r108

The full name of the NAZI party, translated into English, is The National Socialist Party.

I’ll go you one better and state that the English translation of the Nazi party name is the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)…even more leftist sounding!

The problem is that if you assume or deduce that the Nazis are socialists because their party name says so then you’re left to deal with the examples of the Peoples Republic of China, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and, worst of all, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.

My advice is not to judge a book by its cover and read Move_Zig’s last comment.

r108

Socialists, fascists and communists were all considered to be essentially the same, until your boy Stalin started referring to the Germans as “fascists” because Hitler betrayed their alliance by invading Russia.
It’s in the history books; you can look it up.

I would but I already know that I’ll find that the term “fascist” was popularised by Mussolini in the 1920′s…you can look that up if you want.

Rob, that’s awful big of you. I, however, have no qualms about peddling a correlation between this man’s unhinged beliefs and his murderous rampage. Here’s my eulogy:

He killed people because he believed in socialism. He believed in socialism because he was unhinged. He was just like Stalin, only without the kickass moustache.

In related news, I created or saved 6.45 million jobs today.

We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions

– Adolph Hitler, May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306

“There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will.”

– Adolph Hitler

RG

If you have not read Liberal Fascism, you need to.

I’ve read excerpts and I know I don’t need to read the rest.

Mussolini, who coined the word fascist, was an ardent socialist before founding what became the Italian facists.

He loved Socialism so much that he abandoned it? Mussolini, like most fascists, disliked and distrusted socialism and free markets alike and explicitly rejected the notion of class struggle and class conflict. People and parties change…Mussolini abandoned socialism in favour of fascism, the Democrats rejected slavery and racism in favour of civil rights, etc.

I’ll repeat my admission that I’m nitpicking the “Hitler as socialist” topic because the larger and more important issue is nicely outlined by M_Z above…dictatorship versus freedom. I think we should honestly try to accurately analyse what has happened historically and in order to understand how those events and ideas impact our world today and I don’t believe that conflating anti-democratic ideologies into a single group called Socialism is either accurate or helpful.

r108…reading your thoughts on this topic is like watching a gory slasher flick. One can either be grossed out or treat it as a joke and unfortunately today my reaction is the former.

You have a nice night too.

Mike: You’re obfuscating again, you mistakenly confuse the name of a political party, Fascists(notice the capitalization?) with an overall governmental structure(fascism, not the lower case “f”). Despite your attempts to spin and deny, I was right about your boy Stalin’s use of propaganda to make a distinction without a difference, which was my original point, to correct your mistaken idea that fascism and socialism/communism(the most extreme form of socialism) are significantly different. Again, for the subjects of either regime, the outlook is identical.

He’s your boy. He slept in your tent, he whispered the words you love in your ear and stuck his tongue in your ass. You called him brother.

More lies from a usual source. He hated President Bush, just like you, and he hated “neocons”, just like you. He’s one of yours, hater.

RG…I actually have read your Constitution which is reasonably concise and accessible but still open to and in need of interpretation as all such documents are. I don’t see any Obama transgressions when I read it although I am aware that controversy exists surrounding some aspects of the financial bailouts begun under Bush and expanded under Obama. Is that what you’re talking about?

Ah, the proud roots of the Democratic Party which still has room for Robert C. “Sheets” Byrd:

“Slavery among the whites was an improvement over independence in Africa. The very progress that the blacks have made, when–and only when–brought into contact with the whites, ought to be a sufficient argument in support of white supremacy–it ought to be sufficient to convince even the blacks themselves.”

–William Jennings Bryan, 1923
Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1896, 1900 and 1908
Appointed Secretary of State by Woodrow Wilson in 1913
His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.

“Anyone who has traveled to the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results. . . . The argument works both ways. I know a great many cultivated, highly educated and delightful Japanese. They have all told me that they would feel the same repugnance and objection to have thousands of Americans settle in Japan and intermarry with the Japanese as I would feel in having large numbers of Japanese coming over here and intermarry with the American population. In this question, then, of Japanese exclusion from the United States it is necessary only to advance the true reason–the undesirability of mixing the blood of the two peoples. . . . The Japanese people and the American people are both opposed to intermarriage of the two races–there can be no quarrel there.”

–Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1925
President, 1933-45

“This passport which you have given me is a symbol to me of the passport which you have given me before. I do not feel that it would be out of place to state to you here on this occasion that I know that without the support of the members of this organization I would not have been called, even by my enemies, the ‘Junior Senator from Alabama.’ ”

–Hugo Black, accepting a life membership in the Ku Klux Klan upon his election to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat from Alabama, 1926
Appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937

“I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County. . . . The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union.”

–Robert C. ["Sheets"] Byrd, 1946
Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-present
Senate Majority Leader, 1977-80 and 1987-88
Senate President Pro Tempore, 1989-95, 2001-03, 2007-present
His portrait stands in the U.S. Capitol.

“I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes.”

–Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961
Kennedy later authorized wiretapping the phones and bugging the hotel rooms of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation.”

–Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), 2004
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008

• “You cannot go into a Dunkin’ Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent.”
• “My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything [but] a Northeastern liberal state.”
• “I mean, you got the first mainstream African American [Barack Obama] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy.”
• “There’s less than 1% of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4% or 5% that is, are minorities. What is it in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you’re dealing with.”

Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., (D., Del.), 2006-07
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 1987-95
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations
Vice President of the United States, 2009-2013

“gop Woman Too Lazy To Learn Chinky Names”

–blackwaterboob, SAB racist, 2009

Delaware, when last we checked, was North of the Mason/Dixon line.

The Democratic Party, a fine place for a racist such as blakcwaterboob!

I would but I already know that I’ll find that the term “fascist” was popularised by Mussolini in the 1920′s…you can look that up if you want.

Nice try, but I never said your boy Stalin invented the term; I simply told the truth that he made the differentiation on a political basis, because Hitler betrayed him. The reality is that they are highly similar, and your dodge about Party names is also bullshit, since Hitler referred to his movement as “national socialism”. One example: the Volkswagen, or “peoples’ car”. Nothing socialist there, right?
Socialism is the govt ownership of the means of production, and fascism is the govt control of the means of production. Again, from the viewpoint of the citizen in either system, the reality is the same: totalitarian State control, or statism.
You just make yourself look foolish by trying to deny this one, Mike.

He was a neo-nazi whose views align with conservatism.

America knows who the crazies are in bed with: republicans.

Mike, once again, typed S L O W L Y so you can grasp it.

National Socialist Party. NAZIs are socialists and Socialists are NAZIs.

dinothefakehomo, all politically motivated violence comes from the left. History makes you a liar, yet again. You would think dinothefakehomo would get tired of that? And yet it does not.

Probably because you believe that Obama is comparable to Stalin…

Wrong! My point was that the Dem Party is Stalinist, and they have a long history of it. Barack Hussein Obama is the current President, he is most radical, left wing President in history, his is grabbing power as fast as he can do it, and there is nothing in his history or upbringing that would cause him to be moderate in the use of that power, once he acquires it. Furthermore, there is plenty in his history and background to indicate that he would implement Stalinlike tactics if he can, since he is a disciple of Alinsky and “God Damn America” Wright.
The handwriting is on the wall, Mike; sorry you won’t read it.
You ignore the facts because they might cause you to wake from your dream, I guess.

For the record, I think Obama is much more comparable to Mugabe than Stalin, because Stalin was not a black supremacist.

BTW, Mike: for the subject peoples, the differences between fascism and communism(the ultimate form of socialism) are irrelevant. They are both forms of totalitarian collectivism.

No comment, I just wanted to highlight that quote.

You didn’t quote me, Mike; you misstated what I said, and I clarified it by correcting you. Your attempt at a nitpick strawman, that Obama is not Stalin, is pathetic. He is moving toward Stalinism, and is already practicing some Stalinist tactics, but my original statement was about the Dem Party, which you willfully misstate. Obama is just the most recent Dem Stalinist, IMO.

BTW, Camille Paglia, contrary to your statement, is not being metaphorical when she refers to Dems as “Stalinists”; she’s referring to their tactics.

Nothing inconvenient about it, Democrats hate Jews and Negroes. Always have and always will.

I am aware that controversy exists surrounding some aspects of the financial bailouts begun under Bush and expanded under Obama.

The truth is that what began as “bailouts” under President Bush(a big mistake), became fascist takeovers under Obama. Your attempt at equivalence is in error.
The “controversy” is that govt takeovers of private business appear nowhere in the Constitution, as the specific duties of the govt to the population are spelled out pretty clearly, and it’s also clearly stated that all other powers reside with the States and with individuals.

An unusual brand of Socialism to be sure. I think that if some of us spent less time trying to link whacked out lunacy to political positions and philosophies which, while opposed to our own, are still part of the political mainstream then the discourse might be more productive and less brain numbing.

All socialism exists on hate. With normal socialism it is class based. With nazism, it is class AND race based.

The problem here is that he IS a violent right-wing killer, but I don’t know who is blaming Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly. He is inspired by Hitler, and the socialist aspect only strenghens that idea.

There are no conservative socialists. Anyone who espouses otherwize is a moron.

docdave:

Peaceful, hell! It’s a little known fact that the Swedes collaborated with the Nazis even to the point of letting them access Norway with passage through their territory, a point that is still a sore issue with the Norwegians today. They also supplied need materials to the Germans.

Good point! Also, it was either the Swedes or the Norwegians that bought into the whole Aryan concept as well – so far to set up breeding camps for the “perfect genetic” combination.

Unfortunately, the children resulting in that genetic experiment are ridiculed today in the population as being a part of the Nazi experiment that they didn’t ask to participate in.

National Socialist Party. NAZIs are socialists. Hope that clears up your misunderstanding, Mike. Whether or not socialism can exist without hate of people based on race, religion, or economic situation depends on what your definition of hate is.

Thanks for all that M_Z. The left’s infatuation with Stalin did go on far too long considering the evidence available…I recall as late as the 1980′s hearing and seeing an Albanian Marxist extol the virtues of Soviet prosperity and progress achieved before Stalin’s death. I think though that the belief among leftists that Stalin was somehow better or more palatable than Hitler died out at least 40 years ago…small consolation I agree. Still, the philosophies on which communism and fascism are based are quite different in terms of their analysis of the prevailing order and their prescription for creating a “better” society. I won’t bore you with the nuances since you probably don’t care too much and I will readily grant that were I wakened in the night by jackbooted thugs, it wouldn’t matter to me whether they were working in the name of the proletariat or of the Aryan race.

The subject is really more of intellectual rather than practical interest…believers in democracy and civility reject both Stalin and Hitler and their regimes because they are contrary to our political value systems. One does need to remain aware when confronted with ideological mischief makers who would tarnish political opponents and their ideas by attempting to link them with totalitarian monsters of the past.

If socialism = violence, then how can Sweden exist where it is a peaceful country but also socialist?

Peaceful, hell! It’s a little known fact that the Swedes collaborated with the Nazis even to the point of letting them access Norway with passage through their territory, a point that is still a sore issue with the Norwegians today. They also supplied need materials to the Germans.

Sweden had a sordid history of Nazi collaboration during World War II. The allies practically begged Sweden to stop feeding the Nazi war machine, and experts estimated that the Wehrmacht would have been unable to continue making necessary materials within 6 months of being cut off from their Swedish suppliers. Thus Sweden’s choices alone kept Nazi Germany in the war and extermination business for a number of year and tens of millions of lives were lost that could have otherwise been saved.
Here are some of the interesting facts:

1) 10 Million tons of ore per year were shipped from Sweden to their barbaric friends

2) Swedish manufactured ball bearings were primary components of Nazi tank turrets and machine guns. (Sweden actually promised to stop this trade then found a legal loophole that allowed them to continue)

3) Sweden gave the Nazis access to their rail system for transporting infantry and material

4) Before it became obvious that the Nazis would lose the war and that there would be consequences for their collaborators and allies, Swedish policy was to deport Norwegian resistance fighters and escaping Jews back to Nazi Germany.

Perhaps we can kick this “two-party habit”!
drphil on June 11, 2009 at 07:19 pm

Not likely to happen in the near future. The current political parties have made it very difficult for candidates from other parties to even get on the ballot. [I know this from being involved with the Libertarian party for many years] Campaign money is another problem as is media coverage as the media tends to ignore so-called 3rd party candidates.

If the left didn’t lie, we’d have a one party system, and they know it.

And it wouldn’t be them. The only reason they get elected is that they fake having conservative principles. Wonder when and if the electorite will wise up to their deceit.

The Nazis were socialists, but so is modern day Sweden and many other peaceful countries.

There’s a bais fallacy to your assumption. There’s no such thing as a peaceful socialist country. Socialism in every form is based on the idea of the government using force to achieve the ends of the government leaders. Those ends my be nice, like helping the poor, but they are always achieved through force.

He was a neo-nazi whose views align with conservatism.

Conservatism supports Israel and the Jews; you leftie haters hate “neocons” just like this guy, little dino.
Neo-nazis are fascists, just like Bungler Obama and the rest of the lefties.

Wonder if Shepard Smith will backpedal today?

DINO the sock Puppet said: He was a neo-nazi whose views align with conservatism.

America knows who the crazies are in bed with: republicans.

Please go back and read the article you moron.

The main point was not whether he was socialst, but rather the fact that he was first of all a killer and then a racist. The Nazis were socialists, but so is modern day Sweden and many other peaceful countries. I’m sure this man was a socialist because of his devotion to the Nazi thinking. Therefore, socialism in itself had nothing to do with what this man did.

There’s no such thing as a peaceful socialist country. Socialism in every form is based on the idea of the government using force to achieve the ends of the government leaders.

If this is what you believe, then I guess it’ll really bogle your mind that Sweden and other socialist countries are also democratic. People actually voted for the system to be the way it is. If socialism is always violent, and people vote for it, does it mean that these people like to inflict violence on themselves, like some sort of twisted sadomasochism?

Kenny…you’ve provided names of dictators who took out their frustration on groups of people. How does that identify them as socialists?

EtH

Where’s this true perfect conservative ideology that’s so constantly under attack by lefties and moderates and libertarians and RINOs and uh… damn near everybody?

An interesting question IMO and one I’m interested in seeing answered. If one compares democratic systems around the world one is hard pressed to find any with as little political diversity as in America. I know there’s a lot of partisan rancor between the two major parties and their supporters and some genuine policy disagreements between the two sides but mainstream American politics are very narrow in scope when matched up against any of the other democracies.

r108…reading your thoughts on this topic is like watching a gory slasher flick.

Another ad hominem straw man from you, Mike; why am I not surprised that you can’t deal with the facts I cited?

I don’t think Lord Obama will reveal his inner Stalin until it’s too late for anyone to do anything about it, but the signs are there, if you aren’t in denial like Walter Duranty and FDR’s commie administration.

I don’t think he’s got the stones to start killing his political enemies directly, but he will decimate the population in other ways. His core ideology is that American is evil. Too many “rich white people” and Jews.

How many times does this have to be said and written before the lefties accept this as the truth? Oh yeah, lefties and truth are not synonymous.

Because they are ignorant and they think if they say their crap enough time the dummed down masses will believe hence you end up with a moron like OBAMA getting elected.

It’s a sad part of American history.

Robert C. “Sheets” Byrd, D-WV, “The Conscience of the Senate.”

“I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times… and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened.”

Robert Byrd

Thank a god for the Dixiecrats and the Southern Strategy for flushing them out to infest the gop.

Nazism was motivated primarily by a typically Leftist hunger for change and excitement and hatred of the status quo is reinforced by the now famous account of life in Nazi Germany given by a young “Aryan” who lived through it. Originally written before World War II, Haffner’s (2002) account of why Hitler rose to power stresses the boring nature of ordinary German life and observes that the appeal of the Nazis lay in their offering of relief from that:

“The great danger of life in Germany has always been emptiness and boredom … The menace of monotony hangs, as it has always hung, over the great plains of northern and eastern Germany, with their colorless towns and their all too industrious, efficient, and conscientious business and organizations. With it comes a horror vacui and the yearning for ‘salvation’: through alcohol, through superstition, or, best of all, through a vast, overpowering, cheap mass intoxication.”

Sound like any Leftards you know?

Anybody you know, really despise our society, despise our status quo, or constantly changing their avatar, using numerous screen names?

(T)he neo-Nazis are assisted in their view of themselves as Rightist by Hitler’s anticommunism. The falling-out among the Nazis and the Communists was in Hitler’s day largely a falling-out among thieves but the latter half of the second world war made the opposition between the two very vivid in the public consciousness so that opposition has become a major part of the definition of what Nazism is. And Marxism/Leninism was avowedly internationalist rather than racist. Lenin and the Bolsheviks despised nationalism and wished to supplant national solidarity with class solidarity. Given the contempt for Slavs often expressed by Marx & Engels, one can perhaps understand that Lenin and his Russian (Slavic) Bolsheviks concentrated so heavily on Marx & Engels’s vision of international worker solidarity and ignored the thoroughly German nationalism also often expressed by Engels in particular.

From Hitler was a Socialist, John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)

There is ample and clear evidence this guy was a right wing kook.

You can’t really have it both ways by calling us socialists if he hates Obama and liberals and then call him a socialst.

That would make no sense and be dishonest.

Gosh,

I think any Conservative confusion of Nazis with Socialism probably stems from the fact that they were Socialists..

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)

e.g.

National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

The Leftard psycho-babble, for years, has been that there was this vast gulf between Nazis and the Soviets, and that the Nazi’s were outgrowths of Conservativism.

It was, and remains, a huge LIE.

Nazis were very much Socialists, albeit with a flavoring of the nationalist appeals that drew the unwary in. They were also, within the ranks and file, suffused with homosexuals.

See: THE PINK SWASTIKA

(F)ascism “began with a split in the ranks of Marxian socialism…. Its economic program was borrowed from German non-Marxian socialism” and that “its conduct of government affairs was a replica of Lenin’s dictatorship.” Mises also argued that the philosophy of Nazism was “the purest and most consistent manifestation of the anticapitalistic and socialistic spirit of our age.”

…Gregor concludes that it is fascism’s “national socialism” in the name of modernization, national unity, and international political rivalry among states that has been the dominant form of socialist ideology in the 20th century. And most fundamentally what bound communist, fascist, and Nazi socialism together as a single force in our time was their common hatred and opposition to individualism, limited government, free-market economics, and a civil society outside and independent of political control

Review: The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century.

see also:

DAP = Deutsche Arbeiters Partei = German Workers’ Party

In September of (1919) , Hitler was sent by the army to spy on the DAP …. It had few adherents and, following his discharge from the army, Hitler became its 54th member and the 7th man on its committee… Opposing all outside control of the party, he ousted Harrar… the key Thurle leader, and soon became leader himself. The following year the party’s name was changed to National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), which became known as Nazi

– THE ANTI-CHRISTIAN ROOTS OF NAZISM, p. 19 and

As Marx and Engels aged, they took greater interest in Eugenics and Social Darwinism suggesting that progress was interpretable in racial terms. p.34

Moreover, Hitler, and by extension, the Nazi Party, harbored a foaming hatred of Judeo-Christianity. Why?

The probable reason for Hitler’s attack on Christianity as well as Judaism was his perception that Christianity alone had the moral authority to stop the Nazi movement.

and

National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable. Christian churches build on the uncertainty of human beings and attempt to preserve this fear in as wide segments of the population as possible, for only in this way can Christian churches keep their power. In opposition to this, National Socialism is based on scientific foundations. Christianity has invariable tenets, which were set up almost 2,000 years ago and have petrified into dogmas incompatible with reality. National Socialism on the other hand must always, if it is to fulfil its job in the future, be organized according to the latest knowledge of scientific research

– Bormann’s Circular on the Relationship of National Socialism and Christianity

And you can prove this?

Forget, please, “conservatism.” It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

“[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

PS — And “Mr. Worldly Wiseman” Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous “joke” about himself and God.

So go to court and stop him. I don’t know enough American Constitutional Law to confirm or deny your belief although it’s a common enough refrain heard from conservative lips.

Nobody saw the “Final Solution” coming in 1933, either, but the signs were there, just like they are now, Mike.
Wake up!

Sorry, Dino, but it’s true.

He doesn’t care. It could come out that this guy voted for the Clintons, personally helped Castro get into power,stood toe to toe with Wallace, etc, and Dino would still call him a conservative Republican.

If the left didn’t lie, we’d have a one party system, and they know it.

Yeah, that’s kind of a silly generalization geologist. It is people who use force, not political systems, and any political system can be manipulated.

Mike: Stalinism is alive and well in the present Dem Party; watch Obama’s takeovers and his usurpation of power.

chris:

If this is what you believe, then I guess it’ll really bogle your mind that Sweden and other socialist countries are also democratic.

Actually, it’s via history. You were the one that grouped Nazi Germany in the same group when they were far from peaceful, but I will explain all in detail.

Throughout history it is noted when government is given too much power, it starts to control every aspect of every person’s lives so that every whim is to the state. If you never had completely free people to begin with in the first place, then the pattern is set over and over again like an abusive relationship. The countries you mention were ruled on a sort of a monarchy system of which there is an ordained ruling class. Communism/socialism still has those classes but without the absence of a noblesse oblige (a sort of noble obligation that due to their divine right to rule, they had to “take care” of the peasants.

However, our Founding Fathers understood government’s role, BUT understood the idea that unchecked government no matter how well the intentions were would almost always lead to tyranny. Pure and absolute democracy always leads to mob rule. That is why there is a Constitution that limits the powers of government and gives inalienable rights to individuals that the government and no other person can take them away from. This is why we have freedom of speech, right to gun ownership, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. It gives us rules and guidelines to everyone equally. Socialism pits one against the other in groups – fomenting dissatisfaction, inhumanization, and hatred for their fellow man. It does not encourage charity, but forces people to relinquish what they’ve worked for the government’s idea of charity.

So how can a country be a functional country as well as a peaceful one either internally or externally if they are split into factions against one another?

Socialist states even though they may have reported low crime, are growing ever-increasing as time goes on. The welfare state and permissiveness of borders as well as favoring one group over another provides a lot of infighting and injustice to its individual citizens. There are an increase of rapes in Sweden due to letting any and all Islamic illegals in due to the concept of “cheap labor” instead of actual business transactions and since they are a favored group and considering that a lot of these invaders think that infidels are not fit to even be beneath their shoes. So, they feel free to abuse the native Swedes as they wish. Since the Swedes are not guaranteed any inalienable rights, they are free to be abused by the state according to the states whims and wishes. They rot from the inside. The Soviet Union had very low crime, but when the government completely collapsed, the citizens had no moral core (because the government was everything to them) and crime thus ran rampant.

There are also two forms of socialism: Daddy socialism (NAZIs) where there is Mommy socialism that takes things away but is supposed to take care of you (UK, Sweden, Norway, etc.).Jefferson had cautioned against putting too much faith in government as a government powerful enough to give you everything, can take everything away. Also, if you give the government in to complete human nature, instead of principle then tyranny happens.

So yes, people that vote that into power know nothing better or are lied into something else or they are promised via hope and change that what they have will be better. Promising peasants land was a better selling point for the communists instead of personal liberty as the peasants had no concept of the latter.

Quiz tomorrow at noon.

Here’s the deal, Mike: Socialists, fascists and communists were all considered to be essentially the same, until your boy Stalin started referring to the Germans as “fascists” because Hitler betrayed their alliance by invading Russia.
It’s in the history books; you can look it up.

You didn’t quote me, Mike;

I copied and pasted what you wrote…it’s a quote alright.

…but my original statement was about the Dem Party, which you willfully misstate.

Then I apologise. It is the Democratic party that is Stalinist while Obama is moving towards Stalinism and is already practising Stalinist techniques…am I reading you clearly now?

MikeAdamson,

If you have not read Liberal Fascism, you need to. It will clear up more than a few misconceptions which have crept into the “common wisdom” since WWII.

1. Mussolini, who coined the word fascist, was an ardent socialist before founding what became the Italian facists. The vast bulk of his early adherents were former socialists.

2. There is considerable debate as to how much of Mussolini’s model was copied by Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers Party and how much was merely a German outgrowth of socialism. Again, the nucleus of the NASDP were former socialists.

3. The very idea that Fascism was a creature of the political right was Soviet propaganda, as by their political theory there could be nothing to the right of the Communist Party.

The roots of fascism are inescapably of the left, and the hideous plant which grew from those roots did not pull them up and relocate them to the political right during the lifetime of the plant.

Rob, Dino has never been concerned with the truth.

Kenny writes:

They both realized they were different strains of the same ideology, and were competing for the same base. This idea that they were completely different is ridiculous.

Indeed.

It’s also a telling commentary on just how prevalent the propaganda of the Communist Party has become the accepted view in academia.

chris:

If socialism = violence, then how can Sweden exist where it is a peaceful country but also socialist? It is only one exmple. I’m not saying that Socialism is the answer, but just debunking your arguement that it’s inherently violent.

You also mentioned Nazi Germany as one of the peaceful ones. Socialism/Communism requires COERCION. Strong-arming someone to do your bidding is not peaceful. Some may not require out and out bloodshed, but it does rely on strong-arm tactics in order to FORCE people to do what the STATE WANTS.

MikeAdamson:

And yet he dismissed Marx as a Jewish idiot and communism as a Jewish conspiracy aimed at weakening White Culture…talk about philosophical flexibility.

Marx was ethnically a Jew, but he was not a practitioner of Judasim, but called religion as an “opiate of the masses”. He falls into a category of a self-hating Jew.

Stalin hated Trotsky even though they shared the same religion: Communism. They just differed on some of the finer points. They used whatever they could get to eliminate each other.

Stalin’s not my boy as you know but that’s neither here nor there. I apologise for my pickiness but your original point, the point that I responded to, was that fascists and socialists were considered to be essentially the same until Hitler turned on Stalin…you did say that, right? That “fact” is plainly incorrect although I won’t call you a liar, just mistaken.

Fascists and socialists were never considered the same. But they were considered similar, even by each other. The socialists considered the fascists to be the final step of free capitalist society before full socialization (first brown, then red), while the fascists considered the ideology of proletariat over country to be ridiculous.

They both realized they were different strains of the same ideology, and were competing for the same base. This idea that they were completely different is ridiculous.

r108…shameful even for you. Once the White House starts planning the American economy, opening up some concentration camps, establishes anti-Semitism as official policy, executing political enemies both real and imagined…pathetic.

As for Paglia and “Stalinists”, look up metaphor in the dictionary.

If this is what you believe, then I guess it’ll really bogle your mind that Sweden and other socialist countries are also democratic.

Hitler and Mossulini came to power through Democratic means. People will often vote for the opportunity enjoy the fruits of someone else’s hjard work.

If socialism is always violent, and people vote for it, does it mean that these people like to inflict violence on themselves, like some sort of twisted sadomasochism?

No. The people who vote for the socialism aren’t voting for the violence to be done to them. They are voting for the government to use force against others. Those others are successful productive individuals. The force is used to extract money that is then redistributed to the voters through various benifits.

It’s called spreading the wealth.

dd: I think we would still have a two-Party system, but they would both represent real American values, just different versions.

What would those “versions” look like?

Where’s this true perfect conservative ideology that’s so constantly under attack by lefties and moderates and libertarians and RINOs and uh… damn near everybody?

From myfoxdc:

Witnesses say he was wearing a confederate soldier’s cap and a long coat, which he may have worn to conceal what police describe as an early-1900s rifle. Seconds later, there was gunfire.

That “fact” is plainly incorrect although I won’t call you a liar, just mistaken.

It is you who are mistaken, Mike. In fact, until your boy Stalin made his pronouncement, lefties considered fascists to be brothers in arms, and now you lefties mistakenly regard fascists as being totally different, so I told the truth, you know it, and are nitpicking like an angry old lady.

I’m sure you’ll find some nit to pick again, but I’m done with you on this.
Don’t blame the messenger when you don’t like the message.
You wanted to defend your boy Stalin from being compared to American Dems(I gave plenty of examples of similarity), so I’m just recognizing your efforts in that regard.

Kenny

…Cause they were socialists.

Stalin was, Hitler and Mussolini weren’t…they were fascists.

So one can’t be a socialist and a racist?

They can but I don’t see a causal link in either direction.

MikeAdamson,

The Constitution of the Unites States was written to be concise and accessible. Try reading it.

He was a neo-nazi whose views align with conservatism.

Conservatism promotes limited government. Nazism promotes authoritarian, totalitarian government.

And he was an admirer of socialism. He was confused, at best. And had nothing to do with the limited government movement.

Sorry, Dino, but it’s true.

I know there’s a lot of partisan rancor between the two major parties and their supporters and some genuine policy disagreements between the two sides but mainstream American politics are very narrow in scope when matched up against any of the other democracies.

It’s interesting that you see it that way, Mike, and upon a superficial review I can see where one would draw that conclusion. But if you look within the two major political parties, you’ll see that there are a lot more factions than you may realize.

Look at r108 and myself. Ostensibly we are both limited government conservatives. But in a lot of ways we are very, very different. Robert108 mostly just wants lower taxes and less spending, whereas my preference for limited government is more universal in that it extends into the sphere of social issues as well.

The reason why there seems to be less diversity in America stems from our system of government, I think. The parliamentary-style systems seen throughout most of the world are filled with many factions and political parties all various at war or allied with one another depending on the issues and the moment. But in America, we’ve got a national government as well as 50 governments in 50 sovereign states, as well as county and municipal governments as well. Other countries have local governments too, of course, but no other countries have local governments with the level of autonomy as US states have (that autonomy is growing less, but that’s a subject for another comment).

In order to build a national movement in such a huge and socially/politically/geographically diverse area you need a huge bureaucratic party apparatus. We have two. The GOP and the Demcorats. And we don’t really have a third one that’s worth taking seriously because that third one would inevitably eat into the base of support for one or the other of the big two, and that would ultimately hurt the entire movement.

This may be changing, though. With the internet acting as the great equalizer, I think it’s becoming easier to organize without having a big, national party apparatus. This has resulted in more people engaging, and more diversity in opinion and thought emerging.

Some call this a “coarsening of American political debate,” but really I see it as a splintering and realignment of the big, national coalitions that have ruled supreme for so long.

It’s a good thing, generally. While on one hand it means that we all must suffer Dino’s nonsense, and r108′s persecution complex, it also means more diversity in thought and opinion in mainstream American politics.

Which I look forward too.

The main point was not whether he was socialst, but rather the fact that he was first of all a killer and then a racist.

That was my point.

I only brought up that he was a socialist because so many on the left were trying to say that this was some sort of right-wing killing inspired by Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly.

he was a socialist? just proof that all socialists are potential shooters.

now what potentialities does this logic ascribe to you Republicans… he he he.

a neo-nazi white supremacist shooting a black guy in the Holocaust museum while wearing a confederate flag cap and a duster

an early-1900s rifle.
He’s your boy. He slept in your tent, he whispered the words you love in your ear and stuck his tongue in your ass. You called him brother.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=22543