But, Aren't Nazis and Fascists Really Left-Wingers?

[Cowman]

Uh, calling liberals names that describe them well because they come here everyday claiming the sky is green and not blue....is getting to the point instead of wasting time everyday trying to convince liberals the sky isn't green.

I wonder what they put in the water in USMB land that keeps some people from focusing on the topic, which is quite interesting actually, and offering intelligent insights, but rather substitute mischaracterizations, name calling and insults?

Says one of the chicken little extraordinaires.

 

[SniperFire]

Uh, calling liberals names that describe them well because they come here everyday claiming the sky is green and not blue....is getting to the point instead of wasting time everyday trying to convince liberals the sky isn't green.

I wonder what they put in the water in USMB land that keeps some people from focusing on the topic, which is quite interesting actually, and offering intelligent insights, but rather substitute mischaracterizations, name calling and insults?

Says one of the chicken little extraordinaires.

Tell us again how Adolph Hitler was a Libertarian.

Simply ******* precious!


LOL

 

[Cowman]

Ah, okay, so socialists are NOT Nazis. You stand corrected...

...by yourself.

The Nazi regime was an oligarchy.

They had near complete control over the economy (socialism; government controls means of production) and mandated for all homosexuals, Jews and any other individuals deemed undesirable to be sent to concentration camps (dictatorship).

So yes, the Nazis were socialist, intolerant dictators.

Sorry my friend, but socialists were persecuted by the nazis just like the homosexuals, Jews, liberals, etc. they had their own patch. Same can't be said for conservatives.

 

[francoHFW]

If a gov't is totalitarian and its commerce is dominated by corporations, it's RW and fascist, dumbazz dupes. LOL The PURE CRAPPE you believe is amazing...Heard of Messershmidt, Krupp, Porsche, Dornier, etc etc etc. Change the channel, you're functional idiots at this point, worse than ignorant. LOL

 

[tooAlive]

Ah, okay, so socialists are NOT Nazis. You stand corrected...

...by yourself.

The Nazi regime was an oligarchy.

They had near complete control over the economy (socialism; government controls means of production) and mandated for all homosexuals, Jews and any other individuals deemed undesirable to be sent to concentration camps (dictatorship).

So yes, the Nazis were socialist, intolerant dictators.

Sorry my friend, but socialists were persecuted by the nazis just like the homosexuals, Jews, liberals, etc. they had their own patch. Same can't be said for conservatives.

Yes, the National Socialist German Workers' Party persecuted socialists.

Explains why Hitler committed suicide.

I think you mean communists. In which case yes, he hated them. As well as capitalists. He hated everyone actually.

 

[tooAlive]

If a gov't is totalitarian and its commerce is dominated by corporations, it's RW and fascist, dumbazz dupes. LOL The PURE CRAPPE you believe is amazing...Heard of Messershmidt, Krupp, Porsche, Dornier, etc etc etc. Change the channel, you're functional idiots at this point, worse than ignorant. LOL

Yes, corporations whose production was mandated by the government.

That's socialism.

 

[SniperFire]

Ah, okay, so socialists are NOT Nazis. You stand corrected...

...by yourself.

The Nazi regime was an oligarchy.

They had near complete control over the economy (socialism; government controls means of production) and mandated for all homosexuals, Jews and any other individuals deemed undesirable to be sent to concentration camps (dictatorship).

So yes, the Nazis were socialist, intolerant dictators.

Sorry my friend, but socialists were persecuted by the nazis just like the homosexuals, Jews, liberals, etc. they had their own patch. Same can't be said for conservatives.

I bet you actually thought you were making a valid point.

The Bolsheviks imprisoned and killed rival socialists. So did the Maoists. The Vietnamese communists were allied with the Khmer Rouge before they betrayed and attacked them, and fought a fratricidal, genocidal war for two decades before assimilating the Khmer Rouge communists into their party.

The National Socialists were imprisoning rivals from another socialist faction, mainly Bolshevik Russian loyalists.

Learn something. THEN post.

 

[tooAlive]

The Nazi regime was an oligarchy.

They had near complete control over the economy (socialism; government controls means of production) and mandated for all homosexuals, Jews and any other individuals deemed undesirable to be sent to concentration camps (dictatorship).

So yes, the Nazis were socialist, intolerant dictators.

Sorry my friend, but socialists were persecuted by the nazis just like the homosexuals, Jews, liberals, etc. they had their own patch. Same can't be said for conservatives.

I bet you actually thought you were making a valid point.

The Bolsheviks imprisoned and killed rival socialists. So did the Maoists. The Vietnamese communists were allied with the Khmer Rouge before they betrayed and attacked them, and fought a fratricidal, genocidal war for two decades before assimilating the Khmer Rouge communists into their party.

The National Socialists were imprisoning rivals from another socialist faction, mainly Bolshevik Russian loyalists.

Learn something. THEN post.

Damn. You taught me something as well.

Sorry, Cow.

I prefer humor over profanity.

 

[Foxfyre]

The definition of socialism has as many variances and sub plots as does liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, Marxism, or Nazism.

Technically:

1. A political theory advocating state ownership of industry.[Wordnet]

2. An economic system based on state ownership of capital.[Wordnet]

3. A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.[Websters].
Dictionary - Definition of socialism

So if you go by the strict definition, Nazi Germany was not socialist in that it did allow for private ownership of property and means of production. It WAS socialist, however as the government controlled the means of production, dictated who would be allowed to own private property, and dictated what wages and benefits the people would receive.

Whenever the U.S. government presumes to redistribute wealth, that is a socialist concept. When the government assumes the power to take the property of one person and give it to another, that is also a socialist concept and starts moving into the realm of totalitarianism.

And yet, despite exercising some of the same concepts here and there, the U.S. government is not anything like the Third Reich. At least not yet.

 

[DiamondDave]

The definition of socialism has as many variances and sub plots as does liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, Marxism, or Nazism.

Technically:

1. A political theory advocating state ownership of industry.[Wordnet]

2. An economic system based on state ownership of capital.[Wordnet]

3. A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.[Websters].
Dictionary - Definition of socialism

So if you go by the strict definition, Nazi Germany was not socialist in that it did allow for private ownership of property and means of production. It WAS socialist, however as the government controlled the means of production, dictated who would be allowed to own private property, and dictated what wages and benefits the people would receive.

Whenever the U.S. government presumes to redistribute wealth, that is a socialist concept. When the government assumes the power to take the property of one person and give it to another, that is also a socialist concept and starts moving into the realm of totalitarianism.

And yet, despite exercising some of the same concepts here and there, the U.S. government is not anything like the Third Reich. At least not yet.

Yet if you did not go along with the Nazi leadership, or you were the wrong religion or sexual orientation or a gypsy or whatever else.. they would take away your private property and put it in the hands of someone else who would most times be a puppet for the regime.. and as stated, see how the Betriebsführer would ensure these so called 'private owners' (in name only) were allowed to run their businesses

The US government is not like Naziism... it is not to that extreme.. you are correct.. but we do have an ever growing shift toward more and more socialism or socialist programs thanks to this government

 

[Politico]

How can you have libertarianism on both the x and y axis?

You can't. Stop trying to make sense of it. All of those charts are biased. I don't land on any of them.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The Horizontal X axis represents the push and pull between Cultural innovation (Liberalism) versus Cultural Traditionalism (Conservatism). Transition Left represents the willingness to innovate, sometimes just for innovation's sake, while transition Right represents how steeped in tradition the culture as a whole is.

Dr. Traveler had this in one of his posts above trying to describe the x axis of the political spectrum. And while this may be a 'definition', I don't believe that 'the left' in the United States accurately fits into the definition of 'Liberalism' here as 'Culturally innovative'. They are in some aspects, but in a lot of others they are not. And what is considered 'traditional'? How long does something have to be around to be considered 'tradional' and who had to hold it as 'traditional'. There's the phrase 'nothing new under the sun', and I think it's very true. While we advance technologically, the human race has pretty much already tried everything thru generations and generations of cycles.

It's more about how hard a system is structured from tradition and it's ability to change.

Going back to our system, we have a built in amendment process and a process for a Constitutional Convention to abandon the system. That means you can alter the underlying government to fit modern needs, which we have done. Since our Founding under the Constitution we've expanded voting rights, changed processes, etc. That makes our government fairly progressive. Not to mention, we as a people revere our past, but we are willing to break from the Founders when we find them to be out of touch with our modern world.

(Yes, that happens. A significant portion of the Founders if magically transported to our modern world would be astounded that we let women, Indians, and black people vote.)

As a counter point, while the Romans pre-Cesear were fairly democratic, that democratic tradition was rooted in the Helenistic Culture. I have never seen an indication that the Romans had a mechanism to change their government, the rights of the citizens, etc. That represents a deeply tradition based democracy.

You can play this same game with authoritarian government too. Monarchies derive power from tradition. They are steeped in tradition and resist change as it undermines the very traditions that give them power. Military Dictatorships are almost always rooted in modern woes and use modern methods.

I do agree, the Political Left and Political Right in the USA are different than the traditional theoretical definitions. I mentioned that before where I pointed out the Right as you understand it in political theory (Libertarian) is a non factor in the American Right.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Absolutely, I think both parties are left of center. I wish we had a true conservative movement in this country, I know that's where I would go.

You wouldn't be the only one. It may surprise folks, but I'm surprisingly Conservative once I lay out my stances on what the government should and shouldn't be involved in. Right now I don't believe either party accurately fits my political view. I tend to vote strictly based on economic policy.

 

[Foxfyre]

The definition of socialism has as many variances and sub plots as does liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, Marxism, or Nazism.

Technically:

1. A political theory advocating state ownership of industry.[Wordnet]

2. An economic system based on state ownership of capital.[Wordnet]

3. A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.[Websters].
Dictionary - Definition of socialism

So if you go by the strict definition, Nazi Germany was not socialist in that it did allow for private ownership of property and means of production. It WAS socialist, however as the government controlled the means of production, dictated who would be allowed to own private property, and dictated what wages and benefits the people would receive.

Whenever the U.S. government presumes to redistribute wealth, that is a socialist concept. When the government assumes the power to take the property of one person and give it to another, that is also a socialist concept and starts moving into the realm of totalitarianism.

And yet, despite exercising some of the same concepts here and there, the U.S. government is not anything like the Third Reich. At least not yet.

Yet if you did not go along with the Nazi leadership, or you were the wrong religion or sexual orientation or a gypsy or whatever else.. they would take away your private property and put it in the hands of someone else who would most times be a puppet for the regime.. and as stated, see how the Betriebsführer would ensure these so called 'private owners' (in name only) were allowed to run their businesses

The US government is not like Naziism... it is not to that extreme.. you are correct.. but we do have an ever growing shift toward more and more socialism or socialist programs thanks to this government

True. When the Nazi government assumed the ability to take whatever it wanted from anybody and give it to whomever it wanted, you went way past socialism and moved completely into totalitarianism dictatorship. The Nazi government was bound by no rules of any kind other than what it established and chose to enforce. And it could change its own rules at any whim of the highest heirarchy. The people had no rights but rather had only whatever privileges the government assigned to them and could take away at a moment's notice.

The Nazi government was as shrewd as any other totalitarian dictatorship, however, in allowing the people sufficient privileges that most felt grateful to and/or dependent on the government for any kind of good life. To oppose the government could result in loss of all of one's privileges and few were willing to risk that. In that way, the government could command the allegiance/obedience of most of its own people and didn't have to deal with much opposition from within.

Freedom isn't free. And liberty requires constant vigilance and willingness to defend it. We Americans should absolutely pay attention to erosion in our own options, choices, opportunities, and individual liberties as more and more power and 'responsibility' is shifted to the government. The German people didn't as the Third Reich slowly and systematically put itself into power.

 

[BlindBoo]

Uh, calling liberals names that describe them well because they come here everyday claiming the sky is green and not blue....is getting to the point instead of wasting time everyday trying to convince liberals the sky isn't green.

Says one of the chicken little extraordinaires.

Tell us again how Adolph Hitler was a Libertarian.

Simply ******* precious!


LOL

Hitler was a libertarian as much as liberals are fascist.

 

[Foxfyre]

Says one of the chicken little extraordinaires.

Tell us again how Adolph Hitler was a Libertarian.

Simply ******* precious!


LOL

Hitler was a libertarian as much as liberal are fascist.

Yet there are far more components of fascism contained within doctrines and practices of modern American liberalism than you can find components of libertarianism within the Third Reich.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I wonder what they put in the water in USMB land that keeps some people from focusing on the topic, which is quite interesting actually, and offering intelligent insights, but rather substitute mischaracterizations, name calling and insults?

The rightwing mythology that the Nazis were liberals makes its rounds like clockwork on every political forum where painfully ignorant rightwingers post. In fact, you can find this threads like this one on this forum from months/years past.

The OP says the Nazis were liberals. Are you that stupid?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tell us again how Adolph Hitler was a Libertarian.

Simply ******* precious!


LOL

Hitler was a libertarian as much as liberal are fascist.

Yet there are far more components of fascism contained within doctrines and practices of modern American liberalism than you can find components of libertarianism within the Third Reich.

And far more than either of them that compare to modern conservatism.

 

[DiamondDave]

The rightwing mythology that the Nazis were liberals makes its rounds like clockwork on every political forum where painfully ignorant rightwingers post. In fact, you can find this threads like this one on this forum from months/years past.

The OP says the Nazis were liberals. Are you that stupid?

You sure about that??

Aren't Nazism and Fascism on the far left of the political spectrum?

Evidently, you are the stupid one

 

[DiamondDave]

Hitler was a libertarian as much as liberal are fascist.

Yet there are far more components of fascism contained within doctrines and practices of modern American liberalism than you can find components of libertarianism within the Third Reich.

And far more than either of them that compare to modern conservatism.

We've already spent almost 40 pages ***** slapping that myth... so I will just say, read thru the thread again.. Unless socialist and left wing stances and actions are "conservatism", you are completely wrong (again)