How Far to the Left is Too Far?

[Slyhunter]

In defense of the extreme right. They see everything that does agree with them as socialist. It is always judged from the point of the observer.
So, how far to the left is too far? It is the mirror image of how far to the right is too far.

You are too far when you can not accept the possibility that a person that disagrees with you may be right.

How far to the left is to far, is like asking how liberty you are willing to give up for a small amount of security.

That depends. Is my choice between homelessness and having a roof over my head. Survival wins every time.

 

[Dad2three]

You mean like Obama saying he's a "Christian?"

Hitler thinking he's a socialist doesn't mean anything. Interesting. What about that Hitler said he's a socialist and then the German government controlled the German industry. Does that mean anything? A self proclaimed socialist controlling industry? Are we hitting any intelligence in there yet?

Listen, because right wingers WANT to put Hitler as a socialist, even though one of the first things he did once coming into power was arrest socialists , doesn't make it true

I'm not a right winger, I'm a liberarian. And I am not saying Hitler was a socialist, I said he's a fascist. I said Hitler said he was a socialist. He did. You're not doing very well with the facts, are you?

Hitler and socialism

An entirely US-centric argument, spurred on by certain batty ideologues and infamous websites, claims that Adolf Hitler was not the far-right, anti-communist nationalist that everyone else remembers him to be, but rather an egalitarian socialist.


...For this argument to be even close to being solvent (fans of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, we're looking at you), good chunks of history need to be thrown out the window:

That the 96-member Social Democratic Party of Germany was Hitler's main opposition in the Reichstag, and the only political party that attempted to halt the laws that established him as dictator and brought down the Weimar Republic. In fact, all of the ideological predecessors of today's conservative and classically liberal parties voted unanimously for the law, while the SPD voted unanimously against despite the presence of SA 'guards' in the building.

That the first political groups targeted during the Nazi ascendancy were pacifists, trade unions and communists;
and

That the Strasserites, the only strand of Nazism that could be referred to as left-wing (ie. pro-working class in nature), were all killed off (with a handful of conservative dissidents) in what we all know as the Night of the Long Knives


Hitler and socialism - RationalWiki

I KNOW, HE HAD SOCIALISTS IN HIS NAME, lol

Socialists own industry. Hitler left industry technically in private hands, but he controlled it in every way instructing them what to make and when to make it and forcing them to have all decisions approved.

Again, he was not a full socialist, he was one step removed, a fascist. However, fascism always results in socialism. He realized that, which is why he just called himself a socialist. He just liked the ruse of pretending Germans still owned industry. If a car you paid for has your name on the title, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and they have the keys, who's care is it really?

lol, Hitler was a RIGHT WING NATIONALIST BACKED BY the INDUSTRIALISTS (read 'job creators' ), which side does that sound like?

 

[RKMBrown]

In defense of the extreme right. They see everything that does agree with them as socialist. It is always judged from the point of the observer.
So, how far to the left is too far? It is the mirror image of how far to the right is too far.

You are too far when you can not accept the possibility that a person that disagrees with you may be right.

How far to the left is to far, is like asking how liberty you are willing to give up for a small amount of security.

That depends. Is my choice between homelessness and having a roof over my head. Survival wins every time.

I love the way leftists pose what ifs. Leftist motto: "If it's me living homeless or stealing your income I choose stealing your income to put a roof over my head.... "ROFL yeah typical leftist moochers. They are to lazy to put a roof over their own head so they expect me to put one over their head for them.

A leftist's idea of survival is figuring out how to screw someone over for their own benefit.

 

[RKMBrown]

Listen, because right wingers WANT to put Hitler as a socialist, even though one of the first things he did once coming into power was arrest socialists , doesn't make it true

I'm not a right winger, I'm a liberarian. And I am not saying Hitler was a socialist, I said he's a fascist. I said Hitler said he was a socialist. He did. You're not doing very well with the facts, are you?

Hitler and socialism

An entirely US-centric argument, spurred on by certain batty ideologues and infamous websites, claims that Adolf Hitler was not the far-right, anti-communist nationalist that everyone else remembers him to be, but rather an egalitarian socialist.


...For this argument to be even close to being solvent (fans of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, we're looking at you), good chunks of history need to be thrown out the window:

That the 96-member Social Democratic Party of Germany was Hitler's main opposition in the Reichstag, and the only political party that attempted to halt the laws that established him as dictator and brought down the Weimar Republic. In fact, all of the ideological predecessors of today's conservative and classically liberal parties voted unanimously for the law, while the SPD voted unanimously against despite the presence of SA 'guards' in the building.

That the first political groups targeted during the Nazi ascendancy were pacifists, trade unions and communists;
and

That the Strasserites, the only strand of Nazism that could be referred to as left-wing (ie. pro-working class in nature), were all killed off (with a handful of conservative dissidents) in what we all know as the Night of the Long Knives


Hitler and socialism - RationalWiki

I KNOW, HE HAD SOCIALISTS IN HIS NAME, lol

Socialists own industry. Hitler left industry technically in private hands, but he controlled it in every way instructing them what to make and when to make it and forcing them to have all decisions approved.

Again, he was not a full socialist, he was one step removed, a fascist. However, fascism always results in socialism. He realized that, which is why he just called himself a socialist. He just liked the ruse of pretending Germans still owned industry. If a car you paid for has your name on the title, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and they have the keys, who's care is it really?

lol, Hitler was a RIGHT WING NATIONALIST BACKED BY the INDUSTRIALISTS (read 'job creators' ), which side does that sound like?

Yeah cause Hitlar was trying to bring liberty to everyone.

 

[Slyhunter]

How far to the left is to far, is like asking how liberty you are willing to give up for a small amount of security.

That depends. Is my choice between homelessness and having a roof over my head. Survival wins every time.

I love the way leftists pose what ifs. Leftist motto: "If it's me living homeless or stealing your income I choose stealing your income to put a roof over my head.... "ROFL yeah typical leftist moochers. They are to lazy to put a roof over their own head so they expect me to put one over their head for them.

A leftist's idea of survival is figuring out how to screw someone over for their own benefit.

It isn't laziness. I'm willing to work hard. I still want to survive. I want my family to survive. The fact that there are no jobs out there to be had has nothing to do with me being lazy or not.

In fact I have a job. I deliver Medicaid and Medicare patients to their doctor appointments. Had another no show today. Means I won't be making $80.00 today I would've made if they had answered their damn door. Still looking for a better job. Can't find what isn't there.

 

[Slyhunter]

I'm not a right winger, I'm a liberarian. And I am not saying Hitler was a socialist, I said he's a fascist. I said Hitler said he was a socialist. He did. You're not doing very well with the facts, are you?




Socialists own industry. Hitler left industry technically in private hands, but he controlled it in every way instructing them what to make and when to make it and forcing them to have all decisions approved.

Again, he was not a full socialist, he was one step removed, a fascist. However, fascism always results in socialism. He realized that, which is why he just called himself a socialist. He just liked the ruse of pretending Germans still owned industry. If a car you paid for has your name on the title, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and they have the keys, who's care is it really?

lol, Hitler was a RIGHT WING NATIONALIST BACKED BY the INDUSTRIALISTS (read 'job creators' ), which side does that sound like?

Yeah cause Hitlar was trying to bring liberty to everyone.

You're mixing meanings. Socialist doesn't mean bringing Liberty to everyone.

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Yes Hitler was a socialist.

 

[kaz]

Fascism results in socialism? Care to dredge up some examples

Europe

That is also Obama's path. He supports single payer, but couldn't get it, so he went with ACA which is fascism knowing it's one step removed. That's also where the left is headed with banking and energy.

 

[Crystalclear]

Most Democrat factions.

 

[kaz]

lol, Hitler was a RIGHT WING NATIONALIST BACKED BY the INDUSTRIALISTS (read 'job creators' ), which side does that sound like?

How was he "BACKED BY the INDUSTRIALISTS" exactly? What does that mean? He was elected by the people with socialist rhetoric. He controlled industry, they had no say in his policies. There was nothing "right" about him.

 

[RKMBrown]

That depends. Is my choice between homelessness and having a roof over my head. Survival wins every time.

I love the way leftists pose what ifs. Leftist motto: "If it's me living homeless or stealing your income I choose stealing your income to put a roof over my head.... "ROFL yeah typical leftist moochers. They are to lazy to put a roof over their own head so they expect me to put one over their head for them.

A leftist's idea of survival is figuring out how to screw someone over for their own benefit.

It isn't laziness. I'm willing to work hard. I still want to survive. I want my family to survive. The fact that there are no jobs out there to be had has nothing to do with me being lazy or not.

In fact I have a job. I deliver Medicaid and Medicare patients to their doctor appointments. Had another no show today. Means I won't be making $80.00 today I would've made if they had answered their damn door. Still looking for a better job. Can't find what isn't there.

Yes it does, it has everything to do with laziness.

Make up your mind you have a job or you don't have a job.

Jobs are out there or jobs are not out there. Which is it?

Most leftists just can't seem to grasp the concept that they are responsible for themselves, to get a job, or make one if someone is not offering one. Why do you think I owe you a job? Sorry your customer was a no show. Stuff happens. When I work a job that is contract basis I generally try to make sure I have another job I'm working on to fill the time between contracts. I'm not sure why some folks just can't seem to grasp the concept of creating their own job vs. waiting for someone to give them one. Here's a clue.... unless you can get someone to pay you, watching TV and playing games isn't typically considered a job. If you need to make money, you might want to limit entertainment activities and get busy doing something that will generate income or at least lead to generating income.

 

[RKMBrown]

lol, Hitler was a RIGHT WING NATIONALIST BACKED BY the INDUSTRIALISTS (read 'job creators' ), which side does that sound like?

Yeah cause Hitlar was trying to bring liberty to everyone.

You're mixing meanings. Socialist doesn't mean bringing Liberty to everyone.

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Yes Hitler was a socialist.

My comment was to the incorrect accusation that republicans political views aligned with hitler's political views.

One of the main political views of conservatives of this era is to liberty, wherein liberty does not mean the liberty to take liberty away from people as defined by progressives/liberals of this modern era. That said, yes, there are authoritarians in both parties who are for wars and taking liberty away, such as some of the conservative and liberal groups that want to punish gays, white men, etc.

Another main political view of conservatives of this era is to smaller government where private enterprise is more efficient, this as opposed to progressive/liberals of this era who prefer the largest possible size of government where they believe government would be more efficient than private enterprise.

Still another main political view of conservatives of this era is to limit redistribution of income to only those who are truly needy, this as opposed to progressive/liberals of this era who prefer marxism, such as by redistributing all income and assets from the upper middle class and so called rich to the middle class based on some level of nirvana that they are attempting to achieve at the expense of the so called evil rich.

 

[Dad2three]

You mean like Obama saying he's a "Christian?"

Hitler thinking he's a socialist doesn't mean anything. Interesting. What about that Hitler said he's a socialist and then the German government controlled the German industry. Does that mean anything? A self proclaimed socialist controlling industry? Are we hitting any intelligence in there yet?

Listen, because right wingers WANT to put Hitler as a socialist, even though one of the first things he did once coming into power was arrest socialists , doesn't make it true

I'm not a right winger, I'm a liberarian. And I am not saying Hitler was a socialist, I said he's a fascist. I said Hitler said he was a socialist. He did. You're not doing very well with the facts, are you?

Hitler and socialism

An entirely US-centric argument, spurred on by certain batty ideologues and infamous websites, claims that Adolf Hitler was not the far-right, anti-communist nationalist that everyone else remembers him to be, but rather an egalitarian socialist.


...For this argument to be even close to being solvent (fans of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, we're looking at you), good chunks of history need to be thrown out the window:

That the 96-member Social Democratic Party of Germany was Hitler's main opposition in the Reichstag, and the only political party that attempted to halt the laws that established him as dictator and brought down the Weimar Republic. In fact, all of the ideological predecessors of today's conservative and classically liberal parties voted unanimously for the law, while the SPD voted unanimously against despite the presence of SA 'guards' in the building.

That the first political groups targeted during the Nazi ascendancy were pacifists, trade unions and communists;
and

That the Strasserites, the only strand of Nazism that could be referred to as left-wing (ie. pro-working class in nature), were all killed off (with a handful of conservative dissidents) in what we all know as the Night of the Long Knives


Hitler and socialism - RationalWiki

I KNOW, HE HAD SOCIALISTS IN HIS NAME, lol

Socialists own industry. Hitler left industry technically in private hands, but he controlled it in every way instructing them what to make and when to make it and forcing them to have all decisions approved.

Again, he was not a full socialist, he was one step removed, a fascist. However, fascism always results in socialism. He realized that, which is why he just called himself a socialist. He just liked the ruse of pretending Germans still owned industry. If a car you paid for has your name on the title, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and they have the keys, who's care is it really?

Libertarians are FARRRRRR right on economics, RIGHT WINGERS

Everything else you posit, like most thing Randian's 'believe in' is myths and fairy tales!

 

[Dad2three]

I'm not a right winger, I'm a liberarian. And I am not saying Hitler was a socialist, I said he's a fascist. I said Hitler said he was a socialist. He did. You're not doing very well with the facts, are you?




Socialists own industry. Hitler left industry technically in private hands, but he controlled it in every way instructing them what to make and when to make it and forcing them to have all decisions approved.

Again, he was not a full socialist, he was one step removed, a fascist. However, fascism always results in socialism. He realized that, which is why he just called himself a socialist. He just liked the ruse of pretending Germans still owned industry. If a car you paid for has your name on the title, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and they have the keys, who's care is it really?

lol, Hitler was a RIGHT WING NATIONALIST BACKED BY the INDUSTRIALISTS (read 'job creators' ), which side does that sound like?

Yeah cause Hitlar was trying to bring liberty to everyone.

YOU don't know what a nationalists is, Got it...

 

[Contumacious]

How Far to the Left is Too Far?

.

Anyone concerned about LIBERTY should monitor the LEFT and RIGHT activities. They are equally dangerous.

 

[Dad2three]

lol, Hitler was a RIGHT WING NATIONALIST BACKED BY the INDUSTRIALISTS (read 'job creators' ), which side does that sound like?

How was he "BACKED BY the INDUSTRIALISTS" exactly? What does that mean? He was elected by the people with socialist rhetoric. He controlled industry, they had no say in his policies. There was nothing "right" about him.

Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups


German Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and social Darwinism, asserted the superiority of an Aryan master race, and criticised both capitalism and communism for being associated with Jewish materialism. It aimed to overcome social divisions, with all parts of a racially homogenous society cooperating for national unity and regeneration and to secure territorial enlargement at the expense of supposedly inferior neighbouring nations. The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. This involved the idea of uniting rich and poor Germans for a common national project without eliminating class differences (a concept known as "Volksgemeinschaft", or "people's community"), and promoted the subordination of individuals and groups to the needs of the nation, state and leader. National Socialism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property.


Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.



Summary

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.


Myth: Hitler was a leftist


Hitler, Nazis, Socialism, and Rightwing Propaganda


In the 1930s and even beyond, nazism, in sharp contrast to socialism, was strongly supported by leading capitalists and right wingers in the US. Henry Ford, the leading industrialist and auto maker, was a great admirer of the nazis. When Henry Ford announced that he might run for president in 1923, the little-known Hitler told the Chicago Tribune that he would like to send shock troops to Chicago to assist in the campaign.



Nazism is a right wing ideology. It is violently racist, anti-socialist, and it targets the political left for extermination. This is underscored by Albert Einstein's embrace of socialism throughout his life -- and in particular in his 1949 essay, Why Socialism? -- along with the fact that Einstein's name was included on a nazi death list with a bounty of $50,000 offered for his assassination. If nazism really is socialism, why would Einstein have identified himself as a socialist a scant four years after WWII?

The current right wing conflation of nazism and the left is sleazy. A more informed population would view this as completely idiotic, but unfortunately this propaganda is becoming increasingly effective.


NazismSocialism

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah cause Hitlar was trying to bring liberty to everyone.

You're mixing meanings. Socialist doesn't mean bringing Liberty to everyone.

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Yes Hitler was a socialist.

My comment was to the incorrect accusation that republicans political views aligned with hitler's political views.

One of the main political views of conservatives of this era is to liberty, wherein liberty does not mean the liberty to take liberty away from people as defined by progressives/liberals of this modern era. That said, yes, there are authoritarians in both parties who are for wars and taking liberty away, such as some of the conservative and liberal groups that want to punish gays, white men, etc.

Another main political view of conservatives of this era is to smaller government where private enterprise is more efficient, this as opposed to progressive/liberals of this era who prefer the largest possible size of government where they believe government would be more efficient than private enterprise.

Still another main political view of conservatives of this era is to limit redistribution of income to only those who are truly needy, this as opposed to progressive/liberals of this era who prefer marxism, such as by redistributing all income and assets from the upper middle class and so called rich to the middle class based on some level of nirvana that they are attempting to achieve at the expense of the so called evil rich.

LIBERTY? lol

Parrots repeat what they hear. The RW media doesn't profit from educating their listeners. They know the money is in saying outrageous things that fit their listeners ideology. The listeners want to be outraged. The RW media produces the outrageous material. Truth not required. It's a symbiotic relationship.


Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

 

[Dad2three]

I love the way leftists pose what ifs. Leftist motto: "If it's me living homeless or stealing your income I choose stealing your income to put a roof over my head.... "ROFL yeah typical leftist moochers. They are to lazy to put a roof over their own head so they expect me to put one over their head for them.

A leftist's idea of survival is figuring out how to screw someone over for their own benefit.

It isn't laziness. I'm willing to work hard. I still want to survive. I want my family to survive. The fact that there are no jobs out there to be had has nothing to do with me being lazy or not.

In fact I have a job. I deliver Medicaid and Medicare patients to their doctor appointments. Had another no show today. Means I won't be making $80.00 today I would've made if they had answered their damn door. Still looking for a better job. Can't find what isn't there.

Yes it does, it has everything to do with laziness.

Make up your mind you have a job or you don't have a job.

Jobs are out there or jobs are not out there. Which is it?

Most leftists just can't seem to grasp the concept that they are responsible for themselves, to get a job, or make one if someone is not offering one. Why do you think I owe you a job? Sorry your customer was a no show. Stuff happens. When I work a job that is contract basis I generally try to make sure I have another job I'm working on to fill the time between contracts. I'm not sure why some folks just can't seem to grasp the concept of creating their own job vs. waiting for someone to give them one. Here's a clue.... unless you can get someone to pay you, watching TV and playing games isn't typically considered a job. If you need to make money, you might want to limit entertainment activities and get busy doing something that will generate income or at least lead to generating income.

More right wing 'pull yourself uop by the bootstraps' garbage


Conservatives simplistic minds

If you are rich it is because of your merits. If you are poor its because of your faults.

 

[kaz]

Libertarians are FARRRRRR right on economics, RIGHT WINGERS

Everything else you posit, like most thing Randian's 'believe in' is myths and fairy tales!

LOL, that is what it comes down to. We're to the left of both Republicans and Democrats on social issues. We're to the left of both Republicans and Democrats on military issues. We're to the right of both Republicans and democrats on fiscal issues.

Which is why you think we're Republicans. In the end, it's about your welfare check. The rest is just background noise to you. It's your greed. That's what motivates you, that's all that motivates you, according to ... you.

 

[kaz]

lol, Hitler was a RIGHT WING NATIONALIST BACKED BY the INDUSTRIALISTS (read 'job creators' ), which side does that sound like?

Yeah cause Hitlar was trying to bring liberty to everyone.

YOU don't know what a nationalists is, Got it...

The fascists of Europe were nationalists, but nationalism has nothing to do with fascism.

You want to talk nationalistic, if you know ANYTHING about Europe, the socialist Soviet Union is up there with anyone.

 

[kaz]

Hitler, Nazis, Socialism, and Rightwing Propaganda...

This is what happens when liberal arts people make the dictionaries. After WWII, they redefined fascism based on what the fascists of Europe did. It's irrelevant, it's not what the word means.

Hitler knew what it was, which is why he led the German Workers Socialist Party.