Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Saigon]

BriPat -

You will not read any book by reputable or qualified historians, because you consider them all to be socialists - even those who very obviously are not left wing.

Or at least that is the excise for not reading.

That is why you do not understand this topic, and probably never will.

Sensible people read a lot and read widely in order to hear a range of different voices. Those who prefer propaganda do not.

 

[Saigon]

Your Komrade Saigon keeps giving me a list of historians and telling me to read their books. That's his conception of evidence. Go tell it to him.

Yes, I do.

Yesterday I cited books by 2 Nazi Party members, and 4 by right-wing German historians.

They all confirm - obviously - that Hitler ws right wing.

You simply do not have a case here, and if you read, you will find out why. And that is why you won't read.

If they claim Nazis were right-wing, then quote them. Simply listing their names doesn't prove a ******* thing.

You simply do not have a case here. You read and then quote the stuff the supports your obviously wrong claims. That's how a debate works.

As I said earlier, I am not going to type out entire books here.

I have cited around 20 books and authors that back up my claims, but I leave it to you to research or not as you choose. Very little of tis material is on the net, but even if it was, we both lnow that you won't look at it.

I did type out and link material on wing German historians yesterday....did you look at that?

Or would you respond as Bill did - by claiming that they were all lying?

 

[Saigon]

Saigon...you twit...you posted this stupidity...

I'll ask again - why would a man you claim was a socialist ban socialism and send socialists to prison?

You are here referring to hitler...right? trying to say that hitler wasn't a socialist because he, according to you, banned socialism and sent socialists to prison.....

Sort of like what stalin did to trotsky....right....?

Considering trotsky was a socialist...and stalin was a socialist...but they were competing with each other for power...right....and what happened....a man who was a socialist banned another type of socialism, trotsky's brand, and sent socialists to prison....you know...the gulags....

Moscow show trial of the so-called "Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Center" was staged in front of an international audience. During the trial, Zinoviev, Kamenev and 14 other accused, most of them prominent Old Bolsheviks, confessed to having plotted with Trotsky to kill Stalin and other members of the Soviet leadership. The court found everybody guilty and sentenced the defendants to death, Trotsky in absentia.

Karl Radek, Grigory Sokolnikov, Yuri Pyatakov and 14 others, took place in January 1937, during which more alleged conspiracies and crimes were linked to Trotsky. In April 1937, an independent"Commission of Inquiry" into the charges made against Trotsky and others at the "Moscow Trials" was held in Coyoacán, with John Dewey as chairman.[105] The findings were published in the book Not Guilty.[106]

Don't bother Saigon with actual facts. He's only interested in the unsupported opinions of pinko history professors.

And we are back to right-wing historians being pinkos, apparently.

Which really means, "I won't read. I won't read."

That is all it is.

We may just have to accept that your own extreme bias simply prevents tou from understanding this topic to even a high school level.

Btw. Everything I have posted on this thread is factually correct and can be confirmed in five minutes on google - including the fact that the Soviet Union sought to do away with capital entirely. All communist societies have worked towards the same goal - a polar opposite goal to Fascism. If you want to know what a right-wing German historian like Hildebrand thought avout Hitler'ss eight wing policies - google him. How hard can it be?

 

[frigidweirdo]

btw, Bill, as you obviously know - every major history book written in the past 60 years describes Hitler as being right wing.

As I posted yesterday, most right-wing German historians also describe Hitler as being right wing, as do the books written by Nazis like Albert Speer and Tradul Junge.

Where did they get it wrong, do you think?

What do you know that the entire 60 years of history, including the people involved, do not?

That's your claim, but you have yet to demonstrate it. Please quote some "right-wing" German historians who claim the Nazis were "right-wing." Don't just mention their names. Quote where they actually said the Nazis were right-wing.

SPIEGEL SPECIAL 2 1989 - Hitler war kein Betriebsunfall

There's a guy, Fritz Fischer, he's considered one of Germany's most important historians. He was in the Nazi Party, he is considered right wing too (as merely being in the Party doesn't necessarily make someone right wing).

He said, for example, "Mit der Ablehnung der "westlichen" Demokratie, die von der großen Mehrheit der deutschen Universitätshistoriker geteilt wird, verbindet sich bei Hitler ein extremer Haß gegen den "Marxismus" (wobei er Sozialdemokraten und Kommunisten unter diesen Begriff subsumiert) als Zerstörer der natürlichen Einheit des Volkes, von Staat, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft."

"With the rejection of "Western" democracy, which is shared by the vast majority of the German university historian, connects with Hitler an extreme hatred of the "Marxism" (which he includes Social Democrats and Communists under this term) as a destroyer of the natural unity of the people of the state, society and economy."

So, this guy is saying Hitler rejected Marxism, which was Social Democrats. But surely if Hitler was a Socialist, he wouldn't be rejecting Socialist parties as being destroyers of unity.

Also he said:

"Er biederte sich beim Großbürgertum an, den Eliten in Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft und erreichte das Bündnis mit ihnen; mit den Eliten, die ihn ihrerseits als Trommler und Bollwerk gegen den "Bolschewismus" und "Marxismus", gegen sozialistische Parteien und Gewerkschaften glaubten benutzen zu können, zumal ihrer beider nationale Ziele einer Wiederherstellung deutscher Macht und Größe gleich zu sein schienen."

"He curried favor in the upper middle class to the elites in society and the economy, reaching an alliance with them; To use with the elites, in turn, believed him as a drummer and a bulwark against "Bolshevism" and "Marxism" against socialist parties and trade unions, especially when it seemed to be both national objective of restoring German power and greatness of the same."

However if you're expecting a direct quote from a German historian that says "Hitler was right wing" or something similar, then you probably won't find any or many. Why? Because it's like an expert on dogs saying "a dog is an animal", they're making the assumption already that Hitler was right wing, it's a generally accepted thing in Germany.

Leserfrage Wie links war Adolf Hitler im Jahr 1919 - DIE WELT

Here's an article in die Welt "How left was Adolf Hitler in 1919?"

It basically says Hitler might have had some left sympathies in 1919 but that this was already in a process of change with anti-Antisemitism and other such things coming to the fore.

 

[Saigon]

Excellent post, Frigid, and I totally agree.

I have found in discussions with right-wing fascists on Stormfront (who are largely Holocaust Deniers) that they always demand a kind of "gotcha" quote where Hitler anounced that he wanted Jews gassed. And actually there isn't one - what Hitler did, wither consciously or sub-consciously, was to create an environment of racial hatred in which the slaughter of Jews became part of the landscape, usually referred to through euphamisms, bit often simply talen for granted.

Likewise, some books on the Nazi economy tend to focus on capitalism and the role of capital, the policy of directing private investment into maasive corporations and rewarding those corporations with state contracts, the practice of working with the aristocracy and promoting a myth of German superiority and nationalist pride....there is little need to use a term like right-wing because from the context it is simply so obviously right wing. It couldn't be anything else.

That said, both Ian Kershaw and Michael Marris devote entire chapters to explaining right-wing economics within a fascist framework, but good luck getting Bill, BriPat or Weasel to read anything as long as a chapter.

 

[Iceweasel]

The fact that Communism and the various brands of socialism have some aspects in comon with fascism are in the area of economics. Fascism is actually a type of capitalism where the government's chosen vendors are granted access to the public consumers and no bid government contracts eliminating most if not all competition. That in effect starves the companies that don't have the governments favorite status. It gives power to approved vendors. It obligates both parties political support for candidates and those incumbants that remain in office. Fascism is the ultimate sweetheat buisness deal between government and business.

One recent case in point is the Halliburton company's sweetheat deal to supply goods and services for the recent Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. That arrangement was/is PURE Fascism.

And it's a swingandamiss!

Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market


If the owners aren't making the decisions it is NOT capitalism.

And if the government went with the lowest bid to serve our troops overseas, and it went wrong, what do you think the fallout would be? Halliburton was chosen for their track record of being capable of doing the job in wildly unknowable situations.

 

[Iceweasel]

So the dictionaries are quite consistent on this one. Conservative and reactionary.

Right-wing politics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Within the right-wing spectrum, views differ on whether hierarchy and inequality stem from traditional social differences[10] or from competition in market economies."

Now, the wikipedia view is based up with sources from books, some of which are published by university presses etc.
They suggest that hierarchy is also an important part, mostly because this was the traditional conservative way of society before the extremes came along.

This guy thinks Wikipedia is a dictionary.

So right wing politics views social inequality as inevitable? They (or whoever uploaded the definition) left out the fact that free market capitalism will have more and less successful because that's the way people are. All forms of socialism have it as well, he forgot to mention that) except the government picks the winners and losers.

While Hitler was changing things with his extremity, looking at lower down people, he also saw social inequality as a natural thing, Jews were below the Aryans, for example.

Very good, Hitler changed things. Therefore it wasn't keeping things the same, therefore it wasn't conservative, therefore it wasn't right wing as we know it. You guys are trying awfully hard to equate racism with conservativism aren't you?

He had many traditional values and many that were not. The ones that were not is the ball and chain of Nazism that was socialist in nature, not capitalist and a life or death take it or leave it approach. Not exactly small government, traditional or conservative.

He was a Nationalist, which is usually placed into the right too.

Maybe, but you have to overlook the socialism to call it right wing. And the socialist structure is what they were all subject to.
Big government, total control over private enterprise, total control over everybody, with a racial element. We are to ignore all else and focus on the racism and label the works "right wing"? No sale!

 

[Iceweasel]

Excellent post, Frigid, and I totally agree.

I have found in discussions with right-wing fascists on Stormfront (who are largely Holocaust Deniers) that they always demand a kind of "gotcha" quote where Hitler anounced that he wanted Jews gassed. And actually there isn't one - what Hitler did, wither consciously or sub-consciously, was to create an environment of racial hatred in which the slaughter of Jews became part of the landscape, usually referred to through euphamisms, bit often simply talen for granted.

Likewise, some books on the Nazi economy tend to focus on capitalism and the role of capital, the policy of directing private investment into maasive corporations and rewarding those corporations with state contracts, the practice of working with the aristocracy and promoting a myth of German superiority and nationalist pride....there is little need to use a term like right-wing because from the context it is simply so obviously right wing. It couldn't be anything else.

That said, both Ian Kershaw and Michael Marris devote entire chapters to explaining right-wing economics within a fascist framework, but good luck getting Bill, BriPat or Weasel to read anything as long as a chapter.

I have no idea if you represented their views accurately. You have failed to provide any quote or context.

IF they said it was a capitalist system, and the government called all the shots, then they didn't know what the **** they were taking about and their books aren't worth the paper they consumed.

 

[Saigon]

Weasel -

Have you noticed how often your points boil down to "All of the books, experts, dictionaries and evidence are wrong - and I am right" despite the fact that you patently don't know a thing about the topic and have not actually read any of the books?

Do you not think someone a little smarter and a LOT more open minded would listen to what the fields leading experts say first - and only then think about whether they are right or wrong?

 

[Iceweasel]

Weasel -

Have you noticed how often your points boil down to "All of the books, experts, dictionaries and evidence are wrong - and I am right" despite the fact that you patently don't know a thing about the topic and have not actually read any of the books?

Do you not think someone a little smarter and a LOT more open minded would listen to what the fields leading experts say first - and only then think about whether they are right or wrong?

I have noticed that you refuse to answer anything that challenges your view. I've posted sources and didn't make the claim you accuse me of. You're a liar and a fraud. Typical of the leftist. You refuse to even attempt to back up your shit.

And you never answered what your intent for the thread was. But I think we all know, I use Iceweasel for a name (my browser of choice) but you are a weasel. A very transparent unsophisticated one at that.

 

[2aguy]

btw, Bill, as you obviously know - every major history book written in the past 60 years describes Hitler as being right wing.

As I posted yesterday, most right-wing German historians also describe Hitler as being right wing, as do the books written by Nazis like Albert Speer and Tradul Junge.

Where did they get it wrong, do you think?

What do you know that the entire 60 years of history, including the people involved, do not?

That's your claim, but you have yet to demonstrate it. Please quote some "right-wing" German historians who claim the Nazis were "right-wing." Don't just mention their names. Quote where they actually said the Nazis were right-wing.

SPIEGEL SPECIAL 2 1989 - Hitler war kein Betriebsunfall

There's a guy, Fritz Fischer, he's considered one of Germany's most important historians. He was in the Nazi Party, he is considered right wing too (as merely being in the Party doesn't necessarily make someone right wing).

He said, for example, "Mit der Ablehnung der "westlichen" Demokratie, die von der großen Mehrheit der deutschen Universitätshistoriker geteilt wird, verbindet sich bei Hitler ein extremer Haß gegen den "Marxismus" (wobei er Sozialdemokraten und Kommunisten unter diesen Begriff subsumiert) als Zerstörer der natürlichen Einheit des Volkes, von Staat, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft."

"With the rejection of "Western" democracy, which is shared by the vast majority of the German university historian, connects with Hitler an extreme hatred of the "Marxism" (which he includes Social Democrats and Communists under this term) as a destroyer of the natural unity of the people of the state, society and economy."

So, this guy is saying Hitler rejected Marxism, which was Social Democrats. But surely if Hitler was a Socialist, he wouldn't be rejecting Socialist parties as being destroyers of unity.

Also he said:

"Er biederte sich beim Großbürgertum an, den Eliten in Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft und erreichte das Bündnis mit ihnen; mit den Eliten, die ihn ihrerseits als Trommler und Bollwerk gegen den "Bolschewismus" und "Marxismus", gegen sozialistische Parteien und Gewerkschaften glaubten benutzen zu können, zumal ihrer beider nationale Ziele einer Wiederherstellung deutscher Macht und Größe gleich zu sein schienen."

"He curried favor in the upper middle class to the elites in society and the economy, reaching an alliance with them; To use with the elites, in turn, believed him as a drummer and a bulwark against "Bolshevism" and "Marxism" against socialist parties and trade unions, especially when it seemed to be both national objective of restoring German power and greatness of the same."

However if you're expecting a direct quote from a German historian that says "Hitler was right wing" or something similar, then you probably won't find any or many. Why? Because it's like an expert on dogs saying "a dog is an animal", they're making the assumption already that Hitler was right wing, it's a generally accepted thing in Germany.

Leserfrage Wie links war Adolf Hitler im Jahr 1919 - DIE WELT

Here's an article in die Welt "How left was Adolf Hitler in 1919?"

It basically says Hitler might have had some left sympathies in 1919 but that this was already in a process of change with anti-Antisemitism and other such things coming to the fore.

is this your "right wing" historian...fritz Fischer...you have to do better since nothing he says makes hitter less of a lefty or a socialist.....


wow, thanks for supporting my arguments....hitter did not support the Marxists because of their international goals for socialism....which we have pointed out over and over....and because he associated the communists with Jews.....which many of the leading Marxists were...in name but not belief or practice.....


so how does his rejection of the international socialists make him not a socialist again?


You guys don't get it and each time you try to disprove hitters leftism and socialism you fail......

Hitler and Mussolini ( who was a communist in good standing until they kicked him out) focused on socialism in their nation...and could not have cared less about the rest of the world joining them....

 

[2aguy]

Amd as I have pointed out about Europes concept of " right wing". In America it would be considered far left wing...since looking at what they believe they still believe in massive centralized government....they just throw in old school racism....which is really not that far from old school socialist thought anyway...just ask the early socialists who believed in eugenics...before the nazis even existed....

 

[frigidweirdo]

This guy thinks Wikipedia is a dictionary.

Wikipedia is a lot of things. It IS a dictionary. It's also a great translation tool. I wouldn't expect you to understand this though.

Also, what wikipedia is, is very fallible, you have to remember what it is. That doesn't mean I can't use it, it also doesn't stop it from being valid to use in a debate.

Also, I've said what sources are. A source like Wikipedia doesn't stand up necessarily on its own, but I've used other sources too.

So right wing politics views social inequality as inevitable? They (or whoever uploaded the definition) left out the fact that free market capitalism will have more and less successful because that's the way people are. All forms of socialism have it as well, he forgot to mention that) except the government picks the winners and losers.

More or less yes. And you've basically just proven it.

I'm only slightly left wing. I agree. I do not think people are inherently equal. What I do believe is that people should have equality under the law.

For example. Center to moderate left wing often believe that education needs to be equal, as in no private schools, all kids of the same age are in the same class receiving the same education.
Center to moderate right wing believe that education should be equal but based on ability, so those with more ability will be in a different class as those with less ability.

Both believe that their view is fair. This is why it's moderate. I'm with the latter view.

Extremist, or moving away from center and moderate might have certain kids not getting an education at all, or receiving an education which is based around learning to follow the orders of the regime, like madrases in Pakistan and other Muslim countries, for example. In general this is more right than left, but it doesn't exclude the left in any way at all. It's actually more extreme than it is left or right.

While Hitler was changing things with his extremity, looking at lower down people, he also saw social inequality as a natural thing, Jews were below the Aryans, for example.

Very good, Hitler changed things. Therefore it wasn't keeping things the same, therefore it wasn't conservative, therefore it wasn't right wing as we know it. You guys are trying awfully hard to equate racism with conservativism aren't you?

He had many traditional values and many that were not. The ones that were not is the ball and chain of Nazism that was socialist in nature, not capitalist and a life or death take it or leave it approach. Not exactly small government, traditional or conservative.

What is conservative? Is it keeping things the same? No, not always. It's conserving things. Not necessarily everything, but the things they think are important.
Why was Hitler conservative? Because he wanted to conserve Germanic things. In doing this he wanted to change things.

Again, the change, the radical change was extremism, not left or right wing. You're right, it's not right wing as you know it, because it was a different era, a different country, different culture and it reacted differently to things. However it was right and extreme in more ways than it was anything else.

Right in that it kept a hierarchical society, extreme in that the hierarchy wasn't the traditional hierarchy.
Right in that production was mostly private, extreme in that the govt controlled things and the businesses had to do what Hitler wanted.
Right in that it was Nationalism, extreme in that it was attempting to gain this through emphasizing mythology, Germanic nationalism, taking the Aryan thing and promoting this too.

Even things like antisemitism were traditional right wing policies in Europe at the time, similar to slavery/segregation in the US at the same time. This is about equality again.

He was a Nationalist, which is usually placed into the right too.

Maybe, but you have to overlook the socialism to call it right wing. And the socialist structure is what they were all subject to.
Big government, total control over private enterprise, total control over everybody, with a racial element. We are to ignore all else and focus on the racism and label the works "right wing"? No sale!

No, I have over looked the "socialism", there wasn't "socialism" there was "national socialism", it's a term, they go together.

Socialism is the state owning the means of production, ie, NATIONALIZATION.

What did Hitler do? He PRIVATIZED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So how is this Socialism?

You're trying to tell me that because the US is obsessed with big govt, and the Republicans harp on about smaller govt (which isn't smaller govt at all, it's lower taxes for the rich, it's saying one thing meaning something else)

I'll show you.

1) Smaller govt would also work better with more say for the people. ie, the system in place now isn't one for small govt, it's big govt and it's getting bigger and the voice of the people is getting smaller. The Republicans aren't going to change the system to make it more about the people. None of them talk about Proportional Representation.

2) They have many policies which impose themselves on the people. Abortion (this isn't a debate on abortion, Libertarians would leave it up to the woman's conscience, the non-(or pretend) Libertarians want to tell people what to do. Drugs, Alcohol, Jay walking

3) Using war to keep people in their place. Nothing worse than having draconian policies introduced because they started a war and the dangers to the public from such a war mean they can easily get through these draconian policies because everyone believes they're necessary now, to combat the unnecessary war. Like locking people up in Guantanamo without status, the patriot act and so on.

4) Spying on people, which links to number 3

5) Using crime to keep people down, as in Louisiana with their private state prisons which encourage prisons to not help prisoners because they WANT them to come back to prison soon. Also puts fear into people for more draconian measures. See 3 and 4.

This isn't smaller government. Nor is this:

Government Spending in United States Federal State Local for 2000 - Charts Tables History

Fed Govt spending

1999 $1.7 trillion
2001 $1.9 trillion

2004 $2.3 trillion
2005 $2.5 trillion
2006 $2.7 trillion

2008 $3 trillion
2009 $3.5 trillion

Okay, under "small govt Bush" spending went from $1.9 trillion to $3.5 trillion. SMALL GOVT, my ass.

 

[frigidweirdo]

is this your "right wing" historian...fritz Fischer...you have to do better since nothing he says makes hitter less of a lefty or a socialist.....


wow, thanks for supporting my arguments....hitter did not support the Marxists because of their international goals for socialism....which we have pointed out over and over....and because he associated the communists with Jews.....which many of the leading Marxists were...in name but not belief or practice.....


so how does his rejection of the international socialists make him not a socialist again?


You guys don't get it and each time you try to disprove hitters leftism and socialism you fail......

Hitler and Mussolini ( who was a communist in good standing until they kicked him out) focused on socialism in their nation...and could not have cared less about the rest of the world joining them....

My reading in German is quite slow, thank you very much, probably much better than yours. Also, finding a needle in a haystack is also not easy, ESPECIALLY when done in a foreign language you haven't spoken since 2008.

Also, as I said, you're asking questions which are not great questions. Find a right wing german historian who say this one specific thing. You didn't ever ask yourself whether any right wing german historian would even have reason to say this.

Did Hitler say he was left wing? Is this recorded?

Also, I wasn't trying to disprove anything. You asked a question, I gave an answer. It's not my fault your question sucks.

 

[2aguy]

Also, as I said, you're asking questions which are not great questions. Find a right wing german historian who say this one specific thing. You didn't ever ask yourself whether any right wing german historian would even have reason to say this.

I never said to find one specific thing and what you found supports my argument...it doesn't dispute it...

Did Hitler say he was left wing? Is this recorded?

hitler doesn't have to say he was left wing, everything he did points out he was left wing....so don't try to put that on me hitler took control of the German economy....he socialized it....just like all the other lefties....and socialists

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Also, as I said, you're asking questions which are not great questions. Find a right wing german historian who say this one specific thing. You didn't ever ask yourself whether any right wing german historian would even have reason to say this.

I never said to find one specific thing and what you found supports my argument...it doesn't dispute it...

Did Hitler say he was left wing? Is this recorded?

hitler doesn't have to say he was left wing, everything he did points out he was left wing....so don't try to put that on me hitler took control of the German economy....he socialized it....just like all the other lefties....and socialists

Yeahbut, he socialized is a rightwing way, ya DENIER!!

 

[2aguy]

Right in that it kept a hierarchical society, extreme in that the hierarchy wasn't the traditional hierarchy.
Right in that production was mostly private, extreme in that the govt controlled things and the businesses had to do what Hitler wanted.
Right in that it was Nationalism, extreme in that it was attempting to gain this through emphasizing mythology, Germanic nationalism, taking the Aryan thing and promoting this too.

Even things like antisemitism were traditional right wing policies in Europe at the time, similar to slavery/segregation in the US at the same time. This is about equality again.

Right in that it kept a hierarchical society, extreme in that the hierarchy wasn't the traditional hierarchy.

Yes, in russia, a socialist country you had party members...then everyone else...a hierarchy that wasn't a traditional russian heirarchy....but in Germany....there was more leveling in the society again...leftwing....

Right in that production was mostly private, extreme in that the govt controlled things and the businesses had to do what Hitler wanted.

No matter how you try to massage this, the nazis controlled every aspect of the economy, they owned everything but they just didn't say they owned everything like the communists did....which confuses you guys....A big powerful, centralized government is left wing....

Even things like antisemitism were traditional right wing policies in Europe at the time, similar to slavery/segregation in the US at the same time. This is about equality again.

The communists hated the Jews....

Are you serious...the communists hated the Jews too....marx hated Jews and he was a Jew...have you ever read what he and engels said about the Jews...and what needed to be done to them....

Or how about what marx thought about those people who were to primitive to "catch up" to the struggle....the primitives who would never make the grade under communism.....?

Right in that it was Nationalism, extreme in that it was attempting to gain this through emphasizing mythology, Germanic nationalism, taking the Aryan thing and promoti

Really...the soviet union didn't use nationalism...or the chinese....come on guys...you are trying too hard....

 

[2aguy]

2) They have many policies which impose themselves on the people. Abortion (this isn't a debate on abortion, Libertarians would leave it up to the woman's conscience, the non-(or pretend) Libertarians want to tell people what to do. Drugs, Alcohol, Jay walking

Your problem is you don't see how trying to decide where laws need to be used to protect people vs. the need for individual rights is a process....for example......the socialists in China have a one child policy....uh oh.....sounds left wing to me......on abortion no less.....and it is a matter here for conservatives because there is an innocent life involved...it has nothing to do with controlling a woman...it is saying murder is wrong and trying to stop it....so abortion is a non issue in this argument...

Drugs and alcohol.....jay walking.....really...these are simply trying to decide laws that deal with how people interact with each other....and do not denote socialism or freedom.....

4) Spying on people, which links to number 3

You wouldn't be meaning the KGB would you....I mean...socialists would never spy on people ...right?

 

[2aguy]

I know hitlers hatred of Jews gives you guys an idea that that makes him not a socialist....to get beyond this...this is what marx thought of Jews.....sound familiar.....?

HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST

But the most spectacular aspect of Nazism was surely its antisemitism. And that had a grounding in Marx himself.

The following passage is from Marx but it could just as well have been from Hitler:

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".

Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry ("Judentum" in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx's essay in German was "Zur Judenfrage", which -- while not necessarily derogatory in itself -- is nonetheless exactly the same expression ("Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase "Endloesung der Judenfrage" ("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily "dissolve" itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a close relative of Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution").

So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the language used. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content.

All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times. Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler's ideas were also to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the quotations from Marx & Engels archived here.

 

[2aguy]

You guys sadly lack the ability to be rational.....your view of Gitmo proves it....Gitmo exists because the prisoners there are unlawful enemy combatants....and in any other war...before political correctness took over, they very well could have been executed on the battlefield....since they are not covered by the Geneva convention....

They are at Gitmo because they do not fight for a nation state who would take them back at the end of hositilities...and they would go back to their normal lives....since they are illegal, enemy combatants, there is no nation state to give them back to...and they will just go back to kill again if they are released...and since they were captured on foriegn soil....they aren't U.S. citizens and have no place in U.S. prisons...since they were captured in combat....not law breaking.....