% (34% of GP)
> As you can see workers were the largest group; the "Rich" the smallest.
Until 1932. The word "socialist" did, at first, frighten the industrial
capitalists. But after Hitler's purge of the "left nazis" (Strasser,
Rhoem, et al), and after Hitler reinterpretted "socialism" to mean
nationalistic/militaristic statism, and promised the industrial
capitalists that they would get to keep their money - they switched their
support to him. Who were Krupp, Siemens and Thyssen and company, if not
the industrial capitalists of Germany?
> >Name a socialist thinker who recommended genocide of the Jews, just one.
>
> Marx.
> derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
You will now please cite the text and page number, from Marx's own
writings (and not some critic), to support the above contention that Karl
Marx advocated the extermination of the Jews. If you cannot do so - you
will have utterly discredited yourself and will have to join Phil Ronzone
in the scrap heap of this discussion.
Cairns
ka...@snowcrest.net
Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >Name a socialist thinker who recommended genocide of the Jews, just one.
> >
> > Marx.
>
> Where did Marx recommend the genocide of the Jews?
>
> Hang on a second, IIRC Marx was Jewish. What on earth ARE you talking
> about?
>
> Andrew Smith.
Ask him to cite his source for that, I did, but he may not have heard me.
Cite or die the death of contemptuous laughter, derek redneck!
Cairns
ka...@snowcrest.net
Don't hold your breath waiting for these guys to admit that they are full
of crap.
Cairns
Victoria Baschzok
Petrich) wrote:
.
> In article <karen-26069...@ttyd1.mtshasta.snowcrest.net>,
> Cairns <ka...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>
> >Reforestation was indeed part of the "plan." Are you going to claim that
> >we should cut down all of our forests because the Nazis, among many
> >others, considered the forests an important natural resource?
>
> Great one.
>
> Besides,
> >reforestation in Nazi Germany was never permitted to halt the construction
> >of enormous public works programs like dams and autobahns, which would
> >horrify modern "Greens."
>
> Let me tell you all a story.
>
> The leaders of the armies that conquered Nazi Germany included an
> American general named Dwight David Eisenhower. In years past, he had
> gotten a lot of experience moving stuff across the United States of
> America -- and many of the US's roads were absolutely *awful*, despite a
> clamor for higher-quality roads.
>
> But when his armies came to Germany, they found some very nice
> highways (autobahnen), and as he traveled on them, he thought that we
> Americans also ought to have such nice highways.
>
> Thus was born the Interstate Highway System.
>
> Now don't all of you wish all our socialist roads -- especially the
> Interstates -- could be dynamited?
>
> >> Ooops, even more. Roehm was killed for two reasons. 1., he wanted Hitlers
> >> power. 2. He and his top henchmen were "rabid" homosexuals, which disgusted
> >> the basically normal people in Germany. He disgusted, but other than
Hitler,
> >> little cared. The German army had an agreenment from Hitler to fold
in the SA
> >> to the Army, so they were little worried.
>
> Then I'm sure that Mr. Ronzone appreciated what the Nazis would
> end up doing to whatever homosexual people they could find -- send them
> to prison camps.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Phil Ronzone
>According to Mussolini Fascism is either corporatism or
>reaction. 1930's fascism had the support of many of the world
>great capitalists including Henry Ford. Hitler based much of
>his anti-Semetic philosophy on the thinking of Ford and Ford
>helped finance the Nazi party. Using the words socialist and
>workers' is just propaganda. I assume you get this stuff on
>KKKSFO, "Seig Heil on your Radio Dial!"
Snicker. Ford was quite an anti-semite. However, neither he nor any
other "worlds great capitalists" supported Mussolini or Hitler.
Even Lindbergh make it clear in 1940 when he returned the Goering
medals that he didn't support German socialism (NAZIs et al).
Wild, factually unsupported statemenys like this only serve to
illustrate the intellectual dishonesty of the left.
Phil Ronzone
>In article <philEvp...@netcom.com>, Phil Ronzone
><ph...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>But of course, using such an emotional topic you try to steer
>>attention AWAY from the FACT that NAZI Germany was a CLASSIC
>>case of country wide socialism.
>>
>>
>>You're easily amazed as I said before. First contact with
>>solid facts?
>>
>on some reflection you might concede that the nsdap abandoned
>their socialist roots following their initial growth which
>was supported precisely because of the socialist views a lot
>in the movement had. You might think of the 'night of long
>knives' as the ending of any socialist thinking within the
>nsdap .
That kind of thinking *would* have a valid point if, and only if,
socialism was some kind of nemign system.
It isn't.
Certainly, once he had power, Hitler dropped *some* of the facade.
The you saw socialism (communism, fascism, whatever) for it really is:
Organized thuggery and cannibalism.
Phil Ronzone
>Until 1932. The word "socialist" did, at first, frighten the
>industrial capitalists. But after Hitler's purge of the "left
>nazis" (Strasser, Rhoem, et al), and after Hitler
>reinterpretted "socialism" to mean nationalistic/militaristic
>statism, and promised the industrial capitalists that they
>would get to keep their money - they switched their support
>to him. Who were Krupp, Siemens and Thyssen and company, if
>not the industrial capitalists of Germany?
Snicker. Uh, have you actually READ a business biography of Krupp?
Obviously not.
Pray tell, what source do you have that documents, mentions, indicates,
that German businessmen actually gave any substantial support to Hitler?
I have a LOT of stuff that shows they didn't, and that theyu didn't like,
want, or accept Hitler.
If you post your source, I'll be glad to fax you bunches of pages.
But, I know I can save on fax costs, because your source is only your
febrile imagination.
Have you figure out yet that a German conservative in the 1930's
is totally unlike a businessman/capitalist yet?
BTW - Roehm as a "left" NAZI is hysterical. Roehm DEFINED a NAZI.
He was more socialist than Hitler. He just caught got abusing one too many
"NAZI youth" anuses .... that, and thinking of taking power, which
no good socialist ever dares to tolerate.
Snicker.
Phil Ronzone
>they are full of crap.
Uh, Cairns, there has been ZERO facts posted by you to support your
(false) contention that businessmen supported, and help rise to
power, Hitler.
You know, I've mentioned this many times:
"German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler"
Henry Ashby, Jr. Turner / Published 1985
Oxford Press
Oxford Press is a very scholarly press, and they publish
only very high quality stuff.
Anyway, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler" says you
are all wrong. Want faxed copies of about 30+ pages?
And of course, I gave you, down to the page number, a very
recent histroy book which EXPLICITLY describes the Marxist
rumor that big business supported Hitler - a description of
the rumor, and how it got started.
Yet, somehow, other than you shrill hersterical rantings, we
see little.
ANd that which we get ("see chapters 15 16 ...") is so vague
and UNSPECIFIC that well, it doesn't help your cause.
In the meantime, I've email Oxford Press asking permission to post
the relevant 30+ pages.
You're wrong.
I'm right.
And you can't deal with that, can you?
Phil Ronzone
>>talking about?
>>
>>Andrew Smith.
>>
>Ask him to cite his source for that, I did, but he may not
>have heard me. Cite or die the death of contemptuous
>laughter, derek redneck!
Typical primitive non-thought.
Why, how could a Jew want to kill others Jews, especially on a large
scale?
1. Read the Bible. They did it a lot a long time ago.
2. Being Jewish is an artifact of birth. The Doctors Plot against
Stalin was created by a lot of Jews in the NKVD. It was the
opening (was to be) to get rid of all Jews in positions of
power in the USSR.
You know, a lot of US servicemen in WWII were of German ancestry.
How COULD they go to war against Germany?
Duh.........
Andrew Smith
> In article <karen-07079...@ttyd23.mtshasta.snowcrest.net> ka...@snowcrest.net writes:
> >>Hang on a second, IIRC Marx was Jewish. What on earth ARE you
> >>talking about?
> >>
> >>Andrew Smith.
> >>
> >Ask him to cite his source for that, I did, but he may not
> >have heard me. Cite or die the death of contemptuous
> >laughter, derek redneck!
>
> Typical primitive non-thought.
>
> Why, how could a Jew want to kill others Jews, especially on a large
> scale?
No, how could a Jew want to exterminate the Jews?
> 1. Read the Bible. They did it a lot a long time ago.
Marx wasn't in the Bible. I want you to substantiate your claim about
Marx advocating the haulocaust. Otherwise I might start to doubt your
honesty, or maybe your sanity.
> 2. Being Jewish is an artifact of birth.
And a very inconvenient one for anyone advocating the extermination of all
Jews.
> The Doctors Plot against
> Stalin was created by a lot of Jews in the NKVD. It was the
> opening (was to be) to get rid of all Jews in positions of
> power in the USSR.
Whatever. Now tell me about Marx.
> You know, a lot of US servicemen in WWII were of German ancestry.
>
> How COULD they go to war against Germany?
Because it didn't involve the extermination of every person of German
ancestry?
> Duh.........
Look do you have any evidence for your allegation or not?
Phil Ronzone
>Marx wasn't in the Bible. I want you to substantiate your
>claim about Marx advocating the haulocaust. Otherwise I might
>start to doubt your honesty, or maybe your sanity.
Huh?
I think you'd better start checking your attributions a lot more carefully,
or, stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Andrew Smith
> On Wed, 1 Jul 1998 11:38:02 +0100, Andrew Smith
> <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Phil Ronzone wrote:
> >
> >> NAZIs *were* socialists.
> >
> >This stuff still amazes me.
> >
> >> socialist, communists, fascists, all the same.
> >
> >Let me see now, on the one hand we have fascism, which is nationalist,
> >totalitarian, inegalitarian, and undemocratic.
> >
> >Then we have communism, which is internationalist, totalitarian,
> >(theoretically) egalitarian, and anti-democratic.
>
> I am amazed you figured that out. Most net citizens have yet to see
> that the difference between fascism and communism is only that
> communism is internationalist, and fascism is nationalist.
That's not the only difference. There is a difference on the grounds of
egalitarianism. Communism does have some belief in equality, not enough to
prevent abuse by those in power, but nevertheless enough to distinguish it
from the more inegalitarian ideas of fascism.
> >Then we have democratic socialism, which is internationalist,
> >anti-totalitarian, egalitarian and democratic.
>
> Not anti-tolitarian, except in theory, of course. In practice,
> socialism requires force to initiate, which attracts the power hungry,
> and force to maintain, attracting those who will use that force to
> their own ends.
You appear to have theory and practice the wrong way round. In libertarian
*theory* socialism may require "force" to initiate, but in practice
democratic socialist governments certainly don't correlate with the use of
force in any generally accepted sense. In fact democratic socialist
parties are more often attacked from the right for not being authoritarian
enough on crime, and too sympathetic to pacifism.
> >Now you might be able to see similarities between fascism and communism,
> >and between communism and democratic socialism, but by the time you've
> >gone all the way from fascism to democratic socialism, you've reached the
> >opposite end of the political spectrum.
>
> I would have to disagree. Socialism requires force to initiate, and
> coercion to maintain. Socialism cannot be democratic, even if the
> people are allowed to vote, but it is always a tyranny. The power
> required for socialism to exist is sufficient to insure that the most
> power hungry are attracted, and the force necessary to maintain a
> socialist economy will be used by those in authority to their own
> advantage.
All economic systems require force to initiate and coercion to maintain.
All political philosophies that have a hope of being put into place
attract those that adhere to them only in the hope of achieving personal
power.
ka...@snowcrest.net
> In article <karen-07079...@ttyd23.mtshasta.snowcrest.net>
ka...@snowcrest.net writes:
> >Don't hold your breath waiting for these guys to admit that
> >they are full of crap.
>
> Uh, Cairns, there has been ZERO facts posted by you to support your
> (false) contention that businessmen supported, and help rise to
> power, Hitler.
You are a liar. I've posted exerpts from numerous books, quotes, with page
numbers. Including:
1. The Fascist Tadition, by John Weiss
2. Capitalism and Socialism on Trial, by Fritz Sternberg
3. Adolf Hitler: Great Lives Observed, by George Stein
4. The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany, by T.L. Jarman
5. Adolf Hitler, by John Toland
6. Germany 1866-1945, by Gordon A. Craig
7. Who Financed Hitler, by James Pool
8. The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism, by Woodruff D. Smith
9. A History of Fascism: 1914-1945, by Stanley G. Price
10. and the Encyclopedia Britannica
(Ronzone will try to convince us that all of the above authors were the
deluded victims of a vast Marxist conspiracy...wait and see!)
I posted copious quotes on June 24, 26, 30; and July 7. I even REPOSTED
them when you accussed me of not supporting my argument before.
What's more, you know that I submitted the material and you're knowingly
lieing about it now! You've also failed to address any of the material I
have submitted. But it can all be located on Deja News.
> You know, I've mentioned this many times:
>
> "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler"
> Henry Ashby, Jr. Turner / Published 1985
> Oxford Press
>
This is the ONLY text you've mentioned. And you haven't offered a single
quote! Earlier you said this "high quality" book was (conveniently) out of
print.
> Anyway, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler" says you
> are all wrong. Want faxed copies of about 30+ pages?
No, if the book exists, I'll find it. And I'll also find out who wrote it
too. Maybe you need to read more books Ronzone, instead of hysterically
clinging to a single text that seems strangely at odds with the
overwhelming weight of the evidence!
> And of course, I gave you, down to the page number, a very
> recent histroy book which EXPLICITLY describes the Marxist
> rumor that big business supported Hitler - a description of
> the rumor, and how it got started.
Ahhhh...the old "Red Conspiracy Theory" - Then the rumor must have
profoundly influenced the Nuremburg Trials. Can you can explain why both
Krupp von Bohlen and Alfred Krupp, leading industrial capitalists, were
brought up on charges for contributing to the rise of adolf Hitler?
Here's a quote, from Volumn I, Chapter IV, of the official governemnt
publication; "Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression", published by the Office of
the United States Chief Council for Prosecution of Axis Criminality:"
"Krupp von Bohlen (and Alfred Krupp as well) lent his name, prestige, and
financial support to bring the Nazi Party, with an avowed program of
renewing the war, into power over the German State. On April 25, 1931, von
Bohlen acted as chairman of the Association of German Industry to bring it
into line with Nazi policies. On May 30, 1933 he wrote to Schacht that "it
is proposed to initiate a collection in the most farreaching circles of
German industry, including agriculture, and the banking world, which is to
be put at the disposal of then Fuehrer of the NSDAP in the name of The
Hitler Fund ...I have accepted the chairmanship of of the management
council." (p.88, GPO 1946)
Can you read Ronzone? Can you f**king read! Hitler, through Krupp,
Thyssen, and Siemans created an entire council of leading industrial
capitalists and bankers to finance the Nazi take-over of Germany! They
were called "The Association of German Industry."
I also have a list of the charges that were brought against the former
leader of the conservative Nationalist Party too, Franz von Papen.
> Yet, somehow, other than you shrill hersterical rantings, we
> see little.
I'm also getting tired of your impotent little sexist remarks. Everytime
you say shit like this your waning credibility sinks lower and lower.
> ANd that which we get ("see chapters 15 16 ...") is so vague
> and UNSPECIFIC that well, it doesn't help your cause.
I've given you the quotes, the page numbers, and the texts.
> You're wrong.
>
> I'm right.
>
> And you can't deal with that, can you?
Everyone but the right-wing sychophants knows who's "won" this discussion.
You might as well face it - as soon as you took the discussion personally
and started the name-calling, you lost.
But you don't have the grace or dignity to accept your failure
magnanimously - which indicates that you are not only a self-deluded
fanatic, but that you suffer from a profound character flaw.
Cairns
ka...@snowcrest.net
Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
Looks like this one goes on the scap heap with Ronzone.
Cairns
Arm Wander
wrote in article <Pine.SOL.3.95.980708202656.3736A-100000@primrose>...
> On Wed, 8 Jul 1998, Phil Ronzone wrote:
> > >Hang on a second, IIRC Marx was Jewish.
He was!
> > How could a Jew want to kill others Jews, especially on a large scale?
You are making the assumption that what Marx designed was used in the way he intended.
> No, how could a Jew want to exterminate the Jews?
His letters to friends declared the intention was to promote Judaism.
--
UK pro gun lobbyist will be dissappointed with
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>In article <karen-07079...@ttyd23.mtshasta.snowcrest.net> ka...@snowcrest.net writes:
> >Until 1932. The word "socialist" did, at first, frighten the
> >industrial capitalists. But after Hitler's purge of the "left
> >nazis" (Strasser, Rhoem, et al), and after Hitler
> >reinterpretted "socialism" to mean nationalistic/militaristic
> >statism, and promised the industrial capitalists that they
> >would get to keep their money - they switched their support
> >to him. Who were Krupp, Siemens and Thyssen and company, if
> >not the industrial capitalists of Germany?
>Snicker. Uh, have you actually READ a business biography of Krupp?
hey runt zone, yua you with the big mouth thats all mouth and no
brains. Read the news lately? Ooops forgot you just look at the
pictures in the comics.
Well you missed it asshole, care to tell us why VW has just agreed
to pay for the slave labor they used durning the war? Hitler was
financed by the rich elitists and corporate whores of the time,
including many American corporate whores like Ford, Rca, ITT. Now get
over it Nazism is a right wing fascist state and there is not denying
it, you like jack boots can try all you want but you can't rewrite
history.
>Obviously not.
>Pray tell, what source do you have that documents, mentions, indicates,
>that German businessmen actually gave any substantial support to Hitler?
try reading anything thats even half way valid about the war, and its
full of references to his support from corporate whores.
>I have a LOT of stuff that shows they didn't, and that theyu didn't like,
>want, or accept Hitler.
bullshit, unless you are reading the shit put out by the skin heads.
>If you post your source, I'll be glad to fax you bunches of pages.
>But, I know I can save on fax costs, because your source is only your
>febrile imagination.
you doin't have a source thats worth shit.
>Have you figure out yet that a German conservative in the 1930's
>is totally unlike a businessman/capitalist yet?
back to playing semantic games?
>BTW - Roehm as a "left" NAZI is hysterical. Roehm DEFINED a NAZI.
>He was more socialist than Hitler. He just caught got abusing one too many
>"NAZI youth" anuses .... that, and thinking of taking power, which
>no good socialist ever dares to tolerate.
you really are crazier than a damn sewer rat if you believe that.
>Snicker.
>--
>"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
who the hell would want em when they stink as bad as they do?
__________________________________________________
Let The White Rose enlighten you.
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
gdy weasel
________________________________________________
Irritate a right winger burn the bible banger not the book
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>In article <karen-07079...@ttyd23.mtshasta.snowcrest.net> ka...@snowcrest.net writes:
> >Don't hold your breath waiting for these guys to admit that
> >they are full of crap.
>Uh, Cairns, there has been ZERO facts posted by you to support your
>(false) contention that businessmen supported, and help rise to
>power, Hitler.
>You know, I've mentioned this many times:
> "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler"
> Henry Ashby, Jr. Turner / Published 1985
> Oxford Press
>Oxford Press is a very scholarly press, and they publish
>only very high quality stuff.
they have published shit before. And now their stuff is not high
quality all the time in fact some of it is garbage.
>Anyway, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler" says you
>are all wrong. Want faxed copies of about 30+ pages?
>And of course, I gave you, down to the page number, a very
>recent histroy book which EXPLICITLY describes the Marxist
>rumor that big business supported Hitler - a description of
>the rumor, and how it got started.
well there are probably at least a thousand other references that says
the authors of your book are crazier than a damn loon.
>Yet, somehow, other than you shrill hersterical rantings, we
>see little.
>ANd that which we get ("see chapters 15 16 ...") is so vague
>and UNSPECIFIC that well, it doesn't help your cause.
>In the meantime, I've email Oxford Press asking permission to post
>the relevant 30+ pages.
>You're wrong.
>I'm right.
you haven't been right in your life time.
>And you can't deal with that, can you?
>--
>"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
__________________________________________________
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>In article <35A1D6...@cwnet.com> fhe...@cwnet.com writes:
> >According to Mussolini Fascism is either corporatism or
> >reaction. 1930's fascism had the support of many of the world
> >great capitalists including Henry Ford. Hitler based much of
> >his anti-Semetic philosophy on the thinking of Ford and Ford
> >helped finance the Nazi party. Using the words socialist and
> >workers' is just propaganda. I assume you get this stuff on
> >KKKSFO, "Seig Heil on your Radio Dial!"
>Snicker. Ford was quite an anti-semite. However, neither he nor any
>other "worlds great capitalists" supported Mussolini or Hitler.
you are a fucking idiot, nobody but a damn fool would say such shit.
every one with an IQ on the upside of ice water knows better.
>Even Lindbergh make it clear in 1940 when he returned the Goering
>medals that he didn't support German socialism (NAZIs et al).
care to tell us why old charlie was broadcasting all those pro Nazi
messages, then?
>Wild, factually unsupported statemenys like this only serve to
>illustrate the intellectual dishonesty of the left.
Victoria Baschzok
: Vict...@netinfo.ubc.ca (Victoria Baschzok) wrote:
: >ssc...@no.spam.uniserve.com wrote:
: >> The implication is that since the Axis involved "Fascism" it can't
: >> possibly be socialist. This ignores the fact that the word fascism
: >> itself refers to a worker-based, union-oriented gov't, a system that
: >> also involved "corporatism", which was/is a close tying of corporate
: >> planning to gov't bureaucracy - in other words, Socialism.
: >And from the next post, S. Scott: Let's compare apples to apples - how
: >would "democratic socialism" differ from "democratic fascism"?
: >Your way off, again, Sheldon. Fascism and sociaism are very different.
: Excuse me? I asked how "democratic socialism" would differ from
: "democratic fascism". How can a question be "way off"?
It seems to be your contention that socialism and fascism are very similar
and the Hitler was a socialist, thatąs were youąre way off, as explained.
: >Socialism came into existence as a clearly formulated theory
: >based on a specific interpretation of history,
: Is this yet another flavor of socialism - "original socialism", aka
: "fundamentalist socialism" ?:-) It was a test-tube creation.
A new łflavor˛? Donąt bring your oral fixations into this please. It would
be more the łoriginal socialism˛ wouldnąt it. Donąt you follow: łSocialism
came into EXISTENCE as a clearly formulated theory based on a specific
interpretation of history... ł clear enough for you Sheldon?
: But the
: oft-posted (by Victoria) JR Saul tells us to beware of those who
: purport to have "the" solution to the problems facing us. Was he
: really warning us about socialism?
Well what do you think? What books of his have you read and what were your
impressions? I think you misunderstand Saul, but let me know what sections
of his books you find most edifying on the subject. Incidentally, Sheldon,
this has little to do with weather Hitler and the Nazi party were
socialist. No matter what Saul thinks about socialism et al.
: >fascism introduced no systematic
: >exposition of its ideology or purpose other than a negative reaction
: >against socialist and democratic egalitarianism.
: Fascism was based on union / gov't cooperation.
This is a absurdly thin statement. Fascism stuck up for the rich and other
classes just as much or more. In practice, corporatism severely curtailed
the rights of workers while emphasizing and protecting the rights of
employers.
: It did not purport to have "the" solution.
No, of course not. Hitler was one of the more capricious, whimsical chaps
of the century.
: True equality, as opposed to "Egalitarianism",
: so seldom arises from socialism that I think we can disregard that
: test altogether.
That doesnąt change the fact that fascism was a negative reaction to
socialism and democratic egalitarianism. This is,of course ,not in keeping
with your ridiculous theory on the subject.
: >The growth of democratic
: >ideology and popular participation in politics in the 19th cent. was
: >terrifying to some conservative elements in European society,
: >and fascism grew out of the attempt to counter it by forming mass
: >parties based largely on the middle classes and the petty bourgeoisie,
: >exploiting their fear of political domination by the lower classes.
: >
: Pretty rarefied concepts here, vicky - you state that socialism grew
: from "democratic ideology and popular participation in politics" while
: fascism grew from "the middle classes and the petty bourgeoisie". How
: different in demographics are those two groups? Indeed, do they
: differ at all? Do they differ sharply less now than they did, say, 50
: years ago? If they differ, is there a substantially larger number of
: people in one group than in the other?
Nowhere do I sate that socialism frew form łdemocratic ideology and
popular participations in polictcs˛ . The two are realated to that time in
history but thatąs moot. What I said, as you know was: ł...fascism
introduced no systematic
exposition of its ideology or purpose other than a negative reaction
against socialist and democratic egalitarianism. The growth of democratic
ideology and popular participation in politics in the 19th cent. was
terrifying to some conservative elements in European society, and fascism
grew out of the attempt to counter it by forming mass parties based
largely on the middle classes and the petty bourgeoisie, exploiting their
fear of political domination by the lower classes. "
: >Fascism is a totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the
: >state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of
: >national life.
: >The name was first used by the party started by Benito
: >Mussolini, as I'm sure your aware. Fascism, especially in its early
: >stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in
: >order to appeal to many diverse groups.(This pretty much explains the
: >Nazi party name NSDAP: National Socialist German Workers Party)
: >
: Socialism has always been opportunistic - it goes to a place economic
: expansion has yet to reach and tries to convince the people there that
: they need to "take" their "fair share".
Socialism is no more opportunistic than any political system and pales by
the FRANK opportunism of fascism. As to the rest of this statement, well,
it adds nothing as there is not basis in fact for it. Much like most of
your argument.
: This also explains how little
: difference there is between fascism and socialism. Both are different
: expressions of the same base doctrine.
You have not gone any further improving this other than this silly
statement. You have not seriously addressed any of the big differences I
pointed out.
: >A big differnce with sociaism is fascist use of the theory of social
: >Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of
: >struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state.
: Darwinism did not state "survival of the fittest". This turn of
: phrase implies that anyone less than superlative does not survive.
: Darwin said survival of the fit - which does not automatically exclude
: anyone.
Darsinsim isnąt in question here Sheldon, pay attention. Where talking
about SOCIAL DARWINISM. As developed in the late victorian era by the
likes of Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner. They used it as a
łscientific˛ explanation and social justification of racial inequality,
cultural exploitation and laissez-faire capitalist activity. The fascists
adopted this theory. The phrase łsurvival of the fittest˛ , in this
context, applies to Nations are racial groups as far as the fascists were
concerned.
: >Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more
: >dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading
: >characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of
: >this dogma.
: Earlier, you wrote "fascism introduced no systematic exposition of its
: ideology or purpose other than a negative reaction". Now you are
: referring to fascist "dogma". Seems contradictory...
Not at all. Socialism did indeed, early on, introduce a systematic
exposition of its ideology. Fascism did not. Fascist imperialism is hardly
a systematic exposition of ideology.
: >Another different element of fascism is its elitism.
: >
: CHUCKLES!
łCHUCKLES!˛? Do you SOFTLY WHISPER! too?
: This one is just too much!
: Socialists Certainly ARE Elitists. Like, Duh.
The degree that socialism is elitist is minimal relative to structurally
entrenched elitism of the fascist state.
: >Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the
: >existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian
: >leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation.
: Do you define socialism as "rule by the mob and the destruction of the
: existing social order"? If not, why do you describe it this way?
Donąt be so obtuse. Iąm not defining or describing it that way. Thatąs the
way the elite, that was worried about the lower classes and fascists,
seeking power, described it and saw it.
: >Fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees
: >desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place
: >and function. Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers,
: >and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the
: >corporative state is a part of fascist dogma.
: Do you mean to imply that in a truly _socialist_ state, on the other
: hand, "capital, labor, farmers, and professionals" would be the same
: "class"? I presume this means the same income level, since that is
: all Socialists really are concerned with in the end. Pretty lame.
In a łtruly socialist state˛ of course, by definition that would be the
case. Not that one existed. Income levels would be, relativly , very
level. States with degrees of socialism have sought and achieved variouls
degrees of the classless society, some being failures and other with some
sucesss. But that is well know as basically moot. The point is that:
Fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees desirable order
only in a state in which each class has its distinct place and function.
Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers, and
professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the
corporative state is a part of fascist dogma.
: Again, earlier you wrote "fascism introduced no systematic exposition
: of its ideology or purpose other than a negative reaction". Yet,
: again, you refer to fascist "dogma". Seems contradictory... or is it?
: Maybe it's just a way to tailor Fascism to your argument (such as it
: is), to make Fascism seem to counter each socialist intent. You quote
: some firm ideas for an ideology that had no "systematic exposition".
Not at all. Abhorring the idea of a classless society and believing that
each class has its distinct place and function IS a negative reaction to
socialism and egalitarian ideals.
: >Although Mussolini's and Hitler's governments tended to interfere
: >considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can
: >be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist
: >and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and
: >many favored it as an obstacle to socialization.
: The National Socialists were smart enough to allow private industry to
: continue. Socialists try to use that point to prove the NS weren't
: really socialist. After all, socialism means "worker's control of the
: means of production". Yet, in socialist countries, the means of
: production is controlled either by the state (in the case of failed
: examples) or privately (in the case of "successful" examples).
Because they were not socialists . Your dislike of socialism is so intense
you think that anything bad is socialist. So Hitler, being rather bad
himself, is socialist. In the face of all evidence to the contrary you
think the Nazi pary was socialist. Like leaving private industry alone.
Like private industry heavily backing and even financing the Nazi party.
Not to mention that a lot of countries including the US were pulling for
Hitler and Mussolini as opposition to socialism.
: >Lets look at some reaction to US leaders at the time of Mussolini. The US
: >embassy in Italy was telling Washington that Mussolini was a >moderate<
: >and that the choice in Italy is >between Mussolini and Fascism and
: >Giolitti and Socialism< --Henry Fletcher.
: Just what did Fletcher understand by the use of those terms "fascist"
: and "socialist"? Would the major difference be the lack of formal
: expropriation by the fascists?
You have to be kidding.
: >Secretary of State Frank Kellogg called Mussolinips opposition
: >>communists, socialists, and anarchists.< - Kellogg, Krenn,
: >U.S. Policy toward Economic Nationalism, 53-4. On the favourable
: >general response to Mussolini's Fascism in the United States,
: >see John Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism (Princeton, 1972).
: Maybe these US "analysts" were put off by Mussolini's use of the word
: fascist. Their assessment is more of an indication of the peculiar
: state of Italian politics than of any "Fascist vs. Socialist"
: conflict. Mussolini's "socialists" used the term "fascist" to tie
: themselves more closely to the unions. The ploy worked - they got
: elected.
Analysts? Why put łanalysts˛ in quotes. I didnąt call them that. Frank
Kellogg was the Secretary of State! Have you eaten yet today? They clearly
thought fascism was a bulwark against socialism in both Italy and Germany.
: Delving into the particulars of pre-WW2 Italian politics is not going
: to clarify anything for us here.
No no, why should you let historical fact intervene and ruin your lovely time.
: There's more curves in that topic
: than on the Sea to Sky highway. For example, as I'm sure you are
: aware, Mussolini regarded Hitler as a socialist and was not too happy
: about throwing in with him.
Really? What sources do you have for that? Although Iąm glad you brought
up Mussolinis hatred of socialists. His opposition to them was quite
brutal and intense, typical fascist.
: In the US, "socialists" were regarded as wanting to destroy all
: governments and set up a world cooperative federation of workers. It
: was this US perception of socialists as destroyers that made any party
: that kept them away seem attractive. Are US advisors a major
: authority on who is and isn't really socialist?
Thatąs ridiculous. Socialism popularity was rising at the time in the US
and many people were turning to it. In fact , Rooseveltąs New Deal
implemented many of the polices they were asking for. Thus curbing support
for the party. Your question is absurd. They were backing the fascists to
stop the socialists. Itąs interesting to note that the socialists in
Europe were the chief organisers and the most active amongst the
resistance groups apposing the Nazi forces. The US, in a lot of places,
promptly helped to dismantle those groups after the war and install a lot
of the collaborators to power. In order to combat communism.
: >As the effects of the great depression hit Europe, leading to social
: >and political unrest, Fascist Italy received mounting praise as a
: >bastion of order and stability, free of class struggle and challenges
: >from labour and the left. "The wops are unwopping themselves,"
: >Fortune magazine wrote with awe in a special issue devoted to
: >Fascist Italy in 1934.
: Good Lord! This speaks to the lack of quality of political commentary
: in those times. At any rate, the freedom from "challenges
: from labour and the left" was precisely because those groups had a
: strong voice in this fascist government.
Hardly strong voices. Some appeasement so as to keep the existing
structures in order. Which is exactly why they backed them. Followed by
brutal control after power was achieved.
: >State Department roving Ambassador Norman Davis praised the
: >successes of Italy in remarks before the Council of Foreign Relations
: >in 1933, speaking after the Italian Ambassador had drawn applause
: >from his distinguished audience for his description of how Italy had
: >put its "own house in order...(Where do you hear that phrase now?)
: >A class war was put down"
: Would you prefer that a "class war" had continued?
Not supprisingly your keen to adopt their interpretation of events.
However as you say, perhaps this łspeaks to the lack of equality of
politcal commentary in those times˛ . You switch gears rather quickly when
it suits you.
I would prefer a class war that won greater equality and democracy than
existed at the time.
: >In the major academic study of the topic,
: >David Schmitz points out that the model developed for Italy,
: >with "moderate" Fascists holding the middle ground between the
: >dreaded left and right-wing extremists, was applied to Nazism as well.
: Well, at least Schmitz realized that the fascists weren't right-wing.
No, heąs pointing out US interpretation of the situation.
: >Here, Hitler was chosen as the representative of the moderates who
: >promised "social order, anti-Bolshevik laws, and protection for
: >foreign capital(Hmmmm,getting the idea yet?),"
: Is it your idea that socialism promotes "disorder, bolshevism, and
: looting of foreign capital"?
No, of course not. You silly person.
: That would be the opposite of what you
: say der fuhrer represented.
I donąt say that, if you care to read, youąll notice Iąm quoting people
like the Secretary of State at the time. They thought that he was a
bastion against socialism and backed him for it. How obtuse of you.
: Hitler probably opposed the state
: capitalism the Bolsheviks were implementing (according to modern
: leftists). Socialism's lack of protection for "foreign capital" is
: but one of the many aspects of socialist dogma that the National
: Socialist party wisely dropped as unworkable.
Dropped? They never supported socialist ideas in that area.
: >Schmitz observes. The American charg d'affaires in Berlin
: >wrote Washington in 1933 that the hope for Germany lay in
: >"the more moderate section of the [Nazi] party, headed by Hitler
: >himself...which appeal[s] to all civilized and reasonable people,"
: >and seems to have "the upper hand" over the violent fringe.
: Now you're implying that socialism would appeal to uncivilized and
: unreasonable people. Hey, maybe I am getting the idea!
No , Iąm not.Iąm clearly stating what the americans thought and who they
would back to stop socialism etc. But do YOU think that Hitler appealed
to reasonable and civilized people? You back his polices do you?
: You say the NAZI party held "the upper hand over the violent fringe"!
: Is this a bad thing?
Iąm quoting people you silly man. Read more carefully. Thatąs how they
rationalised backing a nut like Hitler. Anything to protect their money.
:Are you putting this forth as proof that Hitler
: wasn't a socialist? Once again I shudder - at the appalling lack of
: foresight shown by American policy advisors, and at your dependence on
: 60-years outdated American policy wonks to "prove" your point.
LOL
: >In 1937, the State Department saw Fascism as compatible
: >with U.S. economic interests.
: >
: I'm not sure what they thought fascism was, but I suppose they wanted
: to avoid a system that would confiscate all property and put it under
: the aegis of the state. The NEW state, of course.
Sure, hell Mac, Hitler may ruffle a few feathers but hill protect your
money from those socialists. He ainąt so bad. Is that your point?
: >A report of the European Division explained its rise
: >as the natural reaction of "the rich and middle classes, in
: >self-defense" when the "dissatisfied masses, with the example
: >of the Russian revolution before them, swing to the Left."
: >
: Schmitz was, apparently, blissfully unaware that German citizens voted
: for the NAZI party because of its socialist policies.
But didnąt vote for the socialists for their socialist policies?
: >Fascism therefore "must succeed or the masses, this time
: >reinforced by the disillusioned middle classes, will again turn to the
: >left." Not until European Fascism attacked U.S. interests directly did it
: >become an avowed enemy.--Schmitz 133, 140, 174 and chapter 9
: >
: "European Fascism" never attacked US interests directly - the German
: war machine attacked US interests.
Acting independently were they?
: "European Fascism" was purportedly
: fought during the Spanish Civil War, and by the time WW2 began, those
: same "labor activists and students"(TM) who had so gleefully joined
: the Spanish Civil War were quite happy to sit at the sidelines. Their
: reasoning was fairly obvious - they would not fight a coalition of
: Communists (USSR) and Socialists (NAZI Germany).
Who sat on the sidelines? Certainly not the opponents of Franco.Are you
referring to the US? They did sit back and take it all in for quite some
time.
: --
: )-: E-mail will be posted as I see fit. :-(
: (-: "Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net." :-)
Andrew Smith
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.980708202656.3736A-100000@primrose> Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes:
> >Marx wasn't in the Bible. I want you to substantiate your
> >claim about Marx advocating the haulocaust. Otherwise I might
> >start to doubt your honesty, or maybe your sanity.
>
> Huh?
>
> I think you'd better start checking your attributions a lot more carefully,
> or, stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Sorry if I missattributed remarks. I rather naively assumed that anyone
replying to my comments would, under the circumstances, have to be the
person I was replying to in the first place.
Let me sort this out, you were arguing with my claim that Marx didn't
advocate the genocide of the Jews. *But* you aren't saying that Marx did
advocate it, that was somebody else?
cair...@my-dejanews.com
"Arm Wander" <Bink@Chain> wrote:
> Andrew Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
> wrote in article <Pine.SOL.3.95.980708202656.3736A-100000@primrose>...
> writes:
>
> > > >Hang on a second, IIRC Marx was Jewish.
>
> He was!
>
> > > How could a Jew want to kill others Jews, especially on a large scale?
>
> You are making the assumption that what Marx designed was used in the way he intended.
>
> > No, how could a Jew want to exterminate the Jews?
>
> His letters to friends declared the intention was to promote Judaism.
> --
> UK pro gun lobbyist will be dissappointed with
>
> http://www.nra.org.uk/
The statement was made that Karl Marx said, apparently somewhere in his
writings, that the Jews should be exterminated.
Now the person who said this will have to produce an exact quote, from Marx's
own writings, or be considered by all to be a stupid, lieing wanker.
Cairns
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
cair...@my-dejanews.com
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
> hey runt zone, yua you with the big mouth thats all mouth and no
> brains. Read the news lately? Ooops forgot you just look at the
> pictures in the comics.
> Well you missed it asshole, care to tell us why VW has just agreed
> to pay for the slave labor they used durning the war? Hitler was
> financed by the rich elitists and corporate whores of the time,
> including many American corporate whores like Ford, Rca, ITT. Now get
> over it Nazism is a right wing fascist state and there is not denying
> it, you like jack boots can try all you want but you can't rewrite
> history.
The area of the use, by German corporate nazis, of slave labor has not been
explored yet in this thread, but is well documented. Krupp von Bohlen was
charged with this in the indictment brought before the Nuremburg Trials. (See
page 89, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Office of the Chief Council For
Prosecution of Axis Criminality, Vol I, GPO 1946.)
> >Obviously not.
>
> >Pray tell, what source do you have that documents, mentions, indicates,
> >that German businessmen actually gave any substantial support to Hitler?
I've already cited the sources. Access Deja News and read the entire thread.
> try reading anything thats even half way valid about the war, and its
> full of references to his support from corporate whores.
>
> >I have a LOT of stuff that shows they didn't, and that theyu didn't like,
> >want, or accept Hitler.
Then you should cite those sources, Ronzone, ones that aren't conveniently
out- of-print.
> bullshit, unless you are reading the shit put out by the skin heads.
>
> >If you post your source, I'll be glad to fax you bunches of pages.
>
> >But, I know I can save on fax costs, because your source is only your
> >febrile imagination.
>
> you doin't have a source thats worth shit.
>
> >Have you figure out yet that a German conservative in the 1930's
> >is totally unlike a businessman/capitalist yet?
How are they different? Other than the strictly nationalistic attitude, how
are these industrial capitalists different than today's industrial
capitalists? Some of the companies that contributed to Hitler are still in
business today!
> back to playing semantic games?
>
> >BTW - Roehm as a "left" NAZI is hysterical. Roehm DEFINED a NAZI.
> >He was more socialist than Hitler. He just caught got abusing one too many
> >"NAZI youth" anuses .... that, and thinking of taking power, which
> >no good socialist ever dares to tolerate.
>
> you really are crazier than a damn sewer rat if you believe that.
>
> >Snicker.
> >--
> >"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
>
> >These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
>
> who the hell would want em when they stink as bad as they do?
He'll starve trying to sell them!
cair...@my-dejanews.com
> Typical primitive non-thought.
>
> Why, how could a Jew want to kill others Jews, especially on a large
> scale?
>
> 1. Read the Bible. They did it a lot a long time ago.
I have read the Bible Ronzone, in detail. If you want to get a serious ass-
kicking, go ahead - start a thread on the Bible - I dare you!
So why don't you quote chapter and verse to support this - your most recent -
bullshit statement?
> You know, a lot of US servicemen in WWII were of German ancestry.
> How COULD they go to war against Germany?
>
> Duh.........
You're sooooo stupid! Americans, of German descent, didn't see themselves as
Germans, but as Americans! I'm sure some of them DID have ambivolent feelings.
But this is an evasion. Kent Goldings says that Marx wanted to exterminate the
Jews. He should now demonstrate, by quoting directly from the writings of Marx
(chapter and verse) that Marx indeed promoted such an idea or shut up!
> "You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
If we had to depend on people like you to defeat socialism, we'd be in
serious danger.
Phil Ronzone
>>Not anti-tolitarian, except in theory, of course. In
>>practice, socialism requires force to initiate, which
>>attracts the power hungry, and force to maintain, attracting
>>those who will use that force to their own ends.
>>
>You appear to have theory and practice the wrong way round.
>In libertarian *theory* socialism may require "force" to
>initiate, but in practice democratic socialist governments
>certainly don't correlate with the use of force in any
>generally accepted sense. In fact democratic socialist
>authoritarian enough on crime, and too sympathetic to
>pacifism.
Snicker.
Really?
Then of course, we can go to Sweden and eliminate all State coercion.
For example, surrending money from your paycheck (taxes) is now
completely voluntary. You have to "pay" taxes ONLY if you want to.
The Swedish State would last, oh, say, 30 or so days.
Britain changed its tax laws to tax all of an entertainers earnings
of said entertainer plays even just once in Britain. This is why the
next Rolling Stones tour canceled all British appearances.
This has pissed off the Socialists running Britain, who are now looking
for ways to get their hands on some of that loot.
Some undersecretary (or other parasite) muttered darkly in the
Economist that the Stones had better be real careful that their
aircraft (or flights) don't make stops in Britain.
Aw, the stench of State coercion in the morning ...
--
"You capitalist bastard! You killed socialism!"
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Phil Ronzone
>In article
><Pine.SOL.3.95.980708202656.3736A-100000@primrose>, Andrew
>Smith <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>evidence for your allegation or not?
>>
>>Andrew Smith.
>>
>Looks like this one goes on the scap heap with Ronzone.
>
>Cairns
Ah, how sweet, cup cake.
But you know all about not producing evidence, don't you?
Hint - when you get a list of book titles, and post them without
page numbers and quotes of at least a few sentences, it's obvious
you're a fraud.
Much of German history on Hitler had to be changed with the
merger of Germany -- the GDR files showed all kinds of things,
such as the typical canard that German businessmen support
the rise of Hitler.
Even the GDR knew that was a lie.
Of course, you DO seem the type the Stasi always looked for ...
Phil Ronzone
>>support your (false) contention that businessmen supported,
>>and help rise to power, Hitler.
>>
>quotes, with page numbers. Including:
>
>1. The Fascist Tadition, by John Weiss 2. Capitalism and
>Socialism on Trial, by Fritz Sternberg 3. Adolf Hitler: Great
>Lives Observed, by George Stein 4. The Rise and Fall of Nazi
>Germany, by T.L. Jarman 5. Adolf Hitler, by John Toland 6.
>Germany 1866-1945, by Gordon A. Craig 7. Who Financed Hitler,
>by James Pool 8. The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism,
>by Woodruff D. Smith 9. A History of Fascism: 1914-1945, by
>Stanley G. Price 10. and the Encyclopedia Britannica
Really? Gee, I can't find these 10 quotes, allegedly with page
numbers etc.
I NOTICE YOU STILL HAVE POST NO PAGE NUMBERS!
HINT - Book titles are NOT valid quotes.
Please note that my sources have not only PAGE NUMBERS, but the
ACTUAL text.
ANd let's be honest here: you're so PISSED that IF you had actually
had posted all this stuff, YOU'D be throwing it in my face with great
glee.
Snicker. But you haven't.
You are now telling lies.
There are sites that store newsgroups for quite a while.
Pray tell, why are most of your titles NOT appearing?
So OK, maybe (ha, of course not) I missed it. Page number of
say, item 7 that supports your point that businessmen supported
Hitler please. Two or three sentences should be quoted.
Actually, your shrill lies are getting boring.
>I posted copious quotes on June 24, 26, 30; and July 7. I
>even REPOSTED them when you accussed me of not supporting my
>argument before.
Yeah, sure you did. Um, why haven't you just glommed them together
and
>What's more, you know that I submitted the material and
>you're knowingly lieing about it now! You've also failed to
>address any of the material I have submitted. But it can all
>be located on Deja News.
Snicker. Arm waving and asserting that I should "chapters 14 - 15"
is not s submission.
>>"German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler" Henry Ashby, Jr.
>>Turner / Published 1985 Oxford Press
>>
>>
>This is the ONLY text you've mentioned. And you haven't
>offered a single quote! Earlier you said this "high quality"
>book was (conveniently) out of print.
No, it's not.
>
>>Anyway, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler" says you
>>are all wrong. Want faxed copies of about 30+ pages?
>>
>No, if the book exists, I'll find it. And I'll also find out
>who wrote it too. Maybe you need to read more books Ronzone,
Stupid little hen too. Obviously you can't read.
As even YOU quoted, the author is Henry Ashby, Jr. Say so right
upo in YOUR post.
>>And of course, I gave you, down to the page number, a very
>>recent histroy book which EXPLICITLY describes the Marxist
>>rumor that big business supported Hitler - a description of
>>the rumor, and how it got started.
>>
>Ahhhh...the old "Red Conspiracy Theory" - Then the rumor must
>have profoundly influenced the Nuremburg Trials. Can you can
>explain why both Krupp von Bohlen and Alfred Krupp, leading
>industrial capitalists, were brought up on charges for
>contributing to the rise of adolf Hitler?
Hey - great imitation of McCarthyism. Don't bother reading the
book. You'd only find out thinsg that upset you, like facts.
>Here's a quote, from Volumn I, Chapter IV, of the official
>governemnt publication; "Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression",
>published by the Office of the United States Chief Council
>for Prosecution of Axis Criminality:"
>
>"Krupp von Bohlen (and Alfred Krupp as well) lent his name,
>prestige, and financial support to bring the Nazi Party, with
>an avowed program of renewing the war, into power over the
>German State. On April 25, 1931, von Bohlen acted as chairman
>of the Association of German Industry to bring it into line
>with Nazi policies. On May 30, 1933 he wrote to Schacht that
>"it is proposed to initiate a collection in the most
>farreaching circles of German industry, including
>agriculture, and the banking world, which is to be put at the
>disposal of then Fuehrer of the NSDAP in the name of The
>Hitler Fund ...I have accepted the chairmanship of of the
>management council." (p.88, GPO 1946)
>
>Can you read Ronzone? Can you f**king read! Hitler, through
>Krupp, Thyssen, and Siemans created an entire council of...
Snicker. You're the one with the reading problem. Of course the
documents produced the winners of a war always fairly blame the
correct people.
In any case, we now know it was wrong. Krupp was a famous name, so
Krupp had to be charged.
Snicker.
Of course, you completely ignore the modern histories that show
von Bohlen to be all words and not much action. He may have claimed
to be able to get businessmen to support Hitler, but the FACT IS,
the FACTS are, businessmen didn't support Hitler and/or bring him
to power.
Interesting that you can't even see that Bohlen just wanted to gain
power over industrialists -- what did you leave out, hmmmm?
The fact that businessmen resisted von Bohlmen?
Snicker.
BTW - For those of us that know the Oxford Press (you know,
Oxford University -- THAT Oxford Press), your claim that they
would publish anti-red hysteria stuff, is, well, you wouldn't
understand ....
So where's the list of Reichmarks that businessmen gave to Hitler?
Hmmmmmm?
Phil Ronzone
>Let me sort this out, you were arguing with my claim that
>Marx didn't advocate the genocide of the Jews. *But* you
>aren't saying that Marx did advocate it, that was somebody
>else?
I've never read Marx advocating anything like that.
He did make antisemitic remarks, but they were embedded
in politics -- i.e., the Jewish religion would have to destroyed
to free the Jews from [superstition] .... type stuff.
Phil Ronzone
>It seems to be your contention that socialism and fascism are
>very similar and the Hitler was a socialist, thatąs were
>youąre way off, as explained.
They are indeed one and the same.
They both initiate coercion against their fellow man.
It's that simple. Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mitterand,
no difference. Well, OK, the guns used were different, but that's
all.
Strange how the more socialist a country is, the more the smart people
leave it.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>In article <karen-08079...@ttyde.mtshasta.snowcrest.net> ka...@snowcrest.net writes:
> >>Uh, Cairns, there has been ZERO facts posted by you to
> >>support your (false) contention that businessmen supported,
> >>and help rise to power, Hitler.
> >>
> >You are a liar. I've posted exerpts from numerous books,
> >quotes, with page numbers. Including:
> >
> >1. The Fascist Tadition, by John Weiss 2. Capitalism and
> >Socialism on Trial, by Fritz Sternberg 3. Adolf Hitler: Great
> >Lives Observed, by George Stein 4. The Rise and Fall of Nazi
> >Germany, by T.L. Jarman 5. Adolf Hitler, by John Toland 6.
> >Germany 1866-1945, by Gordon A. Craig 7. Who Financed Hitler,
> >by James Pool 8. The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism,
> >by Woodruff D. Smith 9. A History of Fascism: 1914-1945, by
> >Stanley G. Price 10. and the Encyclopedia Britannica
>Really? Gee, I can't find these 10 quotes, allegedly with page
>numbers etc.
>I NOTICE YOU STILL HAVE POST NO PAGE NUMBERS!
>HINT - Book titles are NOT valid quotes.
hint get off your lazy ass and do some reading of real sources, not
your usuall right wing propaganda bullshit.
Your problem is you are unable to refute valid cites, so you think
that by omitting paghe numbers it invalidates them. But then that just
shows you to be all mouth no brains.
Phil Ronzone
>The area of the use, by German corporate nazis, of slave
>labor has not been explored yet in this thread, but is well
>documented. Krupp von Bohlen was charged with this in the
>indictment brought before the Nuremburg Trials. (See page 89,
>Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Office of the Chief Council
>For Prosecution of Axis Criminality, Vol I, GPO 1946.)
Snicker. Cairns finally gets an actual document, and suddenly she quotes
it all over the place. Uh, page numbers should be included, along
with a few quoted sentences.
>I've already cited the sources. Access Deja News and read the
>entire thread.
Yeah. "read chapters 14 and 15". Real supportive that.
>Then you should cite those sources, Ronzone, ones that aren't
>conveniently out- of-print.
Aw gee, I offered to fax you the relevant 30+ pages. But you declined.
Your mind is made up, don't need no facts.
And yes, I conspired to wait until this book went out of print
before using it, just to piss you off!!!!
One little itsy bitsy problem though -- the book is available thru Amazon.
I checked by ordering it (I have a copy already so I then cancelled.
should I get it and sell it to you?).
Amzaon.com said:
> > Ordered item: Henry Ashby, Jr. Turner "German Big Business and the Rise
> > of Hitler"
> >
> >
> > Price: $64.50
> > Shipping & handling charge: $3.95
> > Total charge for item: $68.45
> > Binding: Hardcover
> >
> > [XXXX] approve ("German Big Business and t..." -- 0195034929)
I also like how AFTER you staked youre position, you ran around TRYING
to get support. Which is WHY you references have no page numbers
and no quotes.
Tsk tsk tsk - argument by book titles ...
>>>Have you figure out yet that a German conservative in the
>>>1930's is totally unlike a businessman/capitalist yet?
>>>
>How are they different? Other than the strictly nationalistic
>attitude, how are these industrial capitalists different than
>today's industrial capitalists? Some of the companies that
>contributed to Hitler are still in business today!
Snicker. You don't realize how dumb this makes you.
Clueless.
>>>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll
>>>rent 'em cheap ...)
>>>
>>who the hell would want em when they stink as bad as they do?
>>
>He'll starve trying to sell them!
Oh, so klever! So witty. (still) So lacking in actual page numbers
and quotes.
McCarthy, oops, er, McCairnsies "I have a list of XXX book titles
that PROVE ....".
Phil Ronzone
>In article <philEvs...@netcom.com>, ph...@netcom.com (Phil
>Ronzone) wrote:
>
>>Typical primitive non-thought.
>>
>>Why, how could a Jew want to kill others Jews, especially on
>>a large scale?
>>
>>1. Read the Bible. They did it a lot a long time ago.
>>
>I have read the Bible Ronzone, in detail. If you want to get
>a serious ass- kicking, go ahead - start a thread on the
>Bible - I dare you!
Snicker.
So let me make sure of this: You are saying that, in the Bible, there
are NO stories/mention of one Jewish group/tribe exterminating, or trying
to exterminate, another JewIsh group/tribe?
Hmmm?
Harold
<ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Harold wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Jul 1998 11:38:02 +0100, Andrew Smith
>> <ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
[edited]
>> >Let me see now, on the one hand we have fascism, which is nationalist,
>> >totalitarian, inegalitarian, and undemocratic.
>> >
>> >Then we have communism, which is internationalist, totalitarian,
>> >(theoretically) egalitarian, and anti-democratic.
>>
>> I am amazed you figured that out. Most net citizens have yet to see
>> that the difference between fascism and communism is only that
>> communism is internationalist, and fascism is nationalist.
>
>That's not the only difference. There is a difference on the grounds of
>egalitarianism. Communism does have some belief in equality, not enough to
>prevent abuse by those in power, but nevertheless enough to distinguish it
>from the more inegalitarian ideas of fascism.
I will have to consider that. I am certain that communists do pretend
to place value in their citizens, or they would not bother with the
faked popular votes, for example, which were common. I am not certain
I would credit this with much, however.
>> >Then we have democratic socialism, which is internationalist,
>> >anti-totalitarian, egalitarian and democratic.
>>
>> Not anti-tolitarian, except in theory, of course. In practice,
>> socialism requires force to initiate, which attracts the power hungry,
>> and force to maintain, attracting those who will use that force to
>> their own ends.
>
>You appear to have theory and practice the wrong way round. In libertarian
>*theory* socialism may require "force" to initiate, but in practice
>democratic socialist governments certainly don't correlate with the use of
>force in any generally accepted sense. In fact democratic socialist
>parties are more often attacked from the right for not being authoritarian
>enough on crime, and too sympathetic to pacifism.
First, what is a Democratic Socialist government? I use the generally
accepted definition of Socialism as the control/ownership of the means
of production and distribution. I know of no democratic government
that has ever been Socialist.
A frequently cited example, Sweden, just causes great gales of mirth.
In Sweden, 87% of all property is privately owned, versus about 60% in
the US. If Sweden is to be an example of a Socialist country, where
87% of all property is privately owned, what do you call the US, where
it is only about 60% privately owned?
Sweden is a capitalist country, where they tax the capitalist economy
heavily to pay for a comprehensive welfare state (which is slowly
going broke).
>> >Now you might be able to see similarities between fascism and communism,
>> >and between communism and democratic socialism, but by the time you've
>> >gone all the way from fascism to democratic socialism, you've reached the
>> >opposite end of the political spectrum.
>>
>> I would have to disagree. Socialism requires force to initiate, and
>> coercion to maintain. Socialism cannot be democratic, even if the
>> people are allowed to vote, but it is always a tyranny. The power
>> required for socialism to exist is sufficient to insure that the most
>> power hungry are attracted, and the force necessary to maintain a
>> socialist economy will be used by those in authority to their own
>> advantage.
>
>All economic systems require force to initiate and coercion to maintain.
Really? I guess you could say that the US economy was established by
force, maybe. Do you mean the Revolutionary War, or the Civil War.
For myself, I would only say that those conflicts changed the face of
the country, but not the economic system, per se. Unless maybe you
want to go back to the English defeat of Cromwell and the republicans,
and the reestablishment of the monarchy?
As for maintenance, there is only a police force (which even a
Socialist country must have) and some regulatory functions. None of
these are, as yet, allowed to tell you what you may own and what you
can produce with your property (barring breaking of criminal statues).
In a socialist country, the government must have a coercive apparatus
which ensures that the citizens do not acquire the means of production
or distribution.
>All political philosophies that have a hope of being put into place
>attract those that adhere to them only in the hope of achieving personal
>power.
Really? Well, if you say so. However, I was talking about economic
systems. Indeed, I thought you were!!
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
-----
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment
us without end for they do so with the approval of their own
conscience."
-C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)
po...@hotmail.com
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
> ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) wrote:
<snip>
> >Snicker. Ford was quite an anti-semite. However, neither he nor any
> >other "worlds great capitalists" supported Mussolini or Hitler.
>
> you are a fucking idiot, nobody but a damn fool would say such shit.
> every one with an IQ on the upside of ice water knows better.
>
> >Even Lindbergh make it clear in 1940 when he returned the Goering
> >medals that he didn't support German socialism (NAZIs et al).
>
> care to tell us why old charlie was broadcasting all those pro Nazi
> messages, then?
Perhaps ol' Charlie was unaware of the make-it-up-as-you-go-along theory
of Ronzone-history.
J
po...@hotmail.com
> are NO stories/mention of one Jewish group/tribe exterminating, or trying
> to exterminate, another JewIsh group/tribe?
Yes.