If You Couldn't Decide Between Bolsheviks And Nazis....

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

....as to which the current Democrat Party shares closer kinship, evidence of these last two years makes clear which it is.

Nazis.

Agreed

 

[Ringo]

They say fascism and socialism/communism are both uhfree,
"Unfreedom of fascism" and "unfreedom of socialism" (I take both phrases in quotation marks, because these concepts are relative in this case) have completely different grounds. Although, in general, they look similar.

For example, state planning exists both there and there. People work long hours at the machines. It would seem similar, right? But fascism is a state capitalist monopoly. There is a plan, but it is a work plan for privately owned enterprises (even if the owner owns the property through the mediation of the state). The purpose of this plan is to enrich the owners of the means of production by taking away surplus value or surplus product as a result of direct military robbery of the people of the conquered colonies.

Socialism is "economically unfree" in the sense that the entire economy or a significant part of it is owned by the people under the control of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And it absolutely denies exploitation, that is, there is no weaning of surplus value. And even more so, there is no robbery of some colonies with the withdrawal of surplus product from the people of these colonies. Socialism does not strive for profit, it has no understanding of profit, it has one goal – the comprehensive development of all members of society with ensuring their well-being, for which the surplus value possible in capitalism is withdrawn in favor of public consumption funds. The state plan is not aimed at replenishing the wealth of certain groups of "best people".

At the same time, hard workers at both fascist and socialist enterprises can work for 8 hours, 10 hours in the case of the emergency rush. But they work hard for completely different purposes. Some enrich their owners, while others serve to increase the wealth of the whole country. In the Lenin-Stalin USSR, people had a lot of opportunities (considering how harsh the processes were then and how authoritatively they had to act), but for some reason we don't know a single billionaire from that era, although, I repeat, people could make up such billionaire dynasties that the Rothschilds and Rockefellers would be in the lower top ten rating.

Stalin, Ordzhonikidze, Kaganovich, Beria could be the "masters" of the country and the second economy in the world and quietly privatize the results of someone else's labor. However, we don't see anything similar. Moreover, the welfare of the whole society steadily increased during the second half of the 1920s and in the 1930s, then, of course, there was a terrible subsidence associated with the war, and then again the welfare of the population increased.

And fascism as "economic unfreedom" has always got along well with the multi-enrichment of individual and very few representatives of a seemingly unified nation. Naturally, from the stratum of owners of means of production, that is, capitalists. Because the "unfreedom of fascism" is not some separate unfreedom characteristic only of fascism, it is the unfreedom of any capitalism in general from the moment of its inception. And characteristically, fascism carries this unfreedom with the help of military force beyond its habitat. It is due to this that it is possible for some time to "throw a bone" to hard workers, because under fascism it is possible to take away something useful from representatives of lower races with the help of military force – it's very convenient!

So much more to say on the subject, but who has time...

 

[CommieKillingMommy]

....as to which the current Democrat Party shares closer kinship, evidence of these last two years makes clear which it is.

Nazis.



1. Those who have studied the Democrat Socialist Party have concluded that it is now closer to the National Workers Socialist model than the Soviet Socialist model. This based on their being wedded to many industries as allies rather than taking them over outright, as the Bolsheviks did.


2. The more things change, the more they remain the same. The quibble is what is meant by 'control of industries.' The Nazis controlled industries rather than owned them.
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis …The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."
"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman


3. But it was mainly steel production, locomotives, airplanes, etc. that were the interest of the Nazis.
That was then, 20th century.
In the 21st century, information is more, most, essential, its control and dissemination.
And it is newpapers, social media, cable news that are under the Democrat Socialist Party control


4. The Democrat regime need not outright 'own' the information highway, as long as those who do bend the neck and the knee to the regime. The allies determine what views are sold to the populace, and what is to be censored.
Anne Applebaum, who observes about Soviet-era suppression: “Actual censors were not always needed. Instead, a form of pervasive peer pressure convinced writers, journalists and everyone else to toe the party line; if they did not, they knew they risked being ejected from their jobs and shunned by their friends.”


5. JONATHAN TURLEY: I want to emphasize that a lot of people on the left that have said if it's not prohibited on the First Amendment, it's not a free speech issue. That's not true. The First Amendment is not the exclusive domain of free speech. What they are doing is shutting down free speech. The left has come on to a winning strategy. …. they've discovered that if they use corporations to control speech, it falls outside the First Amendment. But it's not true that what they're doing is not a free speech attack. It is. They're trying to stop people from speaking on these platforms….





Soo......Sieg Heil, Democrat voters.

Look at what you have become.

Its hard to tell which one Democrats are most like. Nazis or Marxists

 

[PoliticalChic]

Its hard to tell which one Democrats are most like. Nazis or Marxists

And there is a reason:


A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." November 27, 1925.

Shortly thereafter the Nazis found it more useful to stress differences, and the earlier campaign posters showing similarities disappeared, posters with both the hammer and sickle and the swastika.

a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.

 

[westwall]

Its hard to tell which one Democrats are most like. Nazis or Marxists

The two are so close as to make no difference.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The two are so close as to make no difference.

Who could have imagined that the doctrines that we defeated in WWII would now predominate in America.

 

[Ringo]

Who could have imagined that the doctrines that we defeated in WWII would now predominate in America.

Nothing surprising.
Financial capitalism tends to turn into fascism, if the power of the capitalists is threatened.
The government resorts to a direct military dictatorship, undisguised by the flair of democratic elections, and so that the lower classes do not oppose, their brains are intensively processed with ideas about the "unity of the nation" regardless of property status and ideas about an external and internal enemy.
Both fascists and nazis see their enemy, of course, in the Ccmmunists, and the nazis also find a nation or race to hate.
The main thing is that the means of private ownership of the means of production continue to be in their hands. For the sake of this, the reptiles of financial capital will agree to cannibalism as an ideology, if it suddenly seems profitable to them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nothing surprising.
Financial capitalism tends to turn into fascism, if the power of the capitalists is threatened.
The government resorts to a direct military dictatorship, undisguised by the flair of democratic elections, and so that the lower classes do not oppose, their brains are intensively processed with ideas about the "unity of the nation" regardless of property status and ideas about an external and internal enemy.
Both fascists and nazis see their enemy, of course, in the Ccmmunists, and the nazis also find a nation or race to hate.
The main thing is that the means of private ownership of the means of production continue to be in their hands. For the sake of this, the reptiles of financial capital will agree to cannibalism as an ideology, if it suddenly seems profitable to them.

Goes back a long way.


From “Liberal Fascism,” by Jonah Goldberg

1. Woodrow Wilson, the great centralizer and would-be leader of men moved to empower would-be social engineers, creating a vast array or wartime boards, commissions and committees. The War Industries Board, under Bernard Baruch, whipped, cajoled, and seduced American industry into the loving embrace of the state long before Mussolini and Hitler contemplated their corporatist doctrines.
2. Wilson’s government intruded deep into the private sector in unprecedented ways is indisputable. It launched the effort, carried forward by FDR, of turning the economy into a “cooperative” enterprise where labor, business, and government sat around a table and made the decisions that effected everyone.
3. The propaganda of the New Deal (“malefactors of great wealth”) to the contrary, FDR simply endeavored to re-create the corporatism of the last war. The New Dealers invited one industry after another to write the codes under which they would be regulated. Even more aggressive, the National Recovery Administration forced industries to fix prices and in other ways to collude with one another: the NRA approved 557 basic and 189 supplementary codes, covering almost 95% of all industrial workers.
   1. The intention was for big business to get bigger, and the little guy to be squeezed out: for example, the owners of the big chain movie houses wrote the codes that almost ran the independents out of business (even though 13,571 of the 18,321 movie theatres were independently owned). This in the name of ‘efficiency’ and ‘progress.’
   2. New Deal bureaucrats studied Mussolini’s corporatism closely. From “Fortune” magazine: ‘The Corporate state is to Mussolini what the New Deal is to Roosevelt.’(July 1934)

1. “Corporatism” was a term for dividing up industry into cooperative units, and associations, that would work together under the rubric of “national purpose.” Corporatism simply seemed a more straightforward attempt at what social planners and businessmen had been moving toward for decades. It embodied a new sense of national purpose that would allow business and labor to put aside their class differences and hammer out what was best for all. It represented an exhaustion with politics and a newfound faith in science and experts.

5.The intellectual descendants of those who worshipped Bismarck’s Prussia or Mussolini’s Ministry of Corporations…the lodestar of enlightened economic policy….in a quest for the holy grail of government-business ‘collaboration.’