Is obama a socilist, or a fascist?

[Big Fitz]

Oh please. They weren't just happen with Hitler in the early days, they were happy with Hitler all along. They were happy that he killed the commies, and they were happy to use the slave labor he supplied.

Then they realized their mistake. Just like Churchill warned. Appeasement is just the hope the Crocadile eats you last.

What leads you to believe they ever thought it was a mistake?

A little thing called WW2. Was in all the papers.

 

[Polk]

Then they realized their mistake. Just like Churchill warned. Appeasement is just the hope the Crocadile eats you last.

What leads you to believe they ever thought it was a mistake?

A little thing called WW2. Was in all the papers.

And? That doesn't show German business leaders thought supporting the Nazis was a mistake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh please. They weren't just happen with Hitler in the early days, they were happy with Hitler all along. They were happy that he killed the commies, and they were happy to use the slave labor he supplied.

Then they realized their mistake. Just like Churchill warned. Appeasement is just the hope the Crocadile eats you last.

What leads you to believe they ever thought it was a mistake?

Such wild statements by Fitz and others are irksome to factual truth. They make assertions without any solid evidence.

 

[thanatos144]

Amazing you all like to try and label things differently so socialism doesn't look like what it is...Fascism. **** it call it Tyranny cause that is what it is. Some elite douche bags who think that are smart tell others what to do and when they don't they use force.

 

[JakeStarkey]

thantos1944, words and terms have defined meanings.

You don't get to alter them to suit your own foibles.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, it's not. Nationalization of industry, by definition, requires government ownership of the means of production. Government placing large orders with private sector firms isn't nationalization.

You didn't notice this part? and notice thew word require

requiring the economy to serve the interests of the state

That is authoritarianism or totalitarianism. That is not socialism. You and clevergirl are having real trouble accepting your own sources, bigreb.

Socialism requires a totalitarian government. It is essential in order for socialism to be implemented. It was one of the steps of Marxism to get to the presumed communist utopia, and it is also a component of Fascism as undisputed government power is necessary to implement its tenets as well. You are 100% wrong that Clevergirl's source said anything like what you said it said.

The primary difference between Socialism and Fascism is that Socialism is up front that government owns the property and controls the means of production. In Fascism the illusion of capitalism is allowed, and the property owner is allowed his profits, but the government is nevertheless controlling the property owner and is calling all the shots. That way the governent keeps the owners as supporters and completely complacent with the governent edicts while otherwise totally manipulating the system at will.

Neither form of government recognizes unalienable rights or power of the people. Both forms of government assign the people the rights and privileges they can expect to have until such time as the government chooses to take them away.

 

[thanatos144]

thantos1944, words and terms have defined meanings.

You don't get to alter them to suit your own foibles.

Its sophistry so you idiots can still feel good about supporting fascist tyranny.

 

[Polk]

You didn't notice this part? and notice thew word require

That is authoritarianism or totalitarianism. That is not socialism. You and clevergirl are having real trouble accepting your own sources, bigreb.

Socialism requires a totalitarian government. It is essential in order for socialism to be implemented. It was one of the steps of Marxism to get to the presumed communist utopia, and it is also a component of Fascism as undisputed government power is necessary to implement its tenets as well. You are 100% wrong that Clevergirl's source said anything like what you said it said.

The primary difference between Socialism and Fascism is that Socialism is up front that government owns the property and controls the means of production. In Fascism the illusion of capitalism is allowed, and the property owner is allowed his profits, but the government is nevertheless controlling the property owner and is calling all the shots. That way the governent keeps the owners as supporters and completely complacent with the governent edicts while otherwise totally manipulating the system at will.

Neither form of government recognizes unalienable rights or power of the people. Both forms of government assign the people the rights and privileges they can expect to have until such time as the government chooses to take them away.

The bold portion is true, but it's not about hiding the ball. That's a real, significant difference.

 

[Political Junky]

You didn't notice this part? and notice thew word require

That is authoritarianism or totalitarianism. That is not socialism. You and clevergirl are having real trouble accepting your own sources, bigreb.

Socialism requires a totalitarian government. It is essential in order for socialism to be implemented. It was one of the steps of Marxism to get to the presumed communist utopia, and it is also a component of Fascism as undisputed government power is necessary to implement its tenets as well. You are 100% wrong that Clevergirl's source said anything like what you said it said.

The primary difference between Socialism and Fascism is that Socialism is up front that government owns the property and controls the means of production. In Fascism the illusion of capitalism is allowed, and the property owner is allowed his profits, but the government is nevertheless controlling the property owner and is calling all the shots. That way the governent keeps the owners as supporters and completely complacent with the governent edicts while otherwise totally manipulating the system at will.

Neither form of government recognizes unalienable rights or power of the people. Both forms of government assign the people the rights and privileges they can expect to have until such time as the government chooses to take them away.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You didn't notice this part? and notice thew word require

That is authoritarianism or totalitarianism. That is not socialism. You and clevergirl are having real trouble accepting your own sources, bigreb.

Socialism requires a totalitarian government. It is essential in order for socialism to be implemented. It was one of the steps of Marxism to get to the presumed communist utopia, and it is also a component of Fascism as undisputed government power is necessary to implement its tenets as well. You are 100% wrong that Clevergirl's source said anything like what you said it said.

The primary difference between Socialism and Fascism is that Socialism is up front that government owns the property and controls the means of production. In Fascism the illusion of capitalism is allowed, and the property owner is allowed his profits, but the government is nevertheless controlling the property owner and is calling all the shots. That way the governent keeps the owners as supporters and completely complacent with the governent edicts while otherwise totally manipulating the system at will.

Neither form of government recognizes unalienable rights or power of the people. Both forms of government assign the people the rights and privileges they can expect to have until such time as the government chooses to take them away.

Foxy get's it.

 

[thanatos144]

That is authoritarianism or totalitarianism. That is not socialism. You and clevergirl are having real trouble accepting your own sources, bigreb.

Socialism requires a totalitarian government. It is essential in order for socialism to be implemented. It was one of the steps of Marxism to get to the presumed communist utopia, and it is also a component of Fascism as undisputed government power is necessary to implement its tenets as well. You are 100% wrong that Clevergirl's source said anything like what you said it said.

The primary difference between Socialism and Fascism is that Socialism is up front that government owns the property and controls the means of production. In Fascism the illusion of capitalism is allowed, and the property owner is allowed his profits, but the government is nevertheless controlling the property owner and is calling all the shots. That way the governent keeps the owners as supporters and completely complacent with the governent edicts while otherwise totally manipulating the system at will.

Neither form of government recognizes unalienable rights or power of the people. Both forms of government assign the people the rights and privileges they can expect to have until such time as the government chooses to take them away.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini

merger of state and corporate power Sure sounds like socialism to me ...Communism....Marxism...All the same turd just different sides.

 

[Polk]

That is authoritarianism or totalitarianism. That is not socialism. You and clevergirl are having real trouble accepting your own sources, bigreb.

Socialism requires a totalitarian government. It is essential in order for socialism to be implemented. It was one of the steps of Marxism to get to the presumed communist utopia, and it is also a component of Fascism as undisputed government power is necessary to implement its tenets as well. You are 100% wrong that Clevergirl's source said anything like what you said it said.

The primary difference between Socialism and Fascism is that Socialism is up front that government owns the property and controls the means of production. In Fascism the illusion of capitalism is allowed, and the property owner is allowed his profits, but the government is nevertheless controlling the property owner and is calling all the shots. That way the governent keeps the owners as supporters and completely complacent with the governent edicts while otherwise totally manipulating the system at will.

Neither form of government recognizes unalienable rights or power of the people. Both forms of government assign the people the rights and privileges they can expect to have until such time as the government chooses to take them away.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini

I get a feeling they won't respond to that because it's hard to explain anyway.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That is authoritarianism or totalitarianism. That is not socialism. You and clevergirl are having real trouble accepting your own sources, bigreb.

Socialism requires a totalitarian government. It is essential in order for socialism to be implemented. It was one of the steps of Marxism to get to the presumed communist utopia, and it is also a component of Fascism as undisputed government power is necessary to implement its tenets as well. You are 100% wrong that Clevergirl's source said anything like what you said it said.

The primary difference between Socialism and Fascism is that Socialism is up front that government owns the property and controls the means of production. In Fascism the illusion of capitalism is allowed, and the property owner is allowed his profits, but the government is nevertheless controlling the property owner and is calling all the shots. That way the governent keeps the owners as supporters and completely complacent with the governent edicts while otherwise totally manipulating the system at will.

Neither form of government recognizes unalienable rights or power of the people. Both forms of government assign the people the rights and privileges they can expect to have until such time as the government chooses to take them away.

The bold portion is true, but it's not about hiding the ball. That's a real, significant difference.

When the government requires anything it becomes controlled by the government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

foxfyre writes "Socialism requires a totalitarian government." Tell that to all the democratic governments in Western Europe since WWII that have experimented with socialism.

No, foxfyre, you don't get to make up definitions that don't meet the facts.

 

[Polk]

Socialism requires a totalitarian government. It is essential in order for socialism to be implemented. It was one of the steps of Marxism to get to the presumed communist utopia, and it is also a component of Fascism as undisputed government power is necessary to implement its tenets as well. You are 100% wrong that Clevergirl's source said anything like what you said it said.

The primary difference between Socialism and Fascism is that Socialism is up front that government owns the property and controls the means of production. In Fascism the illusion of capitalism is allowed, and the property owner is allowed his profits, but the government is nevertheless controlling the property owner and is calling all the shots. That way the governent keeps the owners as supporters and completely complacent with the governent edicts while otherwise totally manipulating the system at will.

Neither form of government recognizes unalienable rights or power of the people. Both forms of government assign the people the rights and privileges they can expect to have until such time as the government chooses to take them away.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini

merger of state and corporate power Sure sounds like socialism to me ...Communism....Marxism...All the same turd just different sides.

Why would a merger of state and corporate power equal socialism or communism? It would if the state controlled the means of production, but a merger of state and corporate power is actually stating something different. It's putting forward a vision of the state that serves the ends of corporate masters. To think of an American example, look back to the late 1800s, when the government would deploy the military to break up strikes. That's a a merger of state and corporate power, but the government didn't own the coal mines.

 

[thanatos144]

Socialism requires a totalitarian government. It is essential in order for socialism to be implemented. It was one of the steps of Marxism to get to the presumed communist utopia, and it is also a component of Fascism as undisputed government power is necessary to implement its tenets as well. You are 100% wrong that Clevergirl's source said anything like what you said it said.

The primary difference between Socialism and Fascism is that Socialism is up front that government owns the property and controls the means of production. In Fascism the illusion of capitalism is allowed, and the property owner is allowed his profits, but the government is nevertheless controlling the property owner and is calling all the shots. That way the governent keeps the owners as supporters and completely complacent with the governent edicts while otherwise totally manipulating the system at will.

Neither form of government recognizes unalienable rights or power of the people. Both forms of government assign the people the rights and privileges they can expect to have until such time as the government chooses to take them away.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini

I get a feeling they won't respond to that because it's hard to explain anyway.

Explaining a fascist dictator saying it is socialism?????Why would we need to explain it cant you read?

 

[Big Fitz]

What leads you to believe they ever thought it was a mistake?

A little thing called WW2. Was in all the papers.

And? That doesn't show German business leaders thought supporting the Nazis was a mistake.

How many of those business leaders were in charge at the start of the war compared to the end? How many were executed by the Nazis? How many charged for War Crimes? Oskar Schindler was an abberation of a man who slowly realized what he'd become and tried to gain absolution. Otherwise he was a poster child for a crony capitalist and if it weren't for his actions saving the Jews he'd have been killed as a war criminal. It took the end of the war and the revelation of all the horrors of what was necessary to maintain the third reich to show the german people how SERIOUSLY they fucked up. A lesson they learned very well for a time.

Those who didn't think it was wrong were found guilty of war crimes. Those who resisted were killed by the regime long before. So, you covertly control the means of production by installing stooges who are in name ONLY not members of the government while killing off the rightful owners who refused to be party to the attrocities.

How is this not the same as the Red Army marching in and saying, "These businesses are now stated owned. You are the people's employee. If you do not obey the state, you will be replaced to the gulag for re-education and disposal (not necessarily in that order) and a more willing manager of the people appointed."

What's the difference save for the stationary and job titles.

I vas only vollowing orderss is not a defense. Learned that at Nurenberg, didn't we?

 

[Polk]

Socialism requires a totalitarian government. It is essential in order for socialism to be implemented. It was one of the steps of Marxism to get to the presumed communist utopia, and it is also a component of Fascism as undisputed government power is necessary to implement its tenets as well. You are 100% wrong that Clevergirl's source said anything like what you said it said.

The primary difference between Socialism and Fascism is that Socialism is up front that government owns the property and controls the means of production. In Fascism the illusion of capitalism is allowed, and the property owner is allowed his profits, but the government is nevertheless controlling the property owner and is calling all the shots. That way the governent keeps the owners as supporters and completely complacent with the governent edicts while otherwise totally manipulating the system at will.

Neither form of government recognizes unalienable rights or power of the people. Both forms of government assign the people the rights and privileges they can expect to have until such time as the government chooses to take them away.

The bold portion is true, but it's not about hiding the ball. That's a real, significant difference.

When the government requires anything it becomes controlled by the government.

Using that logic, every industry in this county is nationalized, because some form of restraint exists on every trade.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Socialism requires a totalitarian government. It is essential in order for socialism to be implemented. It was one of the steps of Marxism to get to the presumed communist utopia, and it is also a component of Fascism as undisputed government power is necessary to implement its tenets as well. You are 100% wrong that Clevergirl's source said anything like what you said it said.

The primary difference between Socialism and Fascism is that Socialism is up front that government owns the property and controls the means of production. In Fascism the illusion of capitalism is allowed, and the property owner is allowed his profits, but the government is nevertheless controlling the property owner and is calling all the shots. That way the governent keeps the owners as supporters and completely complacent with the governent edicts while otherwise totally manipulating the system at will.

Neither form of government recognizes unalienable rights or power of the people. Both forms of government assign the people the rights and privileges they can expect to have until such time as the government chooses to take them away.

The bold portion is true, but it's not about hiding the ball. That's a real, significant difference.

When the government requires anything it becomes controlled by the government.

When the government is run by We the People, and We the People make a particular decision, such as Social Security or AHA, then that is not totalitarian or authoritarian.

We the People have the right in a democratic republic to make such decisions.

 

[thanatos144]

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini

merger of state and corporate power Sure sounds like socialism to me ...Communism....Marxism...All the same turd just different sides.

Why would a merger of state and corporate power equal socialism or communism? It would if the state controlled the means of production, but a merger of state and corporate power is actually stating something different. It's putting forward a vision of the state that serves the ends of corporate masters. To think of an American example, look back to the late 1800s, when the government would deploy the military to break up strikes. That's a a merger of state and corporate power, but the government didn't own the coal mines.

You think merger means something other than take control over????? That would explain why you don't understand the obvious.