Milo/UC Berkley protestors stop 'hate speech' by using violence and hate...

[dowie]

Because it matters? Because it's the very reason this thread exists. It's the primary line of attack in America on any sensible set of policies that anyone left of Ayn Rand proposes, so it should be included as a discussion limitation.

What are you talking about?

You made a post where you argued about Nazis not being marxists when that comparison hadn't been made in the first place. Is it really that hard, if you're going to respond to posts, to respond to the argument actually presented rather than just deliberately misrepresenting it in order to construct some pointless straw man argument?

 

[VincentHanna]

@dowie

Did you miss this post?

 

[Nasher]

Basicaly "be liberal or we'll beat you in to submission!"

 

[dowie]

@dowie

Did you miss this post?

I've read the thread, I'm not sure which post you're referring to as that link seems to take my browser over a few. Can you clarify what you want to bring to my attention and what the relevance is with regard to what I've posted?

 

[VincentHanna]

I've read the thread, I'm not sure which post you're referring to as that link seems to take my browser over a few. Can you clarify what you want to bring to my attention and what the relevance is with regard to what I've posted?

Some of the usual forum socialism fanboys/girls will probably be along soon all indignant that socialism has been tarnished by being associated with Fascism (because socialism is so untarnished devoid of association with facism.......? )

Still they likely have a tenuous grip on the history either ignorant of it of choosing to forget the relevant (inconvenient) bits.

The nazi's had such a strong socialist elmenent that after they gained political power in Germany the party had a purge to get rid of the more socialist elements in the night of the long knives.

The Eagle eyes amongst you will note the emphasis on the words 'after they gained power' . Hence like a lot of socialist organisations the end product, in power, turns out to not be ('real' /'true') socialism.

Socialists then proclaim socialism isn't the problem whilst ignoring the fact that the promises of socialism were at least a significant reason for the dictator/ authoritarian party gaining control in the first place.

It really comes as no surprise therfore that there is such a strong link between more vanilla socialists/Marxists and people who turn out to br facists like Mussolini who was congratulated by Lenin when he was rising to power.

 

[dowie]

@VincentHanna
Yes I've seen that post, like I said I've read the thread - can you just articulate your point please?

I've read the thread, I'm not sure which post you're referring to as that link seems to take my browser over a few. Can you clarify what you want to bring to my attention and what the relevance is with regard to what I've posted?

 

[VincentHanna]

@VincentHanna
Yes I've seen that post, like I said I've read the thread - can you just articulate your point please?

You made a post where you argued about Nazis not being marxists when that comparison hadn't been made in the first place.

It kinda had...

 

[dowie]

It kinda had...

No, it didn't. It mentioned the socialist element of the national socialist party, there is no mention of Nazis being marxists.

Just as an aside I'm not sure that multiple terse poses where you just post a link or post a quote are particularly constructive - you could have just made your point by articulating it in a single post in the first place.

 

[VincentHanna]

I'd argue it was implied by conflating "socialists/marxists"

But there we go, I don't really know why i'm getting involved.

 

[Caracus2k]

If the Nazi's were such marxists why were there private companies in Germany?

As expected......

Its like Venezuela.... Lauded as an example of (successful) socialism

In a documentary titled Hugo Chavez: A Portrait from Europe, then backbencher John McDonnell praised Chavez’s socialist regime in Venezuela: “Here you had the contrast between capitalism in crisis and socialism in action.”

........ until it all turned to rat **** then suddenly its not (real) socialism and one of the arguments deployed is......

But.... But there's still (some) private enterprise in Venezuela......so it can't be am example of socialism!

The existence of some private enterprise doesn't invalidate an assement of a goverment following socialist principles. Its the degree of respect the goverment has for private industry /property. If the goverment allows some private industry (often only by only allowing the party faithful or certain racial groups to do so) often only under close state guidance and direction (like in Nazi Germany....) but arbitrarily seizes other industries when it suits (again like on Nazi Germany and Venezuela) and the state calls itself 'socialist' its probably a fair assessment to say that they are following socialist principles.

100‰ socialism (where the state literally tries to have direct control of all of the means of production and distribution) has only been tried a few times. Like in the USSR under Lenin and it was a total disaster even by socialist standards with Lenin having to reverse the program and re intruduce a mixed economy with markets it 1922 under the New economic policy (Stalin later tried to reverse this and the mass famines soon returned)

**** sakes man, this has been discussed before and the reality is that it's always come around that they're at best centrist authoritarians, why else would Hitler have such a hard on for killing the USSR so much so that he wouldn't listen to his military?

Shia and Sunni Islam share a lot of similar principles and are both forms of Islamic belief. Many outsiders would struggle to tell the difference between the two. Ditto for many different versions of Christianity (like Catholicism and protestantism) but the differing sects have and do fight incredibly bitter wars. You don't have to have an ideology far removed from another group to have a very nasty murderous fight on your hands. In fact it's often very close groups (ideology wise) that have the most extreme conflicts.

This gaslighting is childish levels of ********, they literally proved this in 1932 that it was a ruse to fool the workers into voting for them over the rising communist powers, why did a communist shoot a Nazi (which super-powered their propaganda) if they were the same?

If it was all a ruse in 1932 why did some segments of the Nazi party need to purge other parts in 1933 after they gained power!


Read about the SA and their leader Ernst Röhm.. One of the most powerful nazi's in 1932......

Second revolution
Röhm and the SA regarded themselves as the vanguard of the "National Socialist revolution". After Hitler's national takeover they expected radical changes in Germany.

Along with other members of the more radical faction within the Nazi Party, Röhm advocated a "second revolution" that was overtly anti-capitalist in its general disposition.These radicals rejected exploitative capitalism and they intended to take steps to curb monopolies and promoted the nationalization of land and industry

 

[B&W]

This whole left/right spectrum is really problematic, things don't always fit into one side or the other i.e the Nazis.

But we can agree that there modern day successors are mostly right wing authoritarian.

Does that make every right wing authoritarian a nazi or vice versa? No of course not just as not every left wing Corbyn supporter is a Marxist.

An outright hatred of either end of the extreme is what is fuelling problems in political discourse.

 

[Caracus2k]

This whole left/right spectrum is really problematic, things don't always fit into one side or the other i.e the Nazis.

But we can agree that there modern day successors are mostly right wing authoritarian.

Does that make every right wing authoritarian a nazi or vice versa? No of course not just as not every left wing Corbyn supporter is a Marxist.

An outright hatred of either end of the extreme is what is fuelling problems in political discourse.

What defines 'right' wing?

 

[KillBoY_UK]

What defines 'right' wing?

There isn't anymore. Anything right of AOC or Corbin is call Alt/Far right or just Nazi

 

[Caracus2k]

I'd argue it was implied by conflating "socialists/marxists"

But there we go, I don't really know why i'm getting involved.

Look at the views of Ernst Röhm and the SA .....

Are you claiming they don't appear rather similiar to the statements we hear from contemporary Marxists/socialists?

The nazi's were socialists. Their 25 point plan was explicitly socialist. Some of their most prominent leaders were devoted socialists.

They fought with other socialists (like the communist party of Germany).... But that doesn't indicate they held vastly different ideologies (the reverse being often true as per my post about different sects of religions fighting one anothet).

They campaigned for election using the appeal of Socialist policies.

When they gained power there was a purge of the more excessive socialist elements of the party who wanted a Marxist style revolution to empower the proles of Germany.

Having purged this part the Nazi s allowed some private enterprise to exist but used their authoritarian power to seize private property and businesses when it suited (like Jewish companies and property).

 

[VincentHanna]

There isn't anymore. Anything right of AOC or Corbin is call Alt/Far right or just Nazi

Nobody with critical thought believes this.

Stupid comments like this is what @B&W is attempting to draw attention to.

 

[Sankari]

I see we're back to the 'Nazis were socialists' nonsense, even though it's established historical fact that:

* the Nazis persecuted socialists
* they were aggressive capitalists
* they privatised Germany's industries at a time when the other western nations were nationalising theirs

For their part, businesses welcomed the Nazis' promises to suppress the left. On 20 February 1933, Hitler and Goering met with a large group of industrialists when Hitler declared that democracy and business were incompatible and that the workers needed to be dragged away from socialism. He promised bold action to protect their businesses and property from communism.

The industrialists - including leading figures from I.G. Farben, Hoesch, Krupp, Siemens, Allianz and other senior mining and manufacturing groups - then contributed more than two million Reichsmarks to the Nazi election fund, with Goering tellingly suggesting that this would probably be the last election for a hundred years. Business leadership happily jettisoned democracy to rid Germany of socialism and to smash organised labour.

(Source).

 

[Sankari]

Read about the SA and their leader Ernst Röhm.. One of the most powerful nazi's in 1932......

The SA faction was purged as early as possible, because Hitler correctly recognised that their ideas were incompatible with Nazism.

Under Hitler, the party looked squarely to the middle classes and farmers rather than the working class for a political base. Hitler realigned it to ensure that it was an anti-socialist, anti-liberal, authoritarian, pro-business party - particularly after the failed Beerhall Putsch of 1923.

The "socialism" in the name National Socialism was a strategically chosen misnomer designed to attract working class votes where possible, but they refused to take the bait. The vast majority voted for the Communist or Social Democratic parties.

The minority anti-capitalist strand of Nazism (Strasserism) on which van Onselen fastens was eliminated well before 1934, when Gregor Strasser and the Storm Trooper (SA) leader Ernst Roehm were murdered with over eighty others in the "Night of the Long Knives."

In fact, Strasserism had already been defeated at the Bamberg Conference of 1926 when the Nazis were polling under 3% of the vote.

(Source).

 

[Caracus2k]

I see we're back to the 'Nazis were socialists' nonsense, even though it's established historical fact that:

* the Nazis persecuted socialists

Irrelevant.... Shia adherents and sunni ahernts are both Muslims and fight bitter conflicts.

Socialist can and do fight other socialists.

* they were aggressive capitalists

They aggressively sold of stuff after 1933 to fund the re armament of Germany.

They weren't just socialists they were nationalists who had visions of an expanded German reich full of ethnic Germans..... they needed a powerful military for these goals more than nationalised industries in the 1930's

The sale wasn't a matter of principle/ Ideology but rather a pragmatic response to the need to re arm.

* they privatised Germany's industries at a time when the other western nations were nationalising theirs

As above.....

 

[B&W]

What defines 'right' wing?

Go check on Wikipedia, if you are unaware of what is right wing.

In a nut shell it describes a broad swathe of political positions mostly socially/economic conservative and usually strongly identify with nationalism.

Extreme right wing is where modern day fascists usually lie.

What is the point of your question though as obviously you know what right wing is.

 

[stockhausen]

pretty sure you can't say SJW on this forum anymore people start crying.
should edit that bit.

It is depressing to see how opposed some people are to the concept of Social Justice