Traits of Socialism

[Mr Right Wing]

It has something to do because you claimed they were on the left, they were not, they might have been further to the left than where you are, but from day one the Nazis were on the right, promoting all that comes along with the right and therefore in the end supported by the German parties of the right and not on the left.

Their policies clearly show they were left-wing -

1. Introduction of State Healthcare - Left-wing socialist project

2. Indocturnation in the school system - Left-wing regulation of peoples thoughts.

3. Expansion of the state sector - Left-wing move to increase number of state employees.

4. Hitler Youth - Left-wing regulation of peoples thoughts.

5. Mandatory parenting classes - Left-wing regulation of society.

6. Secret Police - Regulation of society with the elimination of those that oppose it.

7. Nationalisation of businesses - Left-wing move to control the economy.

Those are their major socialist polices and you'll struggle to find one right-wing government that has dont any of the above. As has been pointed out to you further up fascism is not right-wing. It introduces lots of socialist policies to prepare a state for imperial expansion. They nationalise all areas of business needed for a war effort, indocturnate their population and eliminate those who disagree with whats happening. You'll find similar manovres happened in the USSR but they were even further to the left. They were even nationalising things like farms etc. You'll also notice the Russians carved out a vast empire too and if you studied Stalin closely enough at school you'll know he delivered speeches to his own people where he told them that they were in fact the master race.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

I've never heard of it and the only references I can find are in German so I cant reply to you I'm afraid.

Try this link. It is only a summary of the book by Kellogg. Aufbau was essentially an organisation of White Russians and financially suported Hitler in the hope of him destroying Bolsheviks and others. They were certainly not socialists

http://www.ils.unc.edu/mpact/mpact.php?op=show_tree&id=7004

[Mr Right Wing]

Try this link. It is only a summary of the book by Kellogg. Aufbau was essentially an organisation of White Russians and financially suported Hitler in the hope of him destroying Bolsheviks and others. They were certainly not socialists

http://www.ils.unc.e...ow_tree&id=7004

So they cant of been socialists because they were funding an anti-bolshervik organisation in Russia. Thats a logical argument isnt it. We are supporting rebels in Syria so does that mean our policies here must support Islamic fundamentalism?

What on earth do the organisations we approach in other countries have to do with our choice of policies at home?

Edited January 5, 2013 by Mr Right Wing

[questionmark]

Their policies clearly show they were left-wing -

1. Introduction of State Healthcare - Left-wing socialist project

2. Indocturnation in the school system - Left-wing regulation of peoples thoughts.

3. Expansion of the state sector - Left-wing move to increase number of state employees.

4. Hitler Youth - Left-wing regulation of peoples thoughts.

5. Mandatory parenting classes - Left-wing regulation of society.

6. Secret Police - Regulation of society with the elimination of those that oppose it.

7. Nationalisation of businesses - Left-wing move to control the economy.

Those are their major socialist polices and you'll struggle to find one right-wing government that has dont any of the above. As has been pointed out to you further up fascism is not right-wing. It introduces lots of socialist policies to prepare a state for imperial expansion. They nationalise all areas of business needed for a war effort, indocturnate their population and eliminate those who disagree with whats happening. You'll find similar manovres happened in the USSR but they were even further to the left. They were even nationalising things like farms etc. You'll also notice the Russians carved out a vast empire too and if you studied Stalin closely enough at school you'll know he delivered speeches to his own people where he told them that they were in fact the master race.

Those things were already in place, and it might be shocking to you they were enacted by a certain "socialist"called Otto von Bismark at the insistence of "socialists"such as Siemens, Krupp and Thyssen. And their idea was not to help poor little underpaid workers, their idea was to rub off the expense of hiring and firing,illness and old age on the general populace instead of having them at their door (as they were at the time because of the feudal structures of most of Germany). And not even Adolph would have gotten away with curtailing those entitlements (though he changed some, like you did not get unemployment anymore but went straight to some work brigade).

Please try to learn some history before preaching around here.

[Mr Right Wing]

Those things were already in place.

No they werent they were Hitlers policies.

[Guest]

No they werent they were Hitlers policies.

Settle it with evidence.

Br Cornelius

[Mr Right Wing]

Settle it with evidence.

Br Cornelius

Oh I'm so sorry its so obvious that Hitler didnt create the Hitler Youth or the Gestapo. All the history lessons at school where we were taught that the kids were indocturnated with Nazi ideology at school and that the parents had to attend parenting classes were a lie. All the censorship laws and regulation of peoples lives didnt happen. Hitler didnt create millions of jobs by increasing the size of the armed forces, police, secret police, teachers, doctors, civil servants etc.

I can see now how I was so wrong. You Cornelius are a genius.

[questionmark]

Oh I'm so sorry its so obvious that Hitler didnt create the Hitler Youth or the Gestapo. All the history lessons at school where we were taught that the kids were indocturnated with Nazi ideology at school and that the parents had to attend parenting classes were a lie. All the censorship laws and regulation of peoples lives didnt happen. Hitler didnt create millions of jobs by increasing the size of the armed forces, police, secret police, teachers, doctors, civil servants etc.

I can see now how I was so wrong. You Cornelius are a genius.

Trying to change the list now, also known as shifting the goalposts. does nothing to make it more true. It is still BS.

[Mr Right Wing]

Trying to change the list now, also known as shifting the goalposts. does nothing to make it more true. It is still BS.

Where?

Also what part isnt true?

[questionmark]

Where?

Also what part isnt true?

To start with, the whole program of the Nazis was reduced to one book: Mein Kampf. Now show me where it seez anything about Social Security in there.

[Bavarian Raven]

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html

<-- it was in germany social security was first implemented, and later was adapted and expanded by nazi germany, as were things like health care and eugenics... not that hard to find this out

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

So they cant of been socialists because they were funding an anti-bolshervik organisation in Russia. Thats a logical argument isnt it. We are supporting rebels in Syria so does that mean our policies here must support Islamic fundamentalism?

What on earth do the organisations we approach in other countries have to do with our choice of policies at home?

Russian White movement was most certainly NOT socialist in any way at all. Those in exile in Germany gave support to Hitler, not any anti Bolshevik organisation in Soviet Union as it had become. The Aufbau organisation was helping formulate Hitler's ideas and policy. There were three sides in civil war, Reds, Whites and Greens. Reds and Greens were socialists, Whites were everything else, everything except socialists. The form of words used in NSDAP are a misnomer as much as DDR. Flip side of socialism is bolshevism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, call it what you will. Flip side of what is to right of center is fascism, nazism. I struggle to see how this is even a matter for debate as it is so obvious. All that joins the extreme left and extreme right is totalitarianism, and totalitarianism does not = socialism.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Atentutankh-pasheri

[questionmark]

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html

<-- it was in germany social security was first implemented, and later was adapted and expanded by nazi germany, as were things like health care and eugenics... not that hard to find this out

adapted more than expanded. Instead of paying unemployed they were sent to build roads (but that program had already been implemented by the last democratic Weimar government, the Nazis just kept on where they left off) and so on. At the end it was all pointed in just one direction: expand Germany, clobber the French and eliminate all unworthy ethnic groups.

Many things that are attributed to the Nazis were in fact started by the last Weimar government, including the building of the Autobahn. The first stretch was finished 2 years before the Nazis came to power (the left Rhine side Autobahn between Cologne and Bonn).

This much is true though: The last government before Adolf was Social Democratic.

[Guest]

I can see now how I was so wrong. You Cornelius are a genius.

Thanks for acknowledging your mistake

As you can see from the last four posts - you were indeed wrong in almost every detail.

One day you might learn not to make claims you cannot substantiate with supporting evidence.

Br Cornelius

Edited January 5, 2013 by Guest

[Bavarian Raven]

adapted more than expanded. Instead of paying unemployed they were sent to build roads (but that program had already been implemented by the last democratic Weimar government, the Nazis just kept on where they left off) and so on. At the end it was all pointed in just one direction: expand Germany, clobber the French and eliminate all unworthy ethnic groups.

Many things that are attributed to the Nazis were in fact started by the last Weimar government, including the building of the Autobahn. The first stretch was finished 2 years before the Nazis came to power (the left Rhine side Autobahn between Cologne and Bonn).

that being said, a lot of things going on in the US of A right now mirror germany in the 30s a little to close for comfort

[AsteroidX]

Trying to change the list now, also known as shifting the goalposts. does nothing to make it more true. It is still BS.

People are allowed to change there opinions as evidence is presented. Hopefully you will do more of that.

[Gummug]

that being said, a lot of things going on in the US of A right now mirror germany in the 30s a little to close for comfort

That is what has me very worried...I was talking to my brother about the exact same thing not long ago.

[Guest]

that being said, a lot of things going on in the US of A right now mirror germany in the 30s a little to close for comfort

There is plenty of evidence that this has everything to do with the malign influence of the CIA which has been heavily infiltrated by Nazi sympathizers from its foundation. The Bushes have a long history of financing the Nazi's.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

that being said, a lot of things going on in the US of A right now mirror germany in the 30s a little to close for comfort

Not even close. But banksters are doing their best to get there. In any case, there will be no revolution in the US (at the ballot box or otherwise) until the Mafia can earn from it.

[Jinxdom]

What's wrong with taking the best ideas out of something that was bad though? The idea that simply something is 100% wrong is kind of foolish if you ask me. Social Security is good so we take that, imprisoning and killing millions of people for a stupid reason bad, so we don't do it.

Not really a hard concept and not really all that worrying either.

Oh yeah I forget, down right evil people can't have at least one good idea.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Jinxdom

[Bavarian Raven]

What's wrong with taking the best ideas out of something that was bad though? The idea that simply something is 100% wrong is kind of foolish if you ask me. Social Security is good so we take that, imprisoning and killing millions of people for a stupid reason bad, so we don't do it.

Not really a hard concept and not really all that worrying either.

Oh yeah I forget, down right evil people can't have at least one good idea.

Never said it was wrong to take an idea created by a bad person and implement it. Many good things were done in germany before the war - but thats often overshadowed by the horrible things that came later. That being said, many of the things being currently put in place seem to have little redeeming qualities atm, sadly.

[RavenHawk]

I see this has degenerated into a discussion of definitions. I guess I’ve gotten too close to home as it seems many do the natural thing to distract from the purpose of this thread when one’s reality and foundation is shaken to the core. As I’ve said many times, we could sit here and discus the academic differences between Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Authoritarian, Totalitarian, Theocracy, Dictatorship, Kingdoms, and even Democracy (and any that I’ve left out). But to do so means nothing. It misses the point. It’s the fluff in the window. What I have done is to cut through the Bull$-hit to discuss the similarities or more precisely, the one important similarity.

Yes, the term “Socialism” has been misused by many but it is understandable. Yet here we are. If one understands that doesn’t mean that they do not understand the meaning of Socialism. There are areas in which society, economics, and government blur. I am not creating new definitions out of thin air; I’m merely using it in popular context. As someone had earlier said, perhaps we need to look at the spectrum differently. That is what I have endeavored to do in several posts.

I’m calling a spade a spade and I’m using the term “Socialism”. In short, all governments lead to Totalitarianism, no matter how benevolent they start out. It doesn’t matter if they are Left or Right. What matters is how much control over the people they have. Just because the people are sheep doesn’t mean that a government’s control is any less than a Totalitarian regime.

The American Constitution was designed to keep government from slipping toward the Authoritarian end of the spectrum and stay us from total Anarchy at the other end, but Socialism has crept into our system for over a century now that politicians (no matter their position) dare to cross the line and drag our Constitution onto the path that Europe and other countries are travelling.

But the point of this thread is to collect “traits” of a people that lose power, not on the differences between forms of government.

Edited January 7, 2013 by RavenHawk

[Guest]

No RavenHawk, you made the fundamental flaw of equating everything bad in the world with socialism and assuming that right wing ideologies never overstep the boundaries of their power.

If your going to start discussion get the basic right otherwise you end up looking like an idiot who knows nothing.

Definitions are fundamental otherwise you confuse causes and effect and draw false conclusions.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

I see this has degenerated into a discussion of definitions. I guess I’ve gotten too close to home as it seems many do the natural thing to distract from the purpose of this thread when one’s reality and foundation is shaken to the core. As I’ve said many times, we could sit here and discus the academic differences between Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Authoritarian, Totalitarian, Theocracy, Dictatorship, Kingdoms, and even Democracy (and any that I’ve left out). But to do so means nothing. It misses the point. It’s the fluff in the window. What I have done is to cut through the Bull$-hit to discuss the similarities or more precisely, the one important similarity.

Yes, the term “Socialism” has been misused by many but it is understandable. Yet here we are. If one understands that doesn’t mean that they do not understand the meaning of Socialism. There are areas in which society, economics, and government blur. I am not creating new definitions out of thin air; I’m merely using it in popular context. As someone had earlier said, perhaps we need to look at the spectrum differently. That is what I have endeavored to do in several posts.

I’m calling a spade a spade and I’m using the term “Socialism”. In short, all governments lead to Totalitarianism, no matter how benevolent they start out. It doesn’t matter if they are Left or Right. What matters is how much control over the people they have. Just because the people are sheep doesn’t mean that a government’s control is any less than a Totalitarian regime.

The American Constitution was designed to keep government from slipping toward the Authoritarian end of the spectrum and stay us from total Anarchy at the other end, but Socialism has crept into our system for over a century now that politicians (no matter their position) dare to cross the line and drag our Constitution onto the path that Europe and other countries are travelling.

But the point of this thread is to collect “traits” of a people that lose power, not on the differences between forms of government.

And US foreign policy is no exception to any of this. The Patriot Act and the NDAA are great examples of this. When government plays authoritarian as soon as it crosses the magic lines called borders, or domestically due to blowback from those authoritarian policies, it loses all credibility and the Constitution is sacrificed. When government stops respecting the spirit of the Constitution in its foreign policy, it will eventually stop obeying the letter of the Constitution at home.

Social Security is socialistic and there are socialistic elements in our government but I'm not sure why socialistic elements should be singled out when we can analyze our government for how fascist it is just as easily. We should reject all forms of authoritarian statism both foreign and domestic. It's expensive, it's anti-Constitutional. It's preventable if we don't keep one standard for ourselves and another standard for everyone else.

If freedom is so great, I suggest we get out of peoples' ways and let them have it. Common sense, human nature and virtue don't suddenly collapse into Opposite Day just because we cross some arbitrary line drawn by bureaucrats. They don't deserve the respect you give them. Some people can't handle conversations about the responsibilities people have. Others can't handle our most protected rights. Yet we have both rights and responsibilities so I'll pull double duty here getting flack from the sum of both groups of people who can't handle either one. Even when the disconnect with both rights and responsibility happens to be geographical as is the case with interventionist foreign policy.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Yamato

[RavenHawk]

No RavenHawk, you made the fundamental flaw of equating everything bad in the world with socialism

But it’s not a fundamental flaw. That is precisely what I am saying and I’ve backed it up over several threads. You need to learn how to read.

and assuming that right wing ideologies never overstep the boundaries of their power.

When did I assume or say that? I didn’t. You’ve applied your set of sensibilities on what I’ve said and changed my dialog into what you wanted me to say. I said that it doesn’t matter if it is Left or Right. You’re just not paying attention.

If your going to start discussion get the basic right otherwise you end up looking like an idiot who knows nothing.

I’m not the one looking like an idiot. I established the basics. You obviously didn’t try to understand.

Definitions are fundamental otherwise you confuse causes and effect and draw false conclusions.

Br Cornelius

In general I would agree unless there is an exception. And this is the exception. There are no false conclusions. I ‘confuse causes and effects’? What does that have to do with definitions? The confusion is all yours. I have well explained what I’m saying in several threads and you still refuse to open your mind to looking at something in a different way. You’ve been corrected several times but I guess one can’t fix stupid.