Fascism

[Coyote]

The question was whether he was against socialism, not whether he'd killed a socialist. ...

Yes, because everyone knows socialists murder socialists and RWNJs murder RWNJs. /sarcasm

...It's interesting that you call "Divine.Wind" most people call "noxious intestinal gas." To each his own

Awesome insult for a person with a GED.

Yep, socialists murder socialist all the time. Stalin murdered millions of socialists.

Remind me...did Stalin specifically oppose socialism or communism? Hitler did. Killed them, and denounced socialism in entirety.

All you've come up so far is that Hitler killed socialists who were against him. Now you're repeating that he "denounced socialism," the claim you couldn't back up last time I asked

“Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”

Sure sounds like a denouncement to me.

 

[Coyote]

He "only killed socialists who were against him"...geez where to you come up with this crap?

At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’.

Instead, Otto was purged in 1930 and Gregor died along with the remnants of their ideology in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.

 

[kaz]

The question was whether he was against socialism, not whether he'd killed a socialist. ...

Yes, because everyone knows socialists murder socialists and RWNJs murder RWNJs. /sarcasm

...It's interesting that you call "Divine.Wind" most people call "noxious intestinal gas." To each his own

Awesome insult for a person with a GED.

Yep, socialists murder socialist all the time. Stalin murdered millions of socialists.

Remind me...did Stalin specifically oppose socialism or communism? Hitler did. Killed them, and denounced socialism in entirety.

Nope. Hitler opposed capitalism. He claimed to be a socialist. He never denounced it. If you think he did, then produce the quote where he does so.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism

Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.

The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.​

Hitler was not a socialist, even if he did stash champagne

Rather, consider this dialogue between Hitler and the Strasser brothers in 1930 – when the Nazis were approaching the margins of power. Otto and Gregor Strasser represented the wing of Nazism that certainly did self-define as socialist. The Strasserites went so far as to demand the nationalisation of industry and even cooperation with the Soviet Union. If Hitler was a socialist then we’d expect the men to have flourished in his government. Instead, Otto was purged in 1930 and Gregor died along with the remnants of their ideology in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.

In May 1930, Hitler met with the Strassers in Berlin to try to persuade them to shut up about a socialist revolution. Hitler began with a lecture on art, arguing that true art conformed to eternal ideas. There were no “breaks” in true art but continuity through inheritance. By implication there could be no “revolution” but simply an assertion of the one truth that mattered to Hitler: racial superiority reflected in authority. Dan Hannan quotes Hitler then telling the Strassers "I am a socialist!", which sure reads like a smoking gun. But consider what Hitler goes on to say about the working-class:

“The great masses of workmen want nothing else than bread and amusement; they have no understanding of idealism; and we can never count on being able to gain any considerable support among them. What we want is a picked number from the new ruling class, who – unlike you – are not troubled with humanitarian feelings, but who are convinced that they have the right to rule as being a superior race, and who will secure and maintain their rule ruthlessly over the broad masses.”

As for class relations, Hitler asserted that workers had no right to have a say in their own management as it was a perversion of that eternal natural order of the survival of the fittest. The industrialists: “have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead.” And on the subject of reforming the economic system, Hitler offered this not very Left-wing observation: “Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”​

That doesn't say what you think it does. As Bripat accurately pointed out, Hitler was in a struggle for control. You keep making the bogus assumption that leftists will automatically work together. Obviously Hitler and Stalin both wanted control for themselves, they did not want to share it.

The quote also constantly uses the term "socialist" to refer to "Communist." And it brings in the canard definition where racism is anti-socialist. Bull crap. Racism isn't an economic stance. It's a political stance. A racist socialist government will be racist and a non-racist government won't be. It has nothing to do with socialism. And the Russians are every bit as nationalist as the Nazis. Your ignorance is overflowing

 

[Coyote]

Nazi Camps
From its rise to power in 1933, the Nazi regime built a series of detention facilities to imprison and eliminate so-called "enemies of the state." Most prisoners in the early concentration camps were German Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Roma (Gypsies), Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and persons accused of "asocial" or socially deviant behavior. These facilities were called “concentration camps” because those imprisoned there were physically “concentrated” in one location.

 

[westwall]

No, I didn't. Factories started to be built in the 1700's. The Luddites began to figure out they were going to be useless around the 1810-11 time frame. That is when industrialization really took off. From that point on it was exponential growth. Manufacturing jobs have always been one of the smallest sectors, but after the unions came along, it was also one of the better paid sectors for those with no real education.

That's the history of the industrial revolution in England. In America it didn't begin until about 1840, when the first railroad was built.

Ford Motor company paid better wages than any company in America long before the unions took it over.

I guess you never hear of Eli Whitney? Try 1794 for the beginning of industrialization here in the USA. His Cotton Gin (short for engine) could produce in an hour what a whole bunch of workers could do in a day.

Ford was the exception to the rule and he did it to retain the workers he had been training. He was the first employer to figure out it cost more to constantly train replacements than it did to pay good workers more money so that they would stay.

Cotton Gins where not used in factories. Each plantation had their own. The first factories were engaged in making textiles.

Textile industry - Wikipedia

Industrial revolution[edit]
Main article: Textile manufacture during the Industrial Revolution
The woven fabric portion of the textile industry grew out of the industrial revolution in the 18th century as mass production of yarn and cloth became a mainstream industry.[8]

In 1734 in Bury, Lancashire, John Kay invented the flying shuttle — one of the first of a series of inventions associated with the cotton woven fabric industry. The flying shuttle increased the width of cotton cloth and speed of production of a single weaver at a loom.[9] Resistance by workers to the perceived threat to jobs delayed the widespread introduction of this technology, even though the higher rate of production generated an increased demand for spun cotton.

​

Shuttles
In 1761, the Duke of Bridgewater's canal connected Manchester to the coal fields of Worsley and in 1762, Matthew Boulton opened theSoho Foundry engineering works in Handsworth, Birmingham. His partnership with Scottish engineer James Watt resulted, in 1775, in the commercial production of the more efficient Watt steam engine which used a separate condenser.

In 1764, James Hargreaves is credited as inventor of the spinning jenny which multiplied the spun thread production capacity of a single worker — initially eightfold and subsequently much further. Others[10] credit the invention to Thomas Highs. Industrial unrest and a failure to patent the invention until 1770 forced Hargreaves from Blackburn, but his lack of protection of the idea allowed the concept to be exploited by others. As a result, there were over 20,000 spinning jennies in use by the time of his death. Also in 1764, Thorp Mill, the first water-powered cotton mill in the world was constructed at Royton, Lancashire, and was used for carding cotton. With the spinning and weaving process now mechanized, cotton mills cropped up all over the North West of England.

The stocking frame invented in 1589 for silk became viable when in 1759, Jedediah Strutt introduced an attachment for the frame which produced what became known as the Derby Rib, which allowed stockings to be manufactured in cotton. Nottingham, a traditional centre for lacework, had allowed the use of the protected stocking frame since 1728.[citation needed]​

So that puts the start of the Industrial Revolution in England at about 1760.

​

Try a source other than wiki please. The cotton gins were built in a factory once Whitney got the capital together to build his factory. He also invented standardization, most importantly used in the gun making world. I own a Whitney revolver (manufactured in 1862) and amazingly enough if a part breaks i can get a replacement piece that will drop right in. Something that was unheard of till he came along.

They were all built in the same place, but the handcrafting method was used. It wasn't produced on an assembly line.

As for interchangeable parts:

Interchangeable parts - Wikipedia​

Whitney was never able to design a manufacturing process capable of producing guns with interchangeable parts. Charles Fitch credited Whitney with successfully executing a firearms contract with interchangeable parts using the American System,[4] but historians Merritt Roe Smith and Robert B. Gordon have since determined that Whitney never achieved interchangeable parts manufacturing. His family's arms company, however, did so after his death.
​

The development of true interchangeable parts is rather complicated. You can read about it at the the URL posted above.

I learned about it a few decades ago. I am surprised you didn't know about it. Eli Whitney came up with the idea, and his son (also named Eli) completed the development. This is news to you?

 

[kaz]

The question was whether he was against socialism, not whether he'd killed a socialist. ...

Yes, because everyone knows socialists murder socialists and RWNJs murder RWNJs. /sarcasm

...It's interesting that you call "Divine.Wind" most people call "noxious intestinal gas." To each his own

Awesome insult for a person with a GED.

Yep, socialists murder socialist all the time. Stalin murdered millions of socialists.

Remind me...did Stalin specifically oppose socialism or communism? Hitler did. Killed them, and denounced socialism in entirety.

All you've come up so far is that Hitler killed socialists who were against him. Now you're repeating that he "denounced socialism," the claim you couldn't back up last time I asked

“Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”

Sure sounds like a denouncement to me.

What he said is exactly what I keep saying he said. As long as industry acts under (his) government control, they won't be nationalized. You seriously should go back to my car example you never understood. That is exactly what he said here

 

[Coyote]

Yes, because everyone knows socialists murder socialists and RWNJs murder RWNJs. /sarcasm

Awesome insult for a person with a GED.

Yep, socialists murder socialist all the time. Stalin murdered millions of socialists.

Remind me...did Stalin specifically oppose socialism or communism? Hitler did. Killed them, and denounced socialism in entirety.

Nope. Hitler opposed capitalism. He claimed to be a socialist. He never denounced it. If you think he did, then produce the quote where he does so.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism

Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.

The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.​

Hitler was not a socialist, even if he did stash champagne

Rather, consider this dialogue between Hitler and the Strasser brothers in 1930 – when the Nazis were approaching the margins of power. Otto and Gregor Strasser represented the wing of Nazism that certainly did self-define as socialist. The Strasserites went so far as to demand the nationalisation of industry and even cooperation with the Soviet Union. If Hitler was a socialist then we’d expect the men to have flourished in his government. Instead, Otto was purged in 1930 and Gregor died along with the remnants of their ideology in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.

In May 1930, Hitler met with the Strassers in Berlin to try to persuade them to shut up about a socialist revolution. Hitler began with a lecture on art, arguing that true art conformed to eternal ideas. There were no “breaks” in true art but continuity through inheritance. By implication there could be no “revolution” but simply an assertion of the one truth that mattered to Hitler: racial superiority reflected in authority. Dan Hannan quotes Hitler then telling the Strassers "I am a socialist!", which sure reads like a smoking gun. But consider what Hitler goes on to say about the working-class:

“The great masses of workmen want nothing else than bread and amusement; they have no understanding of idealism; and we can never count on being able to gain any considerable support among them. What we want is a picked number from the new ruling class, who – unlike you – are not troubled with humanitarian feelings, but who are convinced that they have the right to rule as being a superior race, and who will secure and maintain their rule ruthlessly over the broad masses.”

As for class relations, Hitler asserted that workers had no right to have a say in their own management as it was a perversion of that eternal natural order of the survival of the fittest. The industrialists: “have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead.” And on the subject of reforming the economic system, Hitler offered this not very Left-wing observation: “Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”​

That doesn't say what you think it does. As Bripat accurately pointed out, Hitler was in a struggle for control. You keep making the bogus assumption that leftists will automatically work together. Obviously Hitler and Stalin both wanted control for themselves, they did not want to share it.

The quote also constantly uses the term "socialist" to refer to "Communist." And it brings in the canard definition where racism is anti-socialist. Bull crap. Racism isn't an economic stance. It's a political stance. A racist socialist government will be racist and a non-racist government won't be. It has nothing to do with socialism. And the Russians are every bit as nationalist as the Nazis. Your ignorance is overflowing

Socialism isn't just an economic stance either. Socialists can be racist but socialism as an ideology is about CLASS not RACE. You're ignorance is taken into consideration.

 

[Coyote]

Yes, because everyone knows socialists murder socialists and RWNJs murder RWNJs. /sarcasm

Awesome insult for a person with a GED.

Yep, socialists murder socialist all the time. Stalin murdered millions of socialists.

Remind me...did Stalin specifically oppose socialism or communism? Hitler did. Killed them, and denounced socialism in entirety.

All you've come up so far is that Hitler killed socialists who were against him. Now you're repeating that he "denounced socialism," the claim you couldn't back up last time I asked

“Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”

Sure sounds like a denouncement to me.

What he said is exactly what I keep saying he said. As long as industry acts under (his) government control, they won't be nationalized. You seriously should go back to my car example you never understood. That is exactly what he said here

A socialist would have totally changed the economic system and he specifically did not want to do that and expelled or murdered the socialists who called for it. Just because there is some government control of the economic system, that doesn't make it socialist.

 

[kaz]

Nazi Camps
From its rise to power in 1933, the Nazi regime built a series of detention facilities to imprison and eliminate so-called "enemies of the state." Most prisoners in the early concentration camps were German Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Roma (Gypsies), Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and persons accused of "asocial" or socially deviant behavior. These facilities were called “concentration camps” because those imprisoned there were physically “concentrated” in one location.

This is just deflection. We keep saying he was at war with his fellow leftist Russians and anyone else who threatened his power. No one was arguing he did not fight with socialists.

The point you are trying to contradict, badly, is that he was against socialism. Interesting you are trying to do that by saying what we did, he fought socialists.

A Siamese Beta fish killing another Siamese Beta fish doesn't prove that it wasn't a Siamese Beta fish ...

 

[kaz]

Yep, socialists murder socialist all the time. Stalin murdered millions of socialists.

Remind me...did Stalin specifically oppose socialism or communism? Hitler did. Killed them, and denounced socialism in entirety.

Nope. Hitler opposed capitalism. He claimed to be a socialist. He never denounced it. If you think he did, then produce the quote where he does so.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism

Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.

The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.​

Hitler was not a socialist, even if he did stash champagne

Rather, consider this dialogue between Hitler and the Strasser brothers in 1930 – when the Nazis were approaching the margins of power. Otto and Gregor Strasser represented the wing of Nazism that certainly did self-define as socialist. The Strasserites went so far as to demand the nationalisation of industry and even cooperation with the Soviet Union. If Hitler was a socialist then we’d expect the men to have flourished in his government. Instead, Otto was purged in 1930 and Gregor died along with the remnants of their ideology in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.

In May 1930, Hitler met with the Strassers in Berlin to try to persuade them to shut up about a socialist revolution. Hitler began with a lecture on art, arguing that true art conformed to eternal ideas. There were no “breaks” in true art but continuity through inheritance. By implication there could be no “revolution” but simply an assertion of the one truth that mattered to Hitler: racial superiority reflected in authority. Dan Hannan quotes Hitler then telling the Strassers "I am a socialist!", which sure reads like a smoking gun. But consider what Hitler goes on to say about the working-class:

“The great masses of workmen want nothing else than bread and amusement; they have no understanding of idealism; and we can never count on being able to gain any considerable support among them. What we want is a picked number from the new ruling class, who – unlike you – are not troubled with humanitarian feelings, but who are convinced that they have the right to rule as being a superior race, and who will secure and maintain their rule ruthlessly over the broad masses.”

As for class relations, Hitler asserted that workers had no right to have a say in their own management as it was a perversion of that eternal natural order of the survival of the fittest. The industrialists: “have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead.” And on the subject of reforming the economic system, Hitler offered this not very Left-wing observation: “Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”​

That doesn't say what you think it does. As Bripat accurately pointed out, Hitler was in a struggle for control. You keep making the bogus assumption that leftists will automatically work together. Obviously Hitler and Stalin both wanted control for themselves, they did not want to share it.

The quote also constantly uses the term "socialist" to refer to "Communist." And it brings in the canard definition where racism is anti-socialist. Bull crap. Racism isn't an economic stance. It's a political stance. A racist socialist government will be racist and a non-racist government won't be. It has nothing to do with socialism. And the Russians are every bit as nationalist as the Nazis. Your ignorance is overflowing

Socialism isn't just an economic stance either. Socialists can be racist but socialism as an ideology is about CLASS not RACE. You're ignorance is taken into consideration.

You don't know what you are talking about. Social-ists can be about more than economics. Social-ism is about economics

 

[kaz]

Yep, socialists murder socialist all the time. Stalin murdered millions of socialists.

Remind me...did Stalin specifically oppose socialism or communism? Hitler did. Killed them, and denounced socialism in entirety.

All you've come up so far is that Hitler killed socialists who were against him. Now you're repeating that he "denounced socialism," the claim you couldn't back up last time I asked

“Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”

Sure sounds like a denouncement to me.

What he said is exactly what I keep saying he said. As long as industry acts under (his) government control, they won't be nationalized. You seriously should go back to my car example you never understood. That is exactly what he said here

A socialist would have totally changed the economic system and he specifically did not want to do that and expelled or murdered the socialists who called for it. Just because there is some government control of the economic system, that doesn't make it socialist.

More ridiculous babble. The only difference between socialism and fascism is that if Hitler wanted to nationalize a company, he just had to ... ahem ... replace ... the CEO with a government employee

 

[Coyote]

Nazi Camps
From its rise to power in 1933, the Nazi regime built a series of detention facilities to imprison and eliminate so-called "enemies of the state." Most prisoners in the early concentration camps were German Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Roma (Gypsies), Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and persons accused of "asocial" or socially deviant behavior. These facilities were called “concentration camps” because those imprisoned there were physically “concentrated” in one location.

This is just deflection. We keep saying he was at war with his fellow leftist Russians and anyone else who threatened his power. No one was arguing he did not fight with socialists.

The point you are trying to contradict, badly, is that he was against socialism. Interesting you are trying to do that by saying what we did, he fought socialists.

A Siamese Beta fish killing another Siamese Beta fish doesn't prove that it wasn't a Siamese Beta fish ...

Socialists/communists as a GROUP were considered enemies of the state, he specifically opposed socialism and communism as an ideology. He utilized parts of socialism early on but ditched much of it when he consolodated power. You seem to be the only ones trying to rewrite history and turn Hitler into a socialist. It doesn't matter how much lipstick you put on him - he is still not a socialist. He didn't just "fight with socialists" he purged them from the party.

 

[Contumacious]

And people like you fail abysmally at debating and have to resort to personal insults. Got it.

Let me know when you're prepared to move past that. If you can't, then I'll chalk it up to an inability to communicate on your part.

Socialism and fascism are not soley economic systems, as you wish to imply. Look it up beyond the dictionary and it's obvious but that requires a bit more work.

That's not an insult. It's an accurate description of what you're trying to do.

The issue under discussion in this thread is whether fascism is "rightwing." If that yardstick measures anything, it measures the amount of government control supported by a given ideology. If it doesn't measure that, then what does it measure? You already avoided answering that question.

According to the left/right paradigm, fascism is leftwing, not rightwing.

That is INCORRECT


Fascism can be either from the Left or the Right.

The Fascist Threat

In reviewing the history of the rise of fascism, Flynn wrote:

“One of the most baffling phenomena of fascism is the almost incredible collaboration between men of the extreme Right and the extreme Left in its creation. The explanation lies at this point. Both Right and Left joined in this urge for regulation. The motives, the arguments, and the forms of expression were different but all drove in the same direction. And this was that the economic system must be controlled in its essential functions and this control must be exercised by the producing groups."

Flynn writes that the right and the left disagreed on precisely who fits the bill as the producer group. The left tends to celebrate laborers as producers. The right tends to favor business owners as producers. The political compromise — and it still goes on today – was to cartelize both.

Do you yet understand why fascism can't be both left or right? Do you understand the problem with that line of thinking? Fascism is a collectivist government type. Thus is is leftist. The opposite of a collectivist government type is an individualist system. The most extreme version of that is anarchy. Those are your two extremes. Fascism, socialism, communism, are ALL leftwing. Anarchy is rightwing.

HUH?

Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police State as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive State the unlimited master of society.

So it doesn't matter whether the collectivists are left or right wingers

Here in the US , anti-"drugs" laws, anti-prostitution , anti-pornography military conscription and others originate from the right wing. So the right wingers are as capable as the left wingers to create a POLICE STATE in order to control and regulate whatever they decide they do not want.


.

None of those things creates a police state, so your syllogism is bullshit.

HUH?
http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/drug-war-mass-incarceration-and-race
The Drug War, Mass Incarceration and Race

With less than 5 percent of the world’s population but nearly 25 percent of its incarcerated population, the United States imprisons more people than any other nation in the world – largely due to the war on drugs.

The Police State: Know It When You See It


.

 

[Iceweasel]

Tariffs are not regulations. They are taxes. ....

Seriously? So taxes don't regulate capitalism? An interesting position, but I completely disagree. "Sin taxes" are one way Liberals both regulate certain products while also making money off of them.

Disagree all you want but words have accepted meaning . When people use their own definitions they get dismissed as idiots.

 

[Iceweasel]

No such thing as capitalism without regulation, you keep repeating the error. That's anarchy. The fact is the bigger government is the less competition there is.

Wrong again. There's laissez-faire capitalism which existed in the US under the Articles of Confederation. Snake-oil salesmen is an example of unfettered capitalism as were the Yankee traders under Caveat Emptor. Obviously some forms of capitalism are more sustainable than others.

I'd show a Wiki link but figured you wouldn't know how to follow the links so try these:

No such thing as unfettered capitalism. You don't know how to find and post content and I don't let little internet turds jerk me around. When people use their own definitions for words they are dismissed as idiots. Like I said, capitalism needs a stable environment in order to exist. What's the value of a dollar with no regulations? all you can do is offer more "divine wind" and obfuscate the point.

 

[bripat9643]

Yep, socialists murder socialist all the time. Stalin murdered millions of socialists.

Remind me...did Stalin specifically oppose socialism or communism? Hitler did. Killed them, and denounced socialism in entirety.

All you've come up so far is that Hitler killed socialists who were against him. Now you're repeating that he "denounced socialism," the claim you couldn't back up last time I asked

“Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”

Sure sounds like a denouncement to me.

What he said is exactly what I keep saying he said. As long as industry acts under (his) government control, they won't be nationalized. You seriously should go back to my car example you never understood. That is exactly what he said here

A socialist would have totally changed the economic system and he specifically did not want to do that and expelled or murdered the socialists who called for it. Just because there is some government control of the economic system, that doesn't make it socialist.

He did totally change the economic system. He just didn't do it overnight.

 

[Divine Wind]

So when Hitler killed a socialist who was speaking against him, you actually believe the issue was that he was a socialist, not that he was speaking against him. Go ahead, say it, say that's what you believe. That would be stupid that's funny...

The point being is that Hitler was a fascist, not a socialist. Fascism isn't anymore socialism than North Korea is a Democratic Republic. I'm sorry you cannot seem to comprehend this point.

I've been fascinated over the past few years when the far Right meme that Hitler was a socialist surfaced. Anyone know who said it first? Was it Beck? He's pretty fucked up and it sounds like something he'd say. Rush?

 

[Divine Wind]

....all you can do is offer more "divine wind" and obfuscate the point.

LOL. Can't resist, can you?

 

[Iceweasel]

....all you can do is offer more "divine wind" and obfuscate the point.

LOL. Can't resist, can you?

You love to hurl insults but don't expect them back. That's weird. The fact is you can't back up your claims, capitalism cannot function without set standards, namely capital. With no set standard of capital there is no capitalism. All the knocks against capitalism I see are done by Puritanical standards as if greed and corruption cannot thrive in any other system.

 

[Iceweasel]

I've been fascinated over the past few years when the far Right meme that Hitler was a socialist surfaced. Anyone know who said it first? Was it Beck? He's pretty fucked up and it sounds like something he'd say. Rush?

I think the Nazi party beat them to it. You seem to know their party better than they did.