Stone to rehablitate Hilter Stalin and Mao.

[Gunny]

I know what you mean, but in this case there really is no question at all that Nazism is inherently right wing.

You simply don't know what you are talking about.

The Nazis made an allaince with the right wing of germans in 1933, they were NOT however 'inherently right wing.'

In fact, hitler views on labor and private ownership show he was not 'right wing' at all.

The only part of Nazism that could be considered 'right wing' was nationalism, this is in fact where so many make the mistake of claiming Nazism is 'right wing', they take this one similarity and try to fit it into what the Nazis were.

This common mistake has existed for many years and does indeed have its roots as someone mentioned with Communist accusations against the Nazis in the 1930s, as another goal of Nazism was the destruction of communism.

You mean the National Socialist German Workers Party?

Say it isn't so.

 

[jillian]

Fascism comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Facism is extremist right wing. Communism is extremist left wing.

They are both equal in the totalitarian aspects.

 

[Liability]

Fascism comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Facism is extremist right wing. Communism is extremist left wing.

They are both equal in the totalitarian aspects.

Fascism is largely left wing. Communism is effectively ALL left wing.

The contention that fascism is "right wing" is mere baseless propaganda. Well, maybe not ALL baseless. But mostly baseless.

They are indeed both totalitarian.

 

[jillian]

Fascism is largely left wing. Communism is effectively ALL left wing.

The contention that fascism is "right wing" is mere baseless propaganda. Well, maybe not ALL baseless. But mostly baseless.

They are indeed both totalitarian.

would be nice if you applied actual definitions instead of the fantasy in your head.

 

[Liability]

That poor misunderstood Mr. Hitler.

Oliver Stone brings new dimensions to the man, the myth, the makeover.

 

[namvet]

Fascism comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Facism is extremist right wing. Communism is extremist left wing.

They are both equal in the totalitarian aspects.

strange things happen at wiki

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkiGORmirRU[/ame]​

 

[Gunny]

Fascism comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Facism is extremist right wing. Communism is extremist left wing.

They are both equal in the totalitarian aspects.

Facism is state control of everything and everyone. Nothing conservative about that. I'm not even sure nationalism can be described as left or right wing since both have used it to suit their own agendas.

 

[Xenophon]

Fascism comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Facism is extremist right wing. Communism is extremist left wing.

They are both equal in the totalitarian aspects.

Facism is not Nazism, and in fact that is another 'made to fit the facts' definition that is not accurate.

Mussolini was in fact the LEADING SOCIALIST in Italy when he took power.

His movement was in fact socialist and only changed as he decided it was better to try and work with the Monarchist King rather then against him.

Trying to tie eithers to 'corporations' is yet another of those silly revisionist things.

'Corporations' have share holders and boards of directors. The industry of Italy in the 1920s and germany where family owned. AG Krupp, German's largest concern controlled approx 3/4 of all German war production (mainly through holding companies and dummy fronts) and was in fact owned by ONE man.

'Corporations' is one of those words people seize on when they mean Industry.

PRIVATE in industry in germany supported Hitler ONLY AFTER he gave garuntees there would be no labor unions (which Hitler disolved dispite it being part of teh Nazi's stated agenda), and this was in the form of political kickbacks, not an embracement of Nazi ideology or government.

The definition given for facism & nazism in most places is DEAD WRONG.

Many of those giving it have an agenda, that agenda is toi discredit their political opposition which in most cases is in fact 'right wing' thus they try to pin the two forms of government most dispised on the 'right wing.'

 

[jillian]

Facism is state control of everything and everyone. Nothing conservative about that. I'm not even sure nationalism can be described as left or right wing since both have used it to suit their own agendas.

That's only true if you define "conservatism" in the same manner as one would define "libertarian". Conservative/Liberal ... Right/Left.. politically is really only a small chunk of the political continuum. But.. the further right... the more one is into the merging of government and corporations... the further left one is more into "communal" ownership...

But just because they called themselves "national socialist", doesn't mean they were socialists. In fact, not even the Soviet Union was truly socialist.

 

[Gunny]

Facism is state control of everything and everyone. Nothing conservative about that. I'm not even sure nationalism can be described as left or right wing since both have used it to suit their own agendas.

That's only true if you define "conservatism" in the same manner as one would define "libertarian". Conservative/Liberal ... Right/Left.. politically is really only a small chunk of the political continuum. But.. the further right... the more one is into the merging of government and corporations... the further left one is more into "communal" ownership...

But just because they called themselves "national socialist", doesn't mean they were socialists. In fact, not even the Soviet Union was truly socialist.

Look at what "NAZI" means. They call THEMSELVES socialists and proudly.

I don't agree with your view. Mine is that the specturm is actually a circle and only a thin lines divided extreme right from extreme left. At some point, one is indistinguishable from the other.

 

[Liability]

Fascism is largely left wing. Communism is effectively ALL left wing.

The contention that fascism is "right wing" is mere baseless propaganda. Well, maybe not ALL baseless. But mostly baseless.

They are indeed both totalitarian.

would be nice if you applied actual definitions instead of the fantasy in your head.

It would be nice if YOU'd stop citing wiki-fucking-pedia as though whatever they vomit constitutes something legitmate.

 

[Gunny]

Fascism is largely left wing. Communism is effectively ALL left wing.

The contention that fascism is "right wing" is mere baseless propaganda. Well, maybe not ALL baseless. But mostly baseless.

They are indeed both totalitarian.

would be nice if you applied actual definitions instead of the fantasy in your head.

It would be nice if YOU'd stop citing wiki-fucking-pedia as though whatever they vomit constitutes something legitmate.

Be nice. She is.

 

[Gunny]

Facism is state control of everything and everyone. Nothing conservative about that. I'm not even sure nationalism can be described as left or right wing since both have used it to suit their own agendas.

That's only true if you define "conservatism" in the same manner as one would define "libertarian". Conservative/Liberal ... Right/Left.. politically is really only a small chunk of the political continuum. But.. the further right... the more one is into the merging of government and corporations... the further left one is more into "communal" ownership...

But just because they called themselves "national socialist", doesn't mean they were socialists. In fact, not even the Soviet Union was truly socialist.

So you're saying it's okay to redefine words to suit an agenda? I will agree that it is done. I will not agree that it is right. Words mean things. I can think of several that have been redefined since I was a kid to suit an agenda.

"NAZI" would be one of them.

 

[Liability]

would be nice if you applied actual definitions instead of the fantasy in your head.

It would be nice if YOU'd stop citing wiki-fucking-pedia as though whatever they vomit constitutes something legitmate.

Be nice. She is.

I was nice. And she is usually nice. But what she calls the "fantasies in my head" is not a "nice" way to couch her criticism. And my rebuke of her less than nice rejoinder is not ad hominem, either. Wiki, as a source, blows. I was addressing her source, not her.

Seriously, wiki properly serves solely as a sometimes useful point of departure to begin looking into a question. To cite it as a source for ANY actual contention, however, is silly.

 

[Sunni Man]

so you being a Muslim ... I take it that means *you* have an agenda and anything you write will be far from objective

Of course I have an agenda Jillian.

But unlike you.

I have never denied it.

 

[jillian]

So you're saying it's okay to redefine words to suit an agenda? I will agree that it is done. I will not agree that it is right. Words mean things. I can think of several that have been redefined since I was a kid to suit an agenda.

"NAZI" would be one of them.

Actually, I'm saying it's NOT okay to redifine terms. And the soviet union was pretty far from the marxist ideal, yes? (that whole Animal Farm thing -- "all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others").

Facism has not really been redefined. It's just been overused.... as has socialist.

As for Nazi...you know that I am always going on about the fact that the word should not be used for lesser things...that it diminishes what the nazi's did in order to try to make whatever current situation they're talking about worse.

 

[Gunny]

It would be nice if YOU'd stop citing wiki-fucking-pedia as though whatever they vomit constitutes something legitmate.

Be nice. She is.

I was nice. And she is usually nice. But what she calls the "fantasies in my head" is not a "nice" way to couch her criticism. And my rebuke of her less than nice rejoinder is not ad hominem, either. Wiki, as a source, blows. I was addressing her source, not her.

Seriously, wiki properly serves solely as a sometimes useful point of departure to begin looking into a question. To cite it as a source for ANY actual contention, however, is silly.

I didn't say agree with her. I said be nice.

 

[Gunny]

So you're saying it's okay to redefine words to suit an agenda? I will agree that it is done. I will not agree that it is right. Words mean things. I can think of several that have been redefined since I was a kid to suit an agenda.

"NAZI" would be one of them.

Actually, I'm saying it's NOT okay to redifine terms. And the soviet union was pretty far from the marxist ideal, yes? (that whole Animal Farm thing -- "all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others").

Facism has not really been redefined. It's just been overused.... as has socialist.

As for Nazi...you know that I am always going on about the fact that the word should not be used for lesser things...that it diminishes what the nazi's did in order to try to make whatever current situation they're talking about worse.

Okay. Got no problem with that.

 

[Sunni Man]

As for Nazi...you know that I am always going on about the fact that the word should not be used for lesser things...that it diminishes what the nazi's did in order to try to make whatever current situation they're talking about worse.

I totally agree with you Jillian

 

[Liability]

Be nice. She is.

I was nice. And she is usually nice. But what she calls the "fantasies in my head" is not a "nice" way to couch her criticism. And my rebuke of her less than nice rejoinder is not ad hominem, either. Wiki, as a source, blows. I was addressing her source, not her.

Seriously, wiki properly serves solely as a sometimes useful point of departure to begin looking into a question. To cite it as a source for ANY actual contention, however, is silly.

I didn't say agree with her. I said be nice.

Yes. And then I noted that I had been.

There's nothing un-nice (i.e., "mean") about noting that the other person's cited "authority" is -- essentially -- just crap.